Gadamer traces the development of the notion of symbol and the corresponding, and contemporaneous, devaluation of allegory. Allegory came to be identified with “non-art” as experiential-expressive notions of art and poetry developed in post-Kantian romanticism.
Along the way, he notes the importance that allegory played in the formation of Western civilization. An aesthetics rooted in genius (as was the aesthetic theory of romanticism) cannot give a prominent role to allegory, which “rests on firm traditions, and always has a fixed, statable meaning which does not resist rational comprehension through the concept.” In fact, allegory has always been linked to dogmatics:
“with the rationalization of the mythical (as in the Greek Enlightenment), or with the Christian interpretation of Scripture in terms of doctrinal unity (as in patristics), and finally with the reconciliation of the Christian tradition and classical culture, which is the basis of the art and literature of modern Europe and whose last universal form was the baroque. With the breakup of this tradition allegory too was finished.” Part of the story here is art’s liberation from any sort of dogmatic constraints: “the moment art freed itself from all dogmatic bonds and could be defined as the unconscious production of genius, allegory inevitably became aesthetically suspect.”
But the revival of interest in the baroque that was taking place when Gadamer was writing (and which we see continuing in Deleuze’s The Fold and in Radical Orthodoxy) suggests a possible rehabilitation of allegory as well. During the nineteenth century “aesthetics was founded on the freedom of the symbol-making activity of the mind,” but Gadamer suggests that “this symbol-making [is] also in fact limited by the continued existence of a mythical, allegorical tradition.” Once admitted, “the contrast between smbol and allegory again becomes relative, whereas the prejudice of the aesthetics of Erlebnis [experience] made it appear absolute.” And this in turn challenges a century-long (at least) tradition of aesthetics, and suggests the need to revise “basic concepts of aesthetics.”
Peter Leithart
Peter J. Leithart is President of Theopolis Institute. He is the author of numerous books on theology, literature, and culture, including Theopolitan, Defending Constantine, and Baptized Body.
More from History
Continue reading related articles

Realness of Things Past
Greg Anderson began thinking about the thesis of his Realness of Things Past while working on a book on the “state” in classical Greece. He discovered there was no such thing as an Athenian “state,” and that conclusion led him to question the way historians do history. Instead of running…

The Power of the Margins
David Martin (1929-2019) was a secularization skeptic. He acknowledged that modern societies typically undergo a process of "differentiation," in which various sectors of social and political life free themselves from the oversight of religious authority. He acknowledged that in many modern societies religious institutions and values are "marginalized." But he…

Zwinglian Symbolism
Nathan Mitchell (writing in the Oxford History of Christian Worship , 324) denies that Zwingli taught a "mere symbolist" according to which the Supper "simply served to remind believers of the great benefits bestowed on them through Christ's passion and death." Zwingli wasn't a symbolist "in any modern sense." Mitchell…
In Medias Res
Your weekly digest for all things Theopolis.