5 MASONS AND CARPENTERS

Among craft INITIATIONS there has always been a sort of quarrel over precedence between masons and stone-cutters, and carpenters; and if we consider this not from the present-day relationship of these two professions in the building trade, but if from the standpoint of their respective antiquity, it is quite certain that the carpenters can in fact claim priority. Indeed, as we have noted on other occasions, structures were generally built in wood before being built in stone, and this is why, notably in India, no trace of them is found beyond a certain age, wooden buildings obviously being less durable than those of stone; in addition, the use of wood among sedentary peoples corresponds to a state of lesser fixity than that of stone, or to put it another way, a lesser degree of 'solidification', which accords with the fact that it has to do with an early stage in the course of the cyclical process.^[1]

Simple as this observation may seem, it is not without importance for an understanding of certain aspects of traditional symbolism, in particular the fact that in the most ancient texts of India all comparisons referring to the symbolism of construction are drawn from the carpenter, his tools, and his labor; and Vishvakarma, the 'Great Architect' himself, is also designated by the name _Tvashtri_, literally the 'Carpenter'. It goes without saying that the role of the architect (_Sthapati_, who moreover was originally the master carpenter) is in no way altered by that, since aside from the adaptation required by the nature of the materials used, it is always from the same 'archetype' or from the same 'cosmic model' that he must draw his inspiration, whether in the construction of a temple, a house, a chariot, or a ship (and in these last cases, the craft of the carpenter has never lost anything of its initial importance, at least until the quite modern use of metals, which represent the final degree of 'solidification').^[2] It is obvious also that whether or not certain parts of a building are executed in wood or in stone changes nothing but the outer form, at least of their symbolic meaning; in this respect, for example, it matters little whether the 'eye' of the dome, that is, its central opening, is covered by a piece of wood or by a stone worked in a certain way, both constituting equally and in an identical sense the 'crowning' of the edifice, according to what we have said in previous studies;^[3] and this is all the more true of the parts of the framework retained even after stone was substituted for wood as the primary building material—such as the beams which, starting from the 'eye' of the dome, represent the solar rays with all their symbolic correspondences.^[4] It can be said therefore that the crafts of carpenter and mason, both deriving in the final analysis from the same principle, furnish two equally appropriate languages for the expression of the same higher truths. The only difference is one of secondary adaptation, as is always the case with translation from one language into another. Of course when one is dealing with a particular established symbolism, as in the case of the traditional texts from India alluded to above, it is necessary to know precisely to which of these two languages it properly relates, in order to fully understand its meaning and value.

A particularly important point in this connection is that the Greek word _hyle_ originally meant 'wood', but at the same time designated the substantial principle, or _materia prima_, of the cosmos, and, by derivation from the former, all _materia secunda_, that is to say all that which in a relative sense plays a role analogous to that of the substantial principle of all manifestation.^[5] Moreover, this symbolism according to which the world's substance is likened to wood is quite common in the most ancient traditions, and in line with what we have just said regarding building symbolism, it is easy to understand the reason for this. Indeed, since it is from 'wood' that the elements of cosmic construction are drawn, the 'Great Architect' must be regarded above all as a 'master carpenter', as he effectively is in such a case, and as it is natural that he be so, when the human builders, whose art from the traditional point of view essentially 'imitates' that of the 'Great Architect', are themselves carpenters.^[6] As concerns the Christian tradition more particularly, it is not without importance to note, as Coomaraswamy has already done, that this makes clear why Christ had to appear as the 'son of a carpenter'. As we have often said, historical facts are in the final analysis merely the reflection of realities of another order, and it is that gives them all their value; here is a much deeper symbolism than is ordinarily thought (if indeed the great majority of Christians even entertain however vaguely the notion that there may be any symbolism whatever). Even if it only be an apparent filiation, it is still required by the coherence of the symbolism, since it is a matter of something in keeping with the external order of manifestation only, and not with the principial order. It is exactly the same in the Hindu tradition, where _Agni_, insofar as he is the _Avatāra par excellence_, has _Tvashtri_ as his adoptive father when he is born in the Cosmos; and how could it be otherwise when that Cosmos itself is nothing else, symbolically, than the very work of the 'master carpenter'?