Having studied a little liguistics while at university, I was most pleased to hear RW Bro Don Scott lecture at our lodge upon the language of our ritual. His talk inspired further thought, as all good lectures should.
Bro Scott pointed out that the language of our ritual is about two centuries old, its current form dating from the Union of 1813 and earlier. No doubt, even then, many old fashioned turns of phrase would have been kept for effect. Language changes over time. Words change in meaning and in form. Even the order of words in sentences, basic grammar, is not immune. Bro Scott gave examples of our ritual which may be difficult for speakers of modern English, and left us with the open question, whether it would be best to modernise it. I was inspired to further discussion on this important subject.
In the academic world, the acceptance of the fact that natural languages change has been reflected in the shift from prescriptive to descriptive grammars. The prescriptive grammars of last century were ideal models of "correct" usage. The "Queen's English" is an example.
The descriptive grammars seek only to describe the speech observed at a particular time and place. Modern linguistics recognises that speech varies between places, times, and social groups. A language is defined as a range of forms of mutually intelligible speech. The different forms within a language are called dialects. The forms particular to individuals within a dialect are called idiolects.
One of the problems of a totally descriptive philosophy of language is that in order to be certain of the exact meaning of an utterance, one must know the geographical, historical, and social circumstances of the speaker. Also, the purely descriptive trend has lead to an "anything goes attitude", as language is constantly changing, why try to encourage any particular standard? All dialects are equally valid forms of speech. While this is true, the result is that several very useful distinctions have been lost.
Consider "alternate" and "alternative". The former referring to the interleaving of two different conditions, for example, a fortnightly event always occurs on alternate weeks, numbers are alternately odd and even. "Alternative", on the other hand, means "other choice", for example, an alternative to beef is lamb, or alternatively pork. As an engineer, I find the difference very important, yet even professional writers frequently use the words interchangeably. Where not so long ago I could have used these words with confidence, I must now use several additional words to ensure that they are properly understood.
The same can be said for "disinterested" and "uninterested", and when it is proper to say "you and I" or "you and me". Such distinctions may at first appear trivial, but they have the potential to substantially change the meaning of a sentence.
Clearly, speech is organised by convention. In order to communicate effectively we must be able to understand a range of dialects, and we must be able to use a more formal prescriptive language which will be intelligible to all speakers of the language. To ensure the effectiveness of an unambiguous common language, we must make the unpopular admission that a prescriptive grammar and agreed dictionary are vital to accurate communication.
Every occupation acquires its own peculiar subset of language, often called jargon. Every sport, hobby, art, or other human pursuit evolves words and phrases which are meaningful only in that context. Freemasonry is no exception, many of our expressions arise from our early history and ritual. This brings us back to the question put by Bro Scott, should we keep our old and difficult wording, or re-write the ritual for modern clarity? Is it more important to keep the traditional ritual texts, or make it easier for new members to understand the words?
If we look at other ritual traditions, we find that a great many use archaic or dead languages. Among the archaic or dead languages still in use by major ritual traditions are Latin, King James English, ancient Hebrew, Sanskrit, Pali, and 6th Century Arabic. We must ask why virtually every major faith uses archaic language for ritual. A cynic would probably dismiss it as evidence of conservatism. A ritualist, however, would find much deeper reasons.
The purpose of ritual is to lift the participant out of the mundane world, and to commune with a greater ancestral tradition. The use of archaic language achieves both of these aims, inspiring an awe and respect which would be difficult to attain using everyday speech.
Masonic ritual also aims to teach moral and spiritual awareness. It could be argued that modern English ritual would make this task easier. It does indeed take some time for the full meaning of a passage to become clear, and this is partly because of the old form of English used. We must remember, however, that Freemasonry is a "peculiar system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols". Simplified English would not make the allegory or symbols any clearer.
The extra effort required to learn the original words and meaning of our ritual encourages a more thorough and deeper understanding of it. To learn the charges in a language slightly different from our own requires focus and helps sharpen the mind. At least our ritual language is close enough to modern English to make it easy to learn. It would be a much more major commitment if we had to learn it in Latin.
My own feeling, as a fairly new Mason, is that we would loose a great deal of the impression of the age and dignity of the ritual by translating it into modern English. If new members really do have a problem understanding the language, perhaps the Masters could do more to employ and instruct the brethren in Freemasonry.
I will be happy if in 40 years I am still hearing the same inspiring words my ancestors recited two centuries ago.
Stephen Plowright
Lodge Stanmore