45 § The Cornerstone
T H E symbolism of the cornerstone in the Christian tradition is based on this text: 'The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner', or more exactly, 'the head of the angle' (caput anguli). [1] What is strange is that this symbolism is usually misunderstood, due to a common confusion between the 'cornerstone' and the 'foundation stone', referred to in the even better known text: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it'. [2] This confusion is strange, we say, because
from the specifically Christian point of view, it amounts to confusing St Peter with Christ himself; for it is Christ who is expressly designated as the 'cornerstone', as is shown by the following passage from St Paul, who, moreover, clearly distinguishes it from the 'foundations' of the building: 'Ye are . . . built up on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the supreme cornerstone (summo angulari lapide), in whom all the building fitly framed together is growing unto a holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are being built together (coedificamini) for a habitation of God in the Spirit'. [3] If the misunderstanding in question were solely modern, it would not have been particularly surprising, but it seems that it is in fact to be found already in times when it is hardly possible to attribute it purely and simply to the ignorance of symbolism. One is thus led to wonder if in reality it was not rather a question in the beginning of an intentional 'substitution', this being explicable by the role of St Peter as 'substitute' for Christ (in Latin, vicarius corresponding in this sense to the Arabic khalifah). If it was so, this way of 'veiling' the symbolism of the 'cornerstone' would seem to indicate that it was held to contain something particularly mysterious, and it will be seen in what follows that such a supposition is far from being unjustified. [4] Be that as it may, even from the point of view of simple logic, this identification of the two stones confronts us with an impossibility which becomes altogether obvious once we examine the above quoted texts with a little attention: the 'foundation stone' is the one which is positioned first, at the very outset of the construction of a building (and this is why it is also called the 'first stone'); [5] how then could it be rejected in the course of this very same construction? For that to be so it is necessary, on the contrary, that the 'cornerstone' be such that it cannot as yet find its place; and in fact, as we will see, it cannot find it except at the moment of the completion of the entire edifice, and it is thus that it really becomes the 'head of the angle'.
In an article to which we have already called attention, [6] Coomaraswamy remarks that the purpose of the text of St Paul is obviously to depict Christ as the unique principle on which the entire structure of the Church depends,
and he adds that 'the principle of a thing is neither one of its parts among others nor the totality of its parts, but that to which all the parts are brought back into a unity without composition'. The 'foundation stone' can, in a certain sense, be called a 'cornerstone' as it usually is, for it is placed at an angle or at a corner of the edifice; [7] but it is not unique as such, the edifice necessarily having four angles; and even if one wishes to speak more particularly of the 'first stone', it in no way differs from the foundation stones of the other angles except by its situation, [8] and it is not distinguished from them either by its form or its function, being just one of four supports all equal to each other. It could be said that any one of the four 'cornerstones' 'reflects' in a sense the dominant principle of the edifice, but it could in no way be considered as being the principle itself. [9] Moreover, if this were really all there is to it, we could not even speak logically of 'the cornerstone', as in fact there would be four of them. Thus the cornerstone must be something essentially different from a 'cornerstone' understood in the current sense of 'foundation stone', and all they have in common is that they both pertain to the same symbolism of construction.
We have just alluded to the shape of the cornerstone, and in fact there is a particularly important point here: it is because this stone has a special shape which sets it apart from all the others that not only can it not find its place in the course of the construction, but even the builders cannot understand its purpose. If they could, it is obvious that they would not reject it and that they would be content to set it aside until the end. But they ask themselves, 'what they are to do with the stone', and not being able to give a satisfactory answer to this question, they decide to 'heave it over among the rubbish', [10] believing it to be unusable. The purpose of this stone cannot be understood except by another category of builders, who have not yet come upon the scene. These are they who have passed 'from the try-square to the compass'; and by this distinction we must naturally understand that of the geometric forms which these two instruments respectively serve to trace, namely, the square and the circle which are known to symbolise in a general way earth and heaven. The square form corresponds here to the lower part of the building, and the circular form to the upper part which, in this case, must consist either of a dome or a vault. [11] In fact, the 'cornerstone' is in reality a
'keystone' (clef de voûte). Coomaraswamy says that in order to give the true meaning of the expression 'is become the head of the corner', it could be translated as 'is become the keystone of the arch', which is exactly right; and thus this stone, by its shape as well as by its position, is really unique in the entire edifice, as it must be to symbolise the principle on which all depends. It may seem surprising that this representation of the principle should thus be put into place only as the final act of construction; but it can be said that the building process, in its entirety, is ordered in relation to this keystone (which St Paul expresses in saying 'in whom all the building fitly framed together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord'), and that it is in the keystone that the building finds at last its unity. We have here yet another application of the analogy which we have already explained on previous occasions between the 'first' and the 'last' or the 'principle' and the 'end': the construction represents manifestation, in which the principle does not appear except as the final accomplishment; and it is precisely in virtue of the same analogy that the 'first stone' or the 'foundation stone' can be regarded as a reflection of the 'last stone' which is the true 'cornerstone'.
The ambiguity implied in an expression such as 'cornerstone' stems from the different possible meanings of the word 'angle'. Coomaraswamy remarks that in various languages the words meaning 'angle' are often related to others meaning 'head' and 'extremity': in Greek, kephalē, 'head', and in architecture, 'capital' (capitulum, diminutive of caput) can only apply to a summit. But akros (Sanskrit, agra) may indicate an extremity in any direction, that is, in the case of a building, the summit or one of the four 'corners' (this last word is etymologically akin to the Greek gonia, 'angle'), though often it is also applied by preference to the summit. But even more important from the special point of view of the texts concerning the 'cornerstone' in the Judeo-Christian tradition is the Hebrew word for 'angle'. This word is pinnah and one finds the expression eben pinnah, 'angle stone'; and rosh pinnah, 'head of the angle'. But what is especially to be noted is that in a figurative sense, this same word pinnah is used to signify 'chief': an expression designating the 'chiefs of the people' (pinnah ha-am) is translated literally in the Vulgate by angulos populorum. [12] A 'chief is etymologically a 'head' (caput); and pinnah is, by its root, linked to pne, which means 'face'. The close relation between the ideas of 'head' and of 'face' is evident and, moreover, the term 'face' pertains to a very widespread symbolism which deserves a separate examination. [13] Yet another related idea is that of 'point' (which is found in the Sanskrit agra, the Greek akros, the Latin acer and acies); we have already spoken of the symbolism of points in connection with the symbolism of weapons and horns, [14] and we
have seen that it is linked to the idea of extremity, but more particularly as concerning the upper extremity, that is, the highest point or the summit. Thus all these parallels only confirm what we have said about the position of the 'cornerstone' at the summit of the edifice. Even if there are other 'cornerstones' in the more general sense of the expression, [15] it is indeed only this which is really 'the cornerstone' par excellence.
We find other interesting information in the meanings of the Arabic word rukn, 'angle' or 'corner'. This word, because it designates the extremities of a thing, that is, its most remote and hence most hidden parts (recondita and abscondita as one might say in Latin), sometimes takes a sense of 'secret' or of 'mystery'; and in this respect, its plural, arkān, is comparable to the Latin arcanum which likewise has this same sense, and which it strikingly resembles; moreover, in the language of the Hermetists at least, the use of the term 'arcane' was certainly influenced directly by the Arabic word in question. [16] Furthermore, rukn also has the meaning of 'base' or 'foundation', which leads us back to the 'cornerstone' understood as foundation stone. In alchemical terminology, al-arkān, when used without any other specification, are the four elements, that is, the substantial 'bases' of our world, which are thus assimilated to the foundation stones of the four angles of a building, since it is on them in a way that the whole corporeal world (likewise represented by the square) is constructed; [17] and this brings us back directly to the very symbolism which is now our particular theme. In fact, there are not only these four arkān or 'basic' elements, but there is also a fifth rukn, the fifth element or the 'quintessence' (that is, ether, al-athir). This fifth element is not on the same 'plane' as the others, for it is not simply a basis as they are, but rather the very principle of this world. [18] It will be represented, therefore, as the fifth 'angle' of the edifice, which is its summit; and to this 'fifth', which is in reality its 'first', the designation of supreme angle rightly belongs, the angle par excellence or 'angle of angles' (rukn al-arkān), because the multiplicity of the other angles is reduced in it to
unity. [19] It may be noted further that the geometric figure obtained by joining these five angles is that of the pyramid with a quadrangular base: the lateral edges of the pyramid emanate from its summit like so many rays, just as the four ordinary elements, which are represented by the lower extremities of these edges, proceed from the fifth and are produced by it; and it is also following in the direction of these same edges, which we have intentionally compared to rays for this reason (and also in virtue of the 'solar' nature of the point they issue from, according to what we have said about the 'eye' of the dome), that the 'cornerstone' of the summit is reflected in each of the 'foundation stones' of the four angles of the base. Finally, in what has just been said there is the very clear indication of a correlation existing between alchemical symbolism and architectural symbolism, which, moreover, is to be explained by their common cosmological character; and this is yet another important point to which we shall have to return in connection with other parallels of the same order.
The 'cornerstone', taken in its true sense of 'summit stone', is designated, in English, both as 'keystone' and as 'capstone' (the last term is sometimes found also written as 'capestone'), and as 'copestone' (or 'coping stone'). The first of these three words is easy to understand, for it is the exact equivalent of the French term clef de voûte (or clef d'arc, the word 'keystone' being applicable to the stone that forms the summit of an arch as well as that of a vault); but the two others demand a little more explanation. In 'capstone', the word cap is obviously the Latin caput, 'head', which brings us back to the designation of this stone as the 'head of the angle'; this is the stone which 'achieves' or 'crowns' an edifice; and it is also a capital, which is in the same way the 'crowning' of a column. [20] We have just spoken of 'achievement', and the two words 'cap' and 'chief' are, in fact, etymologically identical; [21] the
'capstone' is, therefore, the 'head' or 'chief' of the edifice or of the work, and by reason of its special shape, which requires particular knowledge or abilities for its cutting, it is also and at the same time a chef d'œuvre in the guild sense of this expression. [22] It is by the 'capstone' that the edifice is completely finished, or in other words, that it is finally brought to its 'perfection'. [23]
As for the word 'copestone', the word 'cope' expresses the idea of 'to cover'. This is to be explained by the fact, not only that the upper part of the edifice is its 'cover', but also-and we would even say especially-that this stone is placed in such a way as to cover the opening of the summit, that is, the 'eye' of the dome or vault, of which we have already spoken. [24] It is thus, in this respect, the equivalent of a 'roof plate', as Coomaraswamy remarks; and he adds that this stone may be considered as the upper end or capital of the 'axial pillar' (Sanskrit skambha, Greek stauros). [25] That pillar, as we have already explained, does not have to be materially represented in the structure, but it is none the less its essential part, around which the whole is co-ordinated. The 'summit' nature of the 'axial pillar', no more than 'ideally' present, is indicated in a particularly striking way in those cases where the 'key of the vault' is prolonged in the form of a pendentive down into the inside of the building, without being visibly supported by anything at its lower end. [26] The entire construction has its principle in this pillar, and all its diverse parts are finally unified in its pinnacle which is the summit of this same pillar and which is the 'key of the vault' or the 'head of the angle'. [27]
The real interpretation of the 'cornerstone' as being the 'summit stone'
seems in fact to have been quite generally known in the Middle Ages, as is clear from an illustration ( figure 15) [28] in the Speculum Humance Salvationis. This work was widely disseminated, for several hundred manuscripts of it are still extant. Two masons are to be seen here, each holding a trowel in
one hand, and supporting by the other hand the stone which they are about to place at the summit of the edifice (apparently a church tower, whose summit this stone is to complete), which leaves no doubt whatsoever as to its meaning. It is to be noted, in connection with this drawing, that the stone in question, as 'key of the vault', or in any other similar function it may have according to the structure of the edifice it is destined to 'crown', cannot, by its very form, be placed in position except from above (failing which, moreover, it might well fall down inside the building). As such it may be said to represent the 'stone descended from Heaven', an expression which applies perfectly to Christ [29] and which also recalls the stone of the Grail (the lapsit exillis of
Wolfram of Eschenbach, which can be interpreted as lapis ex cœlis). [30] There is also another important point to note here: Erwin Panofsky has remarked that this same illustration shows the stone as diamond shaped (which again links it with the Grail stone, since that is always described as being cut into facets). This question deserves closer examination, for although such a representation is far from being the most common, it has to do with aspects of the complex symbolism of the 'cornerstone' other than those we have studied so far and of equal interest for bringing out the connections of this symbolism with traditional symbolism as a whole.
Before going on to this however, there is still a secondary question that needs to be clarified: we have just said that the 'summit stone' may not in every case be the 'key of the vault', and in fact it is only so in domed structures. In every other case, for example, that of a building surmounted by a pointed roof or a roof in the form of a tent, there is none the less a 'last stone' which, placed at the summit, plays the same part as the 'key of the vault' in this respect, and which consequently corresponds to it from a symbolic point of view, but without it being possible to designate it by the same name; and as much must be said of the special case of the 'pyramidion' to which we have alluded on another occasion. It should be clearly understood that in the symbolism of the Medieval builders, which is based on the JudeoChristian tradition and which is especially linked, as to its prototype, with the construction of the Temple of Solomon, [31] it is an unchanging constant that, as regards the 'cornerstone', it is a 'key of the vault' that is meant; and if the exact form of the Temple of Solomon has given rise to discussions from the historical point of view, it is in any case quite certain that this form was not that of a pyramid. These are facts that must necessarily be taken into account in the interpretation of Biblical texts relating to the 'cornerstone'. [32] The 'pyramidion', that is, the stone forming the upper point of the pyramid, is in no way a 'key of the vault'; but it is, none the less, the 'crown' of the edifice, and it may be noted that it reproduces in miniature the entire form thereof, as if the whole structure was thus synthesized in this one unique stone. The expression 'head of the angle', in the literal sense, fits it quite well, as does also the figurative sense of the Hebrew word for 'angle' as meaning the 'chief', the more so in that the pyramid, starting from the multiplicity of the base and
gradually converging towards the unity of the summit, is often taken as the symbol of a hierarchy. On the other hand, according to what we have explained previously on the subject of the summit and the four angles of the base in connection with the meaning of the Arabic word rukn, it could be said that the form of the pyramid is contained implicitly as it were in every architectural structure. The solar symbolism of this form, which we then indicated, is expressed more particularly in the 'pyramidion', as diverse archaeological descriptions cited by Coomaraswamy clearly show. The central point or the summit corresponds to the sun itself, and the four faces (each of which is included between two outermost 'rays' which delimit its domain) correspond to so many secondary aspects of this same sun, in relation with the four cardinal points towards which these faces are respectively turned. Despite all this, it is none the less true that the 'pyramidion' is only a particular case of the 'cornerstone' and that it represents it only in a special traditional form, that of the ancient Egyptians; to correspond to the Judeo-Christian symbolism of this same stone, which pertains to a very different other traditional form, it lacks an essential characteristic, and this missing quality is that of being a 'key of the vault'.
We can now return to the representation of the 'cornerstone' in the form of a diamond. Coomaraswamy, in the article we referred to, begins with a remark made in reference to the German word Eckstein, which has precisely the meaning of both 'cornerstone' and 'diamond'; [33] and he recalls in this connection the symbolic meanings of the vajra, which we have already considered on various occasions. [34] Generally, the stone or the metal which was considered as the hardest and the most brilliant has been taken, in different traditions, as a symbol of 'indestructibility, of invulnerability, of stability, of light, and of immortality'; and these qualities in particular are very often attributed to the diamond. The idea of 'indestructibility' or of 'indivisibility' (both are closely linked, and are expressed in Sanskrit by the same word akshara) suits the stone which represents the one principle of the edifice (true unity being indivisible). The idea of 'stability' which, in the architectural realm, is applied to the pillar, is equally apt when the stone is considered as constituting the capital of the 'axial pillar' which, itself, symbolises the world axis; and this axis, Plato describes as an 'axis of diamond', is also on the other hand a 'pillar of light' (as symbol of Agni and as 'solar ray'). All the more applicable, then, 'pre-eminently' one might
say, is this last quality to the summit of the axis, to its 'crowning', which represents the very source whence, as luminous ray, it emanates. [35] In Hindu and Buddhist symbolism, whatever has a 'central' or 'axial' meaning is generally assimilated to the diamond (for example, in expressions such as vajrasana, 'diamond throne'); and it is easy to understand that all these associations form part of a tradition which may be called truly universal.
This is still not all: the diamond is considered as the 'precious stone' par excellence. Now, this precious stone is also, as such, a symbol of Christ, who is herein identified with his other symbol, the 'cornerstone'; or let us simply say that these two symbols are thus united into one. It could then be said that this stone, insofar as it represents an 'achievement' or an 'accomplishment [36] is, in the language of the Hindu tradition, a chintämani which is the equivalent of the Western alchemical expression 'philosophers' stone'; [37] and it is very significant in this respect that the Christian Hermetists often speak of Christ as being the true 'philosophers' stone', no less than as being the 'cornerstone'. [38] We are thus brought back to what we said previously about the two senses in which the Arabic expression rukn al-arkān can be understood, and of the correspondence that exists between architectural and alchemical symbolism; and to close, with a remark of an altogether general bearing, this already long though no doubt incomplete studyfor the subject is one of those that are almost inexhaustible-we can add that this very correspondence is only a particular case of that which likewise exists (though perhaps in a way that is not always so evident) between all the traditional sciences and arts, because they are all just so many manifestations and applications of the same principial and universal truths.