imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Jul 29, 2006 16:52:51 GMT
The book by Dudley Wright: www.biblio.com/books/35028417.htmlI'm suffering a bit of sticker shock over the $65 price tag (for a used book and does not include shipping ). Has anyone read this book? Is it worth the price?
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 31, 2006 8:27:19 GMT
Hi Karen,
Wright's Woman and Freemasonry is a good compilation of the many 'singular exceptions' to the 'No Women!' rule and of various Adoptive Rites such as O.E.S. and of the early years of Co-masonry. Even so, I was not greatly impressed.
Perhaps Wright's most memorable statement was in his introduction, where he said (1922, pp. xiv & xv): "The question as to whether or not women should be admitted into the ranks of Orthodox Freemasonry cannot here be discussed." If not in a book entitled "Woman and Freemasonry", then where?
Elsewhere you asked about Ward's "Who Was Hiram Abiff." I have since found my copy and, while I remind you of doubts about Ward's credibility, I can confirm this book does not deal directly with ritual matters.
You may be interested in Chapter XVI "Who Was the Queen of Sheba," in which he argues (n.d., p.176) that, "...she has gathered around her many of the attributes of Astarte. Indeed, so clear is this that one might say that she was simply the Great Mother humanised at a period when it was no longer desirable to speak of the Goddess."
|
|
|
Post by mike on Oct 31, 2006 12:59:26 GMT
Perhaps Wright's most memorable statement was in his introduction, where he said (1922, pp. xiv & xv): " The question as to whether or not women should be admitted into the ranks of Orthodox Freemasonry cannot here be discussed." If not in a book entitled " Woman and Freemasonry", then where? John, A bit unfair on Wright not to complete what he wrote as he answered your question with his next sentence! " The question as to whether or not women should be admitted into the ranks of Orthodox Freemasonry cannot here be discussed. As the author is proud to claim membership of the United Grand Lodge of England, any discussion on this point would be unbecoming" Karen, I think the price tag is a bit steep but is is an excellent book you may be able to get it cheaper through Ebay or www.abebooks.co.ukThis was the review I wrote of the book on TFM a couple of years ago: Woman and Freemasonry, by Dudley Wright. Published 1922, 196 pages inc. Index, Ebay job. Dudley Wright was a Freemason (I have another title by him called “The Ethics of Freemasonry” which is a collection of papers that he had delivered). He appears to have been very aware of the subject of Adoptive, Co and Feminine Masonry, which was quite unusual in the 1920s. The book gives a very interesting insight into the historical beginnings of what exists to day as co- and feminine masonry. The book includes details of the inception of Adoptive Masonry and the GooF’s split from the rest of the Masonic world, The Fendeurs, Egyptian Masonry and (good old) Count Cagliostro, several chunks of ritual from various orders, OWF and HFAF along with some others I hadn’t heard of before. It also discusses why neither male nor female masons wanted any inter-visitation etc. It also illustrates that tons of Grand lodges have their own version of the Elizabeth St Ledger initiation story. Conclusion: This book is a very very easy read and an exceptional “primer” for those wishing to research the development of these other forms of Freemasonry. It gives lots of details about many “adoptive” forms of Freemasonry but especially the Order of the Eastern Star reproducing the lectures from each of the five degrees. My Rating 7/10 M
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Oct 31, 2006 15:41:12 GMT
"The question as to whether or not women should be admitted into the ranks of Orthodox Freemasonry cannot here be discussed. As the author is proud to claim membership of the United Grand Lodge of England, any discussion on this point would be unbecoming"
That is the best cop-out I have read since Pontius Pilate washed his hands ! Thanks, Bro Mike, I will not waste my money on buying that book if the author is not willing to give his opinion on this important matter.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Oct 31, 2006 16:19:36 GMT
That is the best cop-out I have read since Pontius Pilate washed his hands ! Thanks, Bro Mike, I will not waste my money on buying that book if the author is not willing to give his opinion on this important matter. I suppose it's worth adding that the book was published 14 years after the Order of Women Freemasons and 9 years after the HFAF were both founded. It may have seemed to him that the point was moot, of course this is only a guess. Although he did not put his opinion on whether the UGLE should become "Co-masonic", there is a complete Chapter on the state of Feminie Masonry in England detailing its development. The book itself is not about opinions it is just the history (both documented and legendary) of Women Masons. M
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 31, 2006 20:26:02 GMT
Bro. Mike, I feel I have been wrongly called and misrepresented in this instance. I fail to see how Wright's second sentence adds any substance to his first. It certainly does not answer my question about where such a question can be discussed, when I asked:By comparison, we find his contemporary J.S.M. Ward observed no such restraint in his 1923 book, "Freemasonry its Aims and Ideals." In his chapter asking, "Are We Justified in Excluding Women?" Ward concluded (albeit, reluctantly) in the negative.
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Oct 31, 2006 22:06:26 GMT
Interesting how books take on a life of their own and become authoritative. One strategy used by the anti lobby mob against Native Title here in Oz was to publish research that was distinctly anti-NT - then quote such reference as authoritative. Very circular - very effective. I am tempted to advocate something similar here with respect to women in the Craft. Someone write a book upholding women and the reason for entering the Craft and then we can quote bits and pieces .... At least Wright had the courage to stake his position - and up front in the Introduction. One may disagree with his assessment but not with his integrity.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Oct 31, 2006 22:29:19 GMT
Firstly, apologies for calling you John,I don't know where that came from. Secondly, I wasn't being malicious only pointing out that he says why he isn't going to go into it. As I mentioned in my reply to Steve F the book was about the development of Feminine Freemasonry not whether women should be admitted into Masculine Grand lodges. When this book was written, we not only had Co-masonry in England we also had two newly formed Feminine Orders (formed, I might add by ex-Co-masons who didn't want to be Co-masons anymore). It would seem a bit puerile, to me anyway, to discuss turning Masculine Masonry into Co-masonry when there was already 1 Masculine, 2 Feminine and 1 Co-masonic Orders about and each person was free to choose the Order they wanted. Much like today except, of course, we now have 2 Co-masonic Orders as well as 2 new Masculine ones. M
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 1, 2006 1:47:42 GMT
Hi Bro. Mike,Apologies accepted and returned as I was a bit too thin skinned. That being said, if membership of UGLE is given and regarded as a valid reason for not even discussing an issue, (let alone forming an opinion), then it is indeed a very sorry indictment of the institution (I’m reminded of the old punch line – “No sex please, we’re British”).
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Nov 6, 2006 1:12:19 GMT
Wow, I go away a few days and . . . I'm with Steve on this one. If Dudley feels talking about my rights as a Freemason is "unbecoming", then he'll have to work very, very hard to convince me he has any credibility for his points in the rest of his book. Not that that's not impossible. I have been known to ignore racism in a scholar. For instance, here's an interesting piece of evil from Mackey, namely from his History of Freemasonry, Volume Seven. It has to do with three charters granted - without stealth, openly and fairly - to female craft lodges during Mexico's volatile revolutionary period. (with my italics) So lemme get this straight. Mackey knows these women are Freemasons. And, clearly, they've done nothing wrong, except to have been foolish enough to be born female. And yet he feels it's OK to deprive them of the rights and privileges of Freemasonry, as if they are no better than Freemasons expelled for cause. Not cool. Evil. Breath taking in its hugeness, really. My heart goes out to these women, who ever they were, who unfairly suffered at his hands. Still, I've read much of Mackey's other work. I find it to be sound. So while I find the above disturbing, his other work is sound enough for me to study. Though guardedly, the above always and forever in my mind. Waite, on the other hand . . . jury is still out on him. But I am giving him every chance
|
|
|
Post by mike on Nov 7, 2006 10:10:49 GMT
That being said, if membership of UGLE is given and regarded as a valid reason for not even discussing an issue, (let alone forming an opinion), then it is indeed a very sorry indictment of the institution (I’m reminded of the old punch line – “No sex please, we’re British”). Back in the 1920s it could well have been a valid reason, who knows? As is so often the case, when discussing long-dead authors, we have to remember when they lived and wrote. As I have also mentioned that also wasn't the purpose of his book, it was an historical look at the development of Feminine Masonry. It stands to reason that if he had opened up such a contentious issue it may have stood a good chance of being proscribed by the UGLE at that time and may have received a much more limited distribution and even fewer Masculine Masons would have gained a knowledge of Feminine Masonry. M
|
|
|
Post by mike on Nov 7, 2006 10:15:05 GMT
I'm with Steve on this one. If Dudley feels talking about my rights as a Freemason is "unbecoming", then he'll have to work very, very hard to convince me he has any credibility for his points in the rest of his book. As I mentioned to Tamrin, Dudley is long-dead so he can't argue the point. The book itself is a balanced review of the history of feminine Masonry and takes no sides. It clearly wasn't intended as a vehicle for the discussion of recognition but to spread light to masculine Masons. To be honest I think we should remember that Wright was a masculine Mason himself and breached a subject that was not discussed at that time, this in itself should actually gain him some credit. M
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 7, 2006 20:36:52 GMT
Bro. MikePoint taken: I see at the UGLE Communications in 1921 discussions on the topic were UGLY, being interrupted by laughter, loud laughter, interjections, acclaim and applause. From some recent responses, one wonders how much has changed, other than fear of litigation. Turning to the official history of Grand Lodge 1717-1967, after reporting on the common sense shown with regard to applications from disabled war veterans (p.162), the author reported on the 1921 decisions reinforcing the ‘No Women!’ rule (pp.164/6). Apparently he saw no irony in both the leniency towards the former group and the severity towards the latter group being contrary to the customs and usages among Operative Stonemasons (see Craftswomen). I note that Wright's 1922 coverage did not extend to those customs and usages. I further note that despite the prevailing attitude, in 1923 J.S.M. Ward felt free to both discuss the topic and voice his opinions under "Are we Justified in Excluding Women?" in Freemasonry its Aims and Ideals, (William Rider & Son).
|
|
|
Post by mike on Nov 7, 2006 20:46:43 GMT
I note that Wright coverage did not extend to those customs and usages. I further note that despite the prevailing attitude, in 1923 J.S.M. Ward felt free to both discuss the topic and voice his opinions under "Are we Justified in Excluding Women," in Freemasonry its Aims and Ideal, (William Rider & Son). Point taken although I must return to my earlier remark that Wright's book was about the history of Feminine Masonry whereas Ward's was specifically about that particular topic. M
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Nov 8, 2006 3:34:00 GMT
Your points about Wright and Ward (the latter of whom I'm already quite cozy with) are well taken, they really are.
However, the point folks make about dead scholars having lived in different times and, so, can be expected to be bigoted, to me, is like pointing out a child who pulls the wings from a fly does so because s/he's a child and knows no better. This may be so but it's still cruel and wrong.
Which is why I found the passage from Mackey to be so . . . well, I don't see evil so clearly that often. He knows what he's advocating is wrong. And he does it anyway. I can't help but believe that other such scholars were of the same mind set. And, so, I grant them little slack.
|
|