The Builder Magazine

June 1919 - Volume V - Number 6

 

THE ELEUSINIAN MYSTERIES AND RITES

BY BRO. DUDLEY WRIGHT, ASSISTANT EDITOR "THE FREEMASON," LONDON

Many writers, and especially those of the Craft, have called attention to the resemblances between the rites of the Ancient Mysteries and those of Freemasonry. Indeed, those resemblances have given rise to much speculation, and it has been suggested by more than one writer that such resemblances are more than accidental Some of us have long been convinced that Freemasonry, if we may not say that it was historically descended from the instituted Mysteries of antiquity, it at least perpetuates their ministry among us.

 

The Eleusinian Mysteries - those rites of ancient Greece and afterwards of Rome, of which there is historical evidence dating back to the seventh century before the Christian era bear very striking resemblance, in many points, to the rituals of both Operative and Speculative Freemasonry- As to their origin, beyond the legendary account put forth, there is no reliable trace. Like most great human institutions they grew out of a real human need, to which they ministered, else they could not have held sway for so many ages.

 

In the opinion of not a few writers an Egyptian source is attributed to them, but of this there is no positive proof  though we may infer as much, remembering the influence of Egypt upon Greece. There is a legend that St. John the Evangelist a character honored and revered by Freemasons was an initiate of these mysteries. Certainly, more than one of the early Fathers of the Christian Church boasted of his initiation into these Rites. Even St. Paul was influenced by them, to the extent, at least, of using some of their imagery, and even some of their technical terms, in his Epistles.

 

The series of articles, to which I have the honor thus to call attention, is one of the first attempts so far made to give a detailed exposition of the ceremonial of the Mysteries of Greece in English. As such they have an interest to Masons, but also to students of antiquity in general, and if the field were familiar, as it is not, these articles would be worthy of special interest for the new materials brought forward- Brother Wright, I need hardly say, is a careful, painstaking, and thorough student, as readers of THE BUILDER can testify, and among his many services to the Craft this study will not be reckoned the least.

 

Such a writer needs no introduction, but I have much pleasure in emphasizing the importance of these researches in ancient lore, because they make a real contribution to our knowledge.  -Joseph Fort Newton.

 

THE ELEUSINIAN LEGEND

 

THE legend which formed the basis of the Mysteries of Eleusis, presence at and participation in which, demanded an elaborate form or ceremony of initiation, was as follows:

 

Persephone (sometimes described as Proserpine and as Cora or Kore) when gathering flowers was abducted by Pluto, the god of Hades, and carried off by him to his gloomy abode; Zeus, the brother of Pluto and the father of Persephone, giving his consent. Demeter (or Ceres), her mother, arrived too late to assist her child or even to catch a glimpse of her seducer, and neither god nor man was able, or willing, to enlighten her as to the whereabouts of Persephone or who had carried her away. For nine nights and days she wandered, torch in hand, in quest of her child. Eventually, however, she heard from Helios (the sun) the name of the seducer and his accomplice. Incensed at Zeus she left Olympos and the gods and came down to scour the earth disguised as an old woman.

 

In the course of her wanderings she arrived at Eleusis where she was honourably entertained by Keleos, the ruler of the country, with whom and his wife, Metanira, she consented to remain in order to watch over the education of Demophon, who had just been born to the aged king, and whom she undertook to make immortal.

 

Long was thy anxious search  For lovely Proserpine, nor didst thou break  Thy mournful fast, till the far-fam'd Eleusis  Received thee wandering.

 

Orphic hymn.

 

Unknown to the parents Demeter used to anoint Demophon by day with ambrosia and hide him by night in the fire like a firebrand. Detected one night by Metanira she was compelled to reveal herself as Demeter, the goddess. Whereupon she directed the Eleusinians to erect a temple as a peace offering and, this being done, she promised to initiate them into the form of worship which would obtain for them her goodwill and favour. "It is I, Demeter, full of glory, who lightens and gladdens the hearts of gods and men. Hasten ye, my people, to raise hard by the citadel, below the ramparts, a fane, and on the eminence of the hill, an altar, above the wall of Callichorum. I will instruct you in the rites which shall be observed and which are pleasing to me."

 

The temple was erected but Demeter was still vowing vengeance against gods and men and because of the continued loss of her daughter she rendered the earth sterile during a whole year.

 

What ails her that she comes not home?  Demeter seeks her far and wide;  And gloomy-browed doth ceaseless roam  From many a morn till eventide.  "My life, immortal though it be,  Is naught!" she cries, "for want of thee,  Persephone Persephone !"

 

 The oxen drew the plough but in vain was the seed sown in the prepared ground. Mankind was threatened with utter annihilation and all the gods were deprived of sacrifices and offerings. Zeus endeavoured to appease the anger of the gods but in vain. Finally he summoned Hermes to go to Pluto to order him to restore Persephone to her mother. Pluto yielded but before Persephone left she took from the hand of Pluto four pomegranate pips which he offered her as sustenance on her journey. Persephone, returning from the land of shadows, found her mother in the temple at Eleusis which had recently been erected. Her first question was whether her daughter had eaten anything in the land of her imprisonment, because her unconditional return to earth and Olympos depended upon that. Persephone informed her mother that all she had eaten was the pomegranate pips in consequence of which Pluto demanded that Persephone should sojourn with him for four months during each year, or one month for each pip taken. Demeter had no option but to consent to this arrangement, which meant that she would enjoy the company of Persephone for eight months in every year and that the remaining four would be spent by Persephone with Pluto. Demeter caused to awaken anew "the fruits of the fertile plains" and the whole earth was reclothed with leaves and flowers. Demeter called together the princes of Eleusis Triptolemus, Diocles, Eumolpus, Polyxenos, and Keleos and initiated them "into the sacred rites most venerable into which no one is allowed to make enquiries or to divulge; a solemn warning from the gods seals our mouths."

 

Although secrecy on the subject of the nature of the stately Mysteries is strictly enjoined, the writer of the Homeric Hymn to Demeter makes no secret of the happiness which comes to all who become initiates: "Happy is he who has been received, unfortunate he who has never received the initiation nor taken part in the sacred ordinances, and who cannot, alas! be destined to the same lot reserved for the faithful in the darkling abode."

 

The version of the legend given by Minucius Felix is as follows:

 

Proserpine, the daughter of Ceres by Jupiter, as she was gathering tender flowers in the new spring, was ravished from her delightful abodes by Pluto; and, being carried from thence through thick woods and over a length of sea, was brought by Pluto into a cavern, the residence of departed spirits, over whom she afterwards ruled with absolute sway. But Ceres, upon discovering the loss of her daughter, with lighted torches and begirt with a serpent, wandered over the whole earth for the purpose of finding her till she came to Eleusis; there she found her daughter and discovered to the Eleusinians the plantation of corn."

 

In the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, Persephone gives her own version of the incident as follows:

 

"We were all playing in the lovely meadows, Leucippe, and Phaino, and Electra, and Ianthe, and Melite, and Iache, and Rhodeia, and Callinhoe, and Melobosis, and Ianeira, and Acaste, and Admete, and Rhodope, and Plouto, and winsome Calypso, and Styx, and Urania, and beautiful Galaxame. We were playing there and plucking beautiful blossoms with our hands; crocuses mingled, and iris, and hyacinth, and roses, and lilies, a marvel to behold, and narcissus, that the wide earth bare, a wile for my undoing. Gladly was I gathering them when the earth gaped beneath and therefrom leaped the mighty prince, the host of many guests, and he bare me against my will, despite my grief, beneath the earth, in his golden chariot; and shrilly did I cry."

 

On the submission of Eleusis to Athens, the Mysteries became an integral part of the Athenian religion, so that the Eleusinian Mysteries became a Panhellenic institution, and later, under the Romans, a universal worship, but the secret rites of initiation were well kept throughout their history.

 

The earliest mention of the Temple of Demeter at Eleusis occurs in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, which has already been mentioned. This was not written by Homer but by some poet versed in Homeric lore and its probable date is about 600 B. C. It was discovered a little over a hundred years ago in an old monastery library at Moscow, and now reposes in a museum at Leyden.

 

Eleusis was one of the twelve originally independent cities of Attica, which Theseus is said to have united into a single state. Leusina now occupies the site and has thus preserved the name of the ancient city. Theseus is portrayed by Virgil as suffering eternal punishment in Hades but Proclus writes concerning him as follows:

 

Theseus and Pirithous are fabled to have ravished Helen and to have descended to the infernal regions: i. e., they were lovers of intelligible and visible beauty. Afterwards Theseus was liberated by Pericles from Hades, but Pirithous remained there because he could not sustain the arduous attitude of divine contemplation.

 

Dr. Warburton, in his Divine Legation of Moses, gives, as his opinion, that Theseus was a living character who once forced his way into the Eleusinian Mysteries, for which crime he was imprisoned on earth and afterwards damned in the infernal regions.

 

The Eleusinian Mysteries seem to have constituted the most vital portion of the Attic religion and always to have retained something of awe and solemnity. They were not known outside Attica until the time of the Median wars, when they spread to the Greek colonies in Asia as part of the constitution of the daughter states, where the cult seems to have exercised a considerable influence both on the populace and on the philosophers. Outside Eleusis the Mysteries were not celebrated so frequently nor on so magnificent a scale. At Celeas, where they were celebrated every third year, a hierophant, who was not bound by the law of celibacy, as at Eleusis, was elected by the people for each celebration. Pausanias is the authority for a statement by the Phliasians that they imitated the Eleusinian Mysteries. They, however, maintained that their rendering was instituted by Dysaules, brother of Celeus, who went to their country after he had been expelled from Eleusis by Ion, son of Xuthus, at the time when Ion was chosen commander-in-chief of the Athenians in the war against Eleusis. Pausanias disputed that any Eleusinian was defeated in battle and forced into exile, maintaining that peace was concluded between the Athenians and the Eleusinians before the war was fought out, even Eumolpus himself being permitted to remain in Eleusis. Pausanias, also, while admitting that Dysaules might have gone to Phlius for some cause other than that admitted by the Phliasians, questioned whether Dysaules was related to Celeus, or, indeed, to any illustrious Eleusinian family. The name of Dysaules does not occur in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, where are enumerated all who were taught the ritual of the Mysteries by the goddess, though that of Celeus is mentioned:

 

She showed to Triptolemus and Dioeles, smiter of horses,  And mighty Eumolpus and Celeus, leader of people, The way of performing the sacred rites and explained to all of them the orgies.

 

Nevertheless, according to the Phliasians, it was Dysaules who instituted the Mysteries among them.

 

The Pheneatians also had a sanctuary dedicated to Demeter, which they called Eleusinian and in which they celebrated the Mysteries in honour of the goddess. They had a legend that Demeter went thither in her wanderings and that out of gratitude to the Pheneatians for the hospitality they showed her, she gave them all the different kinds of pulse, except beans. Two Pheneatians Trisaules and Damithales built a temple to Demeter Thesuria, the goddess of laws, under Mount Cyllene, where were instituted the Mysteries in her honour, which were celebrated until a late period and which were said to be introduced there by Naus, a grandson of Eumolpus.

 

"Much that is excellent and divine," wrote Cicero, "does Athens seem to me to have produced and added to our life, but nothing better than those Mysteries by which we are formed and moulded from a rude and savage state of humanity; and, indeed, in the Mysteries we perceive the real principles of life, and learn not only to live happily, but to die with a fairer hope." Every manner of writer religious poet, worldly poet, sceptical philosopher, orator all are of one mind about this, far the greatest of all the religious festivals of Greece.

 

(To be continued)

 

----o----

 

IMMORTALITY

 

Two caterpillars crawling on a leaf,

By some strange accident in contact came;

Their conversation, passing all belief,

Was that same argument, the very same,

That has been "proed and conned" from man to man,

Yea, ever since this wondrous world began.

The ugly creatures,

Deaf and dumb and blind,

Devoid of features

That adorn mankind.

Were vain enough, in dull and wordy strife,

To speculate upon a future life.

The first optimistic, full of hope,

The second, quite dyspepsic, seemed to mope.

Said number one, "I'm sure of our salvation."

Said number two, "I'm sure of our damnation;

Our ugly forms alone would seal our fates

And bar our entrance through the golden gates.

Suppose that death should take us unawares,

How could we climb the golden stairs?

If maidens shun us as they pass us by,

Would angels bid us welcome in the sky?

I wonder what great crime we have committed

That leaves us so forlorn and so unpitied.

Perhaps we've been ungrateful, unforgiving;

'Tis plain to me that life's not worth the living."

"Come, come, cheer up," the jovial worm replied,

"Let's take a look upon the other side;

Suppose we cannot fly like moths or millers,

Are we to blame for being caterpillars?

Will that same God that doomed us crawl the earth,

A prey to every bird that's given birth,

Forgive our captor as he eats and sings,

And damn poor us because we have no wings?

If we can't skim the air like owl or bat,

A worm will turn 'for a' that."'

They argued through the summer; autumn nigh

The ugly things composed themselves to die,

And so, to make their funeral quite complete,

Each wrapped him in his little winding sheet.

The entangled web encompassed them full soon;

Each for his coffin made him a cocoon.

All through the winter's chilling blast, they lay

Dead to the world, aye, dead as human clay.

Lo! Spring comes forth with all her warmth and love;

She brings sweet justice from the realms above;

She breaks the chrysalis, she resurrects the dead -

Two butterflies ascend encircling her head,

And so this emblem shall forever be

A sign of humility.

 

- Joseph Jefferson.

 

----o----

 

By picking English out of Russian type with medical tweezers the Red Cross editor of the "American Sentinel" manages to furnish the American soldiers in the Archangel district with a four-page weekly paper of U. S. news.

 

----o----

 

THE FRATERNAL FORUM

EDITED BY BRO. GEO. E. FRAZER, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF STEWARDS

 

CONTRIBUTING EDITORS

 

Wildey E. Atchison, Iowa.

Joseph C. Greenfield, Georgia.

Dr. John Lewin McLeish, Ohio.

Geo. W. Baird, District of Columbia.

Frederick W. Hamilton, Massachusetts.

Joseph W. Norwood, Kentucky

Joseph Barnett, California.

H. L. Haywood, Iowa.

Frank E. Noyes, Wisconsin

H. P. Burke, Colorado.

T. W. Hugo, Minnesota.

John Pickard, Missouri.

Joe L. Carson, Virginia.

M. M. Johnson, Massachusetts.

C. M. Sehenek, Colorado

R. M. C. Condon, Michigan.

P. E. Kellett, Manitoba.

Francis W. Shepardson, Illinois.

John A. Davilla, Louisiana.

John G. Keplinger, Illinois.

Silas H. Shepherd, Wisconsin.

Jos. W. Eggleston, Virginia.

Harold A. Kingsbury, Connecticut.

Oliver D. Street, Alabama

Henry R. Evans, District of Columbia.

Dr. Wm. F. Kuhn, Missouri.

Denman S. Wagstaff, California.

H. D. Funk, Minnesota.

Dr. G. Alfred Lawrence, New York.

S. W. Williams, Tennessee.

Asahel W. Gage, Florida.

Julius H. McCollum. Connecticut.

 

 

Contributions to this Monthly Department of Personal Opinion are invited from each writer who has contributed one or more articles to THE BUILDER. Subjects for discussion are selected as being alive in the administration of Masonry today. Discussions of polities, religious creeds or personal prejudices are avoided the purpose of the Department being to afford a vehicle for comparing the personal opinions of leading Masonic students- The contributing editors assume responsibility only for what each writes over his own signature- Comment from our Members on the Subjects discussed here will be welcomed in the Question Box Department.

 

A resolution was last year introduced at the Annual Communication of one of our American Grand Lodges to limit the constituent lodges of that Jurisdiction to a maximum of 400 members. The resolution is to be disposed of at the Annual Communication of the Grand Lodge in question this month.

 

The committee to whom the matter was referred inquired of the Society to ascertain whether or not the subject had been acted upon in any of the other American Grand Jurisdictions and we, in turn, submitted the question to the several Grand Secretaries from whom it is learned that no such legislation has ever been enacted in any American Grand Lodge.

 

Believing that the opinions of our Contributing Editors would be of value to the above committee in framing their recommendation to their Grand Lodge and that our members would also be interested in reading a discussion of the subject, we submitted to the Editors the following question:

 

QUESTION NO. 12

 

"Should the several Grand Lodges enact legislation limiting the size of subordinate lodges? If so, what should be the maximum number of members?

 

"If you are against such restrictions, and favor large lodges, what are your reasons therefor?"

 

Doubts Advisability of Grand Lodge Legislation Better Results to be Derived from Small Lodges.

 

The weight of opinion in the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts favors smaller lodges. I question the advisability, however, of legislation limiting the membership of lodges. We have no such legislation in this jurisdiction and I am reasonably sure that it would not pass if proposed.

 

In the Grand Lodge Proceedings of Massachusetts for 1916 Grand Master Melvin M. Johnson gives a most excellent discussion of the matter, which follows:

 

I have long been of the opinion that many of our lodges are altogether too large, and that better Masonic and equally good financial results would be obtained if there were more lodges, with smaller membership. You may be interested to learn that the average membership of lodges in Massachusetts is higher than in any other jurisdiction in America with the single exception of the District of Columbia, which being compact and having no country lodges is really not comparable. The only lodges in that District having less than two hundred members are the seven last chartered lodges. Consequently the average membership in the District is high, viz. 339. This is more comparable with metropolitan Boston. The average membership of our Districts No. 1 to No. 7 inclusive is 355. Because of peculiar conditions we must lay these figures aside and compare ourselves with other jurisdictions having both city and country lodges. Of them all, our average membership is the highest, or 260. There are only five other jurisdictions having an average membership of over two hundred, namely, Rhode Island, 247; Pennsylvania, 244; Connecticut, 236; New York, 229; and New Jersey, 209. Twenty other jurisdictions in the United States average between one and two hundred, and twenty-two others less than one hundred. The average lodge membership for the whole United States is 124. Our average, therefore, is more than twice the average membership of all lodges in this country. This is unhealthy growth. That does not mean that a lodge of two hundred and sixty members is by any means necessarily too large. One hundred and forty-three of our lodges, or more than half, have less than that number. Only fifty-seven of our lodges have as small a membership as the average of the whole United States.

 

It is hard to say that there is any fixed number of members which should not be exceeded. Conditions vary in different places. It is, however, always true that where the membership is so large that each member present can not know all the others, and where only a very small percentage of the members can ever have the opportunity of serving the lodge in official capacities, the interest of the members lessens and each individual member feels less responsibility for the welfare of the lodge and for the exercise of the duties and responsibilities of Masonry as well. It is a practically universal rule that the smaller the membership the larger percentage of members attend the meetings.

 

Elephantiasis is a disease equally injurious to an animal, a human, or a lodge. Many lodges, however, are afflicted with it. Let us see the result. One lodge initiated 66 last year, and another 64. Another, with a membership of nearly 500, raised 46. Another, with a membership of over 500, admitted 40. Another, with a membership of over 700, admitted 56. Another, with a membership of over 450, admitted 40. In one of our cities with a population of nearly 38,000 where there is a single lodge having a membership of over 600 (which admitted 40 last year) the sentiment against the establishment of a second lodge is so strong as to be preventive. In another city with a population of nearly 17,000 where there is a single wealthy lodge with a membership of about 550 (38 being admitted last year) there is a similar sentiment preventing the establishment of another lodge.

 

There is another city in the Commonwealth having a population of over 25,000 where there is no lodge at all, and the establishment of a new lodge there has been prevented by the adverse action of two lodges in an adjoining city, each one of which has a membership of over 400. If but one of these neighboring lodges had declined its objection could be overruled by the Grand Master, but the Grand Constitutions prevent his issuing a dispensation for the formation of a new lodge in this city of over 25,000 inhabitants, without a lodge, because of two objections in an adjoining community. In this particular case ten lodges have joint jurisdiction over this virgin territory, yet the objection of two of them absolutely vetoes the petition for a dispensation, and neither the Grand Master nor even this Grand Lodge, as the Constitutions now stand, can consider the wisdom of the objection. I have not examined into the present instance nor do I attempt to pass upon its merits. But the power granted to two lodges out of ten to retard the proper development of our institution, as an abstract proposition, is wrong. I believe it is time that the rule should be relaxed for the good of the whole Fraternity. What is even much more necessary is the creation of a sentiment in favor of more and smaller lodges where the brethren may be more united, may be thrown into closer fraternal intercourse, may have more opportunity to serve, and where the tenets of our institution can better be inculcated.

 

If it be argued that for financial consideration large lodges must be built up, the complete answer is that no other jurisdiction in the whole Masonic world (save only the District of Columbia) averages such large lodges as does Massachusetts, and certainly other jurisdictions are prosperous and successful. We have no conditions in this regard which are peculiar to this Commonwealth. Even Michigan, which shows us the anomaly of one single lodge of 2,184 members and five others of over 1,000 members, averages throughout the state only 182.

 

The tendency of great lodges is to lessen rather than to enhance the Masonic development of each individual member. The accomplishments of Masonry have never been gauged by financial considerations. When these become the criteria, then it is time to halt and to recast our activities, for then the grand aims and purposes of our Fraternity are sure to be obscured.  Frederick W. Hamilton, Grand Secretary,

 

Massachusetts.

 

 Grand Lodge Legislation Inadvisable.

 

Answering your question as to whether or not the several Grand Lodges should enact legislation limiting the size of subordinate lodges, I must say that I do not feel very competent to give an authoritative opinion upon this subject or go into any detailed discussion of it. My impression, however, is that they should not.

 

Our law provides (as I understand is the fact in most of the jurisdictions) that where a new lodge is proposed its organization must be assented to by certain of the lodges next nearest. In case of a division of a lodge this rule would oblige the new organization to have the consent of the old. This seems to me all that is necessary. There is a very general sentiment among the craft in opposition to large and unwieldy lodges, a sentiment which to me seems to be growing. There is sufficient difficulty in some localities in holding the brethren of a lodge together and keeping up that spirit of harmony and fraternity without which a lodge organization is valueless. Any such dissension ought not to be encouraged by educating the brethren to look forward continually to a time when the lodge may be split. In some instances it will result in undue solicitude on their part to increase their membership to a point where, under an iron-clad law, they will be compelled to divide. In addition to this, I think the question of when a lodge is large enough and when another ought to be organized can well be left to the good judgment of the constituent lodges. No hard and fast rule ought to be made. There are times and places when a lodge can hold a very large membership to advantage and without inconvenience, and others where half the membership ought to be divided. It is a subject over which Grand Jurisdictions ought not to assume the authority.

 

H. P. Burke, Colorado.

 

* * *

 

Average Attendance Better in Small Lodges.

 

My voice is in favor of small lodges and by this I mean not exceeding 200 in membership. My reasons are:

 

1. A better comraderie will thereby be obtained and preserved. In such a lodge it is possible for every brother to know not only the face but the character and disposition of every other and even something of the personal difficulties and troubles with which he may have to contend. He can also rejoice with him in the good fortunes that may befall him. A situation like this begets real brotherhood.

 

2. Now that organized relief of the distressed is done chiefly through the instrumentality of Grand Lodges, it is no longer necessary for this purpose that lodges should be large.

 

3. Where initiations are so numerous as they must be in large lodges, little or no time is left for the development of the social or study side of Masonry.

 

4. In every large lodge the proper caution in admitting members can not be observed. This must necessarily be left almost wholly to the investigating committees.

 

5. Finally, I believe the average of attendance in small lodges is better than in large ones.

 

Oliver D. Street, Alabama.

 

* * * A Matter to be Determined by the District Deputies and Concerned Members.

 

I am only qualified to express an opinion with regard to conditions in England and Canada, which are somewhat different to those in the United States. As far as I am able to ascertain, however, the average strength of lodges in England, Canada and the United States is about the same; in each of these three countries the average membership is about 120, so that, as far as numerical conditions are concerned, these countries are on practically the same footing.

 

I believe that excessively large lodges are undesirable for the reason that many of the members have little or no opportunity for ever having a hand in either the work or the administration. Further, in large lodges, all the available time at the regular meetings is taken up by the routine work and the conferring of degrees, and none is available for lectures, addresses and discussions, and so great a part of what I consider as the most valuable teachings of the Order will be neglected.

 

With regard to legislation on the subject, I do not consider that the size of subordinate lodges should be limited by the Grand Lodges, for the reason that such a law would be in the nature of an innovation, and I believe that the fewer changes of this sort made in the Constitutions, the better. Laws such as this tend to hold apart the various jurisdictions rather than to unite them by the bonds of fraternal affection.

 

I believe that each case should be considered on its own merits by the District Deputy and the brethren concerned. If necessary steps could then be taken for the organization of a new lodge from the membership of that already in existence.

 

C. C. Adams, Ontario.

 

* * *

 

Give to Each Member an Equal Chance to Become Master of His Lodge.

 

I have had this subject under consideration for some time and have discussed it with a number of brethren and it is my firm conviction that subordinate lodges should be limited to a membership not to exceed 400.

 

Let us extend to every well-informed and zealous Mason a reasonable chance to become Worshipful Master of his lodge.

 

The results of my conversations on this subject lead me to believe that a vote of the Craft would be almost unanimous in favor of restriction.

 

R. M. C. Condon, Michigan.

 

* * *

 

Too Much Grand Lodge Legislation.

 

I am firmly convinced that the size of lodges, save as to a minimum, is a matter with which Grand Lodges should not interfere. We legislate far too much and leave too little to our lodges along several lines. I do not especially favor large lodges but see no harm in size.

 

Virginia has several lodges of more than five hundred members and they are all good lodges. One of the three to which I belong, and in which my membership is most active, has nearly four hundred members and is noted for its harmony and good feeling. In it there are no quarrels and there is never a contest, even of the most friendly sort, for office. We talk privately among ourselves until we ascertain which member is approved by the largest number of the active members, exclude all to whom there develops any antagonism, and elect unanimously. Our law requires an opposing candidate for each office and our Tyler fills that position.  Jos. W. Eggleston, P. G. M., Virginia.

 

* * *

 

A Virginia Brother Who Favors Small Lodges.

 

Personally I am not in favor of large lodges, nor are the majority of the brethren of the Grand Jurisdictions under which I have been affiliated, those of England, Ireland and Scotland.

 

Can there be any Masonic comfort in a lodge of say four hundred to five hundred members? Can there be any real sociability? Can there be a close brotherly love amongst such a number? Can a member of such a lodge know all the others as he should ? I think not. Lodges of from 50 to 100 members fulfill the best traditions of the Craft in promoting good fellowship and if lodges were of this size, and sat down together after the labors of the evening, even if the repast consisted only of a bottle of "pop," some bread and cheese, and a smoke to follow, it would give the opportunity, lacking during lodge hours, of becoming acquainted one with another, the result would be that each lodge would become a family of itself and we would be less troubled with the unaffiliated Mason.

 

A brother joins a lodge of over 100 members; he probably knows less than a dozen, and even them he can only look at in lodge because, of course, silence must be observed. He is conscious that he stands little or no chance of ever being elected to any office, and after listening to the same ceremonies for a couple of years, feeling himself a stranger in the lodge, and of little importance save when the dues are being collected, he begins to stop away, and send his dues, followed in the course of time by his resignation. What is there to induce him to remain?

 

However, let him feel, as he assuredly will in a small lodge, that he is an integral part of the lodge, give him the opportunity of spending a social hour with his friends and making new acquaintances, and I am a poor prophet if we do not keep him with us.

 

This is certainly a more reasonable course to pursue than the habit of reviling him, legislating against him, and trying to coerce his attendance in a lodge which he does not find interesting or its members congenial. The popularity of the Shrine is a tacit acknowledgment that we feel the want of a social side to our ceremonies, and this social element can only permeate every member when the lodge is kept within numerical bounds.

 

New members in small lodges soon become assimilated and a part of the whole, look forward to promotion to office, and take a lively interest in the work of the lodge.

 

I have been a member of large and small lodges and have found more of the real spirit of Freemasonry in a little country lodge in Ireland, where seldom more than twenty or thirty were gathered together, than in any lodge of which I have ever had the pleasure (often the pain) of visiting.  Joe L. Carson, Virginia.

 

* * *

 

Candidates' Individual Acquaintances a Factor.

 

This Grand Jurisdiction has only five lodges whose membership rolls number over four hundred. The matter of restricting the lodges to the number of members they might admit has never been considered.

 

Personally, I would be opposed to such action because I feel that the Grand Lodge should not interfere in the internal government of a lodge to that extent, as I find that many applicants, by the question of individual acquaintance, are largely biased in their selection and are prone to seek connection with lodges in which their close friends hold membership.

 

John A. Davilla, Grand Secretary, Louisiana.

 

* * *

 

Enforce Existing Laws Rather Than Enact New Ones.  In my opinion Grand Lodges should not interfere in the matter of lodge membership. Lodges have inherited an inalienable right to make their own membership. It follows that they may, rightfully, "unmake" their membership, or place their own limit on the number of members.

 

The Grand Lodge may arrest a charter, or oblige a lodge to bring to trial an offending member which, I think, is going far enough.

 

Masonry, like creeds, Nations and segregations of all kinds, is more in need of executing existing laws than of making additional ones. It is the failure to execute a law that leads too often to the enactment of another. We have an example in the recent Constitutional Amendment providing prohibition, substituting it for temperance. There have ever been laws in every State to punish drunkenness, but they have not been executed.

 

While trouble may arise in some instances from a large membership, a limitation by the Grand Lodge might result in mischief in other cases it is easy to see that it might work injustice in many cases.

 

A lodge may now limit its own membership by a provision in its by- laws, but it is at liberty to change that by-law, which it could not do if prohibited by the Grand Lodge.

 

Generally there are ambitious members in every lodge who would like to get into the lime-light, and these are the members who are apt to find reasons for the organization of another lodge, and they usually have a following this is the ever-present cause for loss of membership in a large lodge.

 

Finally, limiting the membership by Grand Lodge action would, in my opinion, be an innovation in the body of Masonry, which we all, at our installation as Master, have promised to oppose.

 

George W. Baird, P. G. M., District of Columbia.

 

* * *

 

Make the Limits of Lodge Membership Bear Some Ratio to the Total Membership of the Grand Jurisdiction.

 

The fixing of an upper limit of membership in lodges is a question that mainly concerns large communities. In small communities there is sometimes the opposite tendency a tendency to form two small lodges instead of one strong lodge. Grand Lodges have been more concerned with this latter phase than with the former. And any consideration of the former should be associated with a similar attention to the latter.

 

The personal acquaintances of members with one another is the very basis of a lodge. In small communities, where some membership is drawn from considerable distances, it is difficult for all to know one another, when the membership approximates 100; when it approaches 200 the upper limit is usually reached. When, in large communities, the membership reaches several hundred, the individual is apt to be lost in the crowd and manifestly it is impossible for most of such members ever to hold office, a reasonable duty as well as a desirable ambition.

 

On the other hand small lodges are at a disadvantage in such matters as Masonic relief.

 

In any such proposed legislation it would be more appropriate, instead of choosing some arbitrary number, to make the limits of lodge membership bear some ratio to the Grand Lodge membership, that is, to the whole body of Masonry in a Jurisdiction. And the average lodge membership in that Grand Jurisdiction might form a mean between the two extremes. For instance, a Grand Jurisdiction of 400 lodges and 60,000 members represents an average membership of 150 to the lodge, and such an average might form a working basis as between unwieldiness and weakness.

 

Joseph Barnett, California.

 

* * *

 

Large Lodges, Properly Managed, Can Do More Than Small Lodges.

 

I believe that the question of limiting the size of subordinate lodges is something that it would be advisable to go slow with.

 

First of all, it has to be noted that this is a Grand Lodge legislation that is contemplated. Would it not seem more reasonable and proper for legislation of this kind to come from the subordinate lodge itself rather than from the Grand Lodge? A great many are of the opinion that we have too much of this restricting legislation, from above, on questions which should be decided altogether by the subordinate lodge.

 

There is naturally a great deal to be said in favor of a small lodge, and just as much to be said in favor of a large lodge. There is considerable danger in a large organization if care is not taken the danger of the membership losing that close, warm, fraternal feeling, which is appreciated in all lodges and which it is hard for them to lose in a small lodge where each individual member knows each other member.

 

When an organization gets beyond a certain size, it is better to have the membership limited rather than have that cold, stranger- like attitude to develop through the members not knowing one another well enough and not coming in closer touch with one another. From my own observation, however, I believe that it is possible to avoid this state of affairs. In fact, I believe that a large lodge can be organized for carrying out Masonic work in a broader field and a bigger way than is possible in a small lodge. A large organization of that kind can start out to do things that a small organization could not think of attempting. By means of proper organization the members can be kept together and a spirit of "esprit de corps" and good fellowship can be developed in the large organization to probably as great (if not greater) extent than in the small organization.

 

Unless a lodge figures on planning to carry out something more than just a mere working of degrees and meeting together in the lodge room in a perfunctory and formal sort of way, it had better not be ambitious for a large membership. But with the other conditions it seems to me from my observations that the larger the membership the more effective can the organization become. Let me repeat again though, that I do not think it is a matter that Grand Lodge should legislate on at all.

 

P. E. Kellett, P. G. M., Manitoba.

 

* * *

 

A Lesson from the Bee Hive.

 

 I gladly comply with your request for my opinion as to the advisability of the Grand Lodges limiting the size of constituent lodges. But I would suggest that the lessons taught by the Masonic symbols or emblems are more worth while.

 

Take for instance the Bee Hive. Many truths may be learned from it. It is an appropriate symbol of a Masonic lodge. The hive of bees has to solve the same question as to the proper size of a working unit. There is no fixed law, arbitrary and regardless of circumstance, limiting the number of bees in a hive. When there becomes too many, under all the existing conditions, there is a swarm formed which starts a new unit. If outside hands interfere with this local method of reducing the number, or if they too greatly divide the hive and arbitrarily reduce the working unit, the work is interfered with and impeded.

 

In the same way, it seems to me, the members of the lodges are the best judges of their own welfare. If they want smaller lodges they can dimit into them; if they want larger lodges they can consolidate.

 

You ask if I am "against such restrictions and favor larger lodges, what are my reasons therefore I am against such restrictions, but I do not favor larger lodges. I believe that such restriction is an outside interference. I believe in local self-government. This is a question that pertains to the members of the constituent lodges and with which others should not meddle.

 

We read in the Book of the Law about a land of milk and honey; these foods are good to the taste, but does not the beauty of that country come rather from the fact that they are both produced without interfering with, preying upon or living off of anything else? The bee in taking his honey from the grove does not interfere with the fruit, but actually increases the yield. Would it not be well for our Grand Lodges to ever work with our lodges, encourage them and help them, and scrupulously avoid interfering with or raising an outside ruling hand in purely local matters.

 

Is not the experience of freedom worth more than a life well- governed by another? Is not the school of local self-government and freedom one of the constituent lodges' most valuable functions In asking your question you use the term "subordinate lodge." Would it not be better to not only call them but keep them "constituent lodges" ? Asahel W. Gage, Florida.

 

* * *

 

Not Favorable to Grand Lodge Legislation but Prefers the Small Lodge.

 

In answering this question I find my personal preferences for a small lodge brought into conflict with my objection to Grand Lodges enacting any legislation that divests the membership of the right to decide upon their own numbers. Or perhaps this is not a "conflict."

 

No Grand Lodge that values the respect of its members, I should think, would undertake to legislate upon the size of subordinate bodies, upon which it must depend for its existence, any more than it should undertake to legislate what the members should eat for breakfast or what kind of shoes they should wear. The locality and conditions with which the lodge is surrounded, as well as ability to bear its financial burdens, can be taken into consideration and acted upon more intelligently by the members themselves than by the Grand Lodge. Large lodges unquestionably lose men of the spirit of fraternity in the bigness. But the biggest lodge of all is that universal lodge we call the world and we believe in that so we say!

 

The chief questions to be considered in this inquiry are (1) the material side and (2) the spiritual side.

 

1. In large cities, financial conditions alone, under our system of building great temples and making outward display that attracts membership, sometimes make it imperative in the interests of economy to have the number of lodges confined to a few large ones. Of course there need not be any loss of interest in the individual in all this, if devoted officers are chosen who are still at heart working Masons. I have seen very large lodges in which clubs and committees performed all the social good-fellowship of the small ones; in which a visitor was welcomed and made acquainted, or a candidate as thoroughly instructed as in the small ones.

 

2. Out I prefer the small lodge because it is nearer to that individual ideal which makes the true freemason and upon which our whole structure rests. one history of my own lodge, of which I had the honor to be the 112th Master, convinced me of the supreme spiritual value of a small membership. In its pioneer days members sometimes came from hunting trips hundreds of miles to attend what was then a brotherhood of such virile stripe that they wrote into our first constitution and laws the Masonic principles upon which the nation is founded; selected a seal that no Mason in the world could fail to recognize; founded works of brotherhood that in these days would be called sociological affairs.

 

As time progressed and our membership became larger we took to building and owning property in keeping with our dignity, diverting much of our energy to business details connected therewith. We followed the old church lottery idea to raise money. The "Masonic Lottery" became a stench to the Craft. Members who were devoted to the same ideal of national solidarity we have in the Masonic Service Association of the United States, were denounced as mere politicians and withdrew broken-hearted.

 

Today about two-thirds of our membership never come to lodge, while the other third is earnestly striving to hold onto Masonic ideals and at the same time wrestle with the incubus of Lodge Temple Debt. The smaller the membership, the easier it is to meet and do active Masonic work.

 

I do favor Grand Lodges making it easier for new lodges to obtain charters. It would then be possible for half a dozen Masons, with a determination to do something more to serve their communities than grind out candidates, to get together in tyled lodge and lay their plans for individual work and service.

 

Joseph W. Norwood, Kentucky.

 

* * *

 

Advocates Large Lodges.

 

In union there is strength and the larger the unit the stronger and more stable it is. From the four London lodges forming the Grand Lodge of England in hilt, what a united power for good are its innumerable ramifications, extending to the uttermost parts of the world, and yet constituent elements of our harmonious whole the Masonic Order!

 

The larger the lodge membership made up of suitable material (and none other should be selected) the greater its potentiality for a wider field of Masonic activity of a higher quality. A lodge with a large membership has also a wider field for the selection of officers of greater ability who can thus accomplish more and better work; its sphere of social and benevolent activities is widened; it has greater financial stability; can be maintained more economically and is enabled to exert a greater influence within the community or civic and patriotic righteousness.

 

Dr. G. Alfred Lawrence, New York.

 

* * *

 

Large Lodges a Matter of Unavoidable Evolution.

 

I am decidedly opposed to the Grand Lodge of any jurisdiction legislating to limit the number of members that any subordinate lodge may have. While I do not question the legal right of the Grand Lodge to pass such legislation I do not think it has the moral right. Such legislation would seem meddling with the rights of the subordinate lodge.

 

Contrary to the Implication carried in the second section of the question I hold no brief for the large lodge but consider it a matter of evolution which cannot be helped not by legislation at any rate. Even were I in favor or such a law L can see that local conditions would have much bearing on the matter and it would be impossible to state a maximum which would be suitable to all lodges in the Jurisdiction and on the other hand were a deferent maximum established tor different conditions there would be trouble brewing right away. No doubt conditions which would apply in Nebraska would not apply in Connecticut. Let me illustrate what I mean by different conditions. My own lodge, Adelphi No. 63, was the second one formed in New Haven, being instituted in 1823. The reason for asking for a charter is set forth as "there being one lodge of one hundred and fifty members on which your petitioners frequently find it impossible to attend in consequence of their numbers" and "that your petitioners believe that many of our valued citizens are deterred by the numerous situation of said lodge from requesting membership," etc. This shows on the face of it that in 1823 Hiram No. 1's one hundred and fifty Masons were all, or a very large percentage, attending lodge regularly while today there are in New Haven seven lodges with a membership of more than 4,200 or an average of six hundred apiece and except when the K. and F. degree is worked we are not troubled with overcrowding. This is easily explained as in 1823 lodge meeting and church were about all the attraction to be had, while now movies, theatres, all sorts of activities keep one occupied so that lodge is not the main attraction. We can thus draw a parallel to the comparison of 1823 and modern times by a comparison of the remote country lodges and those in the populous cities.

 

The main objection to the large lodges as I take it is the fact that the members in general do not know each other as well as those of the smaller lodges and the true Masonic spirit does not permeate the lodge so thoroughly. This is probably so in the main but as nearly if not all the large lodges are city lodges would they know each other any better even though split into smaller lodges always remembering that they would be city lodges? It is one of the penalties of living in a city that we don't become acquainted with those with whom we meet day in and day out in business, church or lodges in as intimate a way as do our country brethren.

 

Then again when the lodges reach the maximum, what then? Is it to be that when some fine character desires to become a member of a particular lodge because all his friends and associates are there the lodge says "nothing doing, you'll have to apply elsewhere" or will it have a waiting list? When our past masters' sons become of age are they to be sent to some other lodge ?

 

We are told that in life's journey we must either progress or slide back; there is no such thing as standing still. A certain amount of work if good for a lodge, it impresses the candidate and also refreshes the memory of those on the side lines and I believe legislation declaring that when a lodge reaches a certain limit it must quit work until some one dies is bad.

 

Julius H. McCollum, Connecticut.

 

* * *

 

Suggestions Invited from Lodge Officers and Members of the Society.

 

The question raised is important to the development of American Masonry. The Blue Lodge is the foundation of all Masonic enterprises. It would seem to be of the greatest importance that the Blue Lodge should operate as a social unit; not as a Chamber of Commerce for a community, nor as a charitable machine, still less as a degree mill for the preparation of candidates for the so called "higher degrees." It is by no means clear that a large lodge may not develop the social qualities of its members just because the size of the lodge enables the brethren to maintain satisfactory quarters, and to operate through a variety of committees and projects that give each individual member a chance to select work to his own liking.

 

I should like very much to have the officers of several of the larger lodges of each jurisdiction send in to the offices of the National Masonic Research Society such a description of their individual lodges as will enable us to prepare an article on lodge organization. Particularly I should like to have each member of the Society who has had experience with forms of lodge organization add his own contribution to the discussion of this question by sending in a short letter which can be published in the Correspondence department.

 

George E. Frazer, President. Board of Stewards.

 

----o----

 

THE LARGEST LODGES

 

We are indebted to the Masonic Life Association of Buffalo New York, for a copy of the Masonic Directory for Buffalo, which they publish annually. What interests us most is the list of large lodges. This list shows the most remarkable development from year to year. It is not many years since for the first time an American lodge reached a membership of 1,000. Now there are 55 with a membership exceeding 1,000 and the 55 have a total membership of about 85,000.

 

The list is as follows:

 

Grand Jurisdiction	Name	No.	Location	No. Mem.
Michigan	Palestine	357	Detroit	2838
Michigan	Ashlar	91	Detroit	1980
Michigan	Zion	1	Detroit	1940
New York	Genesee Falls	507	Rochester	1697
New York	Yonnondio	163	Rochester	1680
Minnesota	Minneapolis	19	Minneapolis	1656
Illinois	Garden City	141	Chicago	1612
Michigan	Friendship	417	Detroit	1581
Michigan	Detroit	2	Detroit	1569
Indiana	Centre	23	Indianapolis	1500
Ohio	York	563	Columbus	1449
Ohio	Woodward	508	Cleveland	1426
New York	Central City	305	Syracuse	1363
Illinois	Pleiades	478	Chicago	1320
Michigan	Union of S. O.	3	Detroit	1310
Illinois	Union Park	610	Chicago	1288
Pennsylvania	University	610	Philadelphia	1271
Missouri	Temple	299	Kansas City	1250
Ohio	Bisglow	243	Cleveland	1210
Missouri	Ivanhoe	446	Kansas City	1202
Pennsylvania	Dallas	508	Pittsburgh	1194
Ohio	Halcyon	498	Cleveland	1185
Michigan	Lansing	33	Lansing	1164
Ohio	Humboldt	476	Columbus	1164
New York	Syracuse	501	Syracuse	1163
Kentucky	Preston	281	Louisville	1162
Illinois	Garfield	686	Chicago	1124
Illinois	Lake View	774	Chicago	1101
Ohio	Rubicon	237	Toledo	1100
Connecticut	Hiram	1	New Haven	1098
Illinois	Covenant	526	Chicago	1085
Illinois	Mystic Star	758	Chicago	1077
Michigan	Jackson	17	Jackson	1071
Connecticut	Hartford	88	Hartford	1066
New York	Binghamton	177	Binghamton	1063
Illinois	Temple	46	Peoria	1063
Missouri	Mt. Moriah	40	St. Louis	1058
Illinois	Austin	850	Chicago	1057
Ohio