Louis Arnolphe’s Masonic Webpage

We need to go beyond the “authentic school’s” worn-out positivism

For the past hundred and forty years, we have been told that the “authentic school of Masonic history” (which was established in London around the Quatuor Coronati Lodge and the AQC journal in 1886—8) was the alpha and omega of Masonic research. This school of research was born out of the French philosopher Auguste Comte’s theory of positivism. Simply put, this theory held that a) only written proofs can be accepted as evidence in Masonic history, and b) that the existence of a phenomenon is only attested by the existence of a written proof and dated from then on.

For instance, since we do not have clear, written proof that the Master Mason degree was practiced in London until 1725, then 1725 is taken to be the year when this degree was “invented”. That was R.F. Gould’s claim (a famous English Masonic historian) in volume 1 of AQC (published in 1888), and nothing much has changed since then. Any doubt beyond this so-called “self-evident” principle is discarded by this school of researchers as “wishful thinking”, “romanticism” or even “blind unquestioning faith of little children” (G.W. Speth in 1888).

This is not only false, but also quite offensive when you come to think about it! Now, history has progressed through many different schools of thought and theories since the 1880s: Quantitative history, comparative history, global history, connected history, ‘histoire des mentalités’, cultural history, ‘Begriffsgeschichte’, oral history, micro history, ‘Alltagsgeschichte’, counterfactual history, and so forth. Yet, the “authentic school” has been in existence for almost 150 years, but its approach to Masonic history has not evolved. It is still stuck on problems that it considers unsolvable.

What is “the 3Cs paradigm”?

This is the reason why I decided to create a brand-new approach to Masonic history which I called “the 3Cs paradigm” or simply “New Masonic History”.

Why 3Cs? Because New Masonic History is:

1. Complex: Freemasonry is “un fait social total” (a total social fact), a concept which the famous French anthropologist Marcel Mauss defined in his book Essai sur le Don (1925). Freemasonry is a cultural, economic, political, religious, social and symbolic phenomenon all at the same time. Masonic history thus requires extraordinary openness of mind to embrace the multifarious dimensions of the subject. It must be studied multidimensionally, using varied social sciences, and no longer in silos.
   
   
2. Contextual: Masonic sources must be dealt with in the longue durée (long duration), as the famous French historian Fernand Braudel defined it. This means that they must be contextualised and interpreted in their long-run—that is, starting with a medieval backdrop—context and historical consequences. Freemasonry is not the sole product of English Enlightenment aristocrats looking for a convivial activity, it has a very long history and a deep spiritual meaning to its practitioners.
   
   
3. Comparative: Masonic history requires comparison of sources between countries, languages, centuries, and rites in order to go “beyond parochialism.” Freemasonry is not the sole property of any one nation; it has become a fascinating world-wide phenomenon with multiple angles and documents which requires detailed analysis to avoid biases of interpretation. This can only come by resorting to foreign sources, rituals and languages.