-
Articles/Ads
Article TEMPLARS OF CANADA. ← Page 2 of 2 Article TRADITION AND HISTORY IN MASONRY. Page 1 of 2 Article TRADITION AND HISTORY IN MASONRY. Page 1 of 2 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Templars Of Canada.
tions , of any grades beyond the Eoyal Arch , or of any between it and the third or M . M . degree ; at the same time the articles of union provided for , and did not interfere with , the Chivalrio degrees continuing to bo attached to Craft Lodges and Chapters .
Tradition And History In Masonry.
TRADITION AND HISTORY IN MASONRY .
FROM THE " VOICE OF MASONRY . "
IN the ritual and the usagos of Freemasonry thero are two kinds of statements which are continually presenting themselves to the enquiring student , and which sometimes are coincident , but much oftener conflicting in their character . These aro the historical and the traditional , each of whioh belongs to Freemasonry as considered In a different aspect . Tho historical statement relates to the Institntion as wo look at it
in an exoteric or publio point of view ; the traditional refers only to its esoteric or secret character . Thus , when we are treating of Freemasonry as ono of tho social organizations of tho world , as one of those institutions which have sprung up in the progress of society , and when we are considering what are or were the influences that the varying conditions of society produced upon it . and what influences it
has reciprocally produced on these varying conditions , wo are then attempting to solve a historical problem , and we must arrive at the solution in a historical method , and not otherwise . We must discard all speculation , because history deals only in facts . If we were treating the history of a nation , we should assert nothing of it as historical that could not be traced to and verified by its written records . All
that is conjectured of the events that may have occurred in the earlier times of such a nation , of which there is no record in contemporaneous or immediately subsequent times , is properly thrown into the dim era of tho pro-historic age . It forms no part of tho authentic history of the nation , and can be dignified , at its highest value , with tho title of historic speculation only , which claims no other credence than that
which its plausibility or its probability commands . Now , the possibility or the probability that a certain event may have occurred in the early days of a nation's existence , but of which event there is no record , will be great or little , as dependent on certain other events , which bear upon it and which come within the era of records . The event may have been possible but not probable , and then but very
little or no importance would be given to it , and it must at once be relegated to the category of myths . Or it may have been both pos-Bible and highly probable , and we may be allowed to speculate upon it as something that had exerted an influence upon the primitive character or tho subsequent progress of the nation . But even then , it would not altogether lose its mythica' character . Whatever we
might predicate of it wonld be only a plausible speculation . It would not bo history , for that deals not in what may have been but only in that which actually has been . The progress , in these latter days , of what are called the exnet sciences has led , by tho force of example and analogy , to a more critical examination of tho facts , or rather the so-called facts of history .
Voltaire , in his Life of Charles XII ., said : "Incredulity was the foundation of history . " Years passed before tho axiom , in all its force , was accepted by the learned . But at length it has been adopted as the rule of all historical criticism . To be credulous is now to be unphilosophical , and scholars accept nothing as history that cannot be demonstrated with almost geometrical certainty .
Neibnbr began hy shattering all faith in the story of Ehoa S ylvia , of Eomnlus , and of tho maternal wolf , which , with many other incidents of early Eoman history , wero consigned by him to the region of the mythical . In later times , the patriotic heart of Switzerland has been made to mourn by the discovery that the story of William Tell and of the
apple which he shot from the head of his son is nothing but a medieval fable , which was commom to a great many other countries , and the circumstances of which , everywhere varying in dotails , still point to a commom origin in some early myth . It is thus that many narratives once accepted as voracious havo been , by careful criticism , eliminated from the domain of history , and
such works as Goldsmith ' s Histories of Greece and Eome are no longer deemed fitting text books for schools where nothing but truth should be taught . The same rules of critical analysis which are pursued in the sepa . ration of what is true from what is false in the history of a nation should be applied to the determination of tho character of all
statements in Masonic history . This course , however , has not generally beeD pursued . Many of its legends are unquestionabl y founded on a historical basis ; but quite as many are made up of a mixture of truth and fiction , the distinctive boundaries of which it is difficult to determine ; while a still greater number are altogether mythical , with no appreciable element of truth in thoir composition . And yet , for
nearly two centuries , all of these three classes of Masonic legendary lore have been accepted by the great body of the Fraternity , without any discrimination , as faithful narratives of undoubted authenticity . It is this liberal acceptance of the false for the true , and this ready recognition of fables for authentic narratives , which have encouraged imaginative writers to plunge into the realms of absurdity instead of
confining themselves to the domain of legitimate history , which has cast over Masonic history an air of romance . Unjustly , but very naturally , some scholars have been led to reject all of our legends in every part as fabulous , because they found in some the elements of mendacity . But on the other hand the absurdities of legend makers
and the credulity of legend believers have , by a healthy reaction , given rise to a school of iconoclasts to whom I shall directly have occasion to refer , and which sprang up from a laudable desire to conform the principles of criticism which are to govern all investigations into Masonic history to the rules which control profane writers la the examination , of the history of nations .
Tradition And History In Masonry.
As examples of the legends of Masonry which have tempted the credulity of many and excited the scepticism of others , I may cite that almost universally accepted legend—universal , exoept with the iconoclasts—which attributes tho organization of Freemasonry , in its present form , to the era of the building of King Solomon ' s Templethe story of Princo Edwin and the Grand Lodge congregated bv him
at the City of York , in the tenth century—and the theory that the three symbolio degrees were instituted as distinct Masonio grades at a period long anterior to the beginning of the eighteenth century . These statements , still believed iu by all Masons who have not made tho history of the Order an especial stud y , were , until recently , accepted by prominent scholars as veracious narratives . Even Dr .
Oliver , one of the most learned as well as most prolific Masonic writers , has , in his numerous works , recognized them as historical truths without a word of protest or a sign of doubt , except , perhaps , with reference to the third legend above mentioned , of which he says with a cautious qualification , that he has " some doubts whether the Master ' s degreo , as now given , can bo traced throo centuries backwards . " *
But now comes a new school of Masonic students , to whom , borrowing a word formerly used in the history of roligious strifes , has been given the name of " iconoclasts . " Tho word is a good ono . Tho old iconoclasts or imago breakers of the eighth century demolished the images and defaced the pictnres which they found in tho churches , led away by erroneous but still conscientious views , becauso they
thought the people wero mistaking the shadow for tho substance and were worshipping tho image instead of tho Divine Being whom it represented . And so , these Masonic iconoclasts , with better views , are proceeding to break down tho intellectual images , which tho old and unlearned Masons had erected for their veneration . They are pulling to pieces the myths and logends , whose fallacies and absurd
mes and anachronisms had so long cast a cloud upon what onght to be tho clear sky of Masonic history . But they havo tempered their zeal with a knowledge and a moderation that was unknown to the iconoclasts of religion . These shattered tho images and scattered tho fragments to tho four winds of heaven , or they demolished the picture so that not even a remnant of the canvass was left . Whatever there
was of beautv in the work of the sculptor or the painter was for ever destroyed . Every sentiment of aesthetic art was overcome by the violence of religions fanaticism . Had the destructive labors of these iconoclasts been universal , and not confined to certain unfortunate limits , no foundation would have been left for building that science of Cristian symbolism , which in this day has been so interesting and
so instructive to the archaeologist , f Not so have tho Masonic iconoclasts performed their task . They have shattered nothing , they have destroyed nothing . When , in the course of their investigations into true Masonic history , they encounter a myth or a legend , replete , apparently , with absurdities or contradictions , they do not consign it to oblivion , as something unworthy
of consideration , bnt they dissect it into its various parts ; they analyze it with critical acumen ; they separate the chaff from the wheat ; they accept the portion that is probable , and , perhaps , confirmed by other collective testimony as true , and as a legitimate contribution to history ; what is undoubtedl y fictitious they receive as a myth , and either reject it altogether as an unmeaning addition to a legend , or
give it an interpretation as the expression of some symbolic idea , which is itself of value in a historical point of view . The lamented archaeologist , George Smith , late of the British Mu . seum , in speaking of the cuneiform inscriptions excavated in Mesopotamia , and the legends which they contain , says : X " With regard to the supernatural element introduced into the story , it is similar in natnre
to many such additions to historical narratives , especially in the East , but I would not reject those events which may havo happened , because in order to illustrate a current belief , or add to tho romance of the story , the writer has introduced the supernatural . " It is on this very principle that the iconoclastic Masonic writers , such as Hughan and Woodford , are pursuing their researches into the
early history of Freemasonry . They do not reject tho events recited in the old legends which havo certainly happened , because in the same legends they find also mythical narratives . They do not yield to the tendency which Smith says is now too general , " to repudiate the earlier part of the history , because of its evident inaccuracies and the marvellous element generally combined with it . " It is in this way ,
and in this way only , that early Masonic history can be written . Made up , as it has been for centuries past , of a commingled tissue of historical narrative and legendary invention , hitherto it has been read without judicious discrimination . Either the traditionary account has been accepted as a whole as historical , and thus numerous errors have resulted , or it has been rejected a 3 a whole as fabulous , and hence
eqnally numerous errors have been tho consequence . As an example of the error which inevitably results from pursuing either of these two systems of interpretation , the one of which may be distinguished as the school of gross credulity , and the other as that of gvoss scepticism , let ns take the legend known as the theory of the temple origin of Freemasonry , that is to say , the legend which places
the organization of the Institution at tho time of the building of the temple of Jerusalem . Now , the former of these schools , implicitly receives tho whole legend as true in all its parts , and recognizes King Solomon as the first Grand Master , with Hiram of Tyre and Hiram Abif as hi 3 Wardens , who presided over tho Craft , divided into three degrees , the initiation into which was the same as that practised in the lodges of
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Templars Of Canada.
tions , of any grades beyond the Eoyal Arch , or of any between it and the third or M . M . degree ; at the same time the articles of union provided for , and did not interfere with , the Chivalrio degrees continuing to bo attached to Craft Lodges and Chapters .
Tradition And History In Masonry.
TRADITION AND HISTORY IN MASONRY .
FROM THE " VOICE OF MASONRY . "
IN the ritual and the usagos of Freemasonry thero are two kinds of statements which are continually presenting themselves to the enquiring student , and which sometimes are coincident , but much oftener conflicting in their character . These aro the historical and the traditional , each of whioh belongs to Freemasonry as considered In a different aspect . Tho historical statement relates to the Institntion as wo look at it
in an exoteric or publio point of view ; the traditional refers only to its esoteric or secret character . Thus , when we are treating of Freemasonry as ono of tho social organizations of tho world , as one of those institutions which have sprung up in the progress of society , and when we are considering what are or were the influences that the varying conditions of society produced upon it . and what influences it
has reciprocally produced on these varying conditions , wo are then attempting to solve a historical problem , and we must arrive at the solution in a historical method , and not otherwise . We must discard all speculation , because history deals only in facts . If we were treating the history of a nation , we should assert nothing of it as historical that could not be traced to and verified by its written records . All
that is conjectured of the events that may have occurred in the earlier times of such a nation , of which there is no record in contemporaneous or immediately subsequent times , is properly thrown into the dim era of tho pro-historic age . It forms no part of tho authentic history of the nation , and can be dignified , at its highest value , with tho title of historic speculation only , which claims no other credence than that
which its plausibility or its probability commands . Now , the possibility or the probability that a certain event may have occurred in the early days of a nation's existence , but of which event there is no record , will be great or little , as dependent on certain other events , which bear upon it and which come within the era of records . The event may have been possible but not probable , and then but very
little or no importance would be given to it , and it must at once be relegated to the category of myths . Or it may have been both pos-Bible and highly probable , and we may be allowed to speculate upon it as something that had exerted an influence upon the primitive character or tho subsequent progress of the nation . But even then , it would not altogether lose its mythica' character . Whatever we
might predicate of it wonld be only a plausible speculation . It would not bo history , for that deals not in what may have been but only in that which actually has been . The progress , in these latter days , of what are called the exnet sciences has led , by tho force of example and analogy , to a more critical examination of tho facts , or rather the so-called facts of history .
Voltaire , in his Life of Charles XII ., said : "Incredulity was the foundation of history . " Years passed before tho axiom , in all its force , was accepted by the learned . But at length it has been adopted as the rule of all historical criticism . To be credulous is now to be unphilosophical , and scholars accept nothing as history that cannot be demonstrated with almost geometrical certainty .
Neibnbr began hy shattering all faith in the story of Ehoa S ylvia , of Eomnlus , and of tho maternal wolf , which , with many other incidents of early Eoman history , wero consigned by him to the region of the mythical . In later times , the patriotic heart of Switzerland has been made to mourn by the discovery that the story of William Tell and of the
apple which he shot from the head of his son is nothing but a medieval fable , which was commom to a great many other countries , and the circumstances of which , everywhere varying in dotails , still point to a commom origin in some early myth . It is thus that many narratives once accepted as voracious havo been , by careful criticism , eliminated from the domain of history , and
such works as Goldsmith ' s Histories of Greece and Eome are no longer deemed fitting text books for schools where nothing but truth should be taught . The same rules of critical analysis which are pursued in the sepa . ration of what is true from what is false in the history of a nation should be applied to the determination of tho character of all
statements in Masonic history . This course , however , has not generally beeD pursued . Many of its legends are unquestionabl y founded on a historical basis ; but quite as many are made up of a mixture of truth and fiction , the distinctive boundaries of which it is difficult to determine ; while a still greater number are altogether mythical , with no appreciable element of truth in thoir composition . And yet , for
nearly two centuries , all of these three classes of Masonic legendary lore have been accepted by the great body of the Fraternity , without any discrimination , as faithful narratives of undoubted authenticity . It is this liberal acceptance of the false for the true , and this ready recognition of fables for authentic narratives , which have encouraged imaginative writers to plunge into the realms of absurdity instead of
confining themselves to the domain of legitimate history , which has cast over Masonic history an air of romance . Unjustly , but very naturally , some scholars have been led to reject all of our legends in every part as fabulous , because they found in some the elements of mendacity . But on the other hand the absurdities of legend makers
and the credulity of legend believers have , by a healthy reaction , given rise to a school of iconoclasts to whom I shall directly have occasion to refer , and which sprang up from a laudable desire to conform the principles of criticism which are to govern all investigations into Masonic history to the rules which control profane writers la the examination , of the history of nations .
Tradition And History In Masonry.
As examples of the legends of Masonry which have tempted the credulity of many and excited the scepticism of others , I may cite that almost universally accepted legend—universal , exoept with the iconoclasts—which attributes tho organization of Freemasonry , in its present form , to the era of the building of King Solomon ' s Templethe story of Princo Edwin and the Grand Lodge congregated bv him
at the City of York , in the tenth century—and the theory that the three symbolio degrees were instituted as distinct Masonio grades at a period long anterior to the beginning of the eighteenth century . These statements , still believed iu by all Masons who have not made tho history of the Order an especial stud y , were , until recently , accepted by prominent scholars as veracious narratives . Even Dr .
Oliver , one of the most learned as well as most prolific Masonic writers , has , in his numerous works , recognized them as historical truths without a word of protest or a sign of doubt , except , perhaps , with reference to the third legend above mentioned , of which he says with a cautious qualification , that he has " some doubts whether the Master ' s degreo , as now given , can bo traced throo centuries backwards . " *
But now comes a new school of Masonic students , to whom , borrowing a word formerly used in the history of roligious strifes , has been given the name of " iconoclasts . " Tho word is a good ono . Tho old iconoclasts or imago breakers of the eighth century demolished the images and defaced the pictnres which they found in tho churches , led away by erroneous but still conscientious views , becauso they
thought the people wero mistaking the shadow for tho substance and were worshipping tho image instead of tho Divine Being whom it represented . And so , these Masonic iconoclasts , with better views , are proceeding to break down tho intellectual images , which tho old and unlearned Masons had erected for their veneration . They are pulling to pieces the myths and logends , whose fallacies and absurd
mes and anachronisms had so long cast a cloud upon what onght to be tho clear sky of Masonic history . But they havo tempered their zeal with a knowledge and a moderation that was unknown to the iconoclasts of religion . These shattered tho images and scattered tho fragments to tho four winds of heaven , or they demolished the picture so that not even a remnant of the canvass was left . Whatever there
was of beautv in the work of the sculptor or the painter was for ever destroyed . Every sentiment of aesthetic art was overcome by the violence of religions fanaticism . Had the destructive labors of these iconoclasts been universal , and not confined to certain unfortunate limits , no foundation would have been left for building that science of Cristian symbolism , which in this day has been so interesting and
so instructive to the archaeologist , f Not so have tho Masonic iconoclasts performed their task . They have shattered nothing , they have destroyed nothing . When , in the course of their investigations into true Masonic history , they encounter a myth or a legend , replete , apparently , with absurdities or contradictions , they do not consign it to oblivion , as something unworthy
of consideration , bnt they dissect it into its various parts ; they analyze it with critical acumen ; they separate the chaff from the wheat ; they accept the portion that is probable , and , perhaps , confirmed by other collective testimony as true , and as a legitimate contribution to history ; what is undoubtedl y fictitious they receive as a myth , and either reject it altogether as an unmeaning addition to a legend , or
give it an interpretation as the expression of some symbolic idea , which is itself of value in a historical point of view . The lamented archaeologist , George Smith , late of the British Mu . seum , in speaking of the cuneiform inscriptions excavated in Mesopotamia , and the legends which they contain , says : X " With regard to the supernatural element introduced into the story , it is similar in natnre
to many such additions to historical narratives , especially in the East , but I would not reject those events which may havo happened , because in order to illustrate a current belief , or add to tho romance of the story , the writer has introduced the supernatural . " It is on this very principle that the iconoclastic Masonic writers , such as Hughan and Woodford , are pursuing their researches into the
early history of Freemasonry . They do not reject tho events recited in the old legends which havo certainly happened , because in the same legends they find also mythical narratives . They do not yield to the tendency which Smith says is now too general , " to repudiate the earlier part of the history , because of its evident inaccuracies and the marvellous element generally combined with it . " It is in this way ,
and in this way only , that early Masonic history can be written . Made up , as it has been for centuries past , of a commingled tissue of historical narrative and legendary invention , hitherto it has been read without judicious discrimination . Either the traditionary account has been accepted as a whole as historical , and thus numerous errors have resulted , or it has been rejected a 3 a whole as fabulous , and hence
eqnally numerous errors have been tho consequence . As an example of the error which inevitably results from pursuing either of these two systems of interpretation , the one of which may be distinguished as the school of gross credulity , and the other as that of gvoss scepticism , let ns take the legend known as the theory of the temple origin of Freemasonry , that is to say , the legend which places
the organization of the Institution at tho time of the building of the temple of Jerusalem . Now , the former of these schools , implicitly receives tho whole legend as true in all its parts , and recognizes King Solomon as the first Grand Master , with Hiram of Tyre and Hiram Abif as hi 3 Wardens , who presided over tho Craft , divided into three degrees , the initiation into which was the same as that practised in the lodges of