THE ANTIQUITIES OF FREEMASONRY.
Before, however,
commencing
n
analysis, a few general observations will not be out of
my
place.
"
When we
any nation or age social
those of the Freemasons, we are by no means
find in
resembling in aim and organisation
justified in tracing any closer connection
efforts
between them than such as human nature everywhere, and in all ages, is known
^
common, unless it can be historically proved that an actual relationship exists."
"
A
small
number
of nations far distant from each other,"
Etruscans, the Egyptians, the people of Tliibet,
to
have in
—says Yon Humboldt, —
"
the
and the Aztecs, exhibit striking analogies
in
their buildings, their religious institutions, their division of time, their cycles of regeneration,
and their mystic notions.
are as difficult
to (uqilain
It is the
duty of the historian to point out these analogies, which
between the Sanscrit, the Persian, the
as the relations tliat exist
Greek, and the languages of German origin; but in attempting to generalise ideas,
learn to stop at the point where precise data are wanting." -
The
cxplatuition,
however, which
Von Humboldt
withheld, had
"
we should
long previously been
the old inveterate error
suggested by Warburton, who dwells with characteristic force upon
that a similitude of customs and manners amongst the various tribes of
mankind most remote
from one another, must needs arise from some communication, whereas human nature,
"
without any other help, will, in the same circumstances, always exhibit the same appearance
;
famous work, he speaks " of the general conformity which is
commonly ascribed to imitation, when, in truth, its source is in our own common nature, and
the similar circumstances in which the partakers of it are generally found." ^
and
in another passage of his
Even in cases wliere an historical connection is capable of demonstration, we must bear
mind that it may assume a Protean form. It is one thing when an institution flourishes
through being constantly renewed by the addition of new members, its sphere of action and
and another thing when, from a
regulations undergoing at the same time repeated changes
It is also different when a ncidjipre-existing institution, an entirely new one takes its rise.
institution takes for its model the views, sphere of action, and the social forms of one
formed
which has long since come to an end.
"
The difference," says Krause, " between these three kinds of historical connection must
in
;
In the history of Freemasonry the third is of chief
everywhere be most clearly defined.
as it is generally to be found, although to those unversed in the subject, it
importance,
*
appears as if there actually existed historical connection of the first and second kinds."
That contemporary and successive secret
other can hardly be doubted.
cases,
it
mere imitations of older
would be wrong
to
assume
societies
must have had some influence on each
and initiation would be, in most
Tlie ceremonies of probation
originals,
"
that,
and the forms of expression perhaps
identical.
Still
because certain fraternities, existing at different epochs,
have made use of similar or cognate metaphors in order
to describe their secret proceedings,
Similar circumstances are constantly prothat therefore these proceedings are identical."
"
ducing similar results and as all secret fraternities are, in respect of their secrecy, in the
same situation, they are all obliged to express in their symbolical language that relation of
;
contrast to the uninitiated on which their constitution depends.
metaphorical analogies will be employed,
and these analogies
'
Kranse, Die drei Aeltesten Kunstmkunden.
'
3
Diviue Legation
*
(edit.
1837), vol.
ii.,
pp. 203, 221.
To denote
this
contrast
will be sought in the contrasts
Humboldt, Researches (Loudon, 1844), vol.
Kunstmkunden.
Krause, Die drei Aeltesten
i.,
p.
11.