THE BUILDER JUNE 1926

THE APRON
BY BRO. R.J. MEEKREN


MANY readers of THE BUILDER will have seen or heard certain
"lectures" of recent origin on the badge of a Mason in which a
parallel is drawn with the fig leaves of the garden of Eden, and
the lesson of innocence, if not restricted to at least emphasized
in one particular department of life. This is but popularizing the
speculations of certain writers on Masonic symbolism who dwell
almost lovingly on what is euphemistically called the "phallic"
side of that abstruse subject. This is done in many ways more or
less direct. Direct when the apron is equated with primitive loin
cloths and kilts, and indirect as where, in its modern form with
the flap up it is regarded as the outline of the obscure "broached
thurnal" of 18th century documents and this itself taken as
representing the Egyptian obelisks, and these as being the same
kind of thing as the pillars of the porch, which are supposed to be
just conventional "phalloi"--a word which is, by the way, by no
means a euphemism in Greek. An example of this kind of explanation
is to be found in THE BUILDER for 1917 in a short article by Bro.
H. A. Kingsbury, though by no means in the extreme form to which
other more visionary writers are inclined to push it.

In a work published a good many years ago, in 1880, to be precise,
The Obelisk and Freemasonry, there are a number of illustrations
taken from Egyptian mural paintings, and at page 36 he shows a
group of two, one an Ibis headed deity and the other a king, the
latter of whom has a gorgeously decorated garment about his waist,
which the author, John A. Weisse, took to be an apron. He gives a
cut of it, which represents it as triangular shaped with the apex
upward. Egypt used to be the happy hunting ground of uncritical
brethren seeking for parallels and origins to Freemasonry. In this
case Bro. Weisse was deceived by the artistic convention of
Egyptian painters, which represented the human figure partly in
profile and partly as seen in front. The head is nearly invariably
in profile except the eye, which is drawn as in full face. The
shoulders appear as if seen from the front, but the hips and legs
are in profile--but the loin cloth, the principal masculine garment
then (as today in many parts of the world) is inconsistently shown
as from the front, just as the full face eye in the profile head.
Actually what Weisse took to be an apron was the embroidered end of
a cloth or wide sash wound round the body in rather complicated
folds.

MASONRY AND THE MAYAS

Today, a certain school of Masonic authors are very much inclined
to draw on the representations of figures and scenes found in the
remains of the ancient Maya people. The pioneer prospector in this
vein was the enthusiastic and indefatigable but uncritical Dr. Le
Plongeon. A reproduction is here given of a cut in his book, Sacred
Mysteries of the Mayas and Quiches, which represents a fragment of
a statue, of a priest he supposes. From this it would appear that
the individual was represented as wearing over his loin cloth a
small rectangular apron of about the same shape and size as the
elaborate bead apron which forms the full dress of Zulu women in
South Africa where they have not taken to more civilized modes.

At first sight it certainly seems as if it was intended to
represent an apron in this case. But familiarity with Maya work
leads us to hesitate. The Maya had strong instinct for the
decorative. He did not, like the Egyptian painter or Assyrian
sculptor, find any difficulty either in representing a true
profile, or a full face view, his ability was quite equal showing
things as he saw them without introducing details he knew were
there but which could not be seen from his point of view, but he
was inclined to conventionalize his representations and turn them
into grotesque patterns.

In the accompanying illustrations, which are from photographs taken
by the archeological expedition headed by Dr. Franz Blom of Tulane
University, we have two mutilated statues and a relief modeled in
plaster on a wall. The statues are stiff and conventional and each
shows an apron-like appendage hanging down in front, in the case of
the standing figure it apparently depends from a broad belt or
girdle. In the group we have a very naturalistic representation of
three men. It is hard to escape the impression that they are
portraits and one would hazard a guess that they were very good
likenesses. The position of the man on the right is far from being
an easy one to represent in low relief, and is far beyond anything
attempted by Egyptian or Babylonian artists. The point, however,
that interests us in the present connection is the very clear way
in which the loin cloth is depicted. It is evidently put on like a
highlander's kilt, or a Chinese apron-skirt. A cloth with an
ornamental border is wound three or four times around the body. At
one end a narrower strip is attached which is passed round again
and the end tucked in. The narrow strip hanging below the kilt
undoubtedly represents the end of this fastening string or girdle.
This is a very simple and natural form for this primitive and
widely used garment to take. In the cruder representation of the
two statues the apron part is to be interpreted in the same way.

THE MASONIC APRON AND ITS ANALOGUES

When we compare Le Plongeon's drawing with the photograph of the
kneeling figure the conclusion is obvious that it was taken from a
similar representation and that in all probability what there
appears as an apron was intended for one end of the cloth brought
up underneath and allowed to hang down. A reference to the Hopi
ceremonial dress shown the accompanying illustration will make the
method adopted. In fact a comparison of this with the relief shown
on the first page of this article leads almost irresistibly to the
conclusion that the Maya dress was identical with that still
employed by the Hopi Indians for ceremonial purposes, though they
now ordinarily wear garments adopted from the whites. An
examination of a series of such illustrations as may be found in
works on the subject, as for example those in the Anthropological
Series of the Field Columbian Museum Publications, which may be
found in most Public Libraries of any size with the conventional
representations of the Mayas and ancient Mexicans is practically
conclusive upon the subject.

The Masonic Apron, if it had any analogy at all among ancient
Egyptians and others, is rather to be seen in the animal skins worn
cloak wise, than in the loin cloth. It was a purely practical
garment to prote the rest of the clothing. In view of the constant
recurrence of misleading speculations it may not be amiss to
respect once more that it was just a sheep skin, with the end
trimmed away, a leather loop to go round the neck and two leather
strings to fasten it round the waist. It was not peculiar to
masons, but was used by other trades as well, only in the case of
masons it would not get black and greasy but would be distinctively
white from lime and stone dust.

The present form of apron is very modern, and is probably entirely
due to the convenience of the manufacturers of Masonic regalia.
When aprons came to be made in quantity from fabric it was easier,
and there was less waste, to cut them in squares with triangular
flaps--also they would be easier to hem or bind.

There is no objection to this modern form being symbolized.
Symbolism is a living thing, and those who can appreciate an old
symbol are those who can develop new meanings, or assign
interpretations to new forms. Only there should be no attempt to
pass these off as ancient. The girdles, loin cloths and aprons of
primitive peoples can be adduced as curious coincidences but it is
misleading to leave the uninstructed to infer that there is a real
connection between such forms and our present ritual badge, and
where the difference in origin is not made quite clear we have a
right to object in the name of sound scholarship.

That the civilizations of Central America were developed from a
culture analogous to, if not identical with that of the Indians of
the Southwest is further indicated by the rough stone building. The
stair here shown might easily be taken for one of those built by
the cliff dwellers, but for the abundant vegetation seen in the
background. We have only to suppose a much thicker population in a
more fertile area where there would be more leisure for the
development of the arts and the more permanent structures would be
fully accounted for without any outside influence

