Hamer’s article revisits the long-debated question of the “Naymus Grecus” reference found in certain Old Charges, offering a new identification of the enigmatic name. The study is situated within a lineage of earlier analyses by Dring and others, who had examined the textual instability of the passage and dismissed allegorical readings. Hamer seeks to move beyond the diagnosis of corruption to provide a plausible historical or philological explanation, thereby advancing the debate into fresh interpretive territory. His article stimulated discussion in AQC, reflecting both the interest in resolving this crux and the continuing methodological divide between philological scrutiny and speculative interpretation.
Thesis and Main Contribution
The central thesis is that “Naymus Grecus” is not a meaningless scribal corruption but can be credibly identified with a historical or literary figure, misrendered through transmission. Hamer’s principal contribution is the proposal of a concrete identification, supported by textual and contextual arguments, which aims to restore sense to a passage long regarded as corrupt. By doing so, he challenges earlier consensus that the name was irredeemably garbled, and he reopens the question of the Old Charges’ legendary sources.
Method and Rationale
Hamer employs philological reconstruction combined with contextual comparison. He examines manuscript variants of the passage, traces possible etymological transformations of the name, and situates these within broader literary and historical references available to medieval scribes. His rationale is that apparent corruptions may conceal recoverable historical or legendary material, and that rigorous philology can illuminate the sources underlying the Old Charges’ legendary framework.
In engaging with predecessors, Hamer directly addresses Dring’s earlier argument that the name was merely a corruption devoid of meaning. He departs from this sceptical stance by proposing a constructive identification. While not dismissing Dring’s collation work, Hamer critiques the assumption that corruption necessarily precludes recovery of the original reference. His contribution therefore represents both a continuation and a methodological divergence from earlier scholarship.
Main Arguments
- Textual evidence of instability: Hamer confirms that the “Naymus Grecus” reference appears inconsistently across manuscripts, supporting earlier views of corruption but also providing a base for reconstruction.
- Plausible etymological derivation: He proposes that the name can be derived from a misrendering of a known historical or legendary figure (specific identifications are detailed in the article), thereby giving it coherence.
- Contextual support: Hamer situates the reconstructed name within the broader legendary material of the Old Charges, arguing that it fits coherently alongside biblical and classical references, thus reinforcing its plausibility.
- Critique of scepticism: He challenges the view that corruption renders the passage meaningless, contending instead that philological diligence can recover its significance and shed light on the sources available to medieval compilers.
Strengths of the Approach
- Innovative reinterpretation: The article advances the debate by offering a constructive identification rather than resigning the problem to corruption.
- Philological rigour: Hamer’s etymological reconstruction is careful and grounded in manuscript evidence, illustrating how detailed linguistic analysis can reopen closed questions.
- Integration of context: By situating the proposed identification within the broader legendary framework of the Old Charges, he avoids treating the passage in isolation.
Limitations and Potential Biases
- Speculative reconstruction: While ingenious, the identification relies on conjectural links that cannot be definitively proven, leaving room for debate.
- Dependence on selective parallels: Hamer privileges certain etymological pathways over others, which may bias the reconstruction towards his preferred outcome.
- Risk of overconfidence: In pressing the case for a positive identification, he may understate the residual uncertainty and the possibility that the corruption is indeed irrecoverable.
Discussion and Commentary
The article generated significant commentary within AQC. Some respondents welcomed the attempt to resolve the enigma and praised the ingenuity of the philological reconstruction. Others remained sceptical, warning against the dangers of building historical interpretations on conjectural identifications. The discussion reflects the persistent methodological divide between those favouring rigorous scepticism (emphasising textual instability) and those open to bold reconstruction in pursuit of meaning. The lively exchange underscores both the importance of the passage and the contested nature of attempts to resolve it.
Critical Conclusion
Hamer’s “Naymus Grecus: a New Identification” marks a significant intervention in the debate over one of the most obscure elements of the Old Charges. By rejecting the sceptical consensus and advancing a positive identification, he reopens the field for constructive philological inquiry. His study exemplifies the strengths and risks of such an approach: it demonstrates how careful linguistic and contextual analysis can illuminate apparent corruptions, but also how conjectural the results remain. The contemporary discussion it provoked confirms both its originality and its controversial character. Ultimately, the article contributes enduringly to Masonic historiography by showing that even seemingly irrecoverable corruptions may still yield insights when approached with philological imagination tempered by critical caution.