The Fleur de Lis and Semiotics

The Fleur de Lis traditionally symbolizes royalty, monarchy, and heraldry. Appropriated by the Frankish King Clovis in the 6th century as a sign of his Christianity, it was further appropriated by the French Kings to legitimize themselves through the connection with the first Frankish, Christian king, Clovis. From the end of the Middle Ages, throughout early and modern Europe, the Fleur de Lis was the symbol of the French Monarchy and by extension France. Later it specifically represented the house of Bourbon, and since Luxembourg and Spain are the last of the Bourbon monarchies, the Fleur de Lis remains their symbol.

It now is a disseminated symbol-as is the fate of all symbols-and we recognize it in connection with the Boy Scouts and Professional Sports teams. But the the history of this symbol reveals important discursive and rhetorical methods employed by different groups for creating and perpetuating an image, and therefore power.

I will not attempt to chronicle all the cycles of meaning that this symbol has been through (for that would be an infinite regression) but needless to say, the Fleur de Lis was at one point only a fleur de lis. Before man saw it and spoke of it, it was a Fleur de Lis. This changed at some point. It was appropriated by someone or some group to represent an idea greater than the object itself in order to enhance and project this idea. Scholars have shown it to be present in Indonesian, Sumerian, Mesopotamian, and Roman culture as a stylized symbol. As for the meanings it had in these cultures, there is little to go on. Before it became the symbol of French Royalty and heraldry, the Fleur de Lis was a Christian symbol. The three leaves interchangeably represented either the trinity, the virgin, or the dove.

The French Kings, beginning with Louis VII (1154-80)began putting the Fleur de lis on their seals and coat of arms to legitimize their claim to power and associate themselves with Christianity and piety since the legend was that Clovis had first received the Fleur de lis directly from heaven. It likewise came to mean Later, English kings who claimed the throne of France used the Fleur de lis to assert their right to the throne.

For medieval and early modern Europe the royal Fleur de lis meant perfection, light, and life.

For me, this example of how the Valois and Bourbon dynasties used an image to be a very powerful symbol of much larger ideas as power, legitimacy, royalty, and piety, reveals important functions that symbols have in socio-behavioral patterns. Scholars of Semiotics (the study of signs) posit that the way we communicate is purely through a system of signs. Words, body gestures, and the use of images understood to represent ideas is in fact how we communicate. If you think about it, these are indirect means of communicating. If the French King wanted to communicate that he was the legitimate king, why did he not merely say, "I am the legitimate King"? Why did he go outside himself, and appeal to an image? The image is an attempt at transcendence. To appeal to a higher source that everyone recognizes, or that we attempt to make everyone recognize as having a certain meaning and authority. Who controls that meaning could be reduced to physical power. But if they already have physical power, why do they appeal to symbolic power? Possibly because symbolic and physical power go hand in hand to perpetuate each other.

I think this has direct application to our everyday lifes and for cross-cultural understanding. Every position in society seems to have symbols connected with them, either in the form of images or linguistic. Our dress (suit, scruffy, doctor), our titles (Dr., Mr., Sir) or images such as the beehive, the eagle, and flags. We depend on other people understanding what all these symbols mean as they relate directly to identity and to the past to legitimize individuals or institutions. The founding fathers interest in using classical architecture depends on people understanding history and the fact that classical architecture symbolizes learning, power, stability, and early democracy.

So what happens when we encounter images from other cultures that we do not recognize? We will first have difficulty communicating and likewise assign our own meanings to the symbol. The rising sun of Japan in World War II is a good example. A symbol of Japan's divine birth was seen by Americans as obviously a sinister symbol.

It is interesting likewise how the same symbol is so differently used in different cultures. The Swastika, for example, is recognized by all westerners (and pretty much the whole world now) as symbolizing the Nazis, fascism, oppression, authoritarianism, racism, and mass murder. Ironically it traditionally meant (Buddhists still use the symbol extensively) life and good luck. The spoiling of an image has an important impact on the way we communicate. So the politicizing of images is problematic. It would be difficult now to invoke the imagery of a rainbow in a neutral manner. I would be communicating something very different, if unwillingly.