Payload Website Template

THE 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 distin- guishes it from the 'foundations' of the building: 'Ye are... built up on the founda- tion 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 misunder- standing in question were solely modern, it would not have been particularly sur- prising, 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 Ara- bic _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 edi- fice, 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' ^[7] as it usually is, for it is placed at an angle or at a corner of the edifice; 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 corner-stone 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 them-selves, '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, _kephalê_, '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 'quint-essence' (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 follow- ing 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 Humanæ 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

Figure 15

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 Judeo-Christian 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 'corner-stone' 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, which 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 _chintamani_ 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 study—for 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.

Footnotes

[8]When consecrating the water, the priest traces on its surface, with his breath, a sign having the form of the Greek letter psi [ψ], the first letter of the word _psuché_—a very significant consideration in this respect, as it is in fact in the psychic order that the influence vehicled by the consecrated water has to operate.

[9]Op. cit., p. 79.

[10]'Note sur l'angélologie de l'alphabet arabe', _Etudes Traditionelles_, August-September, 1938 [republished in a posthumous collection of the author's essays, *Aperçus sur l'ésoterisme islamique et le Taoïsme*, Paris, 1973. Tr.].

[11]Psalm 104: 4 [Revised Authorized Version. Cf., the *Qur'an* also: God 'sendeth the winds as good tidings heralding His mercy'. 7: 57; also 25: 48 and 26: 63. Tr.]

[1]Psalm 118 (117): 22; Matthew 21: 42; Mark 22: 10; Luke 20: 17.

[2]Matthew 16: 18.

[3]Ephesians 2: 19-22.

[4]The 'substitution' may also have been prompted by the phonetic similarity between the Hebrew name Kephas, meaning 'stone', and the Greek word Kephale, 'head'. But there is no other link between these two words, and the foundation of a building obviously cannot be identified with its 'head', that is, its summit, which would amount to inverting the whole structure. It might also be wondered whether this 'reversal' does not have some symbolic correspondence with the crucifixion of St Peter head downwards.

[5]This stone must be placed at the Northeast angle of the building; but it is to be noted in this connection that in the symbolism of St Peter several aspects or functions, corresponding to different 'situations', are to be distinguished, for on the other hand, as _janitor_, his place is to the West where the entrance to the normally oriented church is to be found. Moreover, St Peter and St Paul are also represented as the two 'columns' of the Church, and then they are usually represented, one with the two keys and the other with the sword, in the attitude of two _dwārapālas_.

[6]'Eckstein', in the review _Speculum_, January 1939 [reviewed by Guénon in *Etudes Traditionnelles*, May 1939].

[7]In this study we shall often have to refer to English 'technical' terms which belong to the language of ancient operative Masonry, and which have been preserved for the most part in the rituals of Royal Arch Masonry and the accessory grades attached to it, rituals for which there exist no equivalents in French.

[8]According to the operative ritual, the 'first stone' is, as we have said, that of the Northeast angle. The stones of the other angles are then placed successively according to the apparent course of the sun, that is, in this order: Southeast, Southwest, Northwest.

[9]Obviously this 'reflection' is directly related to the substitution of which we spoke.

[10]This Masonic phrase (see note 7) contains the two ideas of raising up and rejecting. [The crucifixion combines them. Tr.]

[11]This distinction, in other words, is that of Square Masonry from Arch Masonry which by their respective relationships with 'earth' and 'heaven' are here placed in correspondence with the Lesser Mysteries and the Greater Mysteries.

[12]I Samuel 14: 38; the Greek of the Septuagint likewise uses the word _gonia_ here.

[13]Cf., A. M. Hocart, _Les Castes_, pp. 151-54, the expression 'faces of the earth' used in Fiji to designate the chiefs. The Greek word _karai_, in the first centuries of Christianity, served to designate the five 'faces' or 'heads of the Church', that is, the five chief patriarcates, of which the initial letters form this word: Constantinople, Alexandria, Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem [Ierusalem].

[14]It may be noted that the English word _corner_ is obviously derived from the Latin _cornu_, horn.

[15]In this sense there are not only four 'cornerstones' at the base, but there are also others at any level of the construction; and these stones are all of the same ordinary form, rectilinear and rectangular (that is, cut 'on the square', the word 'square' moreover having here the double meaning of 'try-square' and of 'square' in its ordinary sense) in contrast with the unique 'keystone'.

[16]It might be interesting to investigate whether there may be a genuine etymological kinship between the two Arabic and Latin words, even in the ancient usage of the latter (for example, the _disciplina arcana_ of the earliest Christians), or whether it is only a question of a 'convergence' produced later with the Hermetists of the Middle Ages.

[17]This assimilation of the four elements to the four angles of a square is naturally also related to the correspondence that exists between these same elements and the cardinal points.

[18]It would be on the same plane (in its central point) if this plane was taken as representing an entire state of existence; but this is not the case here, as it is the whole of the edifice that is an image of the world. Let it be noted in this connection that the horizontal projection of the pyramid, of which we speak a little further on, consists of the square base with its diagonals, along which the lateral edges are projected, with the summit at their meeting point, that is, at the very centre of the square.

[19]In the sense of 'mystery' that we indicated above, _rukn al-arkān_ is the equivalent of _sirr al-asrār_, which is represented, as we have explained elsewhere, by the upper point of the letter _alif_, the _alif_ itself representing the World Axis; this corresponds exactly to the position of the 'keystone', as we shall see yet more clearly later.

[20]The term 'crowning' here is to be compared to the designation of the 'crown' of the head by reason of the symbolic assimilation that we noted previously of the 'eye of the dome' with the _Brahmarandhra_. Further, it is a fact that the crown, like horns, expresses the idea of elevation. It is to be noted also in this connection that the oath of the Royal Arch grade contains an allusion to 'the crown of the skull', which suggests a parallel between the opening of the cranium (as in the posthumous rites of trepanation) and the 'removing' of the 'keystone'. For the rest, the so-called 'penalties' expressed in the oaths of the different masonic grades, as well as the signs that correspond to them, relate in reality to the several subtle centres of the human being.

[21]In the meaning of the word 'achieve' or of the somewhat equivalent expression 'bring to a head' the idea of 'head' is associated with that of 'end', which corresponds to the 'cornerstone', both as 'summit stone' and as 'last stone' of the edifice. We will mention yet another term derived from _chef_: the _chevet_ [also in English as a loan word, with precisely the same meaning. Tr.] of a church is its 'head', that is, the eastern extremity where the apse is located, the semi-circular shape of which corresponds, in the horizontal plane, to the dome or cupola in a vertical elevation, as we have explained on another occasion.

[22]The word 'work' (_œuvre_) is used both in architecture and in alchemy, and it will be seen that it is with reason that we make this comparison: in architecture, the fulfilment of the work is the 'cornerstone'; in alchemy, it is the 'philosophers' stone'.

[23]In certain Masonic rites the grades which correspond more or less exactly to this upper part of the structure (we say more or less exactly, for there is sometimes a certain confusion in that domain) are designated precisely by the name 'grades of perfection'. On the other hand, the word 'exaltation', which designated accession to the grade of Royal Arch, may be understood as alluding to the elevated position of the 'keystone'.

[24]'To bring forth the copestone' is the 'technical' Masonic phrase that we have found used in connection with the placing of this stone. As it has been buried 'among the rubbish', it is a question of extricating it and therefore of bringing it back to light in order to place it prominently at the summit of the building, so that it becomes the 'head of the angle'; and thus, 'to bring forth' is the opposite of 'to heave over'.

[25]_Stauros_ also means 'cross', and in Christianity the cross is assimilated to the World Axis. Coomaraswamy compares this word with the Sanskrit _sthavara_, 'firm' or 'stable', which is in fact a most fitting epithet for a pillar and which, moreover, is in exact agreement with the meaning of 'stability' given to the joining of two columns of the Temple of Solomon [cf., I Kings 7: 15-22. Tr.]

[26]As we have said, it is the summit of the 'axial pillar' which corresponds to the upper point of the _alif_ in the symbolism of Arabic letters. As regards the terms 'keystone' and _clef de voûte_, we recall also that the key itself has, as symbol, an 'axial' significance.

[27]Coomaraswamy recalls the symbolic identity of the roof (and more particularly so when it is in the form of a vault) with the parasol. We will add also that the Chinese symbol of the 'Great Extreme' (_Tai-ki_) literally designates an 'achievement' or a 'summit'; it is in fact the summit of the 'roof of the world'.

[28]Manuscript of Munich, col. 146, folio 35 (Lutz and Perdrizet, II, plate 64). A photograph of this was sent to us by Coomaraswamy, and it was published in the _Art Bulletin_, XVII, p. 450, figure 20, by Erwin Panofsky, who considers this illustration as closest to the prototype and who, in this connection, speaks of _lapis in caput anguli_ as of a 'keystone'. It could also be said, following our previous quotation, that this figure represents the 'bringing forth of the copestone'.

[29]A parallel could be drawn, in this respect, between the 'stone descended from heaven' and the 'bread descended from heaven', for there are important symbolic relationships between the stone and the bread; but this falls outside the scope of the present study. In any case, the 'descent from heaven' naturally represents the _avatarana_.

[30]Cf., also the symbolic stone of the _Estoile Internelle_ of which Monsieur Charbonneau-Lassy has spoken and which, like the emerald of the Grail, is a faceted stone. This stone, in the cup wherein it is placed, corresponds exactly to the 'jewel in the lotus' (_mani padmē_) of Mahāyāna Buddhism.

[31]The legends of the guilds, in all their branches, bear witness to this, no less than those 'remains' of the old operative Masonry which we have been considering here.

[32]Thus it could in no way be a question here, as some have claimed, of an allusion to an incident that occurred during the construction of the Great Pyramid which supposedly, as a result was never altogether completed —a very dubious hypothesis in itself and an historical question that is probably insoluble. Besides, this very lack of completion would run directly counter to the symbolism according to which the stone that had been rejected finally takes its eminent place as 'head of the angle'.

[33]John Joseph Stoudt, _Consider The Lilies, How They Grow_, in connection with the meaning of an ornamental motif in the form of a diamond, explained by writings in which Christ is spoken of as being the _Eckstein_. The double meaning of this word is plausibly explained, from the etymological point of view, by the fact that it can be understood both as 'angle stone' (cornerstone) and as 'angled stone' (faceted stone). But this explanation, of course, takes away none of the value of the symbolic connection indicated by the junction of these two meanings in one and the same word.

[34][See for example ch. 27. Ed.]

[35]The uncut diamond naturally has eight angles, and the sacrificial post (_yupa_) must be made 'of eight angles' (_ashtashri_) to represent the _vajra_ (which here is understood also in its other sense of 'thunderbolt'). The Pali word _attansa_, literally, 'of eight angles', means both 'diamond' and 'pillar'.

[36]From the 'constructive' viewpoint it is the perfecting of the realisation of the architect's plan; from the alchemical point of view, it is the perfecting or the ultimate end of the 'Great Work'; and there is an exact correspondence between the one and the other.

[37]The diamond among stones and gold among metals, both the one and the other, are what is most precious: both, also, are 'luminous' and 'solar'; but the diamond, like the 'philosophers' stone' to which it is here assimilated, is held to be even more precious than gold.

[38]The symbolism of the 'cornerstone' is expressly mentioned, for example, in various passages of the Hermetic work of Robert Fludd, cited by A. E. Waite, _The Secret Tradition in Freemasonry_, pp. 27–8. It must be mentioned, moreover, that these texts seem to contain the confusion with the 'foundation stone' which we spoke of at the outset; and what the author, in quoting them, himself says about the cornerstone, in several places in the same book, is hardly better qualified to clarify the question and can only serve to perpetuate still further this same confusion.

45 § The Cornerstone

Footnotes