47 § Al-Arkān

BY way of addition to what we have already said about the 'cornerstone' we think it will not be without interest to give some further details about a particular point, which has to do with our references to the Arabic word rukn, angle, and its different meanings. In this connection our main purpose is to draw attention to a very remarkable concordance to be found in early Christian symbolism, a concordance on which light is thrown (as always) by the comparisons that can be made with certain data from other traditions. We propose to speak of the gammadion, or rather, we should say, of the gammadia, for this symbol has two forms that are distinctly different though the same meaning is generally given to each. It owes its name to the elements which it is made up of in both its variants and which, being in fact try-squares, are shaped like the Greek letter gamma. ^[1] The first form of this symbol (figure 16), sometimes also called the 'cross of Figure 16 the Word', ^[3] consists of four try-squares, the right-angled summits of which are turned towards the centre. The cross is formed by the try-squares themselves, or more precisely by the empty space between their parallel sides which as it were represents four ways, starting from the centre or ending there, according to the direction they are traversed in. Now this same figure, considered as the representation of a crossroads, is the primitive form of the Chinese character hing, which designates the five elements: we see here the four regions of space which correspond to the cardinal points, and which are in fact called 'try-squares' (fang), ^[3] around the central area to which the fifth element is related. These elements, ^[4] despite a partial similarity of name, cannot be identified in any way with those of the Hindu tradition and of Western antiquity, so that, to avoid all confusion, it would doubtless be better, as some have suggested, to translate hing by 'natural agents', inasmuch as they are forces acting within the corporeal world and not constitutive elements of the bodies themselves. It is none the less true, as is clear from their spatial correspondence, that the five hing may be regarded as the arkän of this world, just as are, from another point of view, the elements in the ordinary sense, though with a difference as to the meaning of the central element. For while ether, not being on the same basic level as the other elements, corresponds to the true 'cornerstone', that of the summit (rukn al-arkän), the 'earth' of the Far Eastern tradition must be placed in direct correspondence with the 'foundation stone' of the centre, of which we have previously spoken. ^[5] The representation of the five arkän appears still more clearly in the other form of the gammadion (figure 17) where four try-squares, forming the angles Figure 17 (arkän in the literal sense of the word) of a square, surround a cross drawn in its centre. The summits of the try-squares are then turned outwards instead of towards the centre as in the previous case. ^[6] Here we can consider the entire figure as corresponding to the horizontal projection of an edifice onto its foundation plane: the four try-squares then correspond to the foundation stones of the four angles (which in fact must be cut 'on the square'), and the cross to the 'cornerstone' of the summit which, though not being on the same level, is projected onto the centre of the foundation according to the direction of the vertical axis; and the symbolic assimilation of Christ to the 'cornerstone' justifies this correspondence still more explicitly. In fact, from the standpoint of Christian symbolism both the gammadia are considered as representing Christ, he himself being the cross in the middle of the four Evangelists, who are represented by the try-squares. The whole is thus the equivalent of the well known figuration of Christ himself in the midst of the four animals of the vision of Ezekiel and of the Apocalypse, ^[7] these animals being the most usual symbols of the Evangelists, ^[8] whose assimilation to the foundation stones of the four angles is moreover in no way out of keeping with the fact that St Peter, on the other hand, is expressly designated as the 'foundation stone' of the Church. We have simply to see in this the expression of two different points of view, one referring to doctrine and the other to the constitution of the Church; and it is certainly incontestable, as regards Christian doctrine, that the Gospels are very truly its foundations. In the Islamic tradition, a similarly arranged figure is also to be found, comprising the name of the Prophet at the centre and those of the first four Khulafä, at the corners. Here again, the Prophet, appearing as rukn al-arkän, must be considered, like Jesus Christ in the preceding figure, as situated at a level other than that of the base, and consequently he also corresponds to the 'cornerstone' of the summit. Moreover, it must be noted that, of the two points of view that we have just indicated as regards Christianity, this representation directly recalls the one which looks on St Peter as the 'foundation stone', for it is obvious that St Peter, as we have already said, is also the Khalifah, that is, the 'vicar' or the 'substitute' of Christ. But in this case only a single 'foundation stone' is considered, the first of the four stones to be put into place, without developing the correspondence any further, while the Islamic symbol in question includes all four foundation stones. The reason for this difference is that the first four Khulafä have, in fact, a special function with regard to 'sacred history', while in Christianity, the first successors of St Peter have no characteristic which might distinguish them, in a comparable way, from those who came after them. It may be added, in connection with the five arkän manifested in the terrestrial and human world, that the Islamic tradition also considers five celestial or angelic arkän, who are Jibrīl, Rufāīl, Mīkāl, Isrāfīl, and lastly ar-Rūh, (the Spirit) who is identified with Metatron as we have explained on other occasions. He also is ranked at a level higher than that of the four others, who are his partial reflections in different and more particularised or less principial functions, and in the celestial world, he is truly rukn al-arkän, he who, at the boundary separating al-Khalq (creation), from al-Haqq (truth, reality), is at that very 'place' through which alone an exit from the Cosmos can be effected.