|
The System Of Symbolic
Instruction
CHAPTER X
the symbolism of freemasonry
albert gallatin mackey
The lectures of the English lodges, which are far more philosophical
than our own,—although I do not believe that the system itself is in
general as philosophically studied by our English brethren as by
ourselves,—have beautifully defined Freemasonry to be "a science of
morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols." But allegory
itself is nothing else but verbal symbolism; it is the symbol of an idea,
or of a series of ideas, not presented to the mind in an objective and
visible form, but clothed in language, and exhibited in the form of a
narrative. And therefore the English definition amounts, in fact, to this:
that Freemasonry is a science of morality, developed and inculcated by
the ancient method of symbolism. It is this peculiar character as a
symbolic institution, this entire adoption of the method of instruction by
symbolism, which gives its whole identity to Freemasonry, and has caused
it to differ from every other association that the ingenuity of man has
devised. It is this that has bestowed upon it that attractive form which
has always secured the attachment of its disciples and its own perpetuity.
The Roman Catholic church37
is, perhaps, the only contemporaneous institution which
continues to cultivate, in any degree, the beautiful system of symbolism.
But that which, in the Catholic church, is, in a great measure,
incidental, and the fruit of development, is, in Freemasonry, the very
life-blood and soul of the institution, born with it at its birth, or,
rather, the germ from which the tree has sprung, and still giving it
support, nourishment, and even existence. Withdraw from Freemasonry its
symbolism, and you take from the body its soul, leaving behind nothing but
a lifeless mass of effete matter, fitted only for a rapid decay.
Since, then, the science of symbolism forms so important a part of the
system of Freemasonry, it will be well to commence any discussion of that
subject by an investigation of the nature of symbols in general.
There is no science so ancient as that of symbolism,38
and no mode of instruction has ever been so general as
was the symbolic in former ages. "The first learning in the world," says
the great antiquary, Dr. Stukely, "consisted chiefly of symbols. The
wisdom of the Chaldeans, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Jews, of Zoroaster,
Sanchoniathon, Pherecydes, Syrus, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, of all the
ancients that is come to our hand, is symbolic." And the learned Faber
remarks, that "allegory and personification were peculiarly agreeable to
the genius of antiquity, and the simplicity of truth was continually
sacrificed at the shrine of poetical decoration."
In fact, man's earliest instruction was by symbols.39
The objective character of a symbol is best calculated
to be grasped by the infant mind, whether the infancy of that mind be
considered
nationally or individually. And hence, in the first ages of
the world, in its infancy, all propositions, theological, political, or
scientific, were expressed in the form of symbols. Thus the first
religions were eminently symbolical, because, as that great philosophical
historian, Grote, has remarked, "At a time when language was yet in its
infancy, visible symbols were the most vivid means of acting upon the
minds of ignorant hearers."
Again: children receive their elementary teaching in symbols. "A was an
Archer;" what is this but symbolism? The archer becomes to the infant mind
the symbol of the letter A, just as, in after life, the letter becomes, to
the more advanced mind, the symbol of a certain sound of the human voice.40
The first lesson received by a child in acquiring his
alphabet is thus conveyed by symbolism. Even in the very formation of
language, the medium of communication between man and man, and which must
hence have been an elementary step in the progress of human improvement,
it was found necessary to have recourse to symbols, for words are only and
truly certain arbitrary symbols by which and through which we give an
utterance to our ideas. The construction of language was, therefore, one
of the first products of the science of symbolism.
We must constantly bear in mind this fact, of the primary existence and
predominance of symbolism in the earliest times.41
when we are investigating the nature of the ancient
religions, with which the history of Freemasonry is so intimately
connected. The older the religion, the more the symbolism abounds. Modern
religions may convey their dogmas in abstract propositions; ancient
religions always conveyed them in symbols. Thus there is more symbolism in
the Egyptian religion than in the Jewish, more in the Jewish than in the
Christian, more in the Christian than in the Mohammedan, and, lastly, more
in the Roman than in the Protestant.
But symbolism is not only the most ancient and general, but it is also
the most practically useful, of sciences. We have already seen how
actively it operates in the early stages of life and of society. We have
seen how the first ideas of men and of nations are impressed upon their
minds by means of symbols. It was thus that the ancient peoples were
almost wholly educated.
"In the simpler stages of society," says one writer on this subject,
"mankind can be instructed in the abstract knowledge of truths only by
symbols and parables. Hence we find most heathen religions becoming
mythic, or explaining their mysteries by allegories, or instructive
incidents. Nay, God himself, knowing the nature of the creatures formed by
him, has condescended, in the earlier revelations that he made of himself,
to teach by symbols; and the greatest of all teachers instructed the
multitudes by parables.42
The great exemplar of the ancient philosophy and the
grand archetype of modern philosophy were alike distinguished by their
possessing this faculty in a high degree, and have told us that man was
best instructed by similitudes."
43
Such is the system adopted in Freemasonry for the development and
inculcation of the great religious and philosophical truths, of which it
was, for so many years, the sole conservator. And it is for this reason
that I have already remarked, that any inquiry into the symbolic character
of Freemasonry, must be preceded by an investigation of the nature of
symbolism in general, if we would properly appreciate its particular use
in the organization of the masonic institution. FOOTNOTES
37. Bishop England, in
his "Explanation of the Mass," says that in every ceremony we must look
for three meanings: "the first, the literal, natural, and, it may be said,
the original meaning; the second, the figurative or emblematic
signification; and thirdly, the pious or religious meaning: frequently the
two last will be found the same; sometimes all three will be found
combined." Here lies the true difference between the symbolism of the
church and that of Masonry. In the former, the symbolic meaning was an
afterthought applied to the original, literal one; in the latter, the
symbolic was always the original signification of every ceremony.
38. /P "Was not all the
knowledge Of the Egyptians writ in mystic symbols? Speak not the
Scriptures oft in parables? Are not the choicest fables of the poets, That
were the fountains and first springs of wisdom, Wrapped in perplexed
allegories?"
BEN JONSON, Alchemist, act ii. sc. i. P/
39. The distinguished
German mythologist Müller defines a symbol to be "an eternal, visible
sign, with which a spiritual feeling, emotion, or idea is connected." I am
not aware of a more comprehensive, and at the same time distinctive,
definition.
40. And it may be
added, that the word becomes a symbol of an idea; and hence, Harris, in
his "Hermes," defines language to be "a system of articulate voices, the
symbols of our ideas, but of those principally which are general or
universal."—Hermes, book iii. ch. 3.
41. "Symbols," says
Müller, "are evidently coeval with the human race; they result from the
union of the soul with the body in man; nature has implanted the feeling
for them in the human heart."—Introduction to a Scientific System of
Mythology, p. 196, Leitch's translation.—R.W. Mackay says, "The
earliest instruments of education were symbols, the most universal symbols
of the multitudinously present Deity, being earth or heaven, or some
selected object, such as the sun or moon, a tree or a stone, familiarly
seen in either of them."—Progress of the Intellect, vol. i p. 134.
42. Between the
allegory, or parable, and the symbol, there is, as I have said, no
essential difference. The Greek verb παραβαλλω, whence comes the word
parable, and the verb συμβαλλω in the same language, which is the root
of the word symbol, both have the synonymous meaning "to compare."
A parable is only a spoken symbol. The definition of a parable given by
Adam Clarke is equally applicable to a symbol, viz.: "A comparison or
similitude, in which one thing is compared with another, especially
spiritual things with natural, by which means these spiritual things are
better understood, and make a deeper impression on the attentive mind."
43. North British
Review, August, 1851. Faber passes a similar encomium. "Hence the language
of symbolism, being so purely a language of ideas, is, in one respect,
more perfect than any ordinary language can be: it possesses the
variegated elegance of synonymes without any of the obscurity which arises
from the use of ambiguous terms."—On the Prophecies, ii. p. 63.
back to top |
