Mackey A G - Encylopedia of Freemasonry - The Grand Masonic ...

212 DIMIT
DIMIT
The word continued in use as a technical
word in the Masonry of England for many
years . In the editions of the Constitutions
published in 1756, p . 311, the passage just
quoted is again recited, and the word demit is
again employed in the fourth edition of the
Constitutions published in 1767, p . 345 .
In the second edition of Dermott's Ahiman
Rezon, published in 1764 (I have not the first),
p. 52, and in the third edition, published in
1778, p 58, the word demit is employed . Oliver,
it will be seen, uses it in his Dictionary, published
in 1853. But the word seems to have
become obsolete in England, and to, resign is
now constantly used by English Masonic
writers in the place of to demit .
In America, however, the word has been
and continues to be in universal use, and has
always been spelled, until very recently,
demit .
Thus we find it used by Taunehill, Manual,
1845, p. 59 ; Morris, Code of Masonic Law,
1856, p . 289 ; by Hubbard, in 1851 ; by Chase,
Digest, 1859, p . 104 ; by Mitchell, Masonic
History, vol . ii ., pp . 556, 592, and by all the
Grand Lodges whose proceedings I have examined
up to the year 1560, and probably beyond
that date .
On the contrary, the word dimit is of very
recent origin, and has been used only within a
few years . Usage, therefore, both English and
American, is clearly in favor of demit, and
dimit must be considered as an interloper, and
ought to be consigned to the tomb of the Capulets.
And now we are to, inquire whether this
usage is sustained by the principles of etymology.
First, let us obtain a correct definition
of the word.
To demit, in Masonic language, means simply
to resign . The Mason who demits from his
Lodge resigns from it . The word is used in the
exact sense, for instance in the Constitution
of the Grand Lodge of Wisconsin, where it is
said : "No brother shall be allowed to demit
from any Lodge unless for the purpose of uniting
with some other." That is to say : "No
brother shall be allowed to resign from any
Lodge."
Now what are the respective meanings of
demit and dimit in ordinary language?
There the words are found to be entirely
different in signification .
To demit is derived first from the Latin demittere
through the French demettre. In Latin
the prefixed particle de has the weight of down ;
added to the verb mittere, to send, it signifies
to let down from an elevated position to a
lower . Thus, Cxsar used it in this very sense,
when, in describing the storming of Avaricum,
(Bel . Gal ., vii ., 28), he says that the
Roman soldiers did not let themselves down,
that is, descend from the to p of the wall to the
level ground . The French, looking to this reference
to a descent from a higher to a lower position,
made their verb se demettre, used in a
reflective sense, signify to give up a post,
office, or occupation that is to say to resign
it. And thence the English use of the word is
reducible, which makes to demit signify to resign
. We have another word in our language
also derived from demettre, and in which the
same idea of resignation is apparent. It is the
word demise, which was originally used only to
express a royal death. The old maxim was
that "the king never dies ." So, instead of saying
"the death of the king," they said "the
demise of the king," thereby meaning his
resignation of the crown to his successor .
The word is now applied more generally, and
we speak of the demise of Mr . Pitt, or any
other person.
To dimit is derived from the Latin dimittere .
The prefixed particle di or dis has the effect of
off from, and hence dimittere means to send
away . Thus, Terence uses it to express the
meaning of dismissing or sending away an
army .
Both words are now obsolete in the English
language . They were formerly used, but in the
different senses already indicated .
Thus, Hollinshed employs demit to signify
a surrender, yielding up, or resignation of a
franchise .
Bishop Hall uses dimit to signify a sending
away of a servant by his master .
Demit, as a noun, is not known in good English
; the correlative nouns of the verbs to
demit and to dimit are demission and dimission.
"A demit" is altogether a Masonic
technicality, and is, moreover, an Americanism
of very recent usage .
It is then evident that to demit is the proper
word, and that to use to dimit is to speak and
write incorrectly . When a Mason "demits
from a Lodge," we mean that he "resigns from
a Lodge," because to demit means to resign .
But what does anyone mean when he says
that a Mason "dimits from a Lodge"? To
dimit means, as we have seen, to send away,
therefore "he dimits from the Lodge" is
equivalent to saying "he sends away from the
Lodge," which of course is not only bad English,-but
sheer nonsense. If dimit is to be used
at all, as it is an active, transitive verb, it must
be used only in that forth, and we must either
say that "a Lodge dimits a Mason " or that
"a Mason is dimitted by his Lod
I think that I have discovered the way in
which this blunder first arose . Robert Morris,
in his Code of Masonic Law, p . 289, has the following
passage :
"A 'demit,' technically considered, is the
act of withdrawing, and applies to the Lodge
and not to the individual . A Mason cannot
demit, in the strict sense, but the Lodge may
demit (dismiss) him."
It is astonishing how the author of this
passage could have crowded into so brief a
space so many violations of grammar, law, and
common sense. First, to demit means to withdraw,
and then this withdrawal is made the
act of the Lodge and not of the individual, as
if the Lodge withdrew the member instead of
the member withdrawing himself . And immediately
afterward, seeing the absurdity of
this doctrine, and to make the demission the
act of the Lodge, he changes the signification