5 I § Brute Stone, Hewn Stone

I N an article on altars-which among the ancient Hebrews had to be made exclusively of unhewn stones-we have read the somewhat amazing remark: 'The symbolism of uncut stone has been altered by Freemasonry, which has transposed it from the sacred domain to the profane level; a symbol originally intended to express the supernatural relationships of the soul with the 'living' and 'personal' God, henceforth expresses realities of an alchemical, moralising, social and occultist nature'. [1] The author of these lines, from all that we know of him, is one of those with whom prejudice can easily go so far as bad faith; that an initiatic organisation should have lowered a symbol 'to the profane level' is something so absurd and contradictory that we do not believe that anyone can seriously maintain it; and, on the other hand, the emphasis on the words 'living' and 'personal' obviously shows a decided intention of limiting the 'sacred domain' solely to the point of view of religious exoterism! That the great majority of contemporary Masons now no longer understand the true meaning of their symbols, just as the majority of Christians no longer understand theirs, is quite another question. How can Masonry, any more than the Church, be held responsible for a state of affairs which is due only to the conditions of the modern world, with regard to which both are equally 'anachronistic' in virtue of their traditional nature? [2] The moralising tendency which has in fact been only too real since the eighteenth century, was after all an almost inevitable consequence, if one takes into account the general mentality, of the 'speculative' degeneration on which we have so often insisted. The same can be said of the excessive importance given to the social point of view, and the Masons of our times are very far from constituting an exception in these matters. Let an impartial examination be made of what is taught today in the name of the Church, and then let us be told if it is possible to find there much else besides moral and social concerns! But to end these remarks, it is hardly necessary to underline the impropriety, probably deliberate, of the word 'occultist', for Masonry certainly has nothing to do with occultism, being far earlier, even in its 'speculative' form. As to alchemical or more correctly Hermetic symbolism, there is certainly nothing profane here; and it relates, as we have explained elsewhere, to the Lesser Mysteries which are indeed the very domain of the craft initiations in general and of Masonry in particular. It was not only to make these points, however necessary they may be, that we started by quoting that remark, but above all because it seemed to give us a good opportunity to mention some facts, not without importance, about the symbolism of unhewn stone and shaped stone. The truth is that in Masonry unhewn stone has a meaning other than the one it has in the case of Hebrew altars and, be it added, of megalithic monuments. But if that is so, it is because the meaning does not refer to the same kind of tradition. This is easy to understand for all those who are familiar with the explanations we have given elsewhere on the essential differences that exist, in quite a general way, between the traditions of nomadic peoples and those of sedentary folk; [3] and when Israel passed from the first of these conditions to the second, the interdiction against erecting structures of dressed stone disappeared, for there was no longer any reason for it in this tradition-witness the construction of the Temple of Solomon, which assuredly was not a profane enterprise, and to which is attached, at least symbolically, the very origin of Masonry. It is of little importance in this respect that the altars still had to be made of unhewn stone, for this is a very special case, in which the primitive symbolism could be preserved without any inconvenience, while it is only too obviously impossible to build even the most modest edifice with such stones. Furthermore, that 'there must be nothing metallic' in the altars, as the author of the article in question also notes, relates to another order of ideas, which we have likewise explained and which, moreover, is to be found in Masonry itself with the symbolism of the 'casting off of the metals'. Now it cannot be doubted that, in virtue of cyclic laws, 'prehistoric' peoples such as those who erected the megalithic monuments, whoever they may have been, were necessarily in a state nearer the Principle than those who came after them. But it is also certain that this state could not have endured indefinitely and that supervening changes in the conditions of humanity in the different periods of its history were bound to call for successive adaptations of the tradition; that this could have happened even within the existence of a single people and without any break in its continuity is shown by the example we have just mentioned in connection with the Hebrews. On the other hand, and we have stated it elsewhere, it is also quite certain that with sedentary peoples the substitution of sanctuaries in stone for structures of wood corresponds to a more marked degree of 'solidification', in conformity with the stages of cyclic 'descent'. But once such a way of construction became necessary because of the new conditions of its setting, it was necessary in a traditional civilisation that it should receive from the tradition itself, by appropriate rites and symbols, the consecration that alone could legitimise it and so integrate it into that civilisation; and that is why we have spoken of an adaptation in this respect. Such a legitimisation applied to all the crafts, beginning with the shaping of the stones needed for this construction; and it could not be truly effective except on the condition that the practice of each of these crafts be attached to a corresponding initiation; for in the traditional conception of the crafts, each one had to represent the regular application of principles in its own contingent order. It was so always and everywhere except, naturally, in the modern Western world whose civilisation has lost all traditional quality, and this is true not only of the building trades that we are especially considering here, but also of all those others which likewise became necessary owing to certain circumstances of time or place; and it is to be noted that this legitimisation, with all it involves, was always possible in all cases except only for the purely mechanical trades, which did not come into existence until modern times. Now for the stone cutters and for the builders who used the products of their labour, what could the unhewn stone represent but undifferentiated 'prime matter', or 'chaos', with all its microcosmic as well as macrocosmic correspondences, while the stone completely dressed on all its faces represents, on the contrary, the completion or perfection of the 'work'? Here lies the whole explanation of the difference between the symbolic meaning of the unshaped stone in cases like those of the megalithic monuments and primitive altars, and that of the same unshaped stone in Masonry. We will add, though without being able to develop the point here, that this difference corresponds to a double aspect of materia prima, according to whether it is looked on as the 'universal Virgin' or as the 'chaos' which is at the origin of all manifestation. In the Hindu tradition as well, Prakriti, while being the pure potentiality which is literally beneath all existence, is also an aspect of the Shakti, that is, of the 'Divine Mother'. Of course, these two points of view are in no way exclusive of one another, which justifies the coexistence of altars of brute stone with buildings of hewn stone. These few considerations will show once again that for the interpretation of symbols as in all else, it is always necessary to know how to put everything in its right place, failing which there is a considerable risk of falling into the most blatant errors.