THE COMPAGNONNAGE AND THE BOHEMIANS
In an article by M.G. Milicent published in the journal Le Compagnonnage of May 1926 and reproduced in Le Voile d'Isis of November 1927, we find this sentence:
What surprised me and made me somewhat skeptical, was that C.'. Bernet told us he presides annually at Saintes-Maries-de-laMer over the election of the King of the Bohemians.
We said the same thing a long while ago, although we did not wish to pursue the question at the time; but now that it has been raised publicly we no longer see any reason not to say something about it, and all the more since to do so may cast light on certain points that are not without interest.
In the first place, the Bohemians do not elect a King, but a Queen, and secondly, this election is not repeated every year. What does take place annually, is only the meeting (with or without an election) of the Bohemians in the crypt of the church of Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer. Moreover, it is quite possible that some not belonging to the Bohemian race may be admitted by reason of their qualities or their functions in order to assist at that meeting and with the rites that take place there. But as to 'presiding over it,' that is quite another matter, and the least we can say about this is that it is extremely unlikely. Since the assertion in question was first made in an interview that appeared some while ago in the Intransigeant, we would like to think whatever is incorrect in it may quite simply be ascribed to the journalist who, as very often happens, could have exaggerated in order to arouse the curiosity of his readers, who
would be as ignorant as he concerning such questions and consequently incapable of perceiving his errors. We do not intend to dwell longer than necessary on this point, since for us the true interest of the matter lies rather in the more general question of the connections that may exist between the Bohemians and the guild organizations. In his article, Milicent continues, saying
that the Bohemians practice the Jewish rite, and that there could be connections with the C.'. stonemasons' Strangers of the Duty of Liberty.
The first part of this expression seems to contain another inaccuracy, or at least an ambiguity: it is true that the Queen of the Bohemians bears the name or rather the title of Sarah, which is also given to the saint whom they recognize as their patroness and whose body lies in the crypt of Saintes-Maries; and it is also true that this title, the feminine form of Sar, is Hebrew and means 'princess'. But is this enough to justify speaking here of a Jewish rite? Judaism properly belongs to a people among whom religion is closely bound up with race; now the Bohemians, whatever their origin may be, certainly have nothing in common with the Jewish race; but despite this might there not still be ties due to certain affinities of a more mysterious order?
In speaking of the Bohemians it is essential to make a distinction that is all too often forgotten: there are in reality two kinds of Bohemians, who seem entirely foreign to one another and even treat one another as enemies. They do not have the same ethnic characteristics, do not speak the same language, and do not ply the same trades. There are the oriental Bohemians, or Zingaris, who are for the most part exhibitors of bears and coppersmiths, and there are the southern Bohemians, or Gypsies, called 'Caraques' in Languedoc and Provence, who are almost exclusively horse traders, as it is only these last who meet in Saintes-Maries. In a curious study entitled The Bohemians of Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer, the Marquis of BaroncelliJavon points out numerous traits which this people have in common with the America Indians, and on the basis of these comparisons and also by the interpretation of their own traditions, he does not hesitate to attribute to them an Atlantean origin; and even if this is
only an hypothesis, it is nonetheless quite worth noting. But here is something else we have not seen referred to anywhere and which is no less extraordinary: just as there are two kinds of Bohemians, so are there also two kinds of Jews, Ashkenazim and Sephardim, for whom we could make similar comments as concerns differences of physical traits, language, and aptitudes, and who do not always have the most cordial relations either, each claiming to be the sole representative of pure Judaism, whether by race or tradition. Even in point of language there is a striking similarity. Neither the Jews nor the Bohemians really have a complete language of their own, at least for everyday use; they use the languages of the regions where they live, mixing in certain words special to them, Hebrew words for the Jews, and for the Bohemians, words deriving also from an ancestral language and representing its last vestiges; this particularity can be explained moreover by the conditions of peoples forced to live dispersed among strangers. But what is more difficult to explain is that the regions traversed by the oriental Bohemians and the southern Bohemians happen to be precisely the same as those where the Ashkenazim and the Sephardim live. Would it not be a much too 'simplistic' attitude to see in all this mere coincidence?
These remarks prompt us to think that even if there are no ethnic links between the Bohemians and the Jews, there are perhaps other links which, without further specifying their nature, may be qualified as traditional. Now, this leads us directly to our subject, from which we have only apparently strayed: could not the guild organizations, for which the ethnic question obviously does not arise, also have links of the same order, either with the Jews or with the Bohemians, or with both at the same time? At the moment we do not seek to explain the origins of and the reason for these links, but will have to rest content with drawing attention to a few more particular points. Are not the Companions divided into several rival rites, often more or less hostile to one another? Do not their travels include itineraries following different rites and having different bases? Do they not have a so to speak special language, the basis of which is certainly formed from ordinary language, but which is distinguished from it by the introduction of particular terms, exactly as in the case of the Jews and the Bohemians? Do we not use the
without meaning, and may even be less inclined to lend itself to 'exterior' considerations than a simply historical allusion. However, such an etymology is nonetheless very questionable, and reminds us of another which claims that, because of its Greek form Hierosolyma, the name Jerusalem is a hybrid compound which also includes the word hieros, whereas in reality it is a case of a purely Hebraic name meaning 'dwelling of peace', or, if we take for its first part a slightly different root (yara instead of yarah), 'vision of peace'. And this reminds us also of the interpretation given the symbol of the grade of Royal Arch, a triple tau, which is seen to be formed by the superposition of the two letters 'T' and 'H', giving us the initials of the words Templum Hierosolymæ; and for those who entertain this hypothesis, the hieros domos in question is also precisely the Temple of Jerusalem. We certainly do not wish to say that comparisons of this type, whether based on the consonance of the words or on the form of the letters and symbols, need necessarily be without meaning or justification, for some are indeed far from lacking interest and have an unquestionable traditional value; but obviously we must be very careful never to confuse these secondary meanings, which may be more or more numerous, with the original meaning, which in the case of a word is the only one to which the name of etymology may properly be applied.
What is perhaps most singular is that Heredom has so frequently seen as the name of a mountain in Scotland. Now we need hardly say that no mountain bearing this name has in fact ever existed, either in Scotland or in any other country, but here the idea of the mountain must is associated with 'holy place', which, in a way, brings us full circle to the hieros domos. This supposed mountain was not, moreover, always located in Scotland, for such a location would hardly be reconcilable with the assertion found in the ritual of the Adonhiramite Masonry according to which the first Lodge was held in
the deep valley where reign peace, the virtues [or truth], and union, the valley existing between the mountains Moriah, Sinai, and Heredom [sic].
Now, if we go back to the ancient rituals of Operative Masonry, which certainly constitute a surer and traditionally more authentic 'source', [2] we must note something that makes this last assertion even stranger, that the three sacred mountains were Sinai, Moriah, and Tabor. These 'high places' were represented in certain cases by the places occupied by the three chief officers of the Lodge, so that the very location of the latter could in effect be likened to a 'valley' located between these three mountains. The latter correspond quite clearly to the three successive 'revelations', of Moses, David, and Solomon (we know that Moriah is the hill in Jerusalem on which the Temple was erected), and of Christ. The association of these three can easily be understood, but where, when, and how could the curious substitution of Heredom for Thabor have come about (a substitution which is in any case incompatible with the identification of hieros domos with the Temple of Jerusalem, since it is expressly distinguished from Mt Moriah)? Since we do not have the necessary facts at our disposal we will not undertake to resolve this enigma, but did want at least to draw attention to it.
To return to the origin of the word Heredom, it is important to note that in the 'Royal Order of Scotland' it is customary to write certain words with their consonants only, as in Hebrew and Arabic, so that Heredom, or what came to be pronounced in this way, is in fact always written H R D M. It goes without saying that the vowels can then be variable, which explains moreover the orthographic differences that are not simply due to errors. Now H R D M can of course be read Harodim, the name of one of the higher grades of Masonry. These grades of Harodim and of Menatzchim, which naturally were unknown to the founders of 'Speculative' Masonry, [3] made it possible to exercise the functions of superintendent of
works. [4] The name Harodim was therefore altogether fitting for the designation of a high grade, and what seems most likely is that for this reason it must later have been applied to one of the oldest known forms (but one obviously still recent compared to Operative Masonry), the Masonic grade of Rose-Cross.