Dring’s article, published in Ars Quatuor Coronatorum (vol. 19, 1906), belongs to the early twentieth-century scholarly attempts to historicise Masonic traditions. It focuses on the so-called “Naimus Grecus legend”, a motif present in certain Old Charges, and investigates its textual transmission, significance, and origins. The piece stands at the crossroads of antiquarian interest and critical philology, aiming to clarify whether this legend can be considered authentic, interpolated, or symbolic within medieval contexts.
Thesis and Main Contribution
The author’s central thesis is that the “Naimus Grecus legend” is not an original or historically authentic element of early Masonic tradition but a later accretion. His principal contribution is a close textual collation of versions of the Old Charges containing the passage, and a critical demonstration that the name and legend are likely derived from misreadings or scribal interpolations rather than reflecting genuine historical memory. By doing so, Dring positions his work as a corrective to speculative interpretations that had accorded undue weight to this motif.
Method and Rationale
Dring adopts a method grounded in textual collation and comparison of manuscript variants. He identifies where the legend appears, notes its absence in other copies, and examines linguistic features that suggest later interpolation. This internal textual criticism is supported by external references to manuscript provenance. The rationale is that by establishing the textual history of the legend, one can assess its historical credibility within the broader corpus of the Old Charges.
In terms of engagement with predecessors, Dring continues the work of other contributors to Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, such as the detailed collation by Begemann. He explicitly references earlier attempts to interpret or legitimise the name and legend but departs from them by rejecting symbolic or allegorical readings in favour of strict textual analysis. His approach thus diverges from speculative antiquarianism and positions itself within a more rigorous philological tradition.
Main Arguments
- The textual instability of the legend: Dring shows that the “Naimus Grecus” reference is absent from early manuscripts but appears inconsistently in later ones. This instability suggests it is a scribal addition rather than an original component.
- Misinterpretation and scribal corruption: The name itself, Dring argues, is likely a corruption of a different word or phrase. The presence of linguistic anomalies supports the idea of error or interpolation rather than authentic tradition.
- Critique of symbolic or antiquarian explanations: Dring firmly rejects the idea that “Naimus Grecus” encodes hidden allegorical meaning. Instead, he frames it as a philological problem solvable through textual comparison and attention to transmission.
Strengths of the Approach
- Rigour/Originality: The article distinguishes itself by its meticulous collation of manuscripts and rejection of speculative antiquarianism, offering a model of text-critical method.
- Methodological Contribution: By emphasising textual corruption and interpolation, Dring helps re-orient Masonic historiography towards evidence-based philology, distancing it from allegorical speculation.
- Clarity of Argumentation: The demonstration is precise and cumulative, moving from collation to conclusion without rhetorical overreach. Examples of textual variants are clearly explained and contextualised.
Limitations and Potential Biases
- Narrow focus: Dring limits himself strictly to the textual history of the “Naimus Grecus” passage, without considering the broader cultural or symbolic contexts in which such interpolations may have arisen. This focus, while deliberate, narrows the interpretive field.
- Dependence on extant copies: His argument rests entirely on the manuscripts he collated; no consideration is given to the possibility of now-lost intermediaries or alternative textual traditions.
- Risk of overconfidence in textual corruption: Although Dring convincingly argues for scribal error, the rejection of all symbolic readings may appear premature, given the polyvalent nature of medieval textual transmission.
Critical Conclusion
Dring’s article stands as a significant step in grounding the study of the Old Charges in textual criticism rather than antiquarian conjecture. His careful demonstration that the “Naimus Grecus legend” is likely a scribal corruption undermines speculative traditions that had built upon it, and his method offers a durable model for philological engagement with similar problems. Its strength lies in the disciplined focus on evidence, though this same focus also limits the wider interpretive scope. Ultimately, the article reshapes the scholarly field by showing that the credibility of legendary accretions can only be assessed through rigorous textual comparison rather than symbolic exegesis. It leaves readers with a decisive methodological lesson: that careful attention to the mechanics of textual transmission must precede any larger historical or symbolic interpretation.