Masonic Light of Montreal
September 1948-June 1949 - These issues include a curious series of articles expounding a new theory on the origin of Masonry, which latter the author paradoxically relates to Solomon rather than to Moses. Basing himself largely on numerical considerations which are not always very clear (some illustrations would have been useful), he seeks to establish
that the symbolism of the Tabernacle was much more complete than that of the Temple of Solomon, which, in his view, would only have been an imperfect imitation, as it were, since certain secrets had been lost in the meantime. It is of course quite natural that the Temple of Solomon should present certain links with the Tabernacle, since it was intended to fulfill the same function, but also that there should be certain differences corresponding to the transition of the Israelites from a nomadic to a settled state. But we do not see where either one can really provide grounds for disparaging it as he does. On the other hand, the Tabernacle was obviously not a stone edifice, and this alone should suffice to prevent us from speaking of Masonry in connection with it. The occupation of carpenters is certainly quite distinct from that of masons, and the ancient distinction between them, which has continued to the present day, clearly shows that any assimilation between them is impossible ([4]). That the names of the principal worker engaged in the construction of the Tabernacle were introduced into certain high grades is quite another question, which has nothing to do with Masonry properly speaking. Now, if we wish to go beyond Solomon, we could with far more reason go back further still to Abraham himself. A very clear indication of this can be seen in the fact that the divine Name invoked most particularly by Abraham has always been retained by Operative Masonry. This connection of Abraham with Masonry is moreover readily understandable to whomever knows something of the Islamic tradition, as it is directly connected to the building of the Kaabah.
Let us also mention an article that aims to prove that there were in fact two Hirams, the father and the son, the first assassinated during the construction of the Temple and the second then completing the task. The argument is ingenious but not very convincing, and the interpretation of the biblical texts on which it rests seems to us rather forced.
Of the other articles contained in the same review, some of which are interesting from the historical point of view, we shall mention only those in which the question of a 'modernization' of Masonry is discussed. Arguments pro and con are introduced in turn, and all we can say is that those who argue for modernization only prove that from their quite profane point of view they hardly understand what constitutes the essential character of Masonry.
Among the historical articles, we shall note one which sets forth the facts that led certain operative English Lodges between 1830 and 1840 to renounce their Masonic character and turn themselves into mere Trade Unions. We wonder if this might not explain what produced certain gaps in the operative rituals around this time, gaps which were later redressed, but, so it seems, done so especially with the aid of the rituals of speculative Masonry. By a curious coincidence something similar happened to the rituals of the Compagnonnage in France during the nineteenth century, and it was remedied in the same way, which might lead to some doubt as to the real antiquity of what these rituals, as they exist today, have in common with those of Masonry, which, at least in part, can only be a consequence of this reconstitution.
Also in the April issue, J.-H. Probst-Biraben studies 'Coleurs et symboles hermétiques des ancienne peintres italiens' [Hermetic colors and symbols of the ancient Italian painters]. He offers a series of interesting observations, but arrives at no very precise conclusion, perhaps because even at the time of the Renaissance certain esoteric knowledge was still frequently expressed in works that in outer appearance were purely religious. On the other hand, at the end we came across the idea of a 'Mediterranean tradition' the reality of which seems more than problematic. In the May issue, 'Psychanalyse collective et symbolisme maçonnique' [Collective Psychoanalysis and Masonic Symbolism], by 'Timotheus', uses Jung's theories to interpret the idea of tradition and the origin of symbolism. Since in our recent article 'Tradition et "inconscient"' [Tradition and the 'Unconscious'] (July-August 1949 issue) ([5]) we have already shown the dangerous errors implied in these kinds of ideas, it is of no use to dwell further on the issue, and we shall only point out the following: if surrealism is linked to the action of the counter-initiation, how can one not realize that the same is all the more true for psychoanalysis?
In this issue and that of June, François Menard examines what he calls 'Le Sagesse "taoiste" des Essais de Montaigne' [Taoist Wisdom in Montaigne's Essays]. This is clearly only a manner of speaking, for Montaigne certainly knew nothing of Taoism, and doubtless never received an initiation, so that in short his 'wisdom' remains of a rather exterior order. But certain 'meetings' are nonetheless curious, and we know that others have also observed a strange similarity between Montaigne's mode of thought and that of Chinese thought, both proceeding 'in a spiral' as it were.
Moreover, it is remarkable that in his own way Montaigne recognized, at least theoretically, certain traditional ideas which certainly could not have been provided by the moralists whom he studied and who served as the starting-point for his reflections.
In the October issue of the same review we note an article on the symbolism of the Blazing Star, which is especially interesting because it shows that there were many differences in the interpretation of this symbol and even in its representation. Thus, when it is said in Mackey's encyclopaedia that the Blazing Star should not be confused with the five-pointed star, this implies that it must be represented with six points, as in fact it sometimes is, and this is doubtless why it was taken as a symbol of Providence, as well as being likened to the Star of Bethlehem, for the Seal of Solomon is also designated as the 'Star of the Magi'. This is nonetheless an error, for the six-pointed star is essentially a macrocosmic symbol, whereas the five-pointed star is a microcosmic symbol. Now the significance of the Blazing Star is above all microcosmic, and there are even cases where it could not be otherwise, as when it is depicted between the square and the compasses (cf. The Great Triad, chap. 20). On the other hand, from the strictly cosmic point of view, the rather strange identification of the Blazing Star with the sun represents another corruption, perhaps an intentional one, for it is obviously connected with a change in the original polar symbolism. In this respect the Blazing Star can in fact only be identified with the pole star, and the letter 'G' inscribed at its center is moreover sufficient proof of this, as we ourselves have had occasion to note (cf. also The Great Triad, chap. 25), and as is again confirmed by the considerations noted in the study of the Speculative Mason mentioned above.
November 1949 - This issue contains an article dealing with the rule of 24 inches. There is good reason to note that the more or less recent adoption of the metric system in some countries should in no way result in modifying in rituals the indication of this measure, which alone has a traditional value. On the other hand, the author notes that this rule does not figure everywhere among the tools of the first degree. He is correct in this, but has completely forgotten to note its role in the ritual of the third degree, and this is nevertheless what shows most clearly its symbolic link with the division of the day into 24 hours. We shall also note that although mentioned in certain instructions to new initiates, the division
of these hours into three groups of eight actually represents only a rather banal 'use of time'. This is an example of the 'moralizing' tendency that has unfortunately prevailed in the current interpretation of symbols; an apportionment into two series of twelve, corresponding to the hours of day and of night (as in the number of letters comprising the two parts of the formula of the Islamic Shahādah), would certainly lead to far more interesting considerations. Regarding the more or less approximate equivalence of the current English inch to the ancient Egyptian inch, this is doubtless rather hypothetical. The variations undergone by measures designated by the same names in different countries and ages seem never to have been adequately studied, and we must recognize that such a study would not be free of difficulties: for example, do we know exactly the different sorts of cubits, feet, and inches that were in use, sometimes at the same time, among certain peoples of antiquity?