After having surveyed the best-known mytholo- gies, I went on to a general discussion of symbol which 1 divided into two classes : those subject only to the law of (‘proportion,” and those subject to the law of “scale” as well. This distinction has often been made. Nevertheless I shall restate it: propor- tion” concerns the relations between dimensions of a structure, “scale” the relations between these di- mensions and those of the human body. An equilat- eral triangle, symbol of the Trinity, has exactly the same value no matter what its dimensions; it has no “scale.” On the other hand, consider an exact model of a cathedral a few inches in height. This object will always convey, through its shape and propor- tions, the intellectual meaning of the original struc- ture, even if some details have to be examined under a magnifying glass. But it will no longer produce anything like the same emotion or the same response : it is no longer ’ ‘to scale.” And what defines the scale of the ultimate symbolic mountain—the one I propose to call Mount Analogue—is its inaccessi- bility to ordinary human approaches. Now, Sinai, Nebo, and Olympus have long since become what mountaineers call ’ ‘cow pastures” ; and even the highest peaks of the Himalayas are no longer con- sidered inaccessible today. All these summits have therefore lost their analogical importance. The sym- bol has had to take refuge in totally mythical moun- tains, such as Mount Meru of the Hindus. But, to take this one example, if Meru has no geographical location, it loses its persuasive significance as a way uniting Earth and Heaven; it can still represent the center or axis of our planetary system, but no longer the means whereby man can attain it. For a mountain to play the role of Mount Ana- logue, I concluded, its summit must be inaccessible but its base accessible to human beings as nature has made them. It must be unique and it must exist geo- graphically. The door to the invisible must be visible.