Huzzé: Cry Of Triumph Or Hebrew Declaration (הוּא זֶה)?

By: Rui Samarcos Lóra

1. Introduction: The Enigma of an Acclamation

The Freemasonry of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite (AASR) bases its pass words and sacred words, in their overwhelming majority, on Biblical Hebrew, a structural principle that confers symbolism and continuity to its initiatic tradition.

As observed by Pike (1871) and Mackey (1869), Biblical Hebrew structures the sacred words of the AASR, granting them symbolic depth. Castellani (1977) and Lora (2014) also highlight that Hebrew serves to gauge the perfection of the composite order, and allows each degree to be signified through the comprehension, discussion, and knowledge of each word.

In this context, the acclamation Huzzé emerges as a philological anomaly, for its origin is intensely disputed among authors, who attribute it to Arabic (as the name of the Acacia), to the English Huzzah (a naval cry), to Scottish, or even to the Crusaders, among others.

Curiously, the hypothesis of a Hebrew root, the most coherent with the symbolic system of the Order, has never been academically explored with the depth it deserves. Faced with this gap, this article starts from the following question:

if all the other fundamental words of the AASR are Hebrew, why would Huzzé be the sole exception?

The study of Masonic terminology is a minefield of speculations and certainties, where the historian often finds themselves confronted with the philosopher and the symbolist.

The acclamation Huzzé is a paradigmatic example of this conflict. While the majority of historians, based on documentation from the 18th and 19th centuries, defend its origin in the English naval and military cry Huzzah (or Huzzai), a symbolic current insists on a Semitic root, whether Arabic or Hebrew.

The strength of the argument in favor of a Hebrew origin lies precisely in this structural principle of Speculative Freemasonry, that is, the symbolism of its words.

From the symbolic degrees (Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft, and Master Mason), the pass words and sacred words are recognizably derived from Biblical Hebrew or its corruptions (e.g., Boaz, Jakin, Tubalcaim, Giblim, Shibboleth, etc.).

Therefore, it is legitimate and academically relevant to question:

why would a word of such ritualistic importance, a cry of union and acclamation, be the sole exception, originating from a secular and military English context?

This article seeks to examine this question by analyzing the main theories and proposing, in the end, a synthesis that takes into account both documentary history and the depth of symbolism.

2. The Anglo-Saxon Thesis: The Weight of Documentary Evidence

In opposition to the Hebrew hypotheses, the thesis of an English origin is supported by a solid and traceable chain of historical and philological evidence, which gives this theory a documentary backing that the others lack.

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) (2020) documents the term Huzzah (also spelled huzza) as an English interjection dating at least from the 17th century.

Its etymology is classified as uncertain, suggesting possible origins in sailors’ cries or Germanic words, without any definitive academic consensus; it records huzzah since 1573 as an interjection of triumph.

However, its use is clear and well-documented. It was an expression of joy, triumph, salutation, and encouragement . The earliest literary records appear in 1573 and in plays by William Shakespeare.

Its use was characteristic of sailors, who employed it as a salute to officers embarking or disembarking, and as a rhythmic shout to synchronize efforts when pulling ropes and hoisting sails.

The English writer and chronicler John Dunton, in 1686, already recorded the military custom of saluting authorities with shouts of Huzzah. In the 18th century, three huzzahs were given by the British infantry before the charge, as a means of boosting troop morale and intimidating the enemy (Hobbes, 2003).

The transition of the acclamation into the Masonic rite may have occurred predominantly in the 18th century, in a context of strong British influence on France.

Many of the primitive rituals were brought by military officers and Jacobite exiles, supporters of the House of Stuart who took refuge in France after the failed attempts to restore the Stuarts to the British throne (McLaren, 1975).

These military men and exiles brought with them their barracks and shipboard customs, among them, the acclamation Huzzah. Authors such as Albert Lantoine (1925) argue that the word houzzai (the French spelling) is a simple phonetic transcription of the English cry huzzah.

There are historical records of the use of the acclamation in Masonic contexts as early as 1753, in Scotland, during the laying of the foundation stone of the New Exchange of Edinburgh.

“The Grand Master, Lord Carysfort, after the formalities, gave three knocks on the stone with the mallet, followed by three huzzas from the brethren.”

This record, made by William Preston in his work Illustrations of Masonry (1775), is an important primary source demonstrating that the term was already used and recognized in the 18th-century English Masonic vocabulary, precisely in the context of a triple acclamation.

Preston’s work, which went through multiple editions throughout the 18th century, is considered a classic of Masonic literature. In the same vein, the Scottish writer William Alexander Laurie, in 1804, also cites the practice of saluting Masons with three huzzahs and trumpet blasts at public events (Laurie, 1804).

Laurie’s work is representative of a 19th-century historiographical current that sought to move away from speculation in favor of documented history, which reinforces the validity of the approach based on primary sources.

The acclamation is absent from early Masonic exposures such as Masonry Dissected (1730) by Samuel Prichard. Its first appearance in a ritual occurs in 1804, in the Guide des Maçons Écossais (or Livre des trois grades symboliques du Rite Ancien et Accepté), published by the Grand Orient of France, where it appears as Houzze in the opening and closing of labors, without any etymological or Hebrew mention, only as an exclamation of jubilation.

In 1820, a ritual of the Grand Orient of Belgium already shows the spelling Houzzai, a French phonetic transcription.

The Dictionnaire Maçonnique de Quantin, published anonymously in Paris in the year 1825, is explicit: Houzé, cry of joy of the Masons of the Scottish Rite, means Long Live the King, confirming the English origin as an acclamation, in the context of French Masons under political suspicion (Quantin, Dictionnaire Maçonnique, 1825).

Authors like Jules Boucher, in La Symbolique Maçonnique, citing Delaunay and Quantin, states that Huzza was taken from English by French Masons (identical pronunciation: uzê), evolving from a naval cry to a ritualistic one via Scottish Jacobite influence in France post-1688, corroborating what was mentioned earlier.

A particularly strong argument in favor of the thesis that the acclamation is a functional element and not a fixed sacred word is its variation in related rites.

The Adonhiramite Rite, which shares historical roots with the AASR and whose rituals date back to 1737 with La réception d’un Frey-Maçon and the Recueil Précieux de la Maçonnerie Adonhiramite, uses the triple acclamation Vivat! Vivat! Vivat! in moments analogous to those of the AASR.

Such adoption of the Latin Vivat (Long live! May he live!) reinforces the thesis that the acclamation has been understood, in continental Masonic circles, as a cry of jubilation and acclamation, not necessarily as a declaration of divine identity.

The compilers of the rituals may have opted for a functional translation that preserved the sense of acclamation, without concerning themselves with the original etymology. In this sense, Vivat captures the spirit of the cry (Long live!), but not necessarily its root.

The Brazilian Rite, in turn, adopted Glória! Glória! Glória! (Glory! Glory! Glory!), and the French Modern Rite uses Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité! (Liberty, Equality, Fraternity!). All of these are variations on the theme of celebratory acclamation, indicating that the essential thing is the act of acclaiming, and not the specific word used.

The existence of different versions – Huzzé, Vivat, Glória – for the same ritual moment suggests that what matters is the acclamation introduced into the ritual, and not a supposed original and immutable meaning. Therefore, it is interesting to discuss similar hypotheses that seek in this acclamation another symbolic meaning.

3. The Hebrew Hypothesis: Hu Zé (הוּא זֶה)

It is in the field of symbolic interpretation that the Hu Zé hypothesis finds its most fertile ground, offering an original and elevated contribution to the meaning of the acclamation, in perfect resonance with the spirit of the AASR, even though it lacks primary documentary evidence.

The hypothesis raised proposes that Huzzé would be a transliteration of Hu Zé (הוּא זֶה). To test its validity, it is imperative to resort to Hebrew grammar and, above all, to the Biblical usage of the language, where we can find occurrences that, although not always, attest to the structure and context of identification that the phrase carries.

The analysis must begin with the individual components of the phrase: Hu (הוּא): Third person masculine singular personal pronoun. It means “he”; and Ze (זֶה): Masculine singular demonstrative pronoun. It means “this”, “that”.

The direct combination Hu Ze is grammatically possible and means “He is this” or “This is He”. This is an emphatic construction, used for identification.

However, to prove the presence and meaning of this root of identification in the Hebrew imagination, the Biblical occurrences are fundamental, as they show the interrogative variation Mi Hu Ze (מִי הוּא זֶה), which translates as “Who is he, this?” or “Who is this?”.

This interrogative form is a powerful attestation of the combined use of the three terms and serves as a logical basis for the affirmation Hu Ze. Let us look at the provided instances:

• Exodus 22:8 (22:7 in some translations):

This verse deals with a case of disputed property. The key phrase is: אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר כִּי־הוּא זֶה (asher yomar ki-Hu Ze). The translation is: about which he says: This is he or … saying: This is he. Here, we have the declarative and affirmative form we are seeking: הוּא זֶה (Hu Ze). The context is legal and of identification: someone finds a lost object and affirms Hu Ze (“It is this [the object I lost]”). This is direct proof of the use of the exact phrase “Hu Ze” in the Biblical text to affirm the identity of something or someone.

• Psalms 24:10:

The verse asks: מִי הוּא זֶה מֶלֶךְ הַכָּבוֹד (Mi Hu Ze melekh hakavod?). The translation is Who is this King of Glory?. And the psalm itself answers: The Lord of hosts, he is the King of Glory. Here, the structure is crystalline. The question Mi Hu Ze? is asked about the divinity, and the answer affirms Hu [YHWH]…. This is a theologically rich example that links the triad Mi Hu Ze to the direct identification of God.

• Esther 7:5:

King Ahasuerus asks: מִי הוּא זֶה (Mi Hu Ze). The direct translation is Who is he, this? or, more fluently, Who is this?. The phrase is a unit of identification, where the personal pronoun (hu) and the demonstrative (ze) act together to ask about someone’s identity. The expected answer to Mi Hu Ze? would be an affirmation like Hu Ze [so-and-so] – He is this [so-and-so]. Therefore, the interrogative structure validates the existence and meaning of the affirmative form.

• Jeremiah 30:21:

The phrase is: כִּי מִי הוּא־זֶה (Ki mi Hu Ze). The translation is For who is this who dared to approach me? Again, the rhetorical question uses the combination mi Hu Ze to challenge the audience about who would have the courage or authority to approach God. The context is of divine sovereignty, where God establishes the distinction between Himself and men. The question Who is this? implies that no ordinary man can be “this one” who approaches, unless he is designated by God.

The Biblical occurrences allow us to conclude that the passage from Exodus 22:8 provides the most direct evidence, with the use of the phrase הוּא זֶה (Hu Ze) in a declarative context of identification:

This is he. Esther 7:5, Psalms 24:10 and Jeremiah 30:21 validate the combined structure מִי הוּא זֶה (Mi Hu Ze).

The consistent use of this question in the Bible, especially in the Psalms directed at God, proves that the combination of the three terms was a recognized unit of meaning for inquiring about a specific identity.

The logical progression is: if the question Mi Hu Ze? (Who is this?) is widely used, the expected and grammatically correct answer to identify the subject in question is the affirmation Hu Ze [so-and-so] (He is this [so-and-so]), exactly like the declarative form found in Exodus.

The hypothesis that Huzzé derives from Hu Ze (הוּא זֶה) is not only grammatically possible but finds solid support in the Biblical usage of the Hebrew language.

In the philosophical and symbolic context of the AASR, the use of this phrase as an invocation points to identification with the divine, with the Great Architect of the Universe (G.A.O.T.U.).

The rhetorical question of the Psalms, Mi Hu Ze Melekh HaKavod? (Who is this King of Glory?), followed by the answer YHWH… Hu Melekh HaKavod (The Lord… He is the King of Glory), establishes a perfect liturgical parallel with the moment of the Masonic acclamation, that is, the search for the identity of God is answered with an affirmation that He (Hu) is This (Ze) whom one seeks.

In the AASR, the triple acclamation Huzzé! Huzzé! Huzzé! is uttered as a thanksgiving, immediately after the opening and closing of the Book of the Law, a moment of reverence for the Volume of the Sacred Law and, by extension, for the G.A.O.T.U.

To acclaim He is this is, therefore, a symbolic act of recognizing the presence of the Absolute in the midst of its workers.

Unlike the Arabic or Turkish hypotheses, the Hebrew expression Hu Ze finds perfect resonance in Masonic symbolism, integrating itself coherently and profoundly into the spirit of the Rite, something that competing theories, of profane origin, cannot offer in the field of initiatic meaning.

4. Other Less Substantiated Variants

A variation of the Hebrew hypothesis, less robust but still present in literature, connects Huzzé to the Biblical name Uz (עוּץ). Uz is a Biblical figure, son of Aram and grandson of Shem (Genesis 10:23), and also the name of the region where Job lived (Job 1:1).

Authors like Valdemar Sansão, in his Dicionário de Mitologia Maçônica, explore the connection with the Land of Uz, associating Job’s patience and faith with the initiate’s journey.

The difficulty of this hypothesis lies in the loss of the guttural consonant ayin (ע) and the addition of an aspirated H and the final accented vowel é, a phonetic transformation that, although not impossible, is less direct and explainable than the derivation from Hu Ze.

In parallel, other theories emerged, often based on phonetic similarities and the desire to sacralize the term, but which do not withstand critical analysis. One of the most widespread, but also the most fragile, theories associates Huzzé with a supposed Hebrew or Arabic word, Al-Uzza (Lenoir, 2007) for Acacia.

It is necessary to clarify, categorically, that acacia in Hebrew is not Huzzé (Lokotsch, 1927). The Hebrew word for acacia is Shittah (שִׁטָּה) in the singular, and Shittim (שִׁטִּים) in the plural, a term widely known for its Biblical occurrence in the construction of the Tabernacle (Exodus 25:10, for example).

Varolli Filho (1993) presents explanations for this relationship between acacia and the word Huzzé and associates it with creative explanations: ancient solar cults, attributing it to cycles of nature, light, among others that are replicated in works by Masons in Brazil.

They commit a mistake, confusing the discussion and creating an argumentative plot that diverts the focus of the symbolic, historical, and even semantic analysis without explanation or reference.

It is important to remember that Speculative Freemasonry, as we know it, emerges in the British Isles in the 17th and 18th centuries, with a strong symbolic basis in the construction of Solomon’s Temple, the Judeo-Christian tradition, and Renaissance Hermeticism (Yates, 1972; Stevenson, 1988; Jacob, 1981; Hamill, 1986; Pick; 1953).

The Arabic influence on the Iberian Peninsula, although historically relevant, left no direct and proven marks on the primordial Masonic liturgy and rituals (Bullock, 1996; Bogdan and Snoek, 2014).

The fact that there are phonetically similar words in other languages (such as Turkish Ur Ah! or Mongolian Hurree, the latter associated by some with the hordes of Genghis Khan) is mere phonetic coincidence, insufficient to establish any genealogical relationship and absolutely devoid of any link with the Order’s symbolism.

5. Comparative Analysis: The Force of History vs. The Depth of the Symbol

It is fundamental to understand that Freemasonry, as an initiatic institution, operates on different registers of knowledge.

On one hand, there is historical investigation, which seeks documented facts, dates, origins, and real influences.

On the other hand, there is the legendary tradition, which encompasses symbolic narratives (such as the construction of Solomon’s Temple, the Legend of Hiram, etc.) that do not intend to be historically accurate, but rather to convey moral and philosophical teachings.

Finally, there is the symbolic experience, which is the personal and collective experience of the Mason in the ritual, where meaning emerges from practice and interpretation, regardless of historical veracity.

This multiplicity of layers is inherent to the nature of Speculative Freemasonry, which since the 18th century has incorporated legendary and symbolic elements as part of its pedagogical method.

As historian David Stevenson observes, “Freemasonry is not a historical institution in the conventional sense; it is, above all, a system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols” (Stevenson, The Origins of Freemasonry, 1988, p. 8).

Thus, what may be “true” in symbolic terms does not necessarily coincide with historical “truth,” and vice versa.

It is in this context that the epistemological question arises: what should be the source for the meaning of a Masonic term? The historical document or the symbolic coherence of the system?

For a clear understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each argument, the following table is presented, which incorporates the multiple layers of investigation:

Criterion of Analysis

Faced with this framework, the epistemological question does not have a single answer, but rather a conscious choice by the researcher or the Mason: to seek the historical meaning (what the word was in its origin) or the symbolic meaning (what the word represents in the system), provided it has relevance and meaning.

Both are legitimate in their respective fields, but it is important not to confuse them. The most common mistake is to take a legendary tradition as historical fact or, conversely, to disqualify a symbol for lacking historical basis.

In the specific case of huzzé, the historical approach points to an 18th-century English origin, while the symbolic approach, linked to its intimate relationship with Hebrew, confers upon it depth and antiquity.

It is up to discussions to integrate them critically, as is discussed with other words, recognizing the different layers of meaning.

As historian Steven Bullock aptly summarizes, “Freemasonry is simultaneously a product of history and a symbolic system that transcends history; understanding it requires moving between these two poles without reducing one to the other” (BULLOCK, 1996).

Proponents of historical research, such as Albert Mackey (1855), lean towards understanding that the word has the origin and meaning that the documents attest. If the oldest rituals bring Houzzai without any symbolic explanation, and if the word exists in the English lexicon with a clear meaning, the etymological question is, for them, resolved.

On the other hand, defenders of symbolic interpretation, such as Jules Boucher, Stevenson, and Snoek, argue that Freemasonry is a system that attributes meanings. Thus, the external origin of a word does not prevent it from being resignified in the initiatic context.

Therefore, the question:

“why are the sacred words in Hebrew and this one would not be?”

is relevant. A plausible answer, from a historical point of view, is that Huzzé is not a sacred word or pass word in the strict sense, but rather an acclamation, a ritualistic element of a different nature, possibly incorporated later and from a distinct source (the social gatherings and celebrations of Masons, which echoed the customs of civil society).

However, what was a war cry outside Freemasonry comes to have a linguistic weight, a symbolic representation, and a greater force of meaning within the context of the Temple, which is why the different explanations are established.

This resignification, when well-executed and provided it is well-founded, is a legitimate practice from the perspective of Masonic experience and the history of words, which are replete with examples of terms acquiring new meanings over time.

The functional translation of Huzzah into Latin as Vivat in the Adoniramite Rite also allows for interpreting the Hebrew expression Huzé with its Biblical meaning.

6. Conclusion: The Coexistence of Truths – History and the Symbol

What this discussion reveals, in the final analysis, is the dual nature of Masonic knowledge, that is, it is simultaneously an object of historical study (subject to the methods of historiography) and an instrument of initiatic experience (subject to symbolic interpretation).

From a historical and documentary point of view, the Anglo-Saxon thesis (Huzzah) is the one that presents the greatest and most solid support.

The primary sources (Preston, 1775; GO France Rituals, 1804; Quantin, 1825), the linguistic analysis of historical dictionaries (OED), the records of military and naval use, the chronology of its appearance in French and Belgian rituals, and the evidence from related rites (Vivat in the Adonhiramite) consistently point to an acclamation of secular English origin, incorporated into the AASR through simple phonetic transcription.

To reduce it to this, however, would be to ignore the dynamic process of meaning-making that characterizes the initiatic tradition.

For this reason, from a symbolic and initiatic point of view, the Hebrew hypothesis (Hu Ze) הוּא זֶה offers philosophical depth and makes it debatable as a tool for contemplation.

The phrase He is this or This is He continues to resonate as an acclamation, however, with a direct translation from Hebrew, like the other words of the AASR, which the English word Huzzah does not offer.

The Biblical occurrences analyzed, especially Exodus 22:8 and Psalms 24:10, give this interpretation a philosophical foundation, even though there is no evidence of its presence in historical rituals as an origin.

Therefore, the answer to the initial question is twofold and complementary: Historically, Huzzé derives from the English cry Huzzah, incorporated into the AASR in the 18th century through the influence of Jacobites and British military men in France.

Symbolically, there is nothing to prevent today’s Mason, knowing the Hu Ze hypothesis, from imbuing the acclamation with a symbolic meaning, common and recurrent in Freemasonry, as is perceived in other cases, such as the Letter G , the All-Seeing Eye , the Pentagram , the Compass and Square , the Tracing Board , and the Memento Mori .

All, in their inner forum, are superimposing upon the historical layer a layer of philosophical meaning.

The Square Magazine Podcast