Introduction

What's Freemasonry? Well, it pretty much depends on who you ask. In the 35+ years that I have been a Mason I have visited quite a few lodges. No two have been exactly alike. Lodges seem to develop personalities of their own, much like people. Some are relaxed and laid back, some are more formal. Some are very healthy with work going on all the time and some, sadly, are on life support. But, in each lodge when I’ve talked to the individual members, they have expressed a true caring about their membership. Sure, it does not mean the same thing to each one of them. The one in the kaki pants and bright Hawaiian shirt with the donut in his hand might view the reason for his membership differently than the one in the tux with the white gloves and a glass of wine, but, so what? Who said Masonry has to mean the same thing to everyone?

 

The common denominator in all lodges is that Masonry lifts Masons up a bit more from where they started. Not everyone is a philosopher and not everyone will draw the deeper meanings from the Masonic ritual, but we all can benefit from being told to try and be better than we are today. Sure, few (if any) live up to the deepest teachings of Freemasonry, but is our goal perfection or the striving for it? I believe that if we just try to live as Masonry teaches, recognizing that we all fail from time to time, then we are doing what is expected of us. Masonry is not for everyone and we can not expect that it will, in any way, satisfy someone who is just not Masonic material. But, for those who are touched by Masonry, no matter what they are wearing, eating or the state of their lodge, they feel very deeply about being a Mason. It is important to them and no matter how much or little they know of the ritual or its deeper teachings, it is of value to them.

 

Our Masonic history is important to us. It is important that we know who we are and from where we come. But, this is not really a Masonic history book. I have, however, a deep interest in the early history of the Scottish Rite. I have this interest because we have such sketchy accounts of the early days of it. While this is not a Masonic history book, I have included some history papers exploring aspects of Scottish Rite history that we might not see explored too often. This is, also, not a book of philosophy. But, I do feel that we can all benefit from the life lessons Masonry teaches. I try to teach Masonry in a way that applies to everyone, so that we all can see and experience its lessons. With this in mind, I've included some of these basic philosophical lectures and papers.

 

So, that's what we have here; a collection of history and philosophical papers - with some other bits I find useful or noteworthy. If this book gives you just a moment to think about yourself, your role in Masonry or gives you any cause to think of ways to improve yourself, then I consider this book a worthwhile endeavor.

 

Be happy, enjoy life and make each beautiful moment count.

 

Michael R. Poll

Fall, 2011

 

In His Own (w)Rite

 

Fluid Masonry: The Art of Change

The Journal of the Masonic Society, Issue 7, 2010

 

WHEN WE BOIL FREEMASONRY DOWN to its most basic element, we find a very simple message: “make yourself better.” Such a statement can, however, be likened to the phrase “be happy.” It sounds easy enough, but how do you do it? How do you know when you are “better?” What is “better?” What seems to be an uncomplicated message becomes difficult to put into practice, even to understand. Such is the nature of symbolism.

 

We can start on the path of symbolic understanding by looking at nature. If you look at a beautiful mountain stream, you can find more than beauty. You can find illusion (often, the guardian of symbolism). Flowing water goes around a large rock in the stream. The illusion is that the rock is the master. What we believe to be truth is the sight of the water yielding to the rock and being forced to flow around it. We see this and accept it as truth. Our error is that we determined “the truth” before we gathered all the facts. In time, gentle, flowing water can reduce the largest stone to a pebble. The rock is not the master. One lesson to learn is that what we see, hear, feel and believe might well prove to be something other than fact. We must train ourselves to withhold judgment.

 

In Freemasonry, a subtle lesson is taught early on by putting us in a position where we cannot depend on what we can see. We are forced to depend on others for guidance. We are also forced to use senses other than those we would normally rely upon. We must change in order to adapt to this new situation. The illusion is that we have been handicapped and deprived of receiving the full benefit that would have been afforded us if we had complete use of all of our senses. But the illusion masks the fact that we are forced to adapt to our condition precisely because we have been placed in such a state. We simply can’t act or perform on our own. We need guidance.

 

The three degrees in Craft Masonry are often said to represent the three stages of human life: youth, adulthood and old age. How do we progress through these stages? We change. As children, we play, grow and learn. As adults, we put into practice what we have learned, and in old age we impart to others what we have learned. In each stage, we change in body and mind. It is the normal way of life. What would be abnormal is if no change took place.

 

Let’s look again at the water and the rock. The gentle, flowing water cannot and does not break the rock by direct force. Water changes its direction and flows around the rock; in doing so, it also gradually affects change in the rock. The gentle pressures of the water force the rock to give way and reduce itself in size. The rock is not the master after all. Change is one of the unavoidable facts of all existence. Any attempt to avoid change only results in unnatural waste of energy.

 

The lessons of Masonry are such that we must study them with a child’s open and willing mind. In certain aspects of our teachings, we might remember we are told that it is not acceptable to bring “innovations” into the body of Masonry. An innovation is change. Are we being told that we cannot or should not change? Not at all.

As individuals, we change every day of our lives. We grow older, which brings physical and mental changes. We have no choice in these types of changes. We also have the option to make free-will choices in our lives. We might opt to eat a more healthful diet, to exercise, or in some way improve our lives. There are countless changes that we can choose. We also might make the decision not to make any free-will changes. It is our choice as individuals.

 

But when we speak of innovations in Masonry, we are speaking of something quite different. The innovations that are made in Masonry should never be the choice of any single individual. Changes should be the collective will of the membership. In Masonry it is the lodge, not the Worshipful Master, who decides the direction to be taken. The Worshipful Master only steers the ship in the desired direction.

 

In our Grand Lodges, we see change every year. We see resolutions presented and voted on. It is rare that a Grand Lodge will see no change whatsoever in its nature after a Grand Lodge session. Change is normal. Change is expected.

 

In Masonry, the changes we see in its nature often mirror the changes we see in wider society. Freemasons are part of society and we interact with others on a daily basis. It would be unnatural for us to be social outcasts. If we look back at Masonry 50 or 100 years ago, or even longer, we see that the nature of Masonry matched that of society in both simple matters of dress and deep social or philosophical issues. Even today, we see social difference in Masonry depending on the location of the lodge and its membership. In a large city, you might see lodge members dressing in a different manner than you would see in a small town. One is not right and the other wrong, they are just simple differences in the social norms of the areas.

 

When we look at society and speak of a large nation, it would be uninformed to not realize that society’s concepts of what is acceptable and unacceptable vary from community to community. The overall social structure of a large area allows for change and variations within smaller areas. Speed limits might change from one place to another, as well as many other community-based laws, but where will you find murder legal? Society as a whole has limits as to what are acceptable standards.

 

Because Grand Lodges are sovereign and free to pass the rules and laws of their liking, it would seem highly improbable that you would find two Grand Lodges with exactly the same set of governing laws. If one Grand Lodge changed its laws to require all members to wear tuxedos to lodge, it might draw a level of interest from some other Grand Lodges, but that would be about it. If the same Grand Lodge removed the Volume of Sacred Law from its altars, then not only would this attract the attention of other Grand Lodges, but they would view this Grand Lodge as moving outside of what is considered acceptable, and the breaking of fraternal relations with this jurisdiction might follow. By the same turn, if most Grand Lodges adopted a particular policy which they felt was extremely important, then those few Grand Lodges not adopting the policy might also be viewed as unacceptable or out of step.

 

Change is not the enemy of Masonry. Just as the water in a stream changes direction as it flows in and around various obstacles, so should we recognize that change is not only inevitable, but is in our best interest. In a storm, it is the strong, unyielding tree, not the flexible blade of grass, that is in most danger of breaking.

 

***

 

Albert Pike’s Address Before

The Grand Consistory of Louisiana

I believe readily that you did not want the office, but the office wanted you.

- Charles Laffon de Ladébat to Albert Pike ¹

THE PASSAGE OF YEARS can sometimes elevate a historical figure into a legend. This is not always beneficial when a study of the individual is desired. A historical figure can be examined and their actions understood from a human perspective. A legend, however, can take on near supernatural qualities and the whole of their activities are sometimes not expected to be understood, explained or completely recounted. Such is, at times, the case with Albert Pike. It is often difficult to imagine Albert Pike as a player (rather than as the player) in American Scottish Rite events of the 1800s. The monumental mark that Pike left on the Southern Jurisdiction can mask the fact that his influence was not always as profound as it was in his later years. Regardless of his many accomplishments, there was a time when Illustrious Brother Pike was but an inexperienced, yet promising, Mason with a blank book before him upon which it was unknown exactly what would be written.

This address, the first ever given by Pike as the presiding officer of a Scottish Rite body, gives us a rare look at the early Albert Pike. While in his later years, Pike was viewed by many as a true Master of the Scottish Rite, this address clearly calls into notice his immaturity in the Rite, and he asks for “lenient judgment” upon his “short-comings”. In his address Pike is clearly humble and seems sincerely appreciative of his election. He also notes that his election to the position of Commander in Chief was politic in nature and due to “circumstances that surround us”. What could have caused a political election of the untried Albert Pike as the presiding officer of the Grand Consistory of Louisiana? Let’s look at the “circumstances”.

The Turmoil that was Louisiana Masonry

Just seven years prior to Pike’s assuming the leadership of the Grand Consistory of Louisiana, the whole of Louisiana Masonry underwent a dramatic shift in direction, leadership, and character. The once French dominated Grand Lodge of Louisiana became “American” in nature. This shift mirrored the cultural changes taking place in New Orleans and other French areas of the state. Louisiana was founded as a French colony. Even after the territory became a state in 1812, the French influence was the dominate force, especially in the city of New Orleans. Not only was the Grand Lodge of Louisiana a French-speaking body, but so were the five lodges that created it. Louisiana was the most “foreign” Grand Lodge (as well as state) in the U.S. Over time, many did not view this as an acceptable situation. There was a desire to “be like everyone else.”

By the 1830s, Louisiana Masonry, as well as the whole of the Louisiana culture, began feeling intense pressure to become “more American”. With many, this was not a welcome change. Bitter disputes and unyielding divisions developed that culminated in actual violent clashes between the “Creoles” and “Americans” in the downtown New Orleans streets. The Grand Lodge was not immune to these cultural divisions which often manifested themselves in the different rites worked by the Louisiana craft lodges. Unlike the other U.S. Grand Loges, the craft lodges in Louisiana did not only work in the Preston-Webb (York Rite) craft ritual, but also in the French or Modern Rite and the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite craft rituals. For the most part, the French interests were championed by the lodges working the French or Modern and A.&A.S.R. Rites and the American interests by the York Rite lodges. The 1844 Constitution of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana was the last straw for many York Rite craft Masons. The new constitution officially recognized the, then, three rites working in Louisiana and sanctioned the creation of a “Chamber of Rites” to supervise the work of the lodges. The York position was that there should be only one recognized rite for Louisiana craft lodges (York Rite ) and that the Grand Lodge should be made to conform to the same system as worked by the other U.S. Grand Lodges.

A committee of English-speaking York Rite Masons, frustrated by the lack of accommodation they perceived in the Grand Lodge, approached the Grand Lodge of Mississippi and submitted a letter of grievance on January 23, 1845.² They charged the Grand Lodge of Louisiana with irregularity due to its practice and acknowledgment of various craft lodge rituals. After debate, the Grand Lodge of Mississippi agreed with the charges, declared the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana as “open territory” and, by 1848, chartered seven lodges in Louisiana.³ On March 8, 1848 these seven lodges formed a second Grand Lodge within Louisiana. John Gedge, who had spearheaded the “rebellion” was elected Grand Master of the “Louisiana Grand Lodge of Ancient York Masons”. While this new Grand Lodge received recognition from only the Grand Lodge of Mississippi, its future was not nearly as bleak as it might seem.

The Grand Lodge of Louisiana was created in a manner to accommodate the needs of the lodges which organized it. The Grand Lodge was created French in nature because this was the culture of the vast majority of those living in the area of the Grand Lodge at that time. Over the years that followed, the Grand Lodge continued to exist and operate in the manner in which it was created. The majority of the membership of the lodges under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge, however, changed from French to American. The Grand Lodge was then viewed, by the majority, as not accommodating their wants and needs.

The Grand Lodge of Mississippi received admonitions from most U.S. Grand Lodges for their actions in Louisiana, with the majority openly condemning its activities.⁴ With the exception of the Grand Lodge of Mississippi, no U.S. Grand Lodge entered into relations with the new Louisiana Grand Lodge. Regardless of their seemingly advantageous position, the Grand Lodge of Louisiana was in serious trouble.

Outside of New Orleans, there were a few pockets where the French culture was strong, but the majority of the state was already (or was becoming) Americanized. The events surrounding the creation of the Louisiana Grand Lodge buckled the knees of the Grand Lodge because most of the lodges under this new Grand Lodge were located in the New Orleans area -perceived to be the largest stronghold of the French culture within the state as well as the home of the Grand Lodge. The fact that the Grand Lodge of Louisiana was overwhelmingly considered to be the “regular” Grand Lodge in Louisiana was not sufficient to overcome the internal problems stemming from the cultural divisions in New Orleans. By mid 1849, it was realized that the English-speaking lodges that had remained loyal to the Grand Lodge were showing signs that continued loyalty would, most likely, not happen. Contributing to the dilemma was divisions between the French-speaking New Orleans Masons.

Obviously realizing that the total collapse of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana was a very real possibility, the Grand Lodge and the Louisiana Grand Lodge, A. Y.M. entered into discussions in 1849 designed to merge the two bodies.⁵ That merger took place in June of 1850 with the approval of a new Constitution of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana of Free and Accepted Masons. Under the terms of the agreement of the merger, the Louisiana Grand Lodge, A. Y.M. members declared irregular would be healed by the Grand Lodge of Louisiana, F.&A.M.. All Lodges chartered by the Louisiana Grand Lodge, A. Y.M. (or by the Grand Lodge of Mississippi in Louisiana) would, also, pass under the jurisdiction of the new Grand Lodge of Louisiana, F.&A.M. John Gedge, who had served as Grand Master of the Louisiana Grand Lodge, A. Y.M., was elected Grand Master of the new Grand Lodge of Louisiana, F.&A.M. for 1851.

While this new constitution seemed to merge the two Grand Lodges, the Grand Lodge of Louisiana was, in reality, replaced by the Louisiana Grand Lodge, A. Y.M.. All that actually remained of the old Grand Lodge was the name, organizational date of 1812, and the list of Past Grand Masters. The nature of the new Grand Lodge of Louisiana, F.&A.M. changed to match the Louisiana Grand Lodge, A. Y.M.. The “Americans” were in power.

The old Grand Lodge of Louisiana officially accommodated lodges working in the York, French, or Modern, and A.&A.S.R. craft rituals. The French-speaking Masons believed that the two Grand Lodge merger would result in the continued recognition of lodges working in all three rites. They were horrified and outraged when the new Grand Lodge instructed all non-York Rite lodges to turn in their charters so that York Rite charters could be issued.⁶ Charges of trickery abounded. Three A.&A.S.R. craft lodges (Etoile Polaire, Disciples of the Masonic Senate, and Los Amigos del Orden) applied to the Supreme Council of Louisiana for relief. The Supreme Council announced that since an 1833 concordat between the Grand Lodge of Louisiana and the Grand Consistory of Louisiana (at that time the highest ranking Scottish Rite body in the State) to assure that the Grand Lodge would provide a home for the Scottish Rite craft lodges had been violated by the new Grand Lodge, the Supreme Council would issue charters to these lodges and allow them to pass under its jurisdiction.⁷

The French Rite Masons did not have a Grand Body from which to seek relief. The Grand Lodge had been the home of the French Rite. With no superior body for the government of the French Rite lodges, they would, ultimately, disappear from Louisiana Masonry as an identifiable force.⁸

 

The Setting for More Change

When we step back and attempt to look at the situation through the eyes of the participants, we can see that the Supreme Council of Louisiana taking jurisdiction over the three A.&A.S.R. Craft Lodges must have been just as jarring to the new Grand Lodge of Louisiana as the action of the Grand Lodge of Mississippi was to the old Grand Lodge. No one could see or know the future. The Grand Lodge of Mississippi had been a body in full fraternal relations with the old Grand Lodge, as was the Supreme Council of Louisiana. While the Grand Lodge of Mississippi was a sister Grand Lodge, the Supreme Council of Louisiana was composed of members who were nearly all Grand Lodge officers, a good number of whom were Past Grand Masters. The Supreme Council of Louisiana was not an insignificant body. The actions of the Grand Lodge of Mississippi set into motion a series of events that led to the downfall of the old Grand Lodge of Louisiana. It was not unfeasible for the actions of the Supreme Council of Louisiana to result in the same fate for the new Grand Lodge of Louisiana. Clearly this situation needed to be addressed by the new Grand Lodge.

At the invitation of Grand Master John Gedge, Albert Mackey came to New Orleans in late 1851/early 1852 and established, for the Charleston Supreme Council, a Consistory of the 32°. Gedge was appointed Commander in Chief of this new consistory. Obviously, the Supreme Council of Louisiana charged that this was an outrageous invasion of territory.

 

Not only was it the fact that the Consistory was organized in New Orleans, but the manner in which it was created was the subject of severe criticism. In 1853, Charles Laffon de Ladébat wrote about the events concerning the new Grand Lodge, the Supreme Council of Louisiana and the new Charleston Consistory in New Orleans.

“In presence of such despotic, anti-masonic conduct, the Scotch BB:. resisted as men, as Masons, and formed an independent corporation under the only M:. authority existing in Louisiana dejure et defacto. The balance remained with the new Grand Lodge, swore obedience to her, through indifference rather than from conviction. Soon after this, the very same Sectarian, in his restlessness, caused Br:. Albert G. Mackey to come from Charleston, in order to establish a Grand Consistory, exactly as if there never had existed a Supreme Council of the Scotch Rite in Louisiana. Our sectarian, after abolishing the Scotch Rite, wished to re-establish it in order to be at the head of it. This Consistory has been inaugurated, you know it M:. W..., for you were admitted into it for proper causes. The manner in which the degrees were conferred in this spurious Consistory is and will be an eternal shame to the Br :. who has conferred them.”⁹

While we can only speculate as to the events which might have caused this “eternal shame” statement, it is evident that the creation of the Charleston consistory in New Orleans fanned the flames of emotion and deeply angered the already frustrated New Orleans Scottish Rite Masons. But what could be done?

The cultural variances within New Orleans societies during the 1800s are far too complex to be explained from only a French and/or American viewpoint. New Orleans was a cosmopolitan city with layers of cultures and subcultures. The lodges under the Grand Lodge of Louisiana were not only French and English speaking, but there were also lodges working in German, Italian, and Spanish. Like the many New Orleans neighborhoods, Masonic lodges often reflected the culture of the members of the lodge. Prior to 1850, the Grand Lodge maintained but a minimal supervision of the lodges under its jurisdiction. As long as a lodge worked within a general Masonic framework, as defined by the Grand Lodge, the lodge was left effectively alone. For some lodges (especially in rural areas) the only contact they had with the Grand Lodge was when they sent in their yearly returns. Lodges were free to develop their own cultural “stamp” on both their lodge and the ritual they used. Germania Lodge No.46 was created as a German-speaking lodge receiving a York Rite charter from the Grand Lodge of Louisiana in 1844. Their 1844 ritual shows that they originally worked an eclectic ritual which may well have derived from all three rites worked in Louisiana (as well as rituals from outside the state). ¹⁰ It is very possible that the unknown author(s) of this ritual simply sat down with a number of rituals and created a unique ritual to his (or their) liking. Such independent activity was not uncommon.

The freedom extended to the lodges by the Grand Lodge may have ultimately contributed to the downfall of the French interests in Louisiana. The York Rite English-speaking Masons were, by then, in the majority, but it was not a large majority. The non-York Rite Masons might have been able to overturn the actions of the new Grand Lodge, but they could not unify themselves and were split into unyielding factions with their own goals and agendas.

 

Regardless of the influence the Supreme Council of Louisiana once had in Louisiana, the creation of the Charleston Consistory created a split that led to the demise of the Supreme Council of Louisiana as a true Masonic power. Not only was the Supreme Council of Louisiana locked in battle with the new Grand Lodge, it was also facing perplexing (in New Orleans) charges of irregularity - charges that it was not prepared to answer. The rapid fire changes involving the whole of Louisiana Masonry left most of the French Masons flabbergasted and hopelessly divided as to which direction to take. It was at this time that a new “solution” was introduced that cut the divisions even deeper.

 

The Concordat of 1855

The Scottish Rite in New Orleans existed in what might be described as a parallel universe with the rest of the U.S. A.&A.S.R. Given the cultural difference between the whole of Louisiana Masonry and the rest of the U.S., the differences and detached nature of the Scottish Rite in New Orleans is understandable. With the “American invasion” of Louisiana Masonry came a forced realization that changes would have to be made in the nature of all Louisiana Masonic bodies. Exactly what changes would be necessary was the subject of heated debate.

The creation of the Mackey/Charleston Consistory in New Orleans triggered intense emotion in an already explosive environment. It was during this time and in this setting, that a plan to “merge” the Charleston Council and Supreme Council of Louisiana was born. For those who viewed the Supreme Council of Louisiana as the only hope of preserving the French interests in New Orleans, the idea of such a plan was wholly unacceptable. The more moderate French Masons saw such a blending of the two councils as, quite possibly, the only option left. In 1860, Charles Laffon de Ladébat wrote to Albert Pike about the Concordat and explained his position of it.

“My resolution of retiring from active practice is 5 years old & more. Hear what I wrote to Mackey January 31,1855: “When the work will be accomplished, when every thing will be in proper order & well understood, I will retire willingly & leave the management of all to more competent, but not more devoted hands”. We know that the foreign influence will & must be superseded by the American element. Now the time has come & I believe that, even in Masonry, Americans must rule in America. I, a frenchman, must retire -in due time.”¹¹

Not all of the French Masons were willing to turn over what they viewed as their “possession” to others with different ideas, plans, and goals. When the Concordat between the two councils seemed to be inevitable, the officers and nearly half of the Active Members of the Supreme Council of Louisiana resigned or refused to take part in what they viewed as an illegal action. On January 7, 1854, the remaining Members of the council elected Charles Claiborne as the new Grand Commander, Claude Pierre Samory as Lt. Grand Commander, and Charles Laffon de Ladébat was appointed Grand Secretary. The Concordat between the Charleston and New Orleans Supreme Councils was signed in New Orleans on February 16, 1855. The Supreme Council of Louisiana downgraded itself downward into the Grand Consistory of Louisiana and the Grand Consistory absorbed the “Mackey” Consistory.

 

With the Concordat of 1855, the elimination of the French control of Louisiana Masonry was complete. The unrest, dissatisfaction, and ill feelings, however, continued to fester. James Foulhouze was the Grand Commander of the Supreme Council of Louisiana who, along with the other officers, resigned from the council rather than participate in the Concordat. Claude Samory and Albert Mackey approached Foulhouze in the summer of 1856 to enlist his aid in healing the old wounds and to, hopefully, rebuild the A.&A.S.R. in New Orleans. Foulhouze was offered the office of Commander in Chief of the Grand Consistory of Louisiana and Active Membership in the Charleston Supreme Council if he would join in the rebuilding. Foulhouze declined the offers and began his efforts to reorganize the Supreme Council of Louisiana with its former officers.¹²

With James Foulhouze out of consideration, a new leader for the troubled New Orleans Scottish Rite had to be found. The choice would prove to be inspired.

 

Enter Albert Pike

Albert Pike was an attorney by profession and a Mason of only five years when he moved his law practice to New Orleans in 1855.¹³ Three years earlier, Pike received the Scottish Rite degrees up to the 32° from Albert Mackey in Charleston. Mackey saw a unique quality in Pike and recruited him to be on the ritual committee of the Charleston Supreme Council. Mackey lent Pike a collection of Scottish Rite rituals for his review and study. It was through the examination and transcription of these rituals that Pike received his first understanding of the A.&A.S.R. Busy with setting up his law practice and studying the rituals lent to him by Mackey, Pike did not concern himself with the momentous developments taking place in New Orleans at the time of his arrival.

One of Pike’s earliest Masonic acquaintances in New Orleans was Charles Laffon de Ladébat. Over the years (even after Pike became Grand Comman-der) these two would maintain a “love/hate” relationship that was founded on a basic respect for each other. Ladébat was made a 33° by James Foulhouze in the Supreme Council of Louisiana on February 11, 1852, and served as its Grand Secretary at the time of the Concordat of 1855. Ladébat would later be elected an Active Member of the Charleston Supreme Council in 1859. Pike’s time in New Orleans put him in close contact with many competent New Orleans 33rds who were quite capable of completing Pike’s education and understanding of the A.&A.S.R. Ladébat was, clearly, one of Pike’s early mentors.

Just as he had done with Albert Mackey, Pike greatly impressed the New Orleans Scottish Rite Masons. Pike’s talent and raw abilities clearly made him a candidate for any Masonic office. The fact that Pike played no part whatsoever in the Concordat of 1855 may have made Pike even more attractive and a prime candidate for leading the Grand Consistory of Louisiana. Pike did not carry baggage with him from the Louisiana Masonic turmoil. While he was under the jurisdiction of the Charleston Supreme Council at the time of the concordat, he was not an Active Member and played no part in any of the decisions concerning the Concordat. No one could blame Pike for any of the events. Albert Pike was the only serious candidate for leading the Grand Consistory who could be seen as potentially objective as well as extraordinarily promising. Next to James Foulhouze, no one had a better chance of appeasing the French Masons and unifying all the factions. Once the Supreme Council of Louisiana was re-organized, Pike’s value to the Charleston cause was even more evident.

This address, given by Pike only four days after he received the 33°,¹⁴ is valuable to all Scottish Rite researchers not only because it is an extremely rare piece of early Pike literature, but also because of significant information provided in it. From this address we not only get a better feel of the early Albert Pike, but also have the opportunity to develop a more detailed understanding of the momentous events that were taking place at the time Albert Pike arrived on the Scottish Rite stage. Within just two years from the time of this address, Pike would be elected an Active Member of the Southern Jurisdiction (over the apparent objections of the Grand Commander and Lt. Grand Commander)¹⁵ and then on January 2, 1859, with the very first S.J. election of officers (a dramatic change in practice), be elected to the position of Sovereign Grand Commander.

Pike’s address was ordered to be recorded in the handwritten Minutes of the Grand Consistory of Louisiana. A typed transcript of this address was made by an unknown Brother sometime between the 1940s and 1950s and a copy of this transcript acquired by this writer. The accuracy of the transcript was verified by this writer by a comparison of the transcript with the original Minutes located in the Scottish Rite Bodies of New Orleans.

 

ADDRESS BEFORE THE

GRAND CONSISTORY OF LOUISIANA

ALBERT PIKE

Apri1 29 1857

Th :. Ill:. Bros :. and Sublime Princes of the Royal Secret:

I PRAY YOU TO ACCEPT my most sincere thanks and profoundest gratitude for the great and unexpected honor which you conferred upon me, when, in my absence, you selected me to fill the most honorable and very responsible station of Grand Commander of this Grand Consistory and for your present ratification of that choice. I will earnestly endeavor to have myself not wholly undeserving of your good opinion; so that, although it must now be said that when elected I was not worthy either by service or qualification, it may not hereafter be said that when I cease to serve, you repented of your selection.

I can bring to your service, Princes, little more than good intentions, kind feelings, and a zealous devotion to the interest of Masonry of all Rites -when you find me deficient (and wherein shall I not, alas, be found, Bro :. ? ) I entreat of you in advance lenient judgment upon my short-comings, and that you will kindly aid me with your sympathy, support and advice. For I must be ever embarrassed by the reflection that I have been by your too favorable judgment preferred to many eminent and distinguished Brethren, whose longer service and greater familiarity with the work gave them far higher claims than any I could have preferred to the post of honor and command. If I supposed that personal consideration or a belief in my superior fitness and capacity had led you to this choice, I should sink under a sense of my feebleness, not ever have succeeded in overcoming my repugnance to accept a post where so much was to be expected. But, amass that there were other reasons, which acted upon you, and made your selection seem politic and for the interest of Masonry in this Valley, reasons not personal to me, but growing out of the conditions of things and the circumstances that surrounded us. I am encouraged to hope that I may in some degree aid in attaining the result which you all desire, and that your just expectations may not be disappointed.

I have accordingly accepted tile post which you have tendered me, and will endeavor to perform its duties. Most important private business will compel my absence for some months. I shall return as soon as practicable, and remain thereafter permanently in the city.¹⁶

Should the interest of the Order at any time be likely to suffer by my temporary absence, I shall be prepared at once to surrender up my office, faintly imitating the lofty magnanimity, of which so beautiful an example has been set me by an Ill:. Bro:. whose genius and labors have done so much to restore the splendors of the Ancient and Accepted Rite ¹⁷ in this Valley, and whose name will not be forgotten among us, while the order of Knights Rose Croix continues to exist, or the Kadosh to war against tyranny and usurpation.

But I shall most sensibly feel how great will be the contrast between myself, with my slender experience, and the Th:. Ill:. Prince and Sovereign whose place I come to take, but not fill. ¹⁸ Eminent in Masonic learning and more illustrious by long and faithful service than even by his high rank and lofty station, the new and supreme dignity recently conferred upon him was a most just and appropriate acknowledgment of his worth. This Consistory must most sensibly feel its loss, as he, Ill:. Gr :. Commander, crowned and laureled with the highest honor, and with the grateful thanks and recollections of his brethren, most gracefully retires from this distinguished post, to yield it of his own choice to another. I beseech him not to withdraw from me his counsel and advice, and I pray him and our Ill:. Bro:. Laffon,¹⁹ and the other eminent brethren who surround me, to aid me, to advise me, to support me in my inexperience, that, guided by them I may not despair of rendering some little service to the cause of humanity, to the cause of truth, of liberty, of philosophy, and of Masonic progress.

My brethren, I see around me the representatives of more than one race, ²⁰ and the disciples of more than one Masonic Rite - I rejoice at this reunion, and it gives me happy augury of the prosperity, health, and continuance of Masonry in this Valley. I am especially glad that here and in other bodies of this Rite, I see by the side of the children of the first generous and gallant settlers of Louisiana, many of another land, and who not long since for the first time passed beyond the boundaries of the York Rite.

 

We are all aware, my brethren, how little among Masons of the latter Rite is known of the Ancient & Accepted Rite, and how great and general a prejudice has obtained those against it. It has been imagined that there was antagonism between the two: Scottish Masonry has been deemed almost spurious, and its degrees, at the best, no more than mere side degrees; and the York Mason who has entered into our sanctuaries has been regarded in the estimation of many, as untrue to his allegiance and disloyal.

Those of you, my brethren, who lately have known only the York Rite, are already aware how unfounded is this prejudice, how erroneous this opinion, how chimerical these apprehensions and alarms. It shall be my study to make you more fully to know this hereafter.

The Ancient and Accepted Rite is, when itself fully developed and understood, when itself what it should be and can be, a great, harmonious and connected system, all the degrees and lessons, embody the philosophy, the history, the morality and the essential meaning of Masonry, and are to us what the Ancient mysteries were to the initiate of Eleusis, of Egypt, and of Samothrace.

The degrees of this Rite are commentaries on the Master’s Degree, which itself is essentially the same in all Rites. They interpret instead of being at variance with that degree. They ultimately make it known to the Initiate the true word and the true meaning and inner sense of the True Word of a Mason. They teach the great doctrines that God taught the Patriarchs, and which are the foundations on which all religions repose.

We do not undervalue symbolic Masonry, nor love it the less because we also love the Ancient & Accepted Rite, we but learn justly to value the Master’s degree, by coming to understand its full meaning and to appreciate the sublime and lofty lessons which it teaches. Masonry is one everywhere and in all its Temples of whatever Rite; as it has been one in all times. Everywhere it teaches the same great lessons of morality and philosophy, or should do so, if faithful to its mission, and if its apostles are properly informed and true to the duties which it imposes on them. If anywhere it has excluded from even the inmost Sanctuaries of its Temples men of any faith who believe in Our Supreme God, Creator and Preserver of all things that become, and in the immortality of the Soul-if it has anywhere assumed the garb of religious exclusion and intolerance, of Jesuitism, of political vengeance, of Hermetic Mysticism, there most assuredly it has ceased to be Masonry.

It would not be true to say, however, that even Scottish Masonry has adequately fulfilled or been equal to its missions. While by the irresistible influence of time, by innovations and by mutilations and corruptions of ignorance, the degrees of the York Rite have long since ceased to be what they should be, and what they were in the beginning, when they succeeded to those ancient academies of science, philosophy and morality, the mysteries; while the practice of confirming everything contained in them to the memory has by the silent lapse of time caused more and more both of ceremony and substance to be forgotten, much to be intentionally dropped, and the field of each degree to be made more and more narrow; while the true meaning of very many of their most valuable symbols have faded away and disappeared, and been replaced by commonplace, and the inventions of ignorance, and the lofty science and profound teachings, of the Ancients have too much given way to unimpressive phrases and valueless formulas, - the Scottish Rite also has not enjoyed immunity from the ravages of the biting tooth of time, universal destroyer of all human beings.

For even here, where over the Temples of our Degrees stood perfect and complete in all the splendor and Majesty of their beautiful and harmonious proportions, we are like strangers from a far land who wander amid the shattered columns and wrecked glories of Thebes and Palmyra, and union over the ruins that track the steps of time, and over the instability of all earthly things. From many of our degrees everything has dropped out except the signs and words, and they remain half effaced and corrupted. From more, all is lost except these and some unimportant formulas; in still more, useless repetition arrives at impressiveness, but cannot renunciate us for the old science and the noble philosophy whose place it endeavors to supply. Those huge chasms have been created in the work, and the connections between the degrees have been broken; so that each has become a fragment instead of being, as at first part of one consistent, regularly progressive and harmonious whole.

 

Thus it has come that of the degrees from the fourth to the thirty-second inclusive, which we retain and apply to ourselves the sounding titles, four only are habitually conferred, which all the residue remain in a great measure, and part of them altogether unknown.

It had become so obvious that this Rite needed reformation, and that either its degrees should all be made worthy to be conferred and of value to be attained, or else those which were not so ought to be abandoned and their titles disused, that more than two years ago the Supreme Council at Charleston appointed a Committee of five Brethren to revise the whole ritual of the degrees; on which Committee I had the distinguished honor to be placed. While my Brother Laffon, both before and after he was also placed there in the stead of my Brother Samory, who to the general regret found himself compelled to decline the act.²¹ While my Brother Laffon labored, more particularly on the 18th Degree, but not alone on that, I also, undertaking at first a few degrees, continued my labors during two years, until I completed a revision of all; which that it may be thoroughly examined and sanctioned, I have printed in a volume and submitted to the Supreme Council. Whether that August Body will stamp it or any part of it with its approval, is wholly unknown to me. I have endeavored to restore the effaced or faded lineament of many of the degrees to develop and elaborate the great leading idea of each, to correct the whole together as a regular series, and to make of them our harmonious and systematic whole, ascending by regular graduations to the highest moral and philosophical truth - I have endeavored to prime away all commonplaces and puerility’s, all unmeaning forms and ceremonies, all absurd interpretations, and everything useless or injurious with which time and ignorance had overloaded the degrees. I have endeavored so to restore, to retouch and to supply, retaining all that was valuable and working up all the old material, as to make every degree worth to be conferred: that there should be no longer any empty tile, or barren honors in the Ancient & Accepted Rite.

This I have attempted; but I am only too well aware that the undertaking was too great for my furios; and that what I have done will be found full of imperfections, as the work of the painter, the sculpture, the creator, and the poet ever falls short of his own ideal.

Still I have endeavored to do somewhat; and it is my desire, at some appropriate future time, and with your consent and assistance, to confer upon some suitable candidate such of the degrees, as I have revised them, as have not been already revised by other and more competent hands.

I congratulate you, my brethren, on the advancement and progress of the Ancient & Accepted Rite in this Valley: The Concordat by which the Supreme Jurisdiction of the Supreme Council at Charleston was acknowledged and under which the two Consistories then existing became one, laid broad and deep the strong foundations of the prosperity of our Rite. The walls of our Temple, solidly and squarely built, bid defiance to the storms of faction; and if we are true to ourselves, peace will dwell within our gates.

And in the Realm of Masonry, if anywhere on earth, there ought to be peace and quiet and harmony. No where are schism and faction, and disunion and discontent so lamentably out of place as here. Here there should be no lust for power and no eagerness for rank or distinction. If discontented men should in this valley have established, or if any shall hereafter establish, under a foreign authority which has no jurisdiction here and act only by usurpation, any body or bodies, claiming to administer the Ancient & Accepted Rite, we shall, I think, be prepared to show that the Supreme Council at Charleston, to which we owe allegiance, is the only legitimate authority in the Rite that can exist in our country south of the River Potomac; and that the Grand Orient of France and the Supreme Council within its bosom offered against Masonic Law and Masonic Comity where they made another jurisdiction and erect their banners on the soil of Louisiana.

It is time that this question should be receive the fullest consideration; and that the authentic history of the creation of the Grand Orient itself and of that of the Supreme Council of France, of the disputes between those two bodies and their temporary alliance should be made known to the order in the United States. Supplied with the emissary documents on both sides, it is every intention to translate them and make them public, that all may judge where is the right and where the usurpation.

The time when fables would pass for history has gone by; and that has come when criticism and investigation will deal with the history of Masonry as with other histories, separating the truth from the error, and after reducing great pretensions to the narrowest proportions. Let us examine the history the Ancient & Accepted Rite and the Grand Orient in that spirit and by the rules and canons of sound criticism, never forgetting that courtesy, moderation, and kindness ought to inspire all Masonic discussions, hoping to find a like tone and spirit on the other side, and that those who may array themselves against us will, if Right and Truth be found with us, candidly admit it, and uniting with us acknowledge the same allegiance and so cause peace ever and ever to reign in this valley.

My Brethren, let me impress it upon you, that there is much to do, if we would have Masonry adequately fulfill its mission. It is not sufficient merely to receive three or four of the degrees, and then, imagining the rest, to live in contented indolence, without an effort to know the high science and philosophy of the system. The time has come when one who would be truly and really be a Scottish Rite Mason must study and reflect. It shall be my earnest endeavor to aid you in penetrating to the inmost heart of Masonry and in unveiling its profound secrets, which are that light towards which all Masons at least profess to struggle, that knowledge of the True Work which is the great remuneration of a Mason’s labor. But if I should fall short of the performance of this duty, be not you, my brethren, disheartened nor discouraged. Masonry must be true to itself, or it will find in numbers weakness only, and its walls will be crushed to the ground with its own might. In this intellectual and practical age. Masonry must it from merited disaster and dissolution.

It is time for it to assume a higher ground; and here, if any where, the effort to elevate it must be made. Here, I believe, we can commence and successfully carry onward the indispensable work of reformation, that shall in time end the reign of puerility’s and trivialities, and make masonry what it should be. The great teacher of moral and philosophical truth; the teacher of the primitive religion known to the first men that lived; the defender of the right of free thought, free conscience and free speech; the apostle of rational and well regulated liberty; the protector of the oppressed, the defender of the common people, the asserter of the dignity of labor and the right of the laboring man; the enemy of intolerance, fanaticism and uncharitable opinion, and of all idle and pernicious theories that arraign providence for its dispensations, and endeavor to set their notions of an abstract justice and equality above the laws by which God chooses to rule all human affairs.

In this great work I wish your co-operation, and I ask, for myself and for those eminent brethren who are to act with me and in my place, your countenance, your assistance, and your encouragement. I am sure my brethren that I shall not ask this in vain; and that grateful, deeply grateful as I now am for your confidence and kindness, I shall be far more so, and with far greater reason, when I am allowed to surrender into your hands the trust which you have so generously confided to me.

Notes:

 

1. Charles Laffon de Ladébat to Albert Pike, June 24, 1860. Archives of the Supreme Council, 33°, S.I., Washington. Photocopy in possession of the author.

2. Report of the Committee on Foreign Correspondence of the Louisiana Grand Lodge of York Masons (New Orleans: Cook, Young & Co., 1949), p. 5.

3. George Washington, Lafayette, Warren, Marion, Crescent City, Hiram, and Eureka.

4. Grand Lodge of the State of Louisiana Report and Exposition (New Orleans: I. L. Sollee, 1849), pp. 5-34.

5. James B. Scot, Outline of the Rise and Progress of Freemasonry in Louisiana (1873; reprint, New Orleans: Cornerstone Book Publishers, 2008), pp. 78-80.

6. Charles Laffon de Ladébat, The Schism between the Scotch & York Rites (1853; reprint, New Orleans: Cornerstone Book Publishers, 2008), pp. 7-8.

7. Scot, Outline, pp. 86-87.

8. An attempt was made in the late 1800s to revive the French Rite in New Orleans through the short lived Grand Orient of Louisiana. This body was created in 1879, but, possibly due to little support, did not last longer than ten years. See: The Grand Orient Of Louisiana: A Short History And Catechism Of A Lost French Rite Masonic Body (1886; reprint, New Orleans: Cornerstone Book Publishers, 2008).

9. Ladébat, The Schism, pp. 7-8.

10. Art de Hoyos, Introduction, The Liturgy of Germania Lodge No.46, F&A.M. (New Orleans: Michael R Poll, 1993).

11. Ladébat to Pike, Jun. 24,1860.

12. See: Michael R. Poll, In His Own (w)Rite, (New Orleans, LA Cornerstone Book Publishers, 2011), “James Foulhouze: A Biographical Study” pp. 91-137.

13. Pike’s law office was located in downtown New Orleans in a building on the riverside of Camp Street one block from Canal Street. The building no longer exists. New Orleans City Directory, 1856.

14. After the Concordat of 1855, the Active Members of the New Orleans Supreme Council were brought in as Honorary Members of the Charleston Supreme Council. As with all Honorary Members of a Supreme Council, they held the 33° but not the active office of Sovereign Grand Inspector General (S.G.I.G.). It was at this time that the Charleston Supreme Council began elevating 32° Masons to the 33° but not including the office of S.G.I.G. in their elevation. Albert Pike was one of the first 32° in the S.J. elevated to the 33° without being invested with the office of S.G.I.G. Pike would be elected an Active Member (S.G.I.G.) of the Charleston Supreme Council on March 20,1858.

15. “. ..I was not the last to devise the means of placing you at the head of the order, 1st by making you a 33rd against the will of Messrs. Furman & Honour: 2nd by vacating my office of Deputy in your favor, & twice you got in the S.C. & especially twice you were unanimously elected to the Presidency, I consider myself as having done my duty, all I could do. The lifeless council of Charleston was revived; it lives now! Only now tho!” Ladébat to Pike, Jun. 24,1860.

16. The New Orleans City Directories from 1856 unti1 1859 show that while Pike had opened a law office in New Orleans, he did not have more than a temporary home in the city. The Minutes of the Grand Consistory also reveal that he was absent for many of the meetings of the Grand Consistory. There is no record that Pike ever moved his family to New Orleans, and it is probable that he traveled between his home in Little Rock and New Orleans. One of the many boarding houses in New Orleans would have likely been his residence during his stays in the city. Despite Pike’s statement, New Orleans would never be his permanent home.

17. At the time of this address, the term Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite was not in common use in the U.S. This accounts for Pike’s repeated use of the older (in the U.S.) term Ancient and Accepted Rite.

18. Pike refers to Claude Pierre Samory. Samory was elected an Active Member of the Charleston Supreme Council on Nov. 20, 1856.

19. Charles Laffon de Ladébat.

20. Freemasonry in pre-Civil War New Orleans was reflective of the New Orleans culture of the time. Pierre Roup was the son-in-law of New Orleans Mason and Battle of New Orleans hero Dominique Youx. Roup was a member of Perseverance Lodge No.4 and sat on the lodge’s building committee. He was a black Creole. While it is clear that there were more than a few black Creoles who were members of New Orleans lodges, identifying them is difficult, as ones’ race was not a question asked or recorded except in notable situations. It is quite possible that there were black Creole members of the Grand Consistory of Louisiana present at the time of Pike’s address. It is, likewise, possible that Pike used the word “race” in reference to the French Masons who were often considered part of the “Latin race”.

21. On p. 249 of his History of the Supreme Council 33°, A.&A.S.R. S.J., U:S.A (1801- 1864) (Washington: Supreme Council, 33°, 1964) Ray Baker Harris, 33°, reproduces a letter sent by Albert Mackey to Claude Samory dated Mar. 21, 1855. The letter concerns the Southern Jurisdiction’s Ritual Committee and lists its members. Claude Samory is listed as the member from New Orleans and Albert Pike the member from Little Rock. Ill. Harris writes: “From all indications, the ‘preparation of new copies’ was in the hands of Albert Pike. He was then in New Orleans, and may have conferred with Samory in this work, but neither of them ever mentioned such a collaboration in their numerous letters written in this period”. Until this address by Pike was rediscovered, it was assumed by most A.&A.S.R. scholars that Samory was on this committee with Pike for a substantial period of time. Bro. Harris, assuming that Samory remained on the committee, logically wondered about the absence of communications between Pike and Samory concerning ritual matters. This address brings to light the fact that Samory retired from the committee shortly after his appointment to be replaced by Ladébat. The collaboration was not between Pike and Samory, but between Pike and Ladébat and renders the degrees written by the two and their ritual communications understandable.

 

***

 

The Grand Constitutions of 1786

The Journal of the Masonic Society, Issue 8, 2010

 

FEW MASONIC DOCUMENTS have been debated, praised, maligned, studied and misunderstand more than the collection known as the Grand Constitutions of 1786. There are actually two collections with that name, one known as the French version and the other as the Latin version. But what are they, why are they important, and why all the fuss about them?

 

The Grand Constitutions of 1786 are directly associated with the 33-degree Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite and are its original rules and regulations. The first Scottish Rite Supreme Council was created in Charleston, South Carolina on May 31, 1801 and used the Grand Constitutions both as authority to exist and laws for governance. The Grand Constitutions of 1786 provided the first Supreme Council with a blueprint, and it gave them guidance in the organization, structure and management of the new system.

 

In the early days of the Scottish Rite, the Grand Constitutions were perceived to be of great importance to the young Supreme Council, but were of no value to Grand Lodges who often viewed the new system as mere side degrees. For the Scottish Rite, they were not only central to the government of the system, but could also be used as evidence of legitimacy. In fact, the original Charleston Supreme Council (today officially known as “The Supreme Council [Mother Council of the World] of the Inspectors General Knights Commander of the House of the Temple of Solomon of the Thirty-third degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry of the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States of America” – but more commonly known simply as the “Southern Jurisdiction”) did use the Grand Constitutions as evidence of legitimacy in what would become a “Scottish Rite war” spanning most of the 19th century.

 

John Mitchell was the first Grand Commander of the Charleston Council (i.e., the “Southern Jurisdiction”). Mitchell had been a Deputy Inspector General (25º) of an older Masonic system known as the Order of the Royal Secret, more commonly known as the Rite of Perfection. In 1807, when Joseph Cerneau, another Deputy Inspector General of the Order of the Royal Secret, created bodies in New York that would evolve into a second Supreme Council in the United States, the young Charleston Council used the Grand Constitutions to argue that this second council was unauthorized and irregular. In 1813, Emanuel de la Motta, an Active Member of the Charleston Council, traveled to New York and – with or without the knowledge or approval of the Charleston Council – created a second Supreme Council in New York on August 23, 1813, to usurp the Cerneau creation. This council would become the Northern Masonic Jurisdiction known today as the partner to the Southern Jurisdiction.

 

Interestingly enough, the Northern Masonic Jurisdiction (NMJ) and the Southern Jurisdiction (SJ) have historically disagreed over which version of the Grand Constitutions of 1786 they accept. The NMJ accepts the French version, and the SJ the Latin version. But why should there be different versions of a document that would seem to be crucial to the Scottish Rite? What and where is the original?

 

The Grand Constitutions of 1786 contain 18 Articles, or laws, and it was reported to be approved and signed in Berlin by Frederic the Great on May 1, 1786. Unfortunately, the original document is not known to exist. When the Charleston Council demanded the Cerneau Council produce documen-tation showing it was authorized to exist, the Cerneau Council produced nothing. The Charleston Council labeled Cerneau unauthorized and irregular. When the Cerneau Council demanded that the Charleston Council prove that they were authorized to exist, the Charleston Council pointed to its copy of the Grand Constitutions of 1786. The Cerneau Council dismissed this document as a forgery and accused the rival group of hypocrisy. The Cerneau Council claimed it had the same right and authority to exist as did the Charleston Council, and that the standards of legitimacy should be the same for both.

 

Another claim made by the Charleston Council was that any additional Supreme Council created in the United States needed its approval, which it did not give to Cerneau.

 

So, who, if anyone, was correct? Is it possible that the Grand Constitutions of 1786 are a forgery and they were never approved by Frederic? Let’s have a look at the two versions of the Grand Constitutions of 1786. Of the French version, Albert Pike tells us:

 

“If I were satisfied that there never were any other Constitutions than those contained in the French version, I should not hesitate to admit that they were a clumsy forgery, and that there was nothing in the world to prove them authentic.” ¹

 

Those are very strong words! But why would Pike write such a strong denunciation of this French version? Past SJ Sovereign Grand Commander Henry Clausen explains:

 

“Pike’s [Latin] version is obviously a truer copy of the original because it supplies omissions and corrections that were apparent in the French version.”

Clausen continues:

 

“Following are a few examples from Pike’s pen showing the disparity between the French and the Latin versions:

 

The French Constitutions neither provide for nor describe any Jewel or Cordon of the Degree. The Seal is described as ‘a large BLACK Eagle with two heads, the beak of gold, the wings displayed, and holding in its claws a naked sword; upon a ribbon displayed below is written DUES MEUMQUE JUS, and above the Eagle, SUPREME COUNCIL OF THE 33rd DEGREE. [Official Bulletin, Vol. V, No.2, p. 548]

 

The French Constitutions provide for one Council of the Degree in each Nation or Kingdom in Europe; for two in the United States of America; for one in the British West Indies; and one in the French West India Islands. But none is provided for Canada; none for the Province of Louisiana, or the Spanish Possessions in North America; and none for South America. [Official Bulletin, Vol. VII, No. 1, p. 486]

 

Their Article VI provides that ‘the power of the Supreme Council does not interfere in any Degree below the 17th;’ and Article VII that only Councils or individuals above the Grand Council of Princes of Jerusalem may bring their appeal to the Supreme Council. This was necessary, in 1801, at Charleston, to prevent hostility on the part of the Grand Lodge of Perfection and Grand Council of Princes of Jerusalem, then and theretofore existing in South Carolina. Why was it necessary in 1786, in Prussia, where no Lodge of Perfection or Council of Princes of Jerusalem existed? [Ibid., p.487]

The fees for the 33rd Degree and for the Patent of it are expressed to be payable, not in German, but in French coin. [Ibid., p.487] ²

 

Pike’s rational and categorical reproof of the French version makes it difficult to understand how one could, with any understanding of Pike’s argument and its implications, reasonably defend the French version. Yet, this is the very version that the NMJ accepts. Why? Even more interesting is the fact that Pike himself used the French version to support his position in a Masonic debate. In the 1860s, the Supreme Councils of the NMJ and SJ entered into a debate over territory. Josiah Drummond, the Grand Commander of the NMJ, and Albert Pike, the Grand Commander of the SJ, debated jurisdictional questions over certain states. Drummond wrote to Pike in 1868:

 

“I hold that under the Constitutions of 1786, the Northern Jurisdiction and the Southern Jurisdiction are, in every respect and for all purposes, as distinct as if they were separate nations: that we, as well as you, derive our rights of jurisdiction from those Constitutions; that those Constitutions create two separate Jurisdictions. On the other hand, I perceive, that you have held that your Supreme Council had jurisdiction throughout North America, and that we get our territory by cession from you; and if by cession, consequently we get only such territory as you choose to cede: and as necessary, that there could have been no Supreme Council in this Jurisdiction unless you had chosen to cede us territory.” ³

 

How did Pike answer Drummond? He wrote (arguing the meaning of certain phrases in the French version):

 

“I do not agree that the Constitutions created the two Jurisdictions. For the United States composed a single Jurisdiction until 1813 or 1815, and might have continued to be as such until today. The provision is restrictive — that there shall not be more than two Supreme Councils established in the United States. That is the real meaning of it; not that there shall be two. But the point is of no practical importance, and I pass it…. If Illustrious Brother Drummond were right in holding that the Northern part of the United States did not belong to the Jurisdiction of the Southern Council, prior to 1813 or 1815, but was to vest, whether it willed it or not, in a Northern Council, whenever one should be created there, a consequence which he does not foresee might follow. That hypothesis would make the Northern states to have been unoccupied territory, in which any Inspector General could establish a Supreme Council; and it might thus make legitimate the Cerneau Council, and annihilate that created in 1813 or 1815 by De la Motta. It certainly would destroy the principal ground on which the legitimacy of Cerneau’s Council was always impeached; to-wit, that the Council at Charleston had jurisdiction over the whole United States, and that no other Council could be created any where in them, except with its consent.” ⁴

 

Pike and Drummond were debating the meaning of Article Five of the French version, which determined the number of Supreme Councils allowed in the US. This debate resulted in Pike producing quite lengthy arguments concerning French and English grammar and the reasons for his position concerning the meaning of Article Five of the French version. Pike even changed a portion of the English translation in his Grand Constitutions to reflect his opinion of the rendition.⁵ In his 1868 Allocution, Pike very skillfully debated this interpretation of Article Five of the French version at length and he did likewise in his Grand Constitutions. But why should Pike bother to painstakingly argue a point concerning a document that he had dismissed as a “clumsy forgery”? Pike should have, for the sake of clearly articulating his true position, debated the Latin version — which he claimed to be legitimate. Why didn’t he? Simply put, Pike could not debate this portion of the Latin version. The same portion of Article Five of the Latin version (the version Pike refers to as the “law of the Rite” ⁶) reads:

 

“In each great nation of Europe, and in each Kingdom or Empire, there shall be but one single Supreme Council of this Degree. In all those States and Provinces, as well of the mainland as of the islands, whereof North America is composed, there shall be two Councils, one at as great a distance as may be from the other.” ⁷

 

Pike strongly contended that the meaning of Article Five (French version) was that the US was not required to be divided into two jurisdictions, yet that is exactly the meaning of the Latin version, which Pike himself had translated in 1859. Pike used the French version in his debate with Drummond simply because it was more open to interpretation. The “consequence” that Pike claimed would follow if Drummond’s interpretation was accepted, is clearly present in the Latin version — Cerneau, it seems, might have had reason, based on the version of the Grand Constitutions accepted by the SJ, to believe that he had rightfully established his Council.

 

The problem for Drummond was that Pike had skillfully painted him into a corner with his masterful use of Drummond’s preferred French version. The territorial debate ended with Drummond yielding to Pike’s demands. The view held by Drummond, however, was not only based on his interpretation of Article Five of the French version, but also on the “birth certificate” of the Northern Council itself, which reads in part:

 

“And whereas the Grand Constitutions of the 33º specifies particularly, that there shall be two Grand & Supreme Councils of the 33d Degree for the Jurisdiction of the United States of America, one for the South and the other for the North.” ⁸

 

It is obvious why Drummond interpreted Article V of the French version as he did. The NMJ was created on the premise that the constitutions provided for two councils in the United States. Its only contention could have been if Cerneau was not a legitimate Sovereign Grand Inspector General; after all, if he was legitimate, the Cerneau Council was perfectly legal and the NMJ was – by its own stated reason for being created – unauthorized! Pike’s opinions concerning the meaning of the original French interpretation were clearly not shared by Emanuel de la Motta, who created the NMJ and was an active Member of the original Charleston Council. It is, likewise, evident why Pike’s “threats” might well have been taken seriously. Clearly the only available attack that could reasonably be made on Cerneau, from the NMJ perspective, was to discredit his legitimacy as a SGIG – but great care had to be taken in this course of action as there is no reason to believe Cerneau and John Mitchell obtained the degree in any different manner.⁹ To discredit Cerneau’s 33rd might also discredit Mitchell’s.

 

It would seem apparent that Pike was unaware of the existence of a handwritten copy of the French version of the Grand Constitutions that had been made by Frederick Dalcho, the first Lt. Grand Commander of the Charleston Council and its second Grand Commander following John Mitchell; the document was not discovered until the 20th century.¹⁰ (This copy now resides in the Kloss Collection in the Grand Lodge Library, The Netherlands, which also includes a manuscript of the Ritual of the Thirty-third Degree.) Pike boldly proclaimed the French version a fraud, and offered very lucid support for his position, while clearly having no idea of the pernicious wording of the “birth certificate” of the NMJ. An additional problem for Pike was that the Latin version was unknown before 1832. To make matters worse, it was none other than a Cerneau Council that made the Latin version available to the world.¹¹

 

Customarily, papers discussing Joseph Cerneau include arguments concerning the Grand Constitutions of 1786. Cerneau is routinely accused of acting in violation of these Constitutions. Nineteenth-century defenders of Cerneau typically argued the lack of authenticity of the Grand Constitutions, with the apparent belief that if the Grand Constitutions could be discredited then all charges against Cerneau would likewise be dismissed. One claim that was often made was that Frederic the Great had been in very poor heath at the time the Constitutions were said to be approved, and that he was physically unable to have given them consent. Albert Pike went to great lengths to examine the charge that Frederic was not physically able to have executed such a document. Pike meticulously traced the reported events and laid out a detailed report on his position that it was possible for Frederic to have executed the Grand Constitutions. Scottish Rite historian Samuel Baynard of the NMJ writes of Pike’s conclusions:

“Though we admit that our Illustrious Brother did in a masterly manner fully convince us that Frederick on May 1, 1786, was physically able and mentally capable of drafting, signing and promulgating these Grand Constitutions, we have utterly failed to find that he discovered or pointed out to us one scintilla of evidence that Frederick actually did have aught to do with them.”¹²

 

Pike was obviously aware that his lengthy account did not answer the actual question of whether Frederic signed or approved the Grand Constitutions. Addressing this point in a most interesting manner, Pike writes:

 

“There is not one particle of proof, of any sort, circumstantial or historical or by argument from improbability, that they are not genuine and authentic.”¹³

 

As remarkable as it sounds, Pike is actually asking us to prove a negative. Regardless of Pike’s request, Baynard goes on to write:

 

“We conclude therefore:

 

1. That the Grand Constitutions were not promulgated by Frederic the Great;

2. That they were not framed, drawn up or signed in Berlin;

3. That there did not exist in Berlin or even France in 1786, any “Grand Supreme Universal Inspectors, in constituted Supreme Council”;

4. That the real date of the Constitutions is subsequent to 1786.” ¹⁴

 

But if the Grand Constitutions are a forgery, then who forged them? The question did not escape Baynard:

 

“It is only natural that the next question should be, Well, then, who did frame them? We do not know. Neither are we unduly disturbed because we do not know. We have our opinion, but it is not substantiated by any evidence that we can call positive or direct, and, therefore, we do not express it as a conclusion.” ¹⁵

 

To summarize the situation, Pike had already proclaimed the French version of the Grand Constitutions a forgery. He was debating the merits of why the Latin version should be considered legitimate. Baynard rejected both versions of the Grand Constitutions. Regarding the possibility that the Latin version might also be a forgery, Pike tells us:

 

“The odious charge has been again and again repeated, that these Latin Constitutions were forged at Charleston. It is quite certain that this is not true, because the Supreme Council at Charleston never had them, until it received copies of the editions published by the Grand Commander. If they were forged anywhere, it was not at Charleston: and if anything was forged there, it was the French copy, as it afterwards appeared in the Recueil des Actes.” ¹⁶

 

And elsewhere:

 

“The gentlemen of South Carolina, in that day, did not commit forgery. Whatever the origin of the Grand Constitutions, they came from Europe to Charleston, and were accepted and received by the honorable gentlemen and clergymen who were of the first Supreme Council, in perfect good faith” ¹⁷

 

If the Grand Constitutions are forged documents, but the original Charleston Council did not forge them, then how did they come into possession of them? Pike theorizes:

 

“This very imperfect French copy, which consists merely of so many Articles, without preface, formality of enactment by any body in Power, or authentication of any sort, contains no list of the degrees, nor even the name of the Rite. It is most probable that de Grasse procured it, in or from Europe, and created the Supreme Council. By Article V of these Constitutions, it requires three persons to constitute a quorum and compose a Supreme Council; and therefore Colonel Mitchell and Dr. Dalcho alone could not have been, by themselves, such a body. Brother de Grasse intended establishing a Supreme Council at Santo Domingo for the French West India Islands; and no other person had any interest to make the Constitutions read so as to allow such a Council, except his father-in-law, Jean Baptiste Delahogue, who also resided in Charleston in 1796, 1799 and 1801, and was also a 33rd, and appointed to be Lieutenant Grand Commander for the French West Indies. It was for this reason, evidently, that neither of them was placed on the roll of members of the body at Charleston.” ¹⁸

 

We now have enough material to analyze. Baynard held the opinion that the entire story of the Grand Constitutions was a fabrication. He based his opinion on the total lack of factual evidence supporting the account and the improbability of the reported events. Pike soundly denounced the French version as a fraud, but held to the possibility of legitimacy for the Latin version. Pike pointed out that the original Charleston Council did not have possession or knowledge of the Latin version and had based their actions on the fraudulent French version. Pike also stated that it was Alexander de Grasse-Tilly who had brought the forged French version to Charleston, and implied that it was de Grasse-Tilly who might actually have forged them. Pike, with some indignation, rejected the possibility that Mitchell or Dalcho might have had anything to do with forgery.

 

There are two logical scenarios that we can explore: The first would be that Mitchell and Dalcho received the Grand Constitutions sincerely believing they were legitimate; the second would be that Mitchell and Dalcho took part in the creation of the Grand Constitutions or knew that they were a forgery.

 

If Mitchell and Dalcho believed that the Grand Constitutions were legitimate, we can look at the series of events with this mind-set. If Mitchell and Dalcho believed that they were propagating a European system created some 15 years prior to the creation of the Charleston Council, then they could have reasonably assumed that other Supreme Councils of the 33º existed in Europe. Clearly, the Grand Constitutions speak of such a Council in Berlin.

 

On August 23, 1813 John Mitchell and Frederick Dalcho wrote to Emanuel de la Motta concerning de la Motta’s report to them of Cerneau. Mitchell wrote in part:

 

“I am truly surprised and astonished at the conduct of the man you say is called Mr. Joseph Cerneau. No person ever had the degree but the Count de Grasse, and perhaps, but I am not sure, Mr. Delahogue.” ¹⁹

 

We must stop for a moment to try and understand this comment by Mitchell. If Mitchell received a copy of the Grand Constitutions and he accepted them as legitimate and authoritative, how could he be so sure that no one else “had the degree”? What of the Supreme Council in Berlin mentioned in the Grand Constitutions? The copy of the Grand Constitutions of 1786 that Mitchell had available to him opens as follows:

“Made and approved in the Supreme Council of the 33rd duly and lawfully established and Congregated in the Grand East of Berlin on the 1st of May Anno Lucis 5786 and of the Christian Era 1786. At which Council was present in person – His Most August Majesty, Frederic 2nd, King of Prussia, Sovereign Grand Commander.”

 

Was the “Supreme Council of the 33rd” in Berlin composed of members who did not have the 33rd degree? If no one else had the degree, who gave it to Mitchell – someone who did not possess it himself? Mitchell writes that de Grasse was the only other person whom he was certain “had” the degree. (This is possibly where Pike conceived the theory that de Grasse was the one who brought the forged copy to the United States.) If no one else had the degree before de Grasse, then who gave it to de Grasse? If de Grasse gave Mitchell the 33rd at some time earlier than the creation of the Charleston Council in 1801, why does the “1802 Manifesto” (the “birth certificate” of the SJ) state that de Grasse received the 33º from Mitchell on the “21st of February, 5802” [1802]? ²⁰

 

Let’s now look at part of the letter Frederick Dalcho wrote to de la Motta on the same day as Mitchell’s letter and also concerning the new Cerneau creation. It again should be noted that the date of Dalcho’s letter was August 23, 1813. Emanuel de la Motta established the Supreme Council for the Northern Jurisdiction 13 days earlier on August 10, 1813, and he certainly would have been reported this fact to Mitchell and Dalcho in the letter that prompted their response. Dalcho wrote:

 

“It is well known to those who have lawfully received the 33rd degree, that there can be but one Council in a nation or kingdom; and that the Council for the U.S. was lawfully established in this City, May 31st, 1801; consequently any other assuming its prerogatives must be surreptitious.”²¹

 

What does Dalcho mean by this statement? The copy of the Grand Constitutions of 1786 which exists in his own hand says that there “shall” be two in the United States. And what of de la Motta’s creation? Is there some suggestion that Dalcho might not have approved of the de la Motta Council any more than the Cerneau one? The “birth certificate” of the NMJ, created by de la Motta, states that “there shall be two Grand & Supreme Councils of the 33d Degree for the Jurisdiction of the United States of America, one for the South and the other for the North.”

 

Pike stated that the earliest known copy of the Grand Constitutions was the “forged” French version as appeared in a French Masonic publication titled Recueil des Actes in 1817. ²² Pike stated that Mitchell and Dalcho could not have forged the Constitutions because they were both “honorable” men and neither “the kind of man to put his hand to that kind of work.” Pike also stated that it was not “probable that either of them could write Latin or French.” ²³ Pike theorized that de Grasse along with his father-in-law, Jean Baptiste Delahogue, acquired or forged the French version and then, presumably, translated it into English so that Mitchell and Dalcho could understand it. Pike did not know of the handwritten Dalcho copy, but could have, by this line of reasoning, assumed that Dalcho copied it from a de Grasse or Delahogue copy which they had translated from French into English.

 

Could this be the copy that was used to fool Mitchell and Dalcho? We learn from past SJ Grand Historian Ray Baker Harris that the Delahogue documents in the Kloss Collection are “an undoubted copy of the Thirty-Third Degree and the Constitution, Statutes and Regulations, in use in Charleston in 1801-1802 when the Supreme Council was established.”²⁴

 

Harris also tells us:

 

“This assumption is further confirmed by a manuscript copy of the same in English, entirely in the handwriting of Frederick Dalcho. It is the English equivalent of Delahogue’s French copy. It is believed to have been the Charleston copy from which Delahogue made his translation into French.”²⁵

 

Delahogue made his translation into French? But Pike said that the oldest known copy of the Grand Constitutions was the forged French version. In a reproof of this version, Pike rigidly defended Mitchell and Dalcho based on his position that this forged copy came into their hands, presumably through de Grasse and/or Delahouge, and they simply accepted it as legitimate. The “French version” would have had to have been translated from French into English, not the other way around for Pike’s argument to be sound. Is there some support for Harris’ position that the French Delahouge copy was made from the English Dalcho copy? Yes. Harris tells us that the Delahogue copy of the Grand Constitutions carries the note: “translated from the English by me [Delahogue].”²⁶

 

For Pike’s theory to be correct, de Grasse would have translated his forged French Constitutions into English for Mitchell and Dalcho. Dalcho would then have copied that English translation into his own hand. Then, we are asked to believe that de Grasse’s father-in-law did not make a French-to-French copy of the Constitutions from de Grasse’s copy, but instead used Dalcho’s English copy to translate it back into French for his own personal copy. That makes no sense at all! Why would Delahogue go to all that trouble if his son-in-law possessed the original French version?

 

This writer is wholly in agreement with Samuel Baynard in his rejection of the legitimacy of the Grand Constitutions. Likewise, there is little room to argue the perfectly logical assessment that Albert Pike made of the French version of the Grand Constitutions. Pike clearly did not realize that what he so soundly proved to be a “clumsy forgery” came directly from the hand of Frederick Dalcho.

 

In the absence of any other reasonable explanation, we must conclude that John Mitchell and Frederick Dalcho fabricated the story of the Grand Constitutions of 1786, either in whole or in part. We cannot, as Pike suggested, attempt to prove or disprove a negative. We also cannot embrace fanciful theories that make the story end as we might wish. The course of events simply does not make sense if we take the position that Mitchell and Dalcho received the Grand Constitutions, accepted them as legitimate, and created the Charleston Council. The known facts simply do not support such conclusions.

 

This writer holds the opinion that Mitchell, Dalcho, and possibly a few others held reasonable concern in regard to the failing and chaotic state of the “Scottish Rite” order (Order of the Royal Secret or Rite of Perfection). “To bring “order” to the “chaos,” the new 33-degree AASR system was created. The “cream of the crop” of the degrees and rituals were selected for this new system, an inspired creation for which, one can imagine, a concern developed over whether it would be accepted by Freemasonry. A royal endorsement would add value to any new Masonic system, and one attached to a set of governing laws might bestow greater value.

 

If we examine the situation from the standpoint that the Charleston Council received the constitutions and accepted them as legitimate, then we arrive at one contradiction after another. If, however, we consider the entire story and creation came from the Charleston Council, a very logical scenario develops. It is this writer’s conclusion that the original Charleston Council was created alongside a set of governing laws attributed to Frederic II. This writer has not seen one scrap of sound evidence to support the position that Frederic actually approved – or even knew of – any Grand Constitutions in Berlin on May 1, 1786. There is, however, abundant evidence to attribute the creation of the constitutions to the original members of the Charleston Council.

 

It has been more than 200 years since the creation of the Charleston Council. The value and worth of the AASR is well proven. It is clear this Masonic system is of tremendous importance to the whole of Masonry, and it is not a disservice to acknowledge all of its history. The creators of the AASR were human, after all, and humans sometimes make mistakes in judgment.

 

Notes:

 

1. Albert Pike, The Grand Constitutions of Freemasonry (New York: The Supreme Council, 33º Southern Jurisdiction, USA, 1872), 282-283.

2. Henry C. Clausen, Authentics of Fundamental Law for Scottish Rite Freemasonry (San Diego: The Supreme Council, 33º Southern Jurisdiction, USA, 1979), 9-10.

3. Transactions of the Supreme Council of the 33D for the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States (New York: Masonic Publishing Company, 1869), 19.

4. Ibid., 22-23.

5. Pike, The Grand Constitutions of Freemasonry 289. Pike altered the English translation of the French version of Article five to: “...but two in the United States of America...” in order to emphasize his point concerning his interpretation of the meaning of this phrase.

6. Ibid., 283.

7. Albert Pike, The True Secret Institutes and Fundamental Bases of the Order of Ancient Free and Associated Masons and the Grand Constitutions of the Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite of the Year 1786. (New Orleans: The Supreme Council, 33º Southern Jurisdiction, USA 1859), 163-165. In Pike’s 1872 (A.M. 5632) The Grand Constitutions of Freemasonry, he altered the original translation of the Latin version to read as follows: “In each great nation of Europe, and in each Kingdom or Empire, there shall be a single Council of the said degree. In the States and Provinces, as well on the Continent as in the Islands, whereof North America consists, there will be two Councils, one at as great a distance from the other as may be possible.” Pike, the master linguist, replaced the word “shall” with “will” in his 1872 edition, which, while having the same meaning, was not such an obvious problem to inattentive readers. The edited edition carries the note, “Re-translated from the Latin by Albert Pike, 33º, Sov. Gr. Commander. A.M., 5632” p. 213. Pike maintained the accuracy of his 1859 translation, at least, until 1868, as the questioned portion of Article Five is reproduced in the 1868 Transactions of the SC SJ exactly as they appeared in the 1859 translation on page 28.

8. Samuel Harrison Baynard, Jr., History of the Supreme Council, 33º Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite Northern Masonic Jurisdiction of the United States of America and its Antecedents (Boston: The Supreme Council, 33º Northern Masonic Jurisdiction, USA, 1938), Vol. I, 175-179. This quotation is taken from the facsimile reproduction of the 1813 “birth certificate” for the Northern Jurisdiction (reproduced on page 176). In addition to the facsimile is a printed transcript of the “birth certificate” provided to us by Ill. Brother Baynard. Interestingly, the printed transcription omits a number of words and phrases that appear in the facsimile. The phrase, for example, “one for the South and one for the North” (line 26 of the facsimile), does not appear in the printed transcription.

9. The question of where and when John Mitchell and Joseph Cerneau received their 33rd degrees has not escaped the notice of Masonic researchers. In the case of Cerneau, he is usually dismissed quickly due to the total lack of evidence that anyone ever actually gave him the 33rd degree. Emanuel de la Motta, upon first meeting Cerneau, attempted to obtain certain information about Cerneau’s 33rd including having a look at his Patent, but was unable to satisfy himself in any way (see: Charles S. Lobingier, The Supreme Council 33º [Louisville, Kentucky: The Supreme Council, 33º, SJ., 1964], p. 102.). But what of John Mitchell? There has never been a Patent discovered showing that Mitchell received the 33rd from anyone. We know that Mitchell gave Dalcho the 33rd as a Patent for this event exists. Mitchell was the first Sovereign Grand Commander of the SJ, so how did he receive the 33rd? Who gave it to him? Prior to Mitchell’s role in the creation of the AASR, he was a Deputy Inspector General (25º) of the so-called “Rite of Perfection”. We often see those senior to Mitchell in this system being credited with giving him the 33rd (usually Barend Spitzer). How could a 25th degree Mason from another system give the 33rd degree of the AASR to someone? We can also see an account of some “unknown” Prussian or German giving him the degree with Mitchell signing an obligation for it in French. (See: Baynard, History of the Supreme Council, 33º, Vol. 1, p. 89.) If someone gave Mitchell the 33rd, who gave it to him? Why didn’t this unknown SGIG play a role in the creation of the Charleston Council? Since this unknown SGIG was senior to Mitchell, why wasn’t he the first Charleston Sovereign Grand Commander? The questions can go on forever.

One thing we must never do is judge past events by today’s standards. How we do things today, may not have been the norm in the past. We can find evidence of an old practice that might shed some light on the Mitchell/Cerneau 33rd degree question. Evidence exists (see: Henry Wilson Coil, Coil’s Masonic Encyclopedia [New York: Macoy Pub. & Masonic Supply Co., 1961], p. 121 and Pike, The Grand Constitutions of Freemasonry, p. 117.) that a Deputy Inspector General of the old so-called “Rite of Perfection” (as were both Mitchell and Cerneau) could “slide over” to the 32nd degree of the new 33 degree AASR. In addition, if a 32nd of the AASR was the senior (or only) 32nd in an unoccupied area, he could advance himself to the 33rd degree of the AASR in order to give the degree to others and create a Supreme Council. Both Mitchell and Cerneau gave the 33rd to others and created supreme councils.

Regardless of the historic disapproval of Cerneau, it is possible that according to the custom of that time, he received the 33rd degree in the same manner as did Mitchell. A sound argument could be made that he was just as legitimate a SGIG as was Mitchell.

10. See: R. Baker Harris and James D. Carter, History of the Supreme Council, 33º (1801-1861) (Washington, D.C.: The Supreme Council, 33º Southern Jurisdiction, USA, 1964), 98.

11. Ibid., 216.

12. Baynard, History of the Supreme Council, 33º, 101.

13. Pike, The Grand Constitutions of Freemasonry, 170.

14. Baynard, History of the Supreme Council, 33º, 115.

15. Ibid., 116.

16. Pike, The Grand Constitutions of Freemasonry 126.

17. Ibid., 195.

18. Ibid., 134.

19. Harris/Carter, History of the Supreme Council, 33º (1801-1861), 117.

20. Ibid., 323.

21. Ibid., 118.

22. Pike, The Grand Constitutions of Freemasonry, 126.

23. Ibid., 134.

24. Harris/Carter, History of the Supreme Council, 33º (1801-1861), 92.

25. Ibid., 92.

26. Ibid., 92.

 

***

 

The “White Cap”

EVER HEAR THE EXPRESSION, “He’s an honorary 33^rd”? It’s not uncommon to hear, but … it’s just not correct.

 

There are two “parts” to the 33^rd degree - the office (SGIG) and the degree (33rd). A “White Cap” has received the 33^rd and final degree of the AASR, but they are honorary Sovereign Grand Inspectors General. A “White Cap” is not an Active Member of a supreme council.

 

Confusing? Let’s look at some of the history.

 

When our 33^rd degree system was created, the final degree was patterned upon the final degree of the old “Order of the Royal Secret” (aka: “Rite of Perfection”). This means that the final degree was not only a degree, but also an office held by the one receiving the degree. Those who received the degree performed certain duties which could only be performed by those who held both the degree and the office.

 

The early AASR was governed by a set of rules as laid down in a collection of documents known as the “Grand Constitutions of 1786.” These Constitutions (the history of which is not exactly relevant for this discussion) were accepted as the law of the Rite by the early Charleston Supreme Council. These constitutions gave specific instructions on the organization and membership of a supreme council. A supreme council would consist of 9 Members who held the 33^rd degree (in the SJ, that number would expand to 33 Members under the administration of Albert Pike). The degree name as well as the name of this office was, “Sovereign Grand Inspector General.” In the very early days, all those who held the 33rd Degree were also Active Members (voting members) of a supreme council.

 

It was not too long after the creation of the U.S. supreme councils, that Members of one jurisdiction began moving their residence into the jurisdiction of other supreme councils. We can find cases of these “sojourning” 33rds being received in other supreme councils and also cases of some being made “Honorary” Members of their host supreme council. These honorary memberships were more of a “tip of the hat” and recognition of rank, but carried no voting privileges or official duties.

 

In the 1850’s, a dramatic innovation took place in the SJ. Albert Pike was one of the first 32nds to be elevated to the 33^rd degree, but not receive the office of Sovereign Grand Inspector General. The office and degree became split. It was required that for one to hold the office to have received the degree, but no longer would receiving the degree automatically mean that the office was also held.

 

The Supreme Council under Albert Pike created two honor investitures. One was for 32nds and commonly known as “Knight Commander Court of Honor (KCCH)” and the second was for 33rds, (IGH) and became known as “Grand Cross Court of Honor (GC)”. Pike had become aware of an older honor investiture in the Scottish Rite bodies in New Orleans for both 32nds and 33rds by the name of the “Ceremony of the Fiery Heart.” It is possible that this older ceremony provided the inspiration for the KCCH and GC investitures.

 

It is unfortunate that we so often see the “White Cap” included with the honor investitures of the AASR. The “Knight Commander Court of Honor” and the “Grand Cross Court of Honor” are honor investitures given to 32nd or 33rd. These two honor investitures are not degrees and including the 33rd in with them might be one source of confusion as to the nature of the 33rd degree itself.

 

The 33rd degree is the final degree of the AASR. It is certainly an honor to be found worthy of receiving the degree (most do not receive it) but it is a mistake to believe that “honor” is the proper word for how you should view receiving it. It would be far more appropriate to view it as a “responsibility” as 33rds are to be the teachers and models for all other members of the AASR.

 

***

 

Integrity in Masonry

Lecture given at the 18^th District Lodge, New Orleans, Louisiana

August 22, 2011

 

THANK YOU FOR INVITING ME to talk this evening. As the Worshipful Master mentioned, I had the pleasure of serving the 18^th District as District Grand Lecturer during the mid to late 1980’s. My final year was in 1990. That opportunity to serve put me in contact with a some extraordinary brothers, some of them, sadly, are no longer with us. One such brother was Worshipful Brother Irl Fergerson. At that time, Bro. Fergerson was the Chairman of the Permanent Committee on Work. In my early days of Masonry, I would go to the old Masonic Temple Building and enjoy afternoons listening to him and learning the work. He was, without doubt, one of the finest ritualists I had ever met. He not only knew the ritual forward and backwards, but also inside and out. But, it was his style of teaching that most impressed me. I well remember him tapping loudly on his chair after he would ask a question and saying, “If I wanted a tape recorder, I would go to the store and buy one! I don’t want you to just give me back words properly strung together, I want you to tell me what those words mean!” Brother Fergerson was not satisfied with anyone just correctly knowing the ritual, he wanted them to understand the philosophy being taught. It was in this manner of teaching that new doors began to open for me in my Masonic education. I could find in our ritual something of a blueprint for living a virtuous life; a plan for inner growth and development. It was here that the true beauty of Freemasonry began to shine for me.

 

Learning the ritual from Brother Fergerson gave me the opportunity to learn of the deep moral philosophy that is embedded in our teachings. I learned symbolic lessons that not only gave me assistance in my Masonic life, but all of my life – inside or out of Masonry. I learned how to treat others, how to properly look at and examine my own life, my flaws and positive points, how to properly interact with others and what is truly the most important aspects of life. I learned life lessons. One of those lessons, integrity, is the subject of tonight’s talk.

 

Around the world, there are many different types of Freemasonry. By that, I mean the rituals that are used and practiced. While the words and activities of the craft degrees in the different rites vary, sometimes quite a bit, one common thread that runs through all of the various rites and rituals is the legend of Hiram. Now, before I say anything else, I have to throw in a disclaimer of sorts. Some time back I heard that a jurisdiction was thinking about removing the legend of Hiram from their ritual. As surprising as that information was, the reason behind their idea was even more remarkable. I was told that the reason for their wanting to remove this aspect of the ritual was because they could not establish that the legend of Hiram was a factual historical event. I was stunned. It is a symbolic story; a lesson. It is completely irrelevant if the story of Hiram is fact or fiction. We are not teaching a history class. The story is used as a vehicle to deliver lessons of virtue and morality. The lessons that are taught are what is important, not the factual nature of the story used to present the lessons.

 

So, with the disclaimer that I make no statement of historical fact, I’ll continue with the story. The story takes place at the time of the building of King Solomon’s Temple. We are taught that a great many operative Masons worked on the construction of the Temple. These Masons were guided in their work by three Grand Masters: King Solomon, King Hiram of Tyre and the lead architect, Hiram Abif. At some point, the three Grand Masters realized that a number of the craftsmen were performing their duties at such a high level of skill that it entitled them to special recognition. These craftsmen would be elevated to Master craftsmen.

 

Now, in today’s Freemasonry, if we receive a degree, an office or position of importance, we’re honored by that advancement. But, in reality, it means very little outside of our Masonic life. Our Freemasonry is Speculative Freemasonry, and it is something we do outside of our family life and livelihood. This was not the same with the old Operative Freemasons. Freemasonry was their livelihood. It was how they fed their family and paid their bills. Being advanced to the rank of Master was a major accomplishment. Not only did it mean an elevation in their social status, it meant a considerable pay increase. This advancement was a very important event in their life.

 

When the news of the pending advancements was made known, we can assume that considerable excitement and interest developed. It is because of the importance of these advancements to the lives of those receiving them that some concern among the Grand Masters developed. It seemed reasonable to put into place some sort of security measure so that individuals of low moral character could not assume rank for which they were not entitled. It was decided that a secret word would be given to all new Masters of the Craft so that they could prove their rank by the possession of this word. As a further security measure, it was decided that this word would not be given out to anyone unless all three Grand Masters were present and agreed to the investiture.

 

The story goes on that three crafts-men obviously real-ized that they would likely not be elevated to a higher rank and were unhappy about it. They wanted this advancement - badly. So much did they want this advancement that they hatched a plan to steal this “secret word,” move to another area and live their lives pretending to hold a rank they did not earn. They caught one of the Grand Masters alone and demanded that he tell them the secret word. When he refused, they roughed him up a bit. When the Grand Master still refused to give them the word, they became desperate. They made it clear to him that they were going to leave with either the word or him dead. At this point, the Grand Master had a choice. He could give them what they wanted, or he could risk death. Clearly he took them seriously as his final words reflect acknowledgment of what he knew would happen, “Of my life you may deprive me; of my integrity, never!”

 

Think about what happened for a minute. There is something that I have been taught since childhood, and, most likely, you have also been taught. It is that if I am ever in a situation where someone threatens my life in a robbery attempt, I should give them whatever they want. Why didn't he? I was taught that nothing I have on me is worth risking my life. Why didn't he just give them this word and then he could live and go on with his life?

 

The lesson of integrity is involved not because of a robbery attempt, but because of an agreement that was made. This Grand Master agreed that he would not give the secret word to anyone unless certain conditions were met. Had these craftsmen attempted to simply rob him of some coins, then it is reasonable that he would have freely exchanged whatever he had on him for his life. But, what these men wanted was something completely different. They demanded that he violate an agreement, his word.

 

The Grand Master’s final words need closer attention. He said, “Of my life you may deprive me …” What does that mean? He clearly recognized that he was not in control of their actions. He could not make them spare his life or do anything at all. Taking his life was something that they would either do or not do and he had no control whatsoever over their actions. The only thing in which he had total control was his actions. They could take his life, but they could not take this word from him. He could only give it and that would be by his choice.

 

The Grand Master needed to determine what was of true value to him. He knew that we all live and die, but he also knew that how we live is up to us. To be robbed of some coins is no dishonor, but what of violating his word? What was that worth to him? He did not agree to only give the word when certain conditions were met unless his life was threatened or only on the third Tuesday of the month if there was a full Moon. He agreed to not give it unless these conditions were met. Period. If he gave the word to anyone and those conditions were not met then he would be violating his word. It did not matter if they offered him money, threatened him or anything else. He would either keep his word or break it.

 

In life we can gain or lose material things. Because of the twists and turns in life we can amass great wealth or lose everything we own. Many things can happen to us because we were either in the right place or the wrong place. But either we have integrity and honor, or we do not. We have it because it is our choice and we lose it by the same choice. Material things can be taken away from us and we might have no choice in the matter. But, not our integrity. We are the only ones who have the power to give our integrity away.

 

The Grand Master knew that we all live and die. He also knew that all of the mag-nificent structures that he helped create would mean nothing if his moral foundation was made of sand – void of integrity or honor. These men had the power to take his life, but they were powerless to make him live a life without integrity. This was the point of the story – to teach a life lesson of virtue and morality, not to simply provide a historical account.

 

But, we should not believe that the story ends here. The nature of symbolism is layered and often requires second and third looks to find deeper meanings. Just because we believe that we are acting with honor or integrity does not mean that this is actually the case. Let me give you an example.

 

A story from New Orleans in the early 1800’s come to mind. There were two men who were standing outside the St. Louis Cathedral having a friendly conversation. The two men were facing each other. One of the men felt a bit uncomfortable in his position and moved just a bit to the left to reposition himself. When the man moved over, the other man winced in pain and looked shocked. In a sharp tone he demanded that the man return to his original position. The man who moved had no idea of what the other man was talking, or understood his strange actions or demand, but did not like his tone of voice. What neither man realized or considered was that the man who moved was considerably taller than the other man. In the position he was in, (unnoticed by either man) he was standing right in a place where he was blocking the sun. When he moved a bit over, the sunlight hit the shorter man right in the eyes causing his painful reaction.

 

Neither man was of a mind to explain himself or ask too many questions of the other. Hot tempers took over and the friendly conversation was replaced by a very heated, nonsensical argument. And then it happened … one man exclaimed that his “honor” had become compromised and “integrity” demanded satisfaction. A challenge to a duel was issued.

 

It was fortunate that neither man died in the duel, but one of them was shot in the arm. For the rest of this man’s life, he lived with a useless arm as the result of the injury suffered in that duel. And for what? Honor? Integrity? One man moved a bit and the other man had sun in his eyes. For that you shoot at each other?

 

What these men mistook for honor and integrity was pride, arrogance and vanity. These vices were disguised as or mistaken for virtues. There was no loss of honor in what happened and integrity demanded nothing in the way of a duel.

 

We must live our lives with honor and integrity. But, we must know what is a virtue and what is a vice disguised as virtue. It’s not always as clear as we think. If anyone has ever told us that being a Mason is easy, then they misled us. There will be times when we find it most difficult to live up to our teachings. But, as we are so often told, it is the journey that is most important, not the final goal.

 

***

 

Writing Masonic History

“History [is] a distillation of rumour.”

-Thomas Carlyle

 

RECENTLY, I READ SOMETHING that I found quite interesting. A Mason wrote, “Masonic history is fact and can not be changed.” I studied that line for a time and could not decide if I agreed with him. Before I could form any opinion of his thought, I would have to understand his meaning of the word “history.” If he used that word to mean the actual events of the past, then I would, of course, agree with him. How could I not? Everything that any of us did yesterday is over and can not be changed. Period. My problem was that this Mason might have used the word “history” to mean the published accounts of past events (Masonic history books or papers). If this is what he meant, then I very much disagree with him.

 

Published accounts of Masonic history can only be considered as fact when they are so proven (and even then can be questioned). Errors of accuracy and assumptions abound in our Masonic literature. Learned historians often dramatically disagree on the “correct” interpretation of events in history when facts are lacking and opinions are obligatory. How “history” is discovered, analyzed and drafted is often the telltale mark of identifying a serious, objective researcher from an amateur or a political salesman with a particular Masonic organizational bias.

 

Typographical errors occur because we are human. Errors in dates, names and events occur in the finest of publications and are made by the most serious and capable historians. I certainly have had my share of misspelled names, twisted dates and various other typos, which seem to be invisible until published. When an error of fact is discovered, it should be corrected and we should move on. Those with fragile egos or with an aversion to correction should find safer ways to spend their time. The job of a Masonic researcher is to work toward discovering and publishing the accurate history of Masonry. It is an on-going process and no Masonic work of history should be considered as definitive. We must welcome corrections and encourage close examination of all published accounts of Masonic history. Our work can only be accepted as valid if it is capable of standing up under close examination or criticism.

 

Serious historians must, also, be ever cautious of “history with a bias.” Our job is to allow the documents to “speak for themselves” and not interject personal or organizational bias into any historical study. Has this ever been done? Sadly, yes.

 

When we explore or write Masonic history we must recognize the fact that many of the large, powerful and very influential Masonic Bodies of today were quite small and fragile 100 or 200 years ago. As an example, for the first 50 to 75 years of its existence the Supreme Council, SJUSA existed in what can only be considered a most unstable condition. In fact, the Southern Jurisdiction ceased to exist for a period (arguably) of about 10 to 20 years (late 1820’s to mid 1840’s). Much of the reported creation and early history of the SJ is accepted as fact with little to no evidence to substantiate the claims. In many areas we are left with only the unsupported opinions and conjecture of officers of the SJ to answer many of the reasonable questions regarding its early history.

Consider, also, Joseph Cerneau, the first adversary of the SJ. Was he the “villain” that he was (and is) portrayed to be? In just one example, Mackey labels him a “Masonic charlatan.”¹ Cerneau’s reputation, motives and qualifications have been denounced by the SJ from the 1800’s to the present. Even Cerneau’s name is today equated with “fraud.” ² Yet there is only the opinion of officers and supporters of the SJ to support such brutal charges against this Brother. Such unfounded character assassination is wholly unfitting Masonic works of history.

 

There is no evidence to show that: a) Cerneau became a 33^rd in any manner different than the first Sovereign Grand Commander of the SJ; b) had less right than the SJ to establish his Supreme Council as provide by the Grand Constitutions of 1786, or c) that the “problem” with the Cerneau Council was anything other than the SJ simply not wanting it to exist. ³

 

Masonry has no need and can support nothing but objectivity and truth in our history. We are big enough and strong enough to stand up to whatever truth there is and face that truth as Masons. We have a lot of re-writing to do with our Masonic history and we must weed out the “political historians.” We must never again place the “good” of any Masonic organization ahead of the good of Masonry itself. The standards of sorting fact from opinion must be uniformed and apply to everyone.

 

It is a new day and a new time. It will be an interesting 10 or so years ... and it is only beginning.

 

Notes:

 

1. Albert G. Mackey and Charles T. McClenachan, “Encyclopedia of Freemasonry” (New York: The Masonic History Company, 1915) 139.

2. “Cerneauism: This term is applied to the particular type of clandestinism and fraud which characterized the bodies set up by Joseph Cerneau and his followers beginning in 1807.” Henry Wilson Coil, “Coil’s Masonic Encyclopedia” (New York: Macoy Publishing & Masonic Supply Company, 1995) 125.

3. See: Michael R. Poll, The Controversy of Joseph Cerneau: A Brief Examination Heredom Vol. 4 (Washington, D.C.: The Scottish Rite Research Society 1995) 47-61.

 

***

The Dwellers on the Threshold

The Journal of the Masonic Society, Issue 12, 2011

 

A GOOD NUMBER OF YEARS AGO I was walking through the French Quarter of New Orleans engaged in one of my favorite pastimes – exploring used book shops. In one old shop, I stumbled upon a treasure. It was three large boxes filled with old The New Age magazines (today, it’s called, The Scottish Rite Journal) from around 1907 through the 1970’s. It was an almost completely intact collection. They were selling the lot for $40.00! I tried to hide my excitement out of fear that they would quadruple the price, paid the man and loaded up my car. When I returned home, I began to wade through my acquisition. What a haul! I laughed at the very early editions with piano, shotgun, and even insurance company ads. What great period pieces! Over the next few weeks I studied and examined all aspects of the publications.

 

In my collection of old The New Age magazines, I could see something of a snap shot of the times and changes that took place. The publication itself changed over time from colorful cover images with each issue having a unique cover to standard covers of one design for each issue. The size of the publication changed as well from large format to a smaller, almost pocket format. What was also interesting was to see the changes in the types of articles published. The WWI and WWII issues, of course, reflected news of the terrible war years and contained a number of patriotic articles. But, it was the years from around 1915 to the early 1920’s that really caught my attention. These were the true esoteric years of The New Age. These editions stand out from all of the other years (even to the present) by the nature of the articles published. The Rosicrucian, alchemical, and metaphysical aspects were all represented in force in these editions. For those interested in the deeper Mystic Arts of Freemasonry, it was a dream comes true. And, like many who are workers in these Arts, a number of the authors employed pseudonyms. One such author was “Mysticus.” His papers were of a nature that deeply impressed me. I began to search through each edition to discover and drink in his words. This was an enlightened Brother.

 

In the June, 1920 edition of The New Age magazine, I came upon an article by “Mysticus” that especially caught my attention. It was not exactly the main subject of the article that caught me, but by what seemed to be more of “side” information. The article was part of a series that “Mysticus” had written entitled “A Corner of the Library.” This segment was, “Collectors of Occult and Magical Books.” In his article, “Mysticus” tells of a little group that existed in Washington, D.C. He writes:

 

“Washington city is a well-known center of scientific and philosophical inquiry. Some twenty-one years ago there existed in the capital a little band of independent thinkers of which I was a member. We were students of philosophy, folk-lore, symbolism, occultism and psychic research, and we called ourselves, jokingly, “Dwellers on the Threshold,” a title borrowed from Bulwer-Lytton’s strange Rosicrucian story, “Zanoni.” Some of us were professed idealists, followers of Plato and his school, while others bordered on materialism, and offered up their devotions at the shrines of Spencer, Comte, and Haeckel. But, all of us, I think, were earnest seekers after truth and open to conviction on any question. The leader of this group was Dr. [Leroy M.] Taylor, a man of wealth and a prodigious collector of occult literature. We met at his house every Saturday night to discuss problems in philosophy and religion, particularly those bordering on the mystical, for which the doctor had a decided penchant.”

 

Other members of this little group included, Dr. Saram R. Ellison, 33º, Frank H. Cushing, Judge Thomas H. Caswell, 33º, Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council, SJUSA and even Harry Houdini. What I would personally give to have been able to sit in on one of these meetings!

 

But, who was this “Mysticus”? I had to find out. I sent letters to the then editor of “The Scottish Rite Journal,” Bro. John Boettjer, as well as others at the House of the Temple who I had the pleasure of knowing - the Grand Historian, Bill Fox, Sr., the Grand Archivist, Dick Matthews and the extremely helpful and knowledgeable Librarian, Mrs. Inge Baum. All searched their records and compared notes on the possible identity of this prolific and mysterious writer. No one could turn up anything. Mrs. Baum was particularly taken with this mystery and we exchanged a number of mails on the subject. She had located all of his writings published in The New Age, but had no clue who might have been the man behind the name. Then, all at once, the mystery seemed to be solved … in a mysterious way.

 

One evening, I was reading a copy of Manly Hall’s, The Phoenix. In a section he had written on Albert Pike there was a quote that hit me right between the eyes. I knew I had read those words before. I knew it was from one of the pieces written by “Mysticus” and published in The New Age. To be sure, I pulled out the edition with the story and compared the two. It was the exact quote. But, credit for the quote was not given to “Mysticus;” it was given to “Henry R. Evans.” BINGO! Was this the real name of “Mysticus”? I began looking through my copies of The New Age and found the name “Henry R. Evans” on quite a few pieces, in fact (and to my great surprise!), Henry R. Evans was the Editor of The New Age. I sent all this information to Mrs. Baum and in no time she answered me with even more information. She sent me the whole file on Bro. Evans from the House of the Temple archives and included a letter Evans wrote to the then Sovereign Grand Commander admitting that he was “Mysticus.” Mystery solved. Or, did it only lead to more mysteries? How did Manly P. Hall know that “Mysticus” was Henry R. Evans?

 

In looking through my collection of books by Manly P. Hall (I had quite a collection of them) I saw credit given to Evans a number of times, including in the Hall classic, The Secret Teachings of All Ages. But, I was able to find no information at all as to how they knew each other. It could not have been a case of Hall simply reading something he liked written by Evans in some publication and using it. He had to have known that Evans was “Mysticus” (apparently, not everyone did) in order to give credit to Evans and not “Mysticus.” Could Hall have been a very young member of “The Dwellers on the Threshold”? Who knows? How long did this group exist and meet? Who knows? We can guess all day.

 

There is an old thought that water seeks its own level. Enlightened spirits bump into each other because they are going in the same direction. Little groups of Masons meet in private “clubs” like the “Dwellers on the Threshold” because their interests draw them together. If we look around we might see such groups meeting today in many more areas than we realize - maybe not all discussing the same thing, but matters of interest to them. And, I’m sure we will find at the core of each group a Masonic spark that feeds the perpetual search for knowledge and Light.

 

I’m glad that I found those old boxes of The New Age magazines. I’m glad that I was able to learn of “Mysticus” and explore his thoughts, ideas and his mystery. I’m also very glad to continually discover the cord connecting Masons in their journey to enlightenment.

 

***

 

Down the Path of Proper Research

The Journal of the Masonic Society, Issue 9, 2010

 

A YOUNG MAN DECIDED TO WRITE a family history and began the task of putting all of the family members into their historical places. Two long-deceased brothers, who had been his much older cousins, presented him with an interesting dilemma. The younger brother was the type of man that anyone would want in their family history. He was a wealthy attorney and a pillar of his community. He sat on the board of directors of the local bank and the art museum too. He was a leading figure in local politics, having served as a City Councilman, and was deeply involved with a number of local charitable organizations. His older brother, on the other hand, was uneducated, dirt poor, and something of the town drunk, having even spent time in the local jail for stealing chickens.

 

The young man pondered on the two brothers and decided that the older brother might present something of an embarrassment to the family. He decided to concentrate on the younger brother, giving as many details of his successful life as possible. The older brother was only noted in passing as the elder brother of the source of the family pride. The young man made his decision based on what he knew of the brothers and his belief that the best interests of his entire family were served by giving as little information as possible about the elder sibling.

 

An elderly aunt read the story of the two brothers and strongly protested the account. She told the young man that the father of the two brothers had died when both boys were very young. Their mother had been sick and in no condition to properly provide for the family. Fearing the boys may be taken from their mother and the family split up, the elder of the boys quit school at a very young age and began doing whatever he could to provide for the family – including, at times, stealing chickens when they had no other way of obtaining food. The elder brother, still a boy himself, assumed the role of the father and not only provided for the family however he could, but required his younger brother to remain in school to receive a proper education. Yes, the elder brother was poor, uneducated and a chicken thief, but at his funeral the younger brother delivered a tearful eulogy declaring that, without the sacrifices and efforts of his elder brother, he might have achieved only a fraction of his successes in life.

 

The young historian’s account was hardly complete or accurate. In his attempt to edit history – and because he prejudged the events and family members – he deprived those who would read his work of a beautiful, factual part of family history.

 

Masonry has many players in its history but not all of them have been friendly toward each other or clearly understandable in modern contexts. When a historian assumes the role of editor and chooses the relevant facts about a Mason or a body of Masons, he assumes an enormous responsibility. If one does not have a complete understanding of all events surrounding a person, place or time, then rendering judgments without the benefit of all the facts will result not only in inaccuracies, but also unfair accounts. We must recognize that some write as Masonic politicians rather than as historians, and their goal is often to deliver a pleasing Masonic mes-sage rather than a historically accurate account.

The problems for our young historian were two-fold: He did not possess all the needed information, and he prejudged his subjects based on incomplete facts. The task of a serious historian or researcher is often long, tedious and unrewarding. One might spend countless hours reading dusty manuscripts in dimly lit basements with the sole hope of obtaining the smallest of details. It might be far easier to grab a previously published account of a subject and paraphrase what is offered, but that ties our work to any possible errors in the previous work. We must do this work ourselves.

 

Of course, there are those who believe that are no new Masonic discoveries to be made. Such naysayers are sadly mistaken. It is precisely because so much of our Masonic history is filled with incorrect assumptions – or facts based on missing information, incorrect readings or simple typographical errors – that the serious Masonic researcher has great opportunities for many, many new finds. We simply need to take up the cause and follow the proper path.

 

***

 

Dyslexia: The Gift in Disguise