'OPERATIVE' & 'SPECULATIVE'
When treating the question of initiatic qualifications, allusion was made to a certain very widespread misunderstanding concerning the meaning of the word 'operative', and also, consequently, concerning that of 'speculative', which in a way is its opposite; and as we said then, it seems to us that there is reason to dwell more particularly on this subject in that there is a strict connection between this error and a general misunderstanding about what initiation really is. The question arises historically, so to speak, more particularly in connection with Masonry because it is here that the terms under discussion are most commonly used; but it is not difficult to understand that fundamentally it has a much more general scope and involves something that, according to different modalities, can apply to all initiatic forms, which is what constitutes all its importance from our point of view.
The starting-point of the error lies here. Because the form of Masonic initiation is linked to a craft, which is far from exceptional, as we have noted, and because its symbols and rites, in a word its particular methods in all their 'specificity', rest essentially on the craft of building, people have come to confuse 'operative' with 'corporative', stopping thus at the most outward and superficial aspect of things, as is natural for anyone who has no idea or even suspicion of initiatic 'realization'. The most widespread opinion can therefore be formulated as follows. 'Operative' Masons were exclusively craftsmen; little by little they 'accepted' as honorary members as it were people unacquainted with the art of building; [1] but this
second element came to predominate, so that 'operative' Masonry was transformed into a 'speculative' Masonry having only a fictitious or 'ideal' connection with the craft. This 'speculative' Masonry dates, as we know, from the beginning of the eighteenth century; but some, noting the presence of non-worker members in the former 'operative' Masonry, believe that they can conclude from this that these latter were already 'speculative' Masons. In each case it appears to be the almost unanimous opinion that the change that gave rise to 'speculative' Masonry marks a superiority with respect to that from which it derives, as if it represented a kind of 'progress' in the 'intellectual' sense and corresponded to a conception of a more elevated level; and they do not hesitate in this regard to oppose 'speculations' of 'thought' to the occupations of the craft, as if it were this that is in question, whereas it is instead a matter of things relating, not to profane activities, but to the initiatic domain.
There was formerly no other distinction in Masonry than that between 'frec' Masons, men of the craft so called because of the exemptions granted by the sovereigns to their guilds (and no doubt also, and perhaps even especially, because the condition of free birth was one of the qualifications for admission to initiation), [2] and 'accepted' Masons, who were not professionals, and among whom ecclesiastics, who were initiated into special Lodges [3] in order to fulfill the function of 'chaplains' in ordinaty Lodges, had a separate place. But both were equally, though in different capacities, members of one and the same organization of 'operative' Masonry; and how could it have been otherwise when no Lodge could function normally without a 'chaplain', and thus without at least one
[4] 'accepted' Mason among its members? [5] 'Speculative' Masonry, moreover, was formed precisely among these 'accepted' Masons and by their action; [6] and this can be explained simply enough by the fact that, not being directly attached to the craft and thus lacking a solid basis for the initiatic work in question, they could more easily or more completely than the others lose sight of a part of what constitutes initiation-we could cven say the most important part since it is this that properly concerns 'realization. [7] It must further be added that because of their social situation and their outward relationships they were perhaps more open to certain influences of the profane world, political, philosophical, or otherwise, all working in the same direction and 'distracting' them, in the proper meaning of the word, from the initiatic work, even if these influences did not go so far as to lead them into unfortunate confusions between the two domains, as was later to happen only too often.
Having started with historical considerations for the convenience of our account, we here touch on the very root of the question: the passage from 'operative' to 'speculative', far from representing 'progress' (as the moderns, who do not understand its significance, would like to think), is in fact quite the opposite from the initiatic point of view. It does not necessarily imply a deviation properly speaking, but it implies at least a degeneration in the sense of a diminution; and as we have just said, this diminution consists in the neglect and forgetfulness of all that realization is-for it is this that
is truly 'operative'-leaving nothing more than a purely theoretical view of initiation. It must not be forgotten that 'speculation' and 'theory' are indeed synonyms, the word 'theory' of course not being taken here in its original meaning of 'contemplation' but solely in the sense it always has in current language, which the word 'speculation' no doubt expresses more clearly, since its very derivation implies the idea of something that is only a 'reflection', like an image seen in a mirror, [8] that is to say an indirect knowledge as opposed to the effective knowledge that is the immediate consequence of 'realization', or rather which is one with it. On the other hand, the word 'operative' must not be taken as an exact equivalent of 'practical', for this latter term always refers to 'action' (which conforms strictly to its etymology) and thus could not be employed here without equivocation or impropriety; [9] in reality, it is a question of that 'accomplishment' of the being that is initiatic 'realization', with all the different means that can be used in view of this end; and it is not without interest to note that a word of the same origin, oeuvre, is also used precisely in this sense in alchemical terminology.
It is thus easy to see what remains in the case of an initiation that has become merely 'speculative'. The initiatic transmission indeed still exists, since the traditional 'chain' has not been broken, but instead of the possibility of an effective initiation as long as some individual defect creates no obstacle, there remains no more than a virtual initiation that by the very nature of things is condemned to remain so, since the 'speculative' limitation properly signifies that this stage cannot be surpassed, as all that goes further belongs by very definition to the 'operative' order. This of course is not to say that the rites have no effect in such a case, for they always remain the vehicle of a spiritual influence even if those who accomplish them are no longer conscious of this; but this effect is so to speak 'deferred' with respect to its development 'in act' and is like a seed that lacks the conditions necessary to germinate, these conditions
residing in the 'operative' work by which alone the initiation can be made effective.
In this connection we must again emphasize that such a degeneration of an initiatic organization changes nothing with regard to its essential nature, and that the continuity of the transmission itself suffices to render a restoration always possible should more favorable circumstances arise, this restoration then necessarily being seen as a return to the 'operative' state. But it is evident that the more an organization is thus diminished, the greater the possibility of at least a partial deviation, which naturally can occur in many different directions; and these deviations, while only of an accidental character, render any restoration increasingly difficult in fact, although, despite everything, it still remains possible in principle. However that may be, an initiatic organization possessing an authentic and legitimate filiation, whatever may be the more or less degenerate state in which it presently finds itself, could assuredly never be confused with any pseudo-initiatic organization whatsoever, which is nothing at all, or with the counter-initiation, which indeed is something, though something absolutely negative running directly counter to the purpose of all true initiation. [10]
On the other hand, the inferiority of the 'speculative' point of view as we have just described it illustrates yet again, almost to excess, that 'thought' cultivated for itself can never be the purpose of an initiatic organization as such, for an initiatic organization is not a place to 'philosophize' or to participate in 'academic' discussions, any more than to engage in any other kind of profane occupation. [11]
When philosophical 'speculation' is introduced into an initiatic organization, there is already a true deviation; whereas if 'speculation' about the initiatic domain be limited to itself rather than being a mere preparation for the 'operative' work, as it normally should be, there exists only the diminution of which we spoke earlier. Here we have another important distinction, though we think it sufficiently cleat that further emphasis should not be necessary; it can be said in summary that a deviation exists, more or less serious as the case may be, whenever there is a confusion between the initiatic and the profane points of view. This must not be forgotten whenever one wishes to evaluate the degree of degeneration to which an initiatic organization may have succumbed; but aside from any deviation, the terms 'operative' and 'speculative' can always be applied in a very exact way to any initiatic form whatsoever by referring them respectively to effective initiation and to virtual initiation.