This file is copyright (c) 1997 The Philalethes Society and all rights
including any redistribution rights are reserved by the copyright holder.
Permission to quote from, redistribute or to otherwise use these materials
must be obtained from the copyright holder directly by contacting The
Philalethes, Nelson King, FPS, Editor, 2 Knockbolt Crescent, Agincourt
Ontario Canada, M1S 2P6. Tel: 416-293-8071 Fax: 416-293-8634 or
nking@freemasonry.org or nking@onramp.ca




In Defense of Masonic Absurdity
by Howard R. Stewart, MPS

The discussion of Masonic origins has
produced more argument than any other
topic in Masonic literature. A portion of
the product from this argument has been
theories which stretch the imaginative
senses to the breaking point. This is es-
pecially true of those theories concocted
prior to 1850 in a time that witnessed a
rebirth of romanticism in art and litera-
ture, and a revival of medieval forms that
subordinated intellect to emotion and
reason to imagination. Although some
theories were considered absurd and
were abandoned long ago, all are re-
corded for posterity and are available to
all masons. One critic has stated that the
more extravagant claims as to
Masonry's antiquity failed to clarify in
what sense the Order was ancient, and,
though containing truths about the na-
ture of mankind, were illustrated by the
wildest and most absurd legends. (1)

Some of the old stories are-armor
plated; i.e., they occupy prominent
niches in the Masonic ritual. How did
this come about? Dr. Joseph Fort New-
ton divided Masonic knowledge into
three parts--prophecy, history, and in-
terpretation. Prophecy has to do with
hints of Masonry in the early traditions,
mythology, and symbolism of mankind,
finding its foundations in the nature and
need of man. History is the story of the
Order, showing how the stones wrought
by time and struggle were brought from
afar to the making of Masonry as a soci-
ety. The third part, interpretation, is self-
explanatory. It was in the writing of the
history that imaginations sometimes ran
unchecked.

To ridicule the old theories would be to
tread upon the toes of more than a few
distinguished Masonic scholars. How-
ever, some had no fear of this as seen in
this definition of Masonry published in
1971:

An order . . . which, originating in the
reign of Charles II [1660-1685] among
the working artisans of London, has now
been joined successively by the dead of
past centuries . . . until it now embraces
all the generations on the hither side of
Adam and is drumming up distinguished
recruits among the pre-Creational habi-
tants of the Formless Void.(3)

Such cynicism undoubtedly arose from
claims of Masonic existence before the
world, in God and with Adam in Para-
dise; from stories of Noah building his
Ark with his three sons acting as Deputy
and Wardens; from stories of Masonry
being in vogue among the builders of the
pyramids and Solomon's Temple, etc.

Reference to Noah's participation in
Masonry, found in Anderson's Constitu-
tions of 1723 and 1738, was accepted and
authorized by the Grand Lodge of En-
gland for over 150 years. Whether this
reflected Anderson's own view is debat-
able since he had done only what he had
been instructed to do, i.e., to bring to-
gether all the legends contained the Old
Charges. The belief that Masonry dated
from the creation of the universe was
held by Dr. George Oliver, a most distin-
guished English Mason who lived from
1782 to 1867. Oliver also believed that
Masonic knowledge was passed down
through Seth, the son of Adam, and his
descendants to the patriarchs and King
Solomon and thence onward. He called
this line of passage Pure or Primitive
Freemasonry, and to that portion por-
trayed in the pagan mysteries, he gave
the name of Spurious Freemasonry of
Antiquity.(4)

Flights of imagination persisted well
into the twentieth century, not only in the
literature but also in Masonic orations.
In an oration before the Grand Lodge of
Montana in 1915, it was announced that
before the earth, the sound of the
Mason's labor distrubed the quiet of th~
wilderness. That Masonry was the sole
witness when God made his covenant
with Abraham was claimed by the Grand
Orator of the Grand Lodge of North
Carolina in 1917. And, in 1918, a Past
Grand Master of Masons in Indiana said
that in the morining of time, Masonry
became the guardian of light and truth.

A probably unanswerable question
comes to mind. Did seventeenth- and
eighteenth-century Masonic scholars ac-
tually believe that Masonry had always
existed as an institution, or have they
been misinterpreted? William Hutchin-
son (1732- 1814) once stated that our
society's foundations in the post- dilu-
vian world were derived from Ham, but
in the same lecture he also said this:

When we speak of Masons under the
denomination of a society, we mean Ma-
sons as embodied in lodges . . . Our
antiquity is in our principles, maxims,
languages, learning, and religion; these
we derive from Eden, from the Patri-
archs, and from the sages of the East . .

Albert Mackey was another scholar
criticized for his earlier views; but in his
own defense, he later said that
Masonry's body came out of the Middle
Ages, but its spirit could be traced to a
more remote period. (7)

Other stories of origin have taken
pieces of history and fitted them together
like patch-work quilts. For the most part,
the pieces of history are correct; it is the
connecting cloth that is suspect.

In summary, when modern standards
are applied, many of the older theories of
Masonic origin teeter on the brink of
absurdity. But, great measures have
been taken to retain certain of the old
concepts regarding antiquity. Modern
Masonic rituals are laced with state-
ments that are simply not true. Are these
present in order to emphasize, to teach,
or to make the ritual more attractive and
therefore more interesting? The answer
is: probably all three, with emphasis on
the last, as seen in this from Henry W.
Coil:

. . . in formulating the rituals of the
degrees in the early eighteenth cen-
tury, much had to be added to the
simple, crude rituals of the prior pe-
riod. Where was it to be found? Just
where all ritual makers go, to ancient
times and eastern lands, to the
Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians
the Arabs, and particularly to that
unfailing companion of all ritual mak-
ers, the Holy Scriptures.(8)

It should be kept in mind that the old
legends link Masonry with the earliest
thoughts and faith of the human race.
They furnish the connection with antiq-
uity that affords our rich heritage. The
designation of ancient does not mean
that Masonry has been an organized so-
ciety since Day One. If the preservation
of myths, symbols, and allegories de-
rived from the ancient Temples of Initia-
tion was meant to strengthen the frater-
nity and give it a reason to endure, then
it is safe to conclude that the objective has
been achieved. And, there is no absurd-
ity in that.

Notes

1. Joseph Fort Newton, Thc Buildcrs (Richmond
VA: Macoy, 1951), xxii.

2. Ibid., xxv.

3. Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, quoted
by Christopher Haffner, in "What do Freema-
sons Inherit?" Transactions of the Texas Lodge of
Rcsearch, 26: 131-44.

4 . Mackcy 's Revised Encyclopcdia of Freemasonry
(1966), 2:735. Cited below as Mackey.

5. Henry W. Coil, Conversations on Freernasonry
(Richmond, VA: Macoy, 1976), 7.

6. William Hutchinson, Thc Spirit of Masonry (New
York: Bell, 1982), 208-9.

7. Mackey, 1:87-8.

8. Coil, 197.


The Philalethes, October 1993
