THE BUILDER JANUARY 1926

A New Interpretation of History

By BRO. ELMER MANTZ, New York

THE author of this suggestive article foreshadows the study of the
past from a new point of view. It has of course been recognized
that free associations have been important factors in history, as
for example the influence of the gilds in the Middle Ages, but so
far history has not yet been written definitely from this
standpoint, though we understand that Bro. Mantz contemplates
further studies along this line.

THROUGH the ages there have taken place in civilization quite a
large number of revolutions of which no record has come down to us.
Writers did not notice them, for they took place slowly,
imperceptibly, without any apparent struggles; revolutions at once
deep and hidden which shook the foundations of human society
without any evidence on the surface of things and which remained
unnoticed by the very generations that contributed to them. History
can discern them only a long time after they have been
accomplished, when, in comparing two epochs in the life of a people
it perceives between them such great differences that it becomes
evident that, in the intervening time, a great revolution has taken
place."

Such are the words of Fustel de Coulanges, a profound historian of
the middle of the last century. The validity of his statement is
apparent in the writings of the best students of our own times, who
speculate with interest, but never with dogmatic cocksureness,
about the meaning of contemporary events. They realize that they
can never be sure of what a thing is and what it means until it can
be looked at from a certain distance, so that at one glance they
can estimate its action and its importance in relation to other
things.

Within a hundred years the world has entered into a new stage of
its history: "our times" began with a new industrial system that
brought with it a new manner of living. In almost everything we are
further from the people of 1800 than they were from the people of
ancient Rome. Our political and private and industrial life is
governed by conditions that have few true precedents. This means
that we can interpret the "revolutions" of former times as the
historians of a century ago could not do. They lacked the
perspective that can be had only after an accomplished change.

MODES OF THOUGHT SURVIVE

Of course, no change is ever final, and we are linked to our
forefathers by innumerable deeply-rooted ways of thinking that we
can only rarely detect in ourselves, but that act in us with
unfailing effect. By an irony of our human fate it happens that
these inherited ways of thinking often result in prejudice, so that
our contempt for certain things that are of the past is prompted by
a way of thinking that is coeval with the things it makes us
despise. The man who boasts of having unbiased judgment is either
mad or foolish; or else he is a superman. And so the writing of
history can never be a matter of the same unerring accuracy that
characterizes mathematics. We can say only this much: that a
conscientious historian can estimate the past better than he can
understand the present, in spite of the paradox that he may know
many more facts about the present than he can ever learn about the
past. Only where there is perspective can there be judgment.

This fact accounts for the statement of Fustel de Coulanges and
serves, too, as a sort of article of faith--a credo about
history-writing: for through it we understand how the historian of
today may feel confident that he can tell us certain things about
the past that remained hidden from those who were alive in the
epochs he studies. And yet, while historians have had ample time to
get this perspective of the past, they have signally and, it might
seem, unaccountably, failed to recognize one of the greatest
"revolutionary" forces in progress. This failure may, however, be
accounted for by the fact that they were blinded by certain
historiographical tenets imposed by the times they lived in. The
present article will attempt to analyze these tenets.

BROTHERHOOD IS A FACTOR IN HISTORY

The agency of progress referred to is fraternalism --not any
particular group, but the thing in itself taken in the inclusive
sense of all groups founded in the fraternal spirit and without
reference to whether they were strictly secret societies or not.
This article has reference to the historians of the modern age and
their apparently inexplicable omission of fraternalism as a great
agency of progress.

Everyone must have been impressed with the fact that histories
belong rather to the realm of literature than to that of science.
The complicated motives of human conduct and the thousand elements,
spiritual or material, that have their influence upon us--all these
constitute so immense a subject that historians have to restrict
themselves to certain aspects only. Thus every historian treats of
only a part of the real history of a period. But in addition to his
selection of topics and materials he must make a selection of
points of view: and it is this last that amounts to what we call
the writer's "philosophy of history". In this article we shall try
to explain the omission of fraternalism in general histories by an
analysis of the various philosophies of history that have been
widely accepted in modern times.

Christianity inspired the earliest of the modern historical schools
with what has been called St. Augustine's doctrine of Providence.
According to this God is conceived as the Maker of the world and of
human fate, and the providential school told the story of God's
acts in the world of men rather than those of humanity. It is quite
evident that such a concept of history left no place for the idea
of progress, God having preordained the whole gamut of human
experience. Rather the doctrine of the fall of Adam required that
all subsequent history should represent a penitence rather than a
progress--a slow new achievement of the privileged position man had
once held but had lost by his disobedience. In such history human
agencies of scientific, political and economic progress simply
cannot exist. The Essay on Universal History of the seventeenth
century French bishop, Bossuet, is considered the classic in this
field.

THE CHRONICLE IS DISCUSSED

Such was one kind of history-writing before the scientific
renaissance that began with the 17th century and that is
culminating today. Another sort that has been much derided in
modern times but that really approached a scientific concept of
history--was the "chronicle". Here we find no attempt at
interpretation or explanation--only a bare record of events. In
reality, the chronicle was not history, for history is an art of
individualistic interpretation; rather, we should class the
chronicle among the records and documents and conceive of it as
material for the writing of history.

Why chronicle has been derided is not so much because it often set
forth totally unauthenticated happenings as because it reported
only the deeds of kings and prelates. The common man, economic
circumstances, literary production and scientific discovery-- all
these were neglected by the chroniclers. And it is just these
elements that are now considered all important. Thus, from the
point of view of fraternalism, we may find interesting facts in the
chronicles; but we never find that they recognized fraternalism as
a particularly important factor in progress. But progress, as we
have said in mentioning the providential school of historians, was
not a fact at all in the minds of our forefathers of a few
centuries ago.

THE PHILOSOPHICAL HISTORY FOLLOWED

The providential historians were followed, in the 18th century, by
a brilliant but shallow and unbalanced school--that of the
so-called "philosophers". Voltaire, Gibbon and Hume are its
representatives. There is much that is beautiful and inspiring in
their works; hut we of the present have no choice but to call them
shallow as historians, for they left out of account too many
elements that are of the utmost importance in our eyes.

They were a real school so far as the writing of history is
concerned although they held various religious or philosophical
beliefs as widely separated as deism, atheism and agnosticism. But
they were united in a war against the Christian religion. It is
this fact which accounts for their lack of balance. They could not
see that a historian ought to be a historian first and a
controversialist afterward, if need be. Since they did not approve
of Christianity they were at liberty to write history from an
independent standpoint, allowing the facts about the Church to
speak for themselves. But they did not choose this course. What
they did was to enter the field of polemics and bend their energy
to combating Christian belief. In terms of history this means that
they tried to show that the effect of Christianity and the Church
upon humanity had been evil. It is for each honest student of these
matters to agree or disagree with the "philosopher" historians, as
he may feel disposed. But there can be no argument about the fact
that the "philosophers" were hardly better, as historians, than the
"providential" school they were fighting. Real history does not
depend upon religion alone: it is a complex of many elements. The
"philosophers" were too intent upon refuting the "providential"
school to visualize the enormous range of human endeavor that must
be studied by a true historian. Social forces such as fraternalism
were unimportant to the "philosophers" except in their bearing upon
the anti-Christian program that they had taken in hand.

It must seem to any well-read and honest student of the works of
the "philosophers" that they were hardly historians at all, even
though they recorded an infinite number of facts in a most
interesting manner. We judge them so harshly because they were
guilty-- I believe, unintentionally--of a real blunder in method:
they adopted a preconceived idea and fitted the facts of history
into the framework of this idea. They assumed that the priesthood
had intimidated and deceived mankind with the intention of gaining
power and wealth. Having assumed this--which, in the nature of
things, would have to be an exaggeration or a misinterpretation--
they were incapable of treating facts historically, or, in other
words, judicially and scientifically. The "philosophers" made their
generalization before they put down the truth about the separate
facts in history. The process should be just the contrary: if "laws
of history", or generalizations, are to be worth the name, then
they cannot be deduced; they must be induced. The modern
classification of history-writing as a science is correct only if
history follows the scientific method of proceeding from isolated
facts to generalizations--which is what is meant by "induction".
Therefore, according to any scientist of today--no matter whether
he be Christian or anti-Christian--the method of the "philosophers"
must seem faulty and their conclusions worthless as contributions
to science.

FRATERNAL ASSOCIATIONS INFLUENCE HISTORY

The "philosophers" found it easy to generalize because their
generalizations cost them little effort. And having gotten the
habit of generalization they made an over-use of the method. From
the point of view of the history of fraternalism the method seems
to pursue a vicious circle. Fraternalism is a definite mode or
process. It is not to be accounted for by a "providential", nor by
a "philosophic", nor by a democratic, nor by an individualistic
theory of history. Fraternalism refers to the small groups within
the large groups of the state or the religion. It is a manner of
accomplishment, however, rather than a separate element in society.
The generalizing "philosophers" saw only the religion and the
kingship on the one hand and suffering humanity on the other. Had
they been less hasty, and had they taken the pains to investigate
the workings and ideals of fraternalism, they might have discovered
that human progress owes more to fraternalism than to their harsh
and controversial attitude.

THE ROMANTIC SCHOOL ARISES

This same unscientific method of the "philosophers" was equally the
method of their Christian adversaries such as Joseph de Maistre,
Bonald and others. It applies also to the next large school of
historians--the school of the "Romanticists".
Romanticism amounted to an exaggerated cult of the individual. That
seems to be its predominant characteristic. But, among other
things, it was a temperamental interpretation of history, and, for
that reason, was just as likely as the school of the "philosophers"
to become enmeshed in generalizations. The romantic historians,
like the "philosophers", re-wrote the story of humanity according
to preconceived ideas rather than as the facts required it to be
written. Guizot in France and Carlyle in England are outstanding
representatives of this method. They make pleasant reading, but
such reading tells us more about Guizot and Carlyle than about the
real facts of history. If one were to sum up the romantic theory in
a word, one would say that it attributes progress rather to the
individual than to the Church, the kingship or the people. Our
contemporary psychological school of biographers seems to be doing
about what the romantic historians did, although for other reasons.
The history of fraternalism, when it comes to be studied in an
unprejudiced and scientific manner, will probably show that, while
the genius has always been the inventor of things and of thoughts,
the fraternal groups, more than any other agency, have perfected
his labors and made them useful to humanity.

THE POSITIVE SCHOOL SUCCEEDS

One more group of historians must be mentioned-- that which
interprets history through the material circumstances of life in
different parts of the world. No doubt they have called attention
to things that were so close to everyone's experience that they
could hardly be visualized with any perspective. And the mere
mention of the name of Karl Marx, who wrote around 1847, is enough
to show how powerful has been the influence of the "economic"
school of historians. We remember, and we still read, Buckle's
History of Civilization in England; and although this work was
published almost seventy years ago it is still a convincing brief
in favor of conceiving civilization as a product of economic
circumstances. And histories of this sort are still being written,
for the reason, principally, that the present history of the world
is a history of wealth rather than of men.

The times may change. But even now we know well enough that,
although men are influenced by economic circumstances, still human
history must remain a history of men and not a history of things.
The ultimate story of progress will not be exclusively a record of
material circumstances any more than it will be one of the
doctrines of priests, the deeds of kings, the accomplishments of
genius or the aspirations and sufferings of the people without
name--the "generations of men".

We believe that we get what we deserve. But we know that we get
this only when we deserve it in the eyes of the world. And, from
this point of view-- which is the only criterion for the writer
about verified facts -- we are unworthy of notice unless we know
how to ally our labors with the needs of the world.

Perhaps my readers need no further suggestion than this. The
history of fraternalism is a part--and a most important part--of
the history of human progress. And there is no doubt whatsoever
that those who have recounted the vicissitudes of human effort have
not yet applied themselves, in a consistent manner, to discovering
the whole truth about a hidden but what I have reason to believe an
almost omnipotent modality of progress.

A NEW SCHOOL IS NOT DESIRED

No real thinker would wish to endorse a "fraternal" school of
historiography; it would amount only to one more exaggeration and
deformation, after so many others. But every intelligent man would,
I think, like to know in just what wise fraternalism has made
progress possible. Until the history is written we can only suppose
that fraternalism is so important in history. No one has proved the
point so far.

But it is time to come back to Fustel de Coulanges and the
beginning of the present essay: "There have taken place in
civilization quite a large number of revolutions of which no record
has come down to us . . . revolutions at once deep and hidden which
shook the foundations of human society. . . ." With some of these,
and perhaps with almost all, fraternalism has had something to do.
The student of Masonry will not be at a loss for examples of this.
Quite theoretically, then, and without going into any detail about
the role of fraternalism in progress, we can state this much:

Those who have told the story of mankind have told it incompletely
and from preconceived points of view. They have recounted the
doings of God on earth and have made of their fellows the
instruments or the victims of a divine providence. They have
explained history as the mirror of the acts of kings, heroes and
geniuses. They have told us that civilization springs like a plant,
naturally and inevitably, from that soil of humanity, the people.
They have, again, interpreted everything as material cause and
effect, and have made music and poetry, philosophy and science,
mere products of the air and the soil and the water--flowers of
experience that blossom spontaneously on the bosom of matter.

We cannot subscribe to all this. All of our everyday experience
tells us that, in human life, there must be a vehicle, a means, an
instrument, an organization. Without these a genius is as worthless
to society as a drunkard in a hurricane. The "revolutions" of which
Fustel de Coulanges speaks have undoubtedly taken place; and they
have taken place without society being aware of them. The
priesthood, the kingship, the people, the genius, the ground we
live on--none of these fully explains the mystery of progress. No
single theory ever will. But it is very probable that common sense
and historic fact will at last be reconciled through a scholarly
and exhaustive history of the social influence of fraternalism.

LANGUAGE OF THE RITUAL

EACH word in our daily speech has a history of its own, almost a
biography, which, if a man wishes to discover it, lets a little
window into times past, old ways of thinking, inventions,
discoveries, adventures, romances, forgotten ideas. Allen Upward
wrote a book once of 320 pages on the one word "idealism," and at
the end left many things unsaid. Another man could write a similar
book on any other word, except those that have been recently
manufactured.

What a library might be thus written on the language of our Ritual!
To the etymological historian all of its words would be so many
thousands of windows, many of them of richest stained glass,
opening back on such panoramas of the past as would amaze us. The
philosophies of the eighteenth century would be there, the many
colored gild life of the Middle Ages, theorems of the Arabic
mathematicians, reveries of the kabbalists, guesses of the
occultists, thoughts of Greek philosophers, visions of Hebrew
prophets, the twilight mysteries of Egypt.

THE WAYS OF WISDOM ARE BEAUTIFUL

As useful knowledge is the great object of our desire, let us
diligently apply to the practice of the art, and steadily adhere to
the principles it inculcates. Let not the difficulties we have to
encounter check our progress, or damp our zeal; but let us
recollect that the ways of wisdom are beautiful, and lead to
pleasure. Knowledge is attained by degrees, and cannot everywhere
be found. Wisdom seeks the secret shade, the lonely cell designed
for contemplation. There enthroned she sits, delivering her sacred
oracles. There let us seek her, and pursue the real bliss. Though
the passage be difficult, the farther we trace it, the easier it
becomes.

Union and harmony constitute the essence of Freemasonry; while we
enlist under that banner, the society must flourish and private
animosities give place to peace and good fellowship. Uniting in one
design, let it be our aim to be happy ourselves, and contribute to
the happiness of others. Let us mark our superiority and
distinction amongst men, by the sincerity of our profession as
Masons, let us cultivate the moral virtues and improve in all that
is good and amiable; let the Genius of Masonry preside over our
conduct, and under her sway let us perform our part with becoming
dignity, let us preserve an elevation of understanding, a
politeness of manner, and an evenness of temper; let our
recreations be innocent, and pursued with moderation; and never let
irregular indulgences lead to the subversion of our system, by
impairing our faculties, or exposing our character to derision. In
conformity to our precepts, as patterns worthy of imitation, let
the respectability of our character be supported by the regularity
of our conduct, and the uniformity of our deportment, then, as
citizens of the world, and friends in every clime, we shall be
living examples of virtue and benevolence, equally zealous to
merit, as to obtain universal approbation.
--Preston's Illustrations of Masonry, 12th Edition, 1812.
