The Speculative Mason
OcTOber 1932 - This issue contains an article that considers the relationship between Operative and Speculative Masonry in a way contrary to current opinion, for it suggests that not only have both coexisted since remote times, but that Operative Masonry is even only a dependency as it were of Speculative Masonry. There is much truth in this thesis, although the terms in which it is expressed are not safe from all objection. If by 'speculative' is meant a 'doctrinal' Masonry directing or inspiring the work of craftsmen, this agrees precisely with what we ourselves have often pointed out regarding the strictly initiatic origin of the arts and crafts. Doubtless this is basically what the author wished to say, for he recognized that this so-called 'speculative' Masonry was in reality 'operative' in a higher sense. But for precisely this reason it is improper to use the word 'speculative', which we do not believe was in use formerly, and indicates rather a kind of degeneration-a Masonry become exclusively 'theoretical' and therefore no longer working effectively toward any 'realization',
either spiritual or material. Moreover, some of the assertions contained in the said article are questionable. In particular, why consider seriously the 'Egyptological' fancies of Dr Churchward. In any case, there are many other points meriting closer examination, such as the orientation of the Lodges and the place of the officers, the use of the name al-Shaddai in operative Masonry, and also the role played by 'polar' symbolism, which is in reality of a much higher order than 'solar' symbolism, and at the same time nearest to the origins, as all those will easily understand who have some true idea of the 'Center of the World'.
OcTOBER 1949 - After giving a general summary of the contents of the manuscripts of the Old Charges, of which almost a hundred are now known, and having noted the evidence found there regarding secret information that obviously could not be very explicit in written and even 'semi-public' documents, it examines in particular the question of the name given to the architect of Solomon's Temple. Remarkably, this name is never Hiram; in most of the manuscripts, it is either Amon or some other form that really appears to be a corruption thereof. It would seem therefore that the name Hiram was only substituted for the former later on, probably because it is mentioned in the Bible, although in fact the position of architect is not attributed to him, whereas the question of Amon does not arise. It is also odd that in Hebrew this word has precisely the meaning of craftsman and architect, which leads us to wonder whether a common name has been taken for a proper name, or if on the contrary this designation was given to architects because it was first the name of the one who built the Temple. Be that as it may, its root, whence derives also the word amen, expresses in Hebrew as well as in Arabic, ideas of stability, steadfastness, faith, loyalty, sincerity, and truth, which agree very well with the character attributed by Masonic legend to the third Grand-Master. As for the name of the Egyptian god Amon, although identical in form, it has a different meaning, that of 'hidden' or 'mysterious', although it is possible that among all these ideas there are really more connections than may appear at first sight. In this respect it is at least curious to note that the three parts of the word Royal Arch to which we have referred in one of our studies ('Paroles perdue et mots substitués' [Lost Word and Substituted Words], in the issue for OctoberDecember 1948), [8] and which are considered to represent the divine
names in the Hebraic, Chaldean, and Egyptian traditions, are in Operative Masonry related to Solomon, Hiram king of Tyre, and the third Grand-Master, respectively. This leads us to think that perhaps the 'Egyptian' connection suggested by the ancient name of the third is perhaps not purely accidental. Another interesting point is that it has been assumed that since what is given as an Egyptian divine name is in fact the name of a town, it was introduced there only through a confusion between a divinity and the place where that divinity was worshipped. However, if we take into account the uncertainty of the vowels, it really enters in a scarcely different form into the composition of one of the principal names of Osiris said to be his 'royal name'. What is odder still is that it actually means 'to be', as does the almost homonymous Greek word, which according to some may also have contributed to the confusion. We do not wish to draw any conclusion from this, if not that in such questions one cannot without close examination put confidence in those solutions that seem simplest.
Another interesting article is entitled The Tables of King Solomon and King Arthur. The 'tables' in question have a similar astronomical symbolism, and here priority is claimed for that of Arthur, because it is identified with the archaic zodiac of Somerset, whose origin would have been far earlier than the time of Solomon. In truth, the question of priority seems to us to lose much of its importance if, as we think it does, the issue concerns, representations derived from the same prototype but without any direct filiation from one to the other.