'Lapsit exillis'
Wh il e speaking of the symbolism of the cornerstone, we had occasion to mention incidentally the lapsit exillis of Wolfram von Eschenbach. It might be interesting to give more specific attention to this question because of the many parallels which it suggests. Under its strange form, [1] this enigmatic expression may comprise more than one meaning. It is certainly, before all else, a kind of phonetic contraction of lapis lapsus ex coelis, 'the stone fallen from the sky'. Moreover, this stone, precisely by reason of its origin, is as it were 'in exile' in its earthly sojourn, [2] whence moreover it must finally reascend to the heavens. [3] As regards the symbolism of the Grail, it is to be noted that even though it is most commonly described as a vase and though this is its most widely known form it is also sometimes described as a stone, as in fact it is by Wolfram von Eschenbach. Furthermore, it can be both simultaneously, for the vase is said to have been cut from a previous stone which, having fallen from the forehead of Lucifer at the time of his fall, had likewise 'fallen from heaven'. [4]
On the other hand, what seems to increase even more the complexity of this symbolism, but which can in reality provide the 'key' to certain connections, is this: as we have already explained elsewhere, if the Grail is a vase (grasale), it is also a book (gradale or graduale); and in certain versions of the legend, there is mention in this respect not exactly of a book in the ordinary sense but of an inscription traced on the cup by an angel or by Christ himself. Inscriptions of similarly 'non-human' origin also appeared in certain circumstances on the lapsit exillis, [5] which was thus a 'talking stone', or, we might say, an 'oracular stone'; for if a stone can 'speak' by emitting sounds, it can do so quite as well (like the shell of the tortoise in the Far Eastern Tradition) by means of characters or figures appearing on its surface. Now, what is also very remarkable from this point of view, is that the Biblical
tradition mentions an 'oracular cup', that of Joseph, [6] which in this respect at least could be regarded as one of the forms of the Grail itself; and curiously enough it is another Joseph, Joseph of Arimathea, who is said to have become the possessor or guardian of the Grail and to have brought it from the East to Britain. It is surprising that no notice seems ever to have been taken of these 'coincidences' which, nevertheless, are not insignificant. [7]
To return to lapsit exillis, a connection has been made between it and the Lia Fail or 'stone of destiny', which was also, in fact, a 'talking stone', and which may have been, in a certain sense, a 'stone from heaven', for according to the Irish legend, the Tuatha de Danann had brought it with them from their first abode, which is said to have been 'celestial' or at least 'paradisal'. This Lia Fail is known to have been the anointing stone of the ancient kings of Ireland, and it subsequently became that of the kings of England, having been brought by Edward I to Westminster Abbey, according to the most widely held opinion; but strange though it may seem, this same stone is, on the other hand, identified with the one which Jacob consecrated at Bethel. [8] Nor is that all: according to the Hebrew tradition it would also seem to have been the stone which followed the Israelites in the desert and from which flowed the water they drank of, [9] and which according to St Paul's interpretation was none other than Christ himself. [10] It is then supposed to have become the shethiyah or 'foundation stone', placed in the Temple of Jerusalem beneath the Ark of the Covenant, [11] and thus marking symbolically the 'centre of the world', likewise represented in another traditional form by the Omphalos of Delphi; [12] and since these identifications are obviously symbolic, it can assuredly be said that in all this it is indeed always one and the same stone that is in question.
It must be clearly understood, nevertheless, as regards the symbolism of building, that the foundation stone just mentioned must in no way be confused with the 'cornerstone', which is the crown of the edifice, while the other is at the centre of its base; [13] and inasmuch as it is central, it likewise differs from the 'foundation stone' in the ordinary sense, which is at one of the angles of the same base. We have already said that the foundation stones of the four angles reflect, as it were, the true 'cornerstone' or 'summit stone', and participate in it; again, in the present context, a reflection can also be spoken of, but this time the relationship is more direct than in the previous case, for the 'summit stone' and the 'foundation stone' are on the same vertical line so that the 'foundation stone' is as the horizontal projection of the 'summit stone' on to the level of the foundation. [14] It could be said that the 'foundation stone' synthesizes in itself, even while remaining on the same level, the partial aspects represented by the stones of the four angles (this partial character being expressed by the obliquity of the lines which join them to the summit of the edifice). In fact, the central 'foundation stone' and the 'cornerstone' are respectively the base and the summit of the axial pillar, whether this pillar is represented visibly or whether it has only an 'ideal' existence. In this last case, the 'foundation stone' can be a hearthstone or an altar stone (which, moreover, is the same in principle) and which in any case corresponds in a way to the very 'heart' of the edifice.
We have said, as regards the cornerstone, that it represents the 'stone come down from heaven'; and we have now seen that the lapsit exillis is more precisely the 'stone fallen from heaven', which might suggest a certain relationship with the 'stone which the builders had rejected', if from the cosmic perspective these 'builders' are considered as the Angels or Devas; [15] but since every descent is not necessarily a fall, [16] there is scope for a certain differentiation between the two expressions. In any case, the idea of a 'fall' could no longer apply in any sense once the cornerstone occupies its
definitive position at the summit. [17] We can still speak of a 'descent' if the building is thought of as part of a more extensive whole (as when we drew attention to the fact that the stone cannot be put in place except from above); but if this edifice is considered only in itself, along with the symbolism of its different parts, then this very position can be called 'celestial', as the base and the roof correspond respectively, as regards their 'cosmic model', to earth and heaven. [18] Let us add (and this will be our closing remark) that all that is situated on the axis at various levels can, in a certain way, be considered as representing different situations of one and the same thing, situations which are themselves related to different conditions of a being or of a world, according to whether the standpoint is 'microcosmic' or 'macrocosmic'; and in this respect, as applied to the human being, we will simply point out that the relationship between the 'foundation stone' of the centre and the 'cornerstone' of the summit are not unconnected with what we have said elsewhere about the different 'localisations' of the luz or the 'kernel of immortality. [19]