is this a good dictionary on symbols? or are there better ones?

>>8482893
haven't heard of that one. Hall's Dictionary of Subjects and Symbols in Art is better if it's to decipher art because it gives most stock figures of Western canon and stock symbolism.

Cassell's Dictionary of Superstitions doesn't deal with illustration but if you're looking for symbol dictionaries b/c /x/, it's good and cheap.

Rene Guenon - Symbols of Sacred Science

But might mot be what you're looking for..

>>8484767
why was this deleted

>>8484755
what do you mean?

>>8482893
Yeah that one is good, I also have An Illustrated Encyclopaedia of Traditional Symbols by JC Cooper, which is good. They each have stuff the other doesn't. The Taschen Book of Symbols is an exquisite thing (typical of that publisher) although it is instead page-length essays about each symbol with many huge, beautiful pictures rather than a dictionary of thousands of specific symbols

>>8485291
>Tasche
what else is good by them?

>>8485933
What are you interested in? They do a wide variety. Whatever the topic, the books are lavishly illustrated,, ridiculously beautiful, and surprisingly affordable. No I don't work for them

>>8486758
let's say i have an interest in architecture or i want to read euclids elements

>>8482893
I use Michael Ferber's Dictionary of Literary Symbols published by Cambridge, mainly because it's available online but it's still worth recommending
It's not illustrated, but I don't really like illustrations anyway and each entry is fitted with at least half a page-ish of text instead, covering the history and some different varieties of the given symbol, the one error I've found striking is that he apparently insists that a symbol, e.g. a deer, can be used both literally and metaphorically, even though there obviously is no literal meaning as such and especially not in literature
Other than that I can recommend Oxford's dictionary of reference and allusion, it's not perfect but still very good both as a supplement and for filling out the gaps often left by a dictionary of symbols, like when dealing with mythological figures that are almost as much a symbol in their own right as they are an 'actual figure', but dictionaries of symbols often leave a lot of these out

>>8486810
Also, the Oxford one is available online as well, and their e-publishing is more convenient than most in my experience

>>8486803
Then you really need to go to their website and look around, they have many, many fantastic architecture books as well as a beautiful version of Euclid

>>8485233
It deals more with esoteric and mystic iconography

You're interested in the symbolism of Freemasonry?

Each has many different meanings