THE BROKEN COLUMN
Author Unknown
The story of the broken column was first illustrated
by Amos Doolittle in the "true Masonic Chart" by Jeremy Cross, published
in 1819.
Many of Freemasonry's
symbols are of extreme antiquity and deserve the reverence which we give
to that which has had sufficient vitality to live long in the minds of
men. For instance, the square, the point within a circle, the apron,
circumambulation, the Altar have been used not only in Freemasonry but
in systems of ethics, philosophy and religions without number.
Other symbols in the Masonic system are more recent. Perhaps they are
not the less important for that, even without the sanctity of age which
surrounds many others.
Among the newer symbols is
that usually referred to as the broken column. A marble monument is
respectably ancient - the broken column seems a more recent addition.
There seems to be no doubt that the first pictured broken column
appeared in Jeremy Cross's True Masonic Chart, published in 1819, and
that the illustration was the work of Amos Doolittle, an engraver, of
Connecticut.
That Jeremy Cross "invented" or "designed" the emblem is open to
argument. But there is legitimate room for argument over many
inventions. Who invented printing from movable type? We give the credit
to Gutenberg, but there are other claimants, among them the Chinese at
an earlier date. Who invented the airplane? The Wrights first flew a
"mechanical bird" but a thousand inventors have added to, altered,
changed their original design, until the very principle which first
enabled the Wrights to fly, the "warping wing", is now discarded and
never used.
Therefore, if authorities
argue and contend about the marble monument and broken column it is not
to make objection or take credit from Jeremy Cross; the thought is that
almost any invention or discovery is improved, changed, added to and
perfected by many men. Edison is credited with the first incandescent
lamp, but there is small kinship between his carbon filament and a
modern tungsten filament bulb. Roentgen was first to bring the "x-ray"
to public notice-the discoverer would not know what a modern physician's
x-ray apparatus was if he saw it!
In the library of the Grand
Lodge of Iowa in Cedar Rapids, is a book published in 1784; "A BRIEF
HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY" by Thomas Johnson, at that time the Tiler of the
Grand Lodge of England (the "Moderns"). In this book the author states
that he was "taken the liberty to introduce a Design for a Monument in
Honor of a Great Artist." He then admits that there is no historical
account of any such memorial but cites many precedents of "sumptuous
Piles" which perpetuate the memories and preserve the merits of the
historic dead, although such may have been buried in lands far from the
monument or "perhaps in the depth of the Sea".
In this somewhat fanciful
and poetic description of this monument, the author mentions an urn, a
laurel branch, a sun, a moon, a Bible, square and compasses, letter G.
The book was first published in 1782, which seems proof that there was
at that time at least the idea of a monument erected to the Master
Builder.
There is little historical material upon which to draw to form any
accurate conclusions. Men write of what has happened long after the
happenings. Even when faithful to their memories, these may be, and
often are, inaccurate. It is with this thought in mind that a curious
statement in the Masonic newspaper, published in New York seventy-five
years ago, must be
considered. In the issue of May 10, 1879, a Robert B. Folger purports to
give Cross' account of his invention, or discovery, an inclusion, of the
broken column into the marble monument emblem.
The account is long,
rambling and at times not too clear. Abstracted, the salient parts are
as follows. Cross found or sensed what he considered a deficiency in the
Third Degree which had to be filled in order to effect his purposes. He
consulted a former Mayor of New Haven, who at the time was one of his
most intimate friends. Even after working together for a week, they did
not hit upon any symbol which would be sufficiently simple and yet
answer the purpose. Then a Copper-plate engraver, also a brother, was
called in. The number of hieroglyphics which had be this time
accumulated was immense. Some were too large, some too small, some too
complicated, requiring too much explanation and many were not adapted to
the subject.
Finally, the copper-plate engraver said, "Brother
Cross, when great men die, they generally have a monument." "That's
right!" cried Cross; "I never thought of that!" He visited the
burying-ground in New Haven. At last he got an idea and told his friends
that he had the foundation of what he wanted. He said that while in New
York City he had seen a monument in the southwest corner of Trinity
Church yard erected over Commodore Lawrence, a great man who fell in
battle. It was a large marble pillar, broken off. The broken part had
been taken away, but the capital was lying at the base. He wanted that
pillar for the foundation of his new emblem, but intended to bring in
the other part, leaving it resting against the base. This his friends
assented to, but more was wanted. They felt that some inscription should
be on the column. after a length discussion they decided upon an open
book to be placed upon the broken pillar. There should of course be some
reader of the book! Hence the emblem of innocence-a beautiful
virgin-who should weep over the memory of the deceased while she read of
his heroic deeds from the book before her.
The monument erected to the memory of Commodore Lawrence was placed in
the southwest corner of Trinity Churchyard in 1813, after the fight
between the frigates
Chesapeake and Shannon, in which battle Lawrence fell. As described, it
was a beautiful marble pillar, broken off, with a part of the capital
laid at its base. lt remained until 1844-5 at which time Trinity Church
was rebuilt. When finished, the corporation of the Church took away the
old and dilapidated Lawrence monument and erected a new one in a
different form, placing it in the front of the yard on Broadway, at the
lower entrance of the Church. When Cross visited the new monument, he
expressed great disappointment at the change, saying "it was not half as
good as the one they took away!"
These claims of Cross-perhaps made for Cross-to having originated the
emblem are disputed. Oliver speaks of a monument but fails to assign an
American origin. In the Barney ritual of 1817, formerly in the
possession of Samuel Wilson of Vermont, there is the marble column, the
beautiful virgin weeping, the open book, the sprig of acacia, the urn,
and Time standing behind. What is here lacking is the broken column.
Thus it appears that the present emblem, except the broken column, was
in use prior to the publication of Cross' work (1819).
The emblem in somewhat different form is frequently
found in ancient symbolism. Mackey states that with the Jews a column
was often used to symbolize princes, rulers or nobles. A broken column
denoted that a pillar of the state had fallen. In Egyptian mythology,
Isis is sometimes pictured weeping over the broken column which conceals
the body of her husband Osiris, while behind her stands Horus or Time
pouring ambrosia on her hair. In Hasting's ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION AND
ETHICS, Isis is said sometimes to be represented standing; in her right
hand is a sistrum, in her left hand a small ewer and on her forehead is
a lotus, emblem of resurrection. In the Dionysaic Mysteries, Dionysius
is represented as slain; Rhea goes in search of the body. She finds it
and causes it to be buried. She is sometimes represented as standing by
a column holding in her hand a sprig of wheat, emblem of immortality;
since, though it be placed in the ground and die, it springs up again
into newness of life. She was the wife of Kronus or Time, who may
fittingly be represented as standing behind her.
Whoever invented the emblem or symbol of the marble monument, the broken
column, the beautiful virgin, the book, the urn, the acacia, Father Time
counting the ringlets of hair, could not have thought through all the
implications of this attempt-doubtless made in all reverence-to add to
the dignity and impressiveness of the story of the Master Builder.
The urn in which "ashes were safely deposited" is pure invention.
Cremation was not practiced by the Twelve Tribes; it was not the method
of disposing of the dead in the land and at the time of the building of
the Temple. rather was the burning of the dead body reserved as a
dreadful fate for the corpses of criminals and evil doers. That so great
a man as "the widow's son, of the tribe of Naphtali" should have been
cremated is unthinkable. The Bible is silent on the subject; it does not
mention Hiram the Builder's death, still less the disposal of the body,
but the whole tone of the Old Testament in description of funerals and
mournings, make it impossible to believe that his body was burned, or
that his ashes might have been preserved.
The Israelites did not embalm their dead; burial was accomplished on the
day of death or, at the longest wait, on the day following. According to
the legend, the Master Builder was disinterred from the first or
temporary grave and reinterred with honor. That is indeed, a supposable
happening; that his body was raised only to be cremated is wholly out of
keeping with everything known of deaths, funeral ceremonies, disposal of
the dead of the Israelites.
In the ritual which describes the broken column monument, before the
figure of the virgin is "a book, open before her." Here again invention
and knowledge did not go hand in hand. There were no books at the time
of the building of the Temple, as moderns understand the word. there
were rolls of skins, but a bound book of leaves made of any
substance-vellum, papyrus, skins-was an unknown object. Therefore there
could have been no such volume in which the virtues of the Master
Builder were recorded.
No logical reason has been advanced why the woman who mourned and read
in the book was a "beautiful virgin." No scriptural account tells of the
Master Builder having wife or daughter or any female relative except his
mother. The Israelites reverenced womanhood and appreciated virginity,
but they were just as reverent over mother and
child. Indeed, the bearing of children, the increase of the tribe, the
desire for sons, was strong in the Twelve Tribes; why, then, the accent
upon the virginity of the woman in the monument? "Time standing behind
her, unfolding and counting the ringlets of her hair" is dramatic, but
also out of character for the times. "Father Time" with his scythe is
probably a descendant of the Greek Chromos, who carried a sickle or
reaping hook, but the Israelites had no contact with Greece. It may have
been natural for whoever invented the marble monument emblem to conclude
that Time was both a world-wide and a time immemorial symbolic figure,
but it could not have been so at the era in which Solomon's Temple was
built.
It evidently did not occur to the
originators of this emblem that it was historically impossible. Yet the
Israelites did not erect monuments to their dead. In the singular, the
word "monument" does not occur in the Bible; as "monuments" it is
mentioned once, in Isaiah 65 - "A people...which remain among the graves
and lodge in the monuments." In the Revised Version this is translated
"who sit in tombs and spend the night in secret places." The emphasis is
apparently upon some form of worship of the dead (necromancy). The
Standard Bible Dictionary says that the word "monument" in the general
sense of a simple memorial does not appear in Biblical usage.
Oliver Day Street in
"SYMBOLISM OF THE THREE DEGREES" says that the urn was an ancient sign
of mourning, carried in funeral processions to catch the tears of those
who grieved. But the word "urn" does not occur in the Old Testament nor
the New.
Freemasonry is old.
It came to us as a slow, gradual evolution of the thoughts, ideas,
beliefs, teachings, idealism of many men through many years. It tells a
simple story-a story profound in its meaning, which therefore must be
simple, as all great truths in the last analysis are simple.
The marble monument and the broken column have many parts. Many of these
have the aroma of age. Their weaving together into one symbol may
be-probably is-a modernism, if that term can cover a period of nearly
two hundred years. but the importance of a great life, his skill and
knowledge; his untimely and pitiful death is not a modernism.
Nothing herein set forth is
intended as in any way belittling one of Freemasonry's teachings by
means of ritual and picture. These few pages are but one of many ways of
trying to illuminate the truth behind a symbol, and show that,
regardless of the dates of any parts of the emblem, the whole has a
place in the Masonic story which has at least romance, if not too much
fact, behind it.
Statue of "The Broken Column" with Father Time and
the Weeping Virgin
|
![[Company Logo Image]](_borders/s&c_leaves.gif)
