Masonic Symbolism: Thoughts on Its Philosophical Source W. Kirk MacNulty Virginia Research Lodge No. 1777 June 19, 1999 I. Introduction Masonic Tracing Boards are training devices. In the earliest days of speculative Masonry the Master used to sketch designs on the floor of the Lodge before the meeting using chalk. Then he would talk about the drawing during the meeting. (It may be that early in the history of the Masonic Order all meetings were "Masonic Education"). It's my own belief that the capacity to draw a Masonic diagram such as the ones we will look at this morning and to speak to it in philosophical terms was one of the qualifications of a Master in the early days of the speculative Craft. However, this sort of preparation was a time- consuming, laborious and difficult task; and in time it appears that the hand drawn diagram was replaced by a floor cloth on which the "standard designs" were available ready to be talked about. Floor cloths (which are sometimes referred to as "the Master's Carpet") occupied significant space in the Lodge, however; and as the ritual became increasingly better developed and more important during the course of the 18th century the standardized drawings seem to have been transferred (at least in England) to the "Tracing Boards", one Board for each Degree, which are pictures that encapsulate the symbols of each of the Degrees. The Boards with which we will spend most time this morning are English; they were drawn by a Mason named J. Harris who apparently did many of these designs. They date from the 1820's which means they incorporate the symbolic structure as it was agreed during the Reconciliation of the English Grand Lodges in 1816. Thus, these boards (which are the ones that are in most common use today) are the product of a good deal of evolution. As we talk about the ideas incorporated here, we will refer to earlier diagrams on occasion. There is a great deal of material here. If we were to undertake a comprehensive study we could probably spend a year on each Tracing Board. Why? Because the Boards, like the lectures in our American Lodges, are not lessons in themselves. They are references to a vast body of literature and philosophical doctrine which is at the core of Renaissance thought.1 Someone who really wants to understand the Tracing Boards (and, I think, Masonry itself) must read into and understand those doctrines. It is from this perspective of Renaissance thought that we will consider the Boards this morning. I hope you will forgive me if we move quickly. I must preface my remarks by stating specifically and unequivocally that the ideas that I will express are my own. They do not represent the attitudes or teachings of any Grand Lodge or Private Lodge. Please remember that. If I fail to identify an idea as my opinion, it is to prevent clumsy repetition of "it seems to me". History Perhaps a little bit of historical consideration is appropriate here. When we look at the symbols, you may notice that the ones I will speak of are somewhat different from those that we use in Virginia. That is because of the particular way in which American Masonry developed. We don't know where Freemasonry comes from. Some Masons think they have participated in the very ceremonies used by King Solomon. Others argue that we started in the 1700's simply as a gentleman's club. My own view is that Freemasonry is a codification of the Hermetic/Kabbalistic Tradition which was of central importance during the Renaissance which we will touch very briefly in a moment. 1 I am using the term "Renaissance" in a particular way; as reference to a body of thought which defines the period, rather than as the historical period itself. Thus Martin del Rio, a Jesuit and a Counter- Reformation writer who lived in the late 16th and early 17th centuries and wrote very critically of the philosophers that we will consider would not qualify as a "renaissance thinker" in the context in which I am using the term. Del Rio's thought belongs still to the traditional thinking of the Church and to the Counter Reformation rather than to the thought which characterized the Renaissance. 2 Figure 1 Figure 1 is a timeline for English Masonry. In very simple terms, Masonry evolves from uncertain sources; the Premier Grand Lodge is founded in 1717 while the Antient Grand Lodge starts in the 1740s. These two compete with each other until the end of the 18th Century when they negotiate a Union in 1813-16. Masons were working a two degree system in 1717; the three degree system was in place by 1730 (perhaps as early as 1723), and the Masonic ritual and symbolism continued to evolve right the way through the 18th Century. The evolution stopped with the Lodge of Reconciliation in 1816. Now, when you add American Masonry to the picture, it looks rather like the timeline in Figure 2. 3 Figure 2 There were "Antients and Moderns" in the American Colonies just as there were in England; and it turns out that most of the Antients were Whigs and most of the Moderns were Tories. (That fits with the best guesses at the origins of the Antient Grand Lodge.) At the time of the American Revolution a lot of Tory colonists went north to Canada, and I think that they took their "Modern" Masonry with them. The "Modern" Masonry that remained in the United States after the war was subsumed into the Antient Grand Lodges, which is why almost all the American Grand Lodges have "Antient" in their titles, This separation from England meant that, in the 40 years from 1776 to 1816, the American workings did not continue to experience the evolution that was characteristic of the English workings. Again, in simple terms, American rituals are the Antient working as it was in 1776 refined by the influence of Webb who took his material from Preston's Lectures until about 1795. If you find the paper referring to unfamiliar symbols, this separation from England at the time of the American Revolution is the source of the difference. 4 Metaphysics Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy which deals with God, with first principles, with the nature of being, and with the implications of those things which are, as the word implies, "beyond physics". In many respects it has become a "dirty word". In the context of the positivism which is fashionable today, to say something is "metaphysical" is to say that it is incapable of proof. That, from the contemporary point of view, is to say that it is meaningless. This was not always the case. Until the beginning of the twentieth century almost all philosophy in the West had a strong orientation toward the Deity, and metaphysics was an important field. Metaphysics seeks to describe the structure of that part of the universe which is beyond the range physical observation. It also deals with the manner in which the Deity is understood to operate in the process of creating and maintaining the universe. There are many metaphysical systems in use throughout the world; for the last 2000 years those in the West have been dominated by a metaphysics based on some variant of Judeo-Christian monotheism. The Renaissance is no exception, although it was also characterized by a revival of interest in the Classical world (in particular the Greek and Roman civilizations) and it's thought. Medieval scholars had been interested in Classical philosophy from the point of view of reconciling it to Christian doctrine. Renaissance thinkers were interested in classical philosophy for what it said about man, himself. These Renaissance philosophers incorporated a good many Greek (particularly neo-Platonic) and Jewish mystical ideas into their orthodox Christian thought. The first of these influences came principally from a body of writing called the Hermetica which originated in Alexandria sometime near the start of the Christian era. It seems to be a form of early Egyptian philosophy with a heavy overlay of Hellenized Judaism and Christian thought. It has been shown to have had substantial influence on the formation of early Christian doctrine.2 The second of these influences came from Kabbalah, the mystical tradition of Judaism, which was distributed throughout the Mediterranean basin by the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492. 2 Hermetica, trans. Scott, W., (Boston, Shambhala, 1993) pp. 14-5 5 Francis Yates has called this fusion of classical and Jewish philosophy the "Hermetic/Kabbalistic Tradition"3, and after it had been interpreted in the context of orthodox Christian doctrine it was fundamental to the thought of the early Renaissance.4 Thus, I think the metaphysics of the Renaissance represents as close to a "general" statement of Western Metaphysics as we are likely to find. Speculative Masonry dates from the end of the Renaissance (the mid-to-late 17th century), and it seems to me that Masonic symbolism reflects this Renaissance tradition. Three fundamental ideas seem to characterize this philosophical view: First, the Deity was considered to be without limit. This resulted in a view of all existence as a single, tightly integrated unity centered on the Deity. A particularly clear statement of this view comes from the Hermetica: "…for God contains all things, and there is nothing that is not in God, and nothing which God is not. Nay, I would rather say, not that God contains all things, but that, to speak the full truth, God is all things".5 Spinoza wrote the same thing in 1677, although he arrived at his conclusion by a very different method.6 Second, earthly experiences were considered to reflect events in the heavenly realms; the succinct statement of this idea is, "As above; so below".7 This epigram is a consequence of the integrated view of the world described above.