The Svastika is apparently the simplest form of the Guilloche [scroll pattern or spiral]. According to Wilkinson (11, Chap. IX), the most complicated form of the Guilloche covered an Egyptian ceiling upward of a thousand years older than the objects found at Nineveh. The Svastika spread far and wide, everywhere assuming some fresh mythological and mysterious significance. In the north of Europe it became the Fylfot or Crutched cross.
Count Goblet d’Alviella is of the opinion (p. 57) that the Swastika was “above all an amulet, talisman, or phylactere,” while (p. 56) “it is incontestable that a great number of the Swastikas were simply motifs of ornamentation, of coin marks, and marks of fabrics,” but he agrees (p. 57) that there is no symbol that has given rise to so many interpretations, not even the tricula of the Buddhists, and “this is a great deal to say.” Ludwig Müller believes the Swastika to have been used as an ornament and as a charm and amulet, as well as a sacred symbol.
Dr. H. Colley March, in his learned paper on the “Fylfot and the Futhore Tir,”[54] thinks the Swastika had no relation to fire or fire making or the fire god. His theory is that it symbolized axial motion and not merely gyration; that it represented the celestial pole, the axis of the heavens around which revolve the stars of the firmament. This appearance of rotation is most impressive in the constellation of the Great Bear. About four thousand years ago the apparent pivot of rotation was at α Draconis, much nearer the Great Bear than now, and at that time the rapid circular sweep must have been far more striking than at present. In addition to the name Ursa Major the Latins called this constellation Septentriones, “the seven plowing oxen,” that dragged the stars around the pole, and the Greeks called it έλικη, from its vast spiral movement.[55] In the opinion of Dr. March all these are represented or symbolized by the Swastika.
Prof. W. H. Goodyear, of New York, has lately (1891) published an elaborate quarto work entitled “The Grammar of the Lotus: A New History of Classic Ornament as a Development of Sun Worship.”[56] It comprises 408 pages, with 76 plates, and nearly a thousand figures. His theory develops the sun symbol from the lotus by a series of ingenious and complicated evolutions passing through the Ionic style of architecture, the volutes and spirals forming meanders or Greek frets, and from this to the Swastika. The result is attained by the following line of argument and illustrations:
The lotus was a “fetish of immemorial antiquity and has been worshiped in many countries from Japan to the Straits of Gibraltar;” it was a symbol of “fecundity,” “life,” “immortality,” and of “resurrection,” and has a mortuary significance and use. But its elementary and most important signification was as a solar symbol.[57]
He describes the Egyptian lotus and traces it through an innumerable number of specimens and with great variety of form. He mentions many of the sacred animals of Egypt and seeks to maintain their relationship by or through the lotus, not only with each other but with solar circles and the sun worship.[58] Direct association of the solar disk and lotus are, according to him, common on the monuments and on Phenician and Assyrian seals; while the lotus and the sacred animals, as in cases cited of the goose representing Seb (solar god, and father of Osiris), also Osiris himself and Horus, the hawk and lotus, bull and lotus, the asp and lotus, the lion and lotus, the sphinx and lotus, the gryphon and lotus, the serpent and lotus, the ram and lotus—all of which animals, and with them the lotus, have, in his opinion, some related signification to the sun or some of his deities.[59] He is of the opinion that the lotus motif was the foundation of the Egyptian style of architecture, and that it appeared at an early date, say, the fourteenth century B. C. By intercommunication with the Greeks it formed the foundation of the Greek Ionic capital, which, he says,[60] “offers no dated example of the earlier time than the sixth century B. C.” He supports this contention by authority, argument, and illustration.
 |  |  | ||
| Fig. 15. TYPICAL LOTUS ON CYPRIAN VASES. | Fig. 16. TYPICAL LOTUS ON RHODIAN VASES. | Fig. 17. TYPICAL LOTUS ON MELIAN VASES. | ||
| From figures in Goodyear’s “Grammar of the Lotus,” p. 27. | ||||
