Masons & Freemasons

Secret Societies

Masonry / The Craft And It's Origins - part 1 of 2

Masonry - The Craft And Its Origins

Wor. Bro. John Day P.M. 100236,2364

Templestowe Lodge No. 791 Victoria, Australia.

This file is adapted from a series of discussion postings and responses which took place in November 1993 in the Masonry Forum of Compuserve. Bro. Mark Sandstrom saved the core material which has been used here. Although some contributors are acknowledged in the text (Bro. John Diesem and Bro. Michael Segall in particular) the contributions of others are also acknowledged, although you may have escaped my attention.

Permission is hereby given for the republication of this document by any means, provided that the acknowledgement above and this paragraph remain intact. A copy of any republication would be appreciated.

Table of Contents:

Introduction

Templar Tradition

Some Background

The Knights Templar at Bannockburn

Other Templar Remnants

Templar Influence vs. Templar Origins

Templar Influence

Motivation and Opportunity

What Happened In France?

Appendix

Appendix 2

Introduction:

It has been most intersting to watch a number of discussions on the Masonry forum of Compuserve in recent times which relate to the origins of the Craft. Especially when they are related to the books "Born in Blood", by John J. Robinson, and "The Temple and the Lodge", by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, it seems that much speculation will take place about the myths surrounding the origins of the Craft. I should say at the outset that whilst one might question the research and analytical methods adopted by Baigent & Leigh, which many do, they do arrive at the same basic conclusion as Robinson. Both set out to investigate something else entirely and both end up looking at the relationship between the Craft and the Poor Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Jerusalem (The Knights of the Temple, or more familiarly Knights Templar). Interestingly, none of these writers were Freemasons when they conducted their research and Robinson was not yet a Master Mason when his third and sadly final book, "A Pilgrims Path" was published in 1993. Consequently we must also remember that whatever these authors say they do so as 'outsiders', however sympathetic they may be.

Templar Tradition:

When were the Templars connected with the Craft and why? Sadly it seems to be but a figment of the imagination of a few Brethren who would like to be able to claim an origin for the Craft which goes back well before any reasonable historian could justify. Their are still many who would try to link the Craft with the Roman Collegia, others will try to convince us that Masonry comes to us from the Knights Templar consequent on the absorbtion of the Templars by the Hospitallers (Variously known as the Knights Hospitaller of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem or the Knights of Malta), the sworn enemies of the Templars. Others, including Anderson in his Constitutions, would have us believe that we are descended from one or other of the Jewish sects. Any claim to Chivalric (Knights of Malta or Knights of St. John) origin, or Monastic (Templar, remember the Templars were an order of warrior monks of the Catholic Church) roots for the Craft cannot, in my belief, be supported by evidence of more than a merely circumstantial kind. Dreams of this sort are the stuff of those who are looking for some deep and meaningful romance in the traditions of the Craft. One correspondent in this forum recently said that Robinson was forced to discard the possibility of Operative origins because he could find nothing which (and I paraphrase) "leapt out at him screaming OPERATIVE!"

Of course he didn't, Robinson, like so many others, seems to have adopted the modern attitude of ploughing into history thinking it is all dead and in musuems. What he, and many others have forgotten, is that history lives and breathes! He didn;t find an Operative source because, either he didn't want to, or he didn;t know how to look for it. But it is everywhere in our Craft, throughout the ritual, the traditions of the Craft and in the history of the Operative Societies still in existence today.

Some Background:

Before we proceed to look in detail at the evidence of an operative origin for the Craft let us move back a little in history to the time of the Templars to see just what the possible relation ship is and to re-discover some of the factors surrounding the Templars.

1.The Knights Templar were a Monastic Order of the Catholic Church.

Is by way of a self evident truth, but is neglected by many. The Knights Templar were an order of monks established by the Church, in Jerusalem, to act as protectors of the Holy City from the attacks of the enemies of the Church. Additonally they were charged with the responsibility for overseeing the safe conduct of pilgrims to and from the Holy Land. Specifically the Templars were TwarriorU monks.

But we must also be careful not to confuse the Church of Rome in those days with the Church we know as the Roman Catholic Church today. To say that the Church today is largely a religious institution would seem to be stating the obvious, but such has not always been the case. At times in the past the Church wasn't even based in Rome! It has been split with two and sometimes more apparent Popes presiding over different parts of it, and the Pope has not always been a man of the Church. In different places and in different times the Church has also counted civil government, commerce and tourism amongst its prime activities. Sadly, corruption and excesses have also characterised the Roman Church as well as other Churches from time to time which, in many respects, provided the opportunity for development of Speculative Masonry.

2.Operative Masons found great employment with the Knights Templar.

Again, this may seem to be stating the obvious. But the Knights were responsible, once they settled down, for a great deal of building work being undertaken. At their zenith the Templars were an enormously influential trading and shipping organisation which had become so large and sucessful that its resources rivalled those of the Church they were supposedly subservient too. But during the years leading up to that time they would have, of necessity, employed many groups of Masons to erect their buildings throughout Europe and in the British Isles.

3.The Templars existed in Scotland and England well before the death of Jacques de Molay.

The rulers in the British Isles were no great friends of the Church in Rome, the Pope, or the French at the time we refer to. But despite this the trading and banking prowess of the Templars was not lost to England or Scotland. Templar installations existed well before the death of de Molay and the Templars there are known to have continued on for some years. They no longer had access to the enormous trading base and financial resources in France, but they would have operated just the same.

The Knights Templar at Bannockburn:

In his reply John Diesem refers to the Battle of Bannockburn, whilst he is correct that accounts of the appearance of what might have appeared to be Templars at the Battle seem to have changed the sway of things his recollections of the timing is a little out. The garrison at Acre, the last bastion of the Crusaders fell to Saracens on May 18, 1291. At this juncture the Tempars, the most wealthy, powerful and prestigious of the military-religious Orders was without a home. They ended up principally in France where they were ordered arrested by Philippe IV on Friday the 13th of October 1307. (An intersting link to an old superstition!) Remember also that at this time the Papacy was not in Rome, it had become beholden to the French crown in 1305 when Bertrand de Goth became Pope Clement V and in 1309 Philippe became protector to the Papal crown when the Holy See was hijacked to France .

The Inquisition continued for a period of seven years, from October 1307 until March 22, 1312 when the Pope issued the Decree dissolving the Order of the Temple. It wasn't until two years later, in March 1314, that Jacques de Molay, the Grand Master, and Geoffroi de Charnay, Preceptor of Normandy, were slowly roasted to death.

The Battle of Bannockburn did not take place Rno more than one generation down from de MolayS, it was a matter of a mere three months. Despite the lack of certainty about the actual site of the battle we know the main engagement took place on June 24, 1314. Note the date - June 24th was St. John's Day, another significant Templar date. No contemporary accounts of the battle survive. The earliest chroniclers we know of who detail the battle were writing later that century. So descriptions of Knights riding into battle with the banners are without any basis in fact at all. In fact the early chroniclers do not mention Templars at all, but a group of Scots who made banners of sheets and rode into battle. It is possible that their were some Templars at Bannockburn, only a handful would have been necessary to create the legend. But the existence of a few Templars in an area where they had existed for some time is not strange, or unusual, nor does it suggest that they may have been exiles from France. They may well have lived in the same area for many years.

Military historians also disagree with the supposed manner in which the Templars held back until almost the end before coming forward. They suggest that any mounted Knights, Templars in cluded, would have been in the vanguard of the action, not in the rear-guard.

Some have suggested that I may have given the impression that I did not believe that any of the Knights could realistically have been at Bannockburn. In fact entirely the opposite is true, given that Templars were already present in England and Scotland prior to the dissolution of the order it is entirely probable that a few Templars came to the aid of their friend Robert Bruce. Many Templars had found sanctuary in Scotland for two reasons, firstly its remoteness and secondly because the Scots were often at variance with the Church and thus Papal influence was at a very low ebb in Scotland at this time. Fortunately a reply from John Diesem pointed out my inaccuracy (or incoherence?) to me in time! John also suggests that the accounts of the Battle of Bannockburn were written contemporaneously. Sadly my library is lacking a little but no historian I have read gives either a definite location for that battle or any form of eye-witness account, obviously I stand to be corrected! But I would'nt discount the appearance of Templars at the battle, but at the same time it offers no evidence of an exodus of Templars to Scotland.

Other Templar Remnants:

References in John Diesems reply to the style of floor used in English tradition Lodges, a chequered (checkered in you must!) pavement and its relationship to the banner of the Order of the Temple is also intersting. But speculation in this direction is of little value, in my opinion, as Lodges did not have homes of their own until well into the eighteenth century and did have have the opportunity of even having a floor! Lodge cloths were still in common use until the early years of the nineteenth century and some remarkable examples still survive today. Lodges throughout Europe, England, Scotland and other jurisdictions derived from their use a pavement such as you describe, but so did the Church, the chequered pavement is not unique to the Craft and their is in fact much to suggest that we have adopted it from other organisations much more recently. The explanation for the flooring of the Lodge given in our ritual is quite different from what might be suggested if we were to assume it to be of Templar origin.

Jack Axtman, on the other hand, in his reply (#25155) suggests that the organisation of the Lodges of Speculative Masons took place in only the few years prior to 1717. He suggests that some Jews, Catholics and others were involved in the foundation of the Craft around that time. But did we say their was no connection between the Church of Rome and the Craft? Don't read too far ahead Jack, because their is mountainous evidence that the Church and the Craft have in many repsects had a close association since the earliest periods of our history. It has not always been approved by the Papacy or the heirarchy of the Church, but it has existed. Who was it took Freemasonry to South America with them and made it almost a Catholic preserve? The Jesuits, often not friends of Rome, but often members of the Craft and apostles of not only the word of God but Masonry as well.

If we accept that Masonry arose in France in parallel with the rise in England then we must also assume that the Church, or at least many members of it, had a hand in the establishment of the Craft there. The involvement of the Church is not inconsistent with the theory of Operative Origin. The Operative Masons worked (and still do) often for the Church. Most of the Masons in France would have been Catholic, while most of those in England would have been Anglican (what I call Catholic Protestants!).

The Templar Myth

The Poor Knights of the Temple of Solomon held enormous power in their time. They were the bankers and money-lenders who laid down the designs for todays modern banking world. They held enormous influence and their legacy might correctly be said to be the capitalism of which the world is so enamoured today. But they did die out, they didn't hand anything down which became Freemasonry. We have adopted much from Templar tradtition, but they are not our forefathers. Who is? Stay tuned!

Templar Influence vs. Templar Origins:

The distinction I make here is one that Bill Paine has leapt onto. Let me quote a little RBefore I read Robinson's 'Born in Blood,' I was firmly convinced of the operative origins of Freemasonry. ..... Robinson totally reversed my thinking.S

All of which points to the fact that whilst Robinson is obviously a persuasive writer he is also forced to admit his own shortcomings. He points out, in the same book, a major flaw in his own thesis, he expected that if we had operative origins that they would Tscream outU at him, but they didn't. They didn't, so he did't bother pursuing them.

As Michael Segall has pointed out in the forum earlier, the reasons are entirely obvious. A man came from America who was not a Freemason. He counted some influential American and English Freemasons as friends, but he was not a Mason. He was researching a thread of history which has been well and truly trodden before with no success and he was looking for evidence of a Society which he possibly assumed was extinct which may have been involved in the establishment of Freemasonry. If he had dug deeply enough he would have found a very private organisation which traces it own history back a long way. Which also traces the origins of the Speculative Acception which has become what we know as Freemasonry. Having given birth to Freemasonry this fraternity was shunned and even had secrets altered in order to keep them out of communication with the body they had given birth to. The evidence is there, if we go about approaching the problem the right way.

That we have some of the same symbolism as the Templars is not argued, but we did not get it from the Templars, nor were they necessarilly the first to use it either. At the same time we see traces of other influences in the Craft, the Druids amongst them as well as the Ancient Mysteries, and even the Church, why donUt we claim to be descended from them as well? It would be fairer to say that Templar practice possibly derives something from other sources which also supplied something for the Craft we know today. Has anyone ever contemplated that the common origin of the symbolism for the Templars and the Craft could have been the operative guilds? The Templars had a lot of contact with them, they had been in existence for possibly four centuries before the Templars came in to existence and we are descended from them.

So, where does this lead us? We must admit that there are many Templar influences in our modern Freemasonry, just as their are Templar influences felt in all of the orders of chivalry founded since the time of the Templars (basically all of them!) and in the Church, particularly the Roman Church. But whilkst many features of Templarism are present in our Craft by adoption or imitation, their is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of a link between the Order of the Temple and Freemasonry. Freemasonry IS NOT Templar in origin.

(end of part 1)