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

KNIGHTS
KNIGHTS 415
" In Dr . Mackey's various Masonic works
both titles are occasionally used ; but that fact
is fully explained in the letter from that distinguished
Masonic authority, with which I
shall conclude this article ."
On the philological and grammatical question,
it mainly turns on the inquiry whether
the word Templar is a noun or an adjective .
I think it may be safely asserted that every
dictionary of the English language in which
the word occurs, gives it as a noun, and as a
noun only. This is certainly the fact as to
Johnson's Dictionary, Webster's Dictionary,
Cole's Dictionary, Crabb's Dictionary (Technological),
Imperial Dictionary, Craig's Dictionary
(Universal), and Worcester's Dictionary
.
If, then, the word " Templar" is a noun, we
have in the combination-"Knights Templar
"-two nouns, referring to the same person,
one of which is in the plural, and the other
in the singular . The well-known rule of apposition,
which prevails in almost, if not quite
all, languages, requires nouns under these circumstances
to agree in number and case . This
is, in fact, a principle of general grammar,
founded in common sense . The combination
"Knights Templar " is therefore false in grammar,
if the word "Templar" is a noun . But
some may say that it is a noun used as an adjective-a
qualifying noun-a very common
usage in the English tongue . If this were so
the combination " Knights Templar" would
still be entirely out of harmony with the usage
of the language in regard to qualifying nouns,
the invariable practise being to place the adjective
noun before the noun which it qualifies
. A few familiar examples will show this .
Take the following : mansion house, bird cage,
sea fog, dog days, mouse trap, devil fish, ink
stand, and beer cask . In every case the generic
word follows the qualifying noun .
But if we even went to the length of admitting
the word "Templar" to be an adjective,
the combination "Knights Templar" would
still be contrary to the genius of the language,
which, except in rare cases, places the adjective
before the noun which it qualifies .
In poetry, and in some technical terms of
foreign origin, the opposite practise prevails .
The analogy of the usage, in reference to
the designations of other Orders of knighthood,
is also against the use of " Knights
Templar ." We have Knights Commanders,
Knights Bachelors, Knights Bannerets,
Knights Baronets, and Knights Hospitalers .
Against all this, the only thing that can be
pleaded is the present usage of the Grand
Encampment of the United States, and of
some Commanderies which have followed
in its wake . The propriety of this usage is
the very question at issue ; and it would be
curious reasoning, indeed, that would cite the
fact of the usage in proof of its propriety. If
the Templars of to-day are the successors of
De Molay and Hugh de Payens, the preservation
and restoration of the correct title of the
Order cannot be a matter of indifference to
them.
In coming to the consideration of the question,
it appears that it must be examined in
two ways, grammatically and traditionally :
in other words, we must inquire, first, which of
these two expressions better accords with the
rules of English grammar ; and, secondly,
which of them has the support and authority
of the best English writers .
1 . If we examine the subject grammatically,
we shall find that its proper decision depends
simply on the question : Is " Templar"
a noun or an adjective? If it is an adjective,
then "Knights Templar" is correct, because
adjectives in English have no plural form . It
would, however, be an awkward and unusual
phraseology, because it is the almost invariable
rule of the English language that the
adjective should precede and not follow the
substantive which it qualifies.
But if "Templar" is a substantive or noun,
then, clearly, " Knights Templar" is an ungrammatical
phrase, because "Templar"
would then be in apposition with " Knights,"
and should be in the same regimen ; that is to
say, two nouns coming together, and referring
to the same person or thing, being thus said to
be in apposition, must agree in number and
case . Thus we say King George or Duke William,
when King and George, and Duke and
William are in apposition and in the singular ;
but speaking of Thackeray's " Four Georges,"
and intending to designate who they were by
an explanatory noun in ap osition, we should
put both nouns in the plural, and say "the
four Georges, Kings of England ." So when we
wish to designate a simple Knight, who is not
only a Knight, but also belongs to that branch
of the Order which is known as Templars, we
should call him a "Knight Templar ' ; and if
there be two or more of these Templars, we
should call them "Knights Templars," just as
we say "Knight Hospitaler" and "Knights
Hospitalers ."
Now there is abundant evidence, in the beet
works on the subject, of the use of the word
" Templar" as a substantive, and none of its
use as an adjective .
It would be tedious to cite authorities, but
a reference to our best English writers will
show the constant employment of "Templar"
as a substantive only. The analogy of
the Latin and French languages supports this
view, for "Templarius" is a noun in Latin,
as "Templier" is in French .
2 . As to traditional authority, the usage of
good writers, which is the "jus et norms loquendi,"
is altogether in favor of "Knights
Templars" and not "Knights Templar ."
In addition to the very numerous authorities
collected by Bro . Stansbury from the
shelves of the Congressional Library, Dr .
Mackey collated all the authorities in his own
library .
All the English and American writers, Masonic
and unmasonic,except some recentAmerican
ones, use the plural of Templar to designate
more, than one Knight . In a few instances
Dr. Mackey found "Knight Templare," but
never "Knights Templar .' The very recent