User:Ottava Rima/Smart

1. What Rose states (404): "There is no public record explicitly connecting Christopher Smart with Freemasonry. There does exist a poem attributed to "Brother C. Smart, A.M," published in a volume called A Defence of Freemasonry, in the mid-1760s, but it is of course possible that another C. Smart was the author of that work. The most suggestive evidence is therefore a line from the definitively attributed Jubilate Agno, which was written contemporaneously with the Song: "For I am the Lord's builder and free and accepted MASON in CHRIST JESUS" (B109). At a minimum, this line establishes that Smart had Freemasonry on his mind. A close analysis of the Song to David reveals that he was familiar with symbols from all three of the craft degrees, and undoubtedly the best source for such detailed knowledge would have been personal experience. But there were certainly other potential sources, for example the extremely popular expose Masonry Dissected by Samuel Prichard, published in 1730. This pamphlet ran through three editions in eleven days and remained readily available in London for over a century. It was also reputed to be one of the means by which the still young practice of speculative Freemasonry became standardized in Britain and abroad. In other words, Smart would have read it whether he were a Freemason or not. The most important thing to be said is this: much of the symbolism of Freemasonry derives from the story of the building of Solomon's temple, of which David was the divinely inspired architect. Upon this basis alone one is justified in pursuing the question of Masonic symbolism in the Song to David."

2. What Dearnley states (p. 184-185): "Father Devlin has also attempted a detailed, but in many ways simpler, analysis of the seven pillars in the Song to David. He takes quite a different course, because being a Roman Catholic, he is of course very anxious to prove that none of the sources of the Song to David are to be found in Masonic symbolism. 'The suggestion that the letters are Masonic symbols should be set aside. There is no evidence for it; rather the reverse. A writer in Miscellanea Latomorum (October 1924) states: "I am unable to offer any suggestion as to the reason for selection these particular letters of the Greek alphabet." The Curator of the Grand Lodge Library, London, through whose courtesy I was shown this article, adds: "I, too, am defeated in spite of my familiarity with the ritual of numerous masonic degrees."' Smart was a Freemason, but we are inclined to agree with Devlin that any interpretation of the Song to David that relies solely on Masonic symbolism is in danger of being far-fetched."

3. What Sherbo states (p. 221): "Smart's name is linked with a curious work of this same year entitled A Defence of Freemasonry, a refutation of another Free-masonic work, Ahiman Rezon, published earlier in 1765. The actual 'defence' covers about forty pages and has appended to it "A Collection of Masons Odes and Songs. Most of them entirely new;" the pamphlet was printed for the author and sold by W. Flexney and by E. Hood. While the 'defence' has been claimed for Smart, there is no solid evidence for the attribution. (ref 36 to Transactions, the American Lodge of Research, Free and Accepted Masons, V, No. 3 (April, 1951-January, 1952), p. 366-367) Last int he collection osongs is a "A Song by Brother C. Smart, A. M., Tune, "Ye frolicksome Sparks of the Game'," which confirms Smart's participation in Masonic affairs, but does nothing for his reputation as a poet. (ref 37 to the original song)"

4. What Williamson states (p. 478): "Song ('A MASON is great and respected')

Headed 'Song by Brother C. Smart, A. M. in A Defence of Free-Masonry (1765). Smart declares himself a Freemason in JA, B109. Although an unidentified 'Mason's Song' was in the programme of Mrs Midnight's Concert and Oratory on 14 Apr. 1853 (possibly a type for 1753) (London Stage, Pt. 4, p. 365), affinities between the present poem and Smart's later religious poetry suggest that it was written in 1764-1765. His concern seems to be to vindicate freemasonry against contemporary charges that it was irreconcilable with Christianity (see JA, B 109 n).

B 109 note: "Free and Accepted Masons was the title adopted by the constituted society of freemasons in 1717. Smart's claim to be a 'Mason in Christ' is asserted in defiance of the non-doctrinal creed of the 18th-c. freemasonry, and of papal condemnation: freemasonry was proscribed by the Roman church in 1751. William Hutchinson, in The Spirit of Masonry (1775) was at pains to defend the Christian faith of freemasons."

5. What Anderson states (p. 80-81):

"A last source is the Masonic observance. Smart was a Mason, as he demonstrated in Jubilate Agno and the Song, which contain Masonic symbols obscure to the uninitiated. Thus Smart was able to evoke more than one meaning from a particular image or section, lending special richness to the Song. An example can be seen in the passage of the Song concerning the pillars of knowledge. The immediate source of the reference to the pillars is a text of Proverbs IX supposed to have been written by David. Other references occur in Near Eastern mystery religions, in cabalistic and neo-Platonic works which interested Smart, and in legends of freemasonry. A Masonic lodge is reputed to stand on the three pillars of wisdom, strength, and beauty. (ref 8 to Broadbent, J.B. "Commentary" in Smart, Christopher. A Song to David, ed. J.B. Broadbent Cambridge, 1960. p. 36)"

Now, something important - Devlin, the original denier that all of the symbols could be matched up to freemasonry, was proven wrong by John Rose's analysis of each of the symbols and how they match up to freemasonry. And this is not including Christopher Smart: Poet and Mason or British Poets and Secret Societies which devotes an entire chapter to Smart as a Freemason. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

6. Added: What Ainsworth states (p. 121-122):

"Move obvious, however, is that the whole passage is a piece of Masonic symbolism (ref 25 to "For evidence that Smart was a Mason, see Mr. Stead's Rejoice in the Lamb p. 25 and the Jubilate Agno itself.) - its exact meaning necessarily unintelligible to the uninitiated.

Grave legend in Smart's day put the origin of Freemasonry coeval with the creation of the world, which was itself created according to Masonic principles. Not inconsistent then is Masonic symbolism in a poem addressed to David, himself a Mason and planner of the Temple at Jerusalem. A recent critic comments, 'The seven pillars are themselves a Masonic emblem, Alpha and Gamme, taken together, suggest the Compasses and Square; Eta may stand for Jacob's ladder, Theta for the Eye, and Iota for the Plumbline. Obviously, the creator is imagined as the architect or mason of the universe.' (ref 26 to Odell Shepard and Paul Spencer Wood, English Prose and Poetry, 1660-1800. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1934. p. 1020. The notes for A Song to David in this volume are perhaps the best yet printed.) Other symbols must be meaningful to the enlightened - the trowel, spade, and loom of Stanza XXXIII; the 'foot, and chapitre, and niche' of Stanza XXXV; and, of course, the 'infernal draught' (with the sense of 'plan') of Stanza XXXVII. The next stanza, concluding the passage, carries out the same idea of David, the Mason."

7. What Curry states (p. 57):

"Mention of the Temple introduces another thread: that of Smart's Freemasonry. In Jubilate Agno he had asserted


 * For I am the Lord's builder and free and accepted MASON in CHRIST JESUS. (B109)

In his Lexicon of Freemasonry A.G. Mackey devotes several pages to a consideration of Solomon's Temple, explaining that, although Solomon built it, it was David who planned it, and David was not only therefore to be regarded as a Mason, but as possibly having been the first Grand Master.

We also read in Mackey that 'There are in Freemasonry twelve original points which form the basis of the system, and comprehend the whole ceremony of initiation. These twelve points refer the twelve parts of the ceremony of initiation to the twelve tribes of Israel.' (ref 16 to Mackey) The appearances of both these concepts within the opening lines of Smart's A Song to David cannot be without significance, and it is a thread that will be taken up later."

8. What Roberts states (p. 27-28): "There can be little doubt that Masonic influences constituted an important train of thought in Smart's development as a poet of sacred verse. Nevertheless critics have tended to overlook the influence of Masonry on the poem. This is, indeed, puzzling. It is possible that the omission has been due to the widespread assumption that only members of the fraternity can detect hidden references to the secrets of the craft."The very hero of the Song, King David, is a figure who stands at the crossroads of both Christian and Masonic traditions. Indeed, David was prominent within the historiography of early speculative Masonry. Some Masonic writers even claimed that it was David rather than Solomon whoa ctually began the building of the temple. According tot he Roberts Constitutions:


 * King David loved Masons well and cherish'd them, for he gave them good Payment, and gave them a Charge, as Euclydes had given them before in Egypt, and further, as hereafter followeth: and after the Decease of King David, Solomon his Son finished the Temple that his Father had began.

Smart, hwoever, does not deviate from the scriptural version that Solomon began the building of the temple since, in the Song, he refers to David: 'Twas he the famous temple plann'd' (VII). David, as the planner of the temple, is mentioned again in the later poem 'The Presentation of Christ in the Temple' (1765). Here Smart acknowledges the chief architect and builder, Hiram Abif, who, like King David, was venerated by the Freemasons"

Song to David discussion
From my talk page here.

I don't see what the problem is... David doesn't play a large roll in Freemasonry (in fact, he is mentioned only once, in passing, in a lecture that forms part of the third degree). That is factual and is backed by citation to the ritual itself. Freemasonry focuses on Solomon, not David. Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but thats just not the case. This is from reliable sources, and in the 18th century, David was a Freemason image. Being a part of a "ritual" has nothing to do with iconography. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I am afraid that it is the case. Masonic ritual is the context in which masonic imagery and symbolism is presented.  If something isn't included in masonic ritual, it isn't a Masonic image or icon.  All sorts of experts might think it is, but it isn't.
 * As for your sources, I am sure they say what you say they do... I am not doubting that at all. Over the years, many non-masonic sources have interpreted things as being Masonic, when in fact they were not.  This is understandable... The Masons only began to publish their rituals fairly recently, so many highly respected experts had to infer what was and was not masonic symbolism based upon what little they could learn about the fraternity as outsiders.  With the rituals now published, we now have a more definitive source... the rituals themselves. Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation is not founded within reliable sources. I'm sorry, but this is the standard that Wikipedia must meet, and the emails that I have received from London Masonic Librarian on the matter and forwarded to those involved in the prior incident has already established that much of what was said then, which is repeated now, is factually inaccurate. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For all those interested - the 1722 Roberts Constitutions, a well known Masonic pamphlet, discusses King David's role within Masonry and how he started the Temple of Solomon. (quote - "King David loved Masons well and cherish'd them... after the Decease of King David, Solomon his Son finished the Temple that his Father had began.") Here is a link for an electronic copy. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As a non-specialist, that is my understanding also--David and Solomon as builders of the Temple. DGG (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Masons' ritual follows the biblical tale... David fought great wars and shed blood abundantly and so is denied the privilege of building the Temple... That task is given to Solomon. As for Robert's Constitutions... David is mentioned exactly three times in the entirety of the text... in that one paragraph. Like I said in my first posting, David is mentioned in passing and it is Solomon, and Solomon's Temple that figure prominently in Masonry.  Blueboar (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Solomon is mentioned in the building. David is mentioned in the design. If you read Smart's poem, you would see that Smart is talking about the designing of a new temple. There is enough precedent for Smart to be doing this, and there are many works written on how this connects to Free Masonry. I don't understand your complaint, nor do I understand your injection of sources that do not actually deal with Christopher Smart and his reliance on this tradition. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the Masons don't mention David in the design... they give credit for the design to Solomon (and to a lesser extent the invented character of Hiram Abiff). Again, David is only mentioned in passing, as being Solomons predecessor.  You are conflaiting two seperate "Building of the Temple" stories... the Biblical account and the Masonic account.  The Masonic account is unlikely to have inspired Smart, since it barely mentions David. Add this to MSJapans doubts about whether Smart was a Mason, and it is more likely that his poem was inspired by the Bible and not by Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I take it that you didn't actually look at the source material and realize that you are wrong? It doesn't matter if "David is mentioned in passing", Smart felt like emphasizing David when building his own future version of the temple on new ideas. And you can claim all you want about it not inspiring Smart, but I have two books written by Masons which I produced before which disagree, and I have multiple books on literary criticism which analyze the poem as based on the Masonic view of the temple. If you persist in this matter further, I think you would be doing so in violation of many of Wikipedia's guidelines and against anything that could be considered part of academic integrity. You personally don't feel a way, but I have already provided evidence where Masons as a whole do feel that way. It is severely troubling that you persist in something when the evidence is clearly against you. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

We're having a similar issue obout the role of Noah in Christianity and Freemasonry. It seems that eighteenth Century Masonic mythology has different emphases to twenty first century freemasonry. Practicing freemasons, such as Blueboar, may be able to grasp the concept that this could be the case, but it's hard to grasp it as a fact. JASpencer (talk) 11:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The head of the Masonic Library in London emailed me last time when MSJapan and Blueboard tried disputing it, and I still have that letter. So, if need comes down to it, this could come down to them being topic banned for pushing a Point of View without evidence that even academic Masons disagree with. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)