Masons & Freemasons

Secret Societies

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

Templar Influence:

Tempolar influence is to be found in many societies. When we consider that the chivalric orders basically originated in the period after the dissolution of the Templars it is obvious that some aspects of Templar tradition were adopted in those orders also. Such is still the case today. And why shouldn't we adopt for our own use some feature or other of the Templar tradition if it exemplifies in some way our own philosophy. Just as we have appropriated for ourselves much from other bodies, especially the operative masons of England and Europe in the eighteenth century. It is also intersting to contemplate that the schism whioch still affects relations between Freemasonry and Operative bodies arose about the same time that speculation about Templar or chivalric origins for the Craft were promulgated. Can you imagine the Grand Master of the opeatives at the time - "Damnable freemasons, look at them, we let them appropriate our ceremonies, our philosophy, our symbolism and our name and what do those ingrates come up with? The notion that we are not good enough to be their forebears, what unmitigated gall they have!" THE LINKS TO THE OPERATIVES - are obvious and evidentiary. Despite the misgivings of Robinson and others, including many great Masonic scholars such as Gould (in his History of Freemasonry) the evidence is there if we seek it out. The emergence of the Grand Lodge at London from apparent obscurity into the public gaze in 1717 was not the beginning of Freemasonry.

In a period when much about life in general was very different we must necessarilly contemplate what was different in order to understand how people reacted to situations and just how the rise of the Acception, for that is how the body of Speculative Masons within the Operative system was known, at least in England.

Picture a time when it was not possible to confide anything to a friend or acquaintance unless you wanted it used against you or spread around. A time when holding the 'wrong' political or religious convictions was very dangerous indeed. How did men meet others of like mind, or at least honest mind, to discuss things in a way that would not end up with a trip to the gallows or the guillotine? You found a body of men who held that men should be able to practice their lives in a way which showed credit on themselves and within a framework of laws which forbad the breach of a trust. A time when the penalties we know only refer to in our obligations were very real indeed and by all accounts were inflicted on traitors to the society.

The closeness with which the lives of the Operative Masons, the clergy and the Gentry of the time, were intertwined can be easilly understood. A priest or vicar would quite possibly want to act as virtual acrchitect for his new Church when the Masons came to town to build it for him. They would have lived in intimate contact for years at a time. The man of the Church soon found that these Masons had not only a skills education system of their own, but a moral and ethical system that rivalled much of what even the Church had to offer, but only to worthy men, as we well know!

I suppose two of the most often asked questions about the rise of Masonry as we know it today are "why in London?" and "why in 1717?". The answers, as I am sure many of you will understand are inextricably linked, but very simple none the less.

Motivation and Opportunity:

MOTIVATION and OPPORTUNITY are the two words involved, as any investigator will tell you when he is looking for the solution to a crime! OPPORTUNITY - In 1666 the Great Fire of London brought not only an end to the Black Plague, but also to some 13,200 houses, 89 parish churches, The Royal Exchange, Guildhall, the two Compters, 52 halls of city livery companies, other public buildings AND St. Pauls Cathedral. Christopher Wren was appointed to preside over the reconstruction of the City and from the time in 1667 that work commenced on the building of the Royal Exchange until 1710 when St. Pauls was completed, he was in daily contact with the many thousands of building workers, many of them workers in stone, who carried out the work.

As the chief architect of the reconstruction he was personally concerned more with work in stone than anything else and it is pretty obvious that to build such buildings over a period of forty years that a great many masons would have been in one place for a very long time. Many of the men who were around to see the laying of the last stone of the lantern on the Cathedral would not have been born at the time Wren's work started. But why the emphasis on Wren?

Most Masonic historians seem to be agreed that Wren was not a speculative Mason, but as Chief Architect of the reconstruction all of the assemblages of Operative Masons in the London Company of Masons would have been under his control. For those forty years he would have seemed like a Grand Master to them.

During this same period we know that a body, known as the Society of Freemasons, also known as the Acception, was in existence and related to the London Company of Masons. These were the speculative, or Free and Accepted Masons. This Acception also took up members of the Mason trade when they were no longer actively involved in the work but wanted to continue an association with men of like mind. Over the forty years their must have been many of them who knew nothing of life and the world outside of their little patch in London and the professional as well as social life of the work on the rebuilding.

MOTIVATION - In the Constitutions of 1738 (but not in 1723 notice!) Dr. Anderson claims that the state of the Lodges, due to the neglect of Sir Christopher Wren, was such that a new Grand Master needed to be found. It would seem pretty logical that he would have negelected the Lodges after 1710, he was an architect, not a Mason, and he was over 85 years old when the Grand Lodge was formed!

In Wren's mind, and in the minds of many of the Mason trade the work was done, the lodges or assemblages should disband and seek work elsewhere. But they didn't count on the number of speculatives who had been assimilated into the Lodges over the preceeding forty years. Even this was not a phenomenon of recent occurence, records exist of non- operatives being accepted into lodges in Scotland and England from around 1600 (St. Mary's Chapel No. 1 SC). It would seem that in London their must have been a concentration in the four Lodges which met at the Apple Tree Taven in Charles Street in 1716 to discuss the formation of a Grand Lodge. The lodge which is now the Fortitude and Old Cumberland Lodge No.12 EC, met there. Another of the lodges met at the Crown in Parkers Lane (expired 1736), the lodge which became the Lodge of Antiquity No. 2 EC, met in the Goose and Gridiron Tavern in St. Pauls Churchyard itself. It was here that a Grand Feast was held on June 24th 1717 to inaugurate the new Grand Lodge. The creation of the Grand Lodge would have satisfied the desire of these four speculative lodges for some sort of security and continuity of what they had come to regard as the norm over the past forty years. Wren might not preside at the St. John's Day festival any more but they had a Grand Ldoge and a Grand Master of their own now!

So we can see why the Grand Lodge formed in London, the Acception wanted to continue what they had enjoyed with the operative assemblages for forty years or more. The concentration of retired operatives would have swelled the numbers a bit as well and the intensity of the activities over the period since the fire would have seen the fraternal spirit kindled in a way that would not have been easy to recapture in anopther way. The fact that only four lodges were involved in the creation of the Grand Lodge gives us two possible clues to another part of our history. Either a number of other Lodges working in the area were not disposed to join the Grand Lodge or, Masonry as a whole had sunk to a low point where only four Lodges were active at the time. The only reason this took place in London was because of the enormous concentration of masons in one place who had the motivation and opportunity to do something.

What Happened In France?:

We know that the French and the Scots followed the example of the English very quickly. Why? In simple self- defence of course! The Companionage (French Operatives) could see that they would be threatened with England moving in to take over their own Acception and creating speculative Lodges with an English loyalty rather than a French one. In 1727 the Grand Lodge of France was first organised (although many French prefer to say it started in 1732 when it achieved some sense of stability) and it continues to this day, albeit in a slightly altered form.

Scotland could see the same thing happening. And although relations between the British and Scottish Freemasons always seems to have been cordial enough I am sure they wanted to protect their own gournd, just like the French. In the period immediately after the erection of the Gand Lodge in London Dr. Desaguliers paid a visit to Edinburgh (August 1721) and is recorded as having encouraged the Brethren of the area to organise a Grand Lodge of their own for Scotland as had already been done in York and London. Scotland may also have been spurred on by the knowledge that many of their own nobles were occupying the Chair of the Grand Lodge of England, the Scottish Masons must have envied the eclat given to Masonry in England by their own nobles when they were carrying on operations without patronage or display of support.

When the Grand Lodge of Scotland was formed all of the officers, including the Grand Master were speculatives, some of the operative lodges had objected to the move and were not involved at the outset. In fact the strongly operative character of many lodges in Scotland survived for many years. In 1842 the Master-Elect of the Lodge of Journeymen Masons was a non-operative. in fact he was an architect and building designer. The operative members of the lodge would not permit his installation until he had preapred an assay-piece or Master-piece by which the standard of his stoneworking ab ility could be gauged, It having been prepared and presented to the lodge it was judged satisfactory and his installation was thus able to proceed.

Appendix:

Some useful definitions:

Bro. Michael Segall,

Worshipful Master, Lodge of Research

John Scot Erigenes No. 1000, Grand Lodge of France

In the course of this discussion Michael observed that it may be useful to clarify some of the definitions we sometimes take for granted and I am grateful for his doing so.

HISTORY: actual facts and events of the past, for which contemporary documents exist as proof of their authenticity. Books written about historical subject are history only inasmuch as they refer to documents which prove the validity of their statements. Are specifically excluded works of historical fiction.

HISTORICAL FICTION: Books written to sell in quantity and describing past events, sometimes but not always real, in a way that makes them both convincing and appealing to the reader. Writers of historical fiction are not expected to tell the truth, all the truth, nothing but the truth. Same rules apply to historical movies and other forms of art.

HISTORICAL PROOF: A document, inscription, object, incontrovertibly proving that a certain event had taken place at, or at least before, a given date.

HISTORICAL CONJECTURE: The thought process whereby it is shown that there could be a reasonable chance for a certain purported historical event having actually occured. Historical conjecture is not historical proof.

WISHFUL THINKING: The subjective hope, unsupported by historical proof, that an event or fact is real. Wishful thinking is not historical conjecture, even less historical proof.

KNIGHTS: Armed noblemen on horseback that begin to appear in western Europe in the 9th century, with the beginning of the feudal system. These originally landless men pledge allegiance to a feudal lord, from Baron to King, and are paid in land, food and shelter for defending their lord or helping him in war. Knighthood is not hereditary. It only becomes so if a knight is endowed with a title of nobility. Only Kings (or Queens) and the Pope have authority to create nobles.

ORDERS OF CHIVALRY: Mostly organizations of knights created around the time of the first Crusade, in the 11th century. These knights took vows which made them into soldier monks. Their main purpose was to reconquer and hold the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and help pilgrims coming to it. These knights were rough, uneducated, cruel barbarians who killed many more defenseless civilians in Europe on their way to Jerusalem than Moslem soldiers holding the Holy Sepulchre. Three main Orders were created, in this order: The Knights Hospitaller of St.John of Jerusalem, better known as Knights of Malta, the Poor Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Jerusalem, best known as the Templars, and the Teutonic Knights. They answered to the Pope, the King or both. An Order of Chivalry can only be CATHOLIC. An Order of Chivalry can only be maintained through uninterrupted transmission from Grand Master to Grand Master. If transmission lapses, it can only be resurrected by the Pope or a King. Of all mediaeval orders of chivalry, only the Knights of Malta are still extant. One must be noble and Catholic to become one. There are a few other, small, legitimate orders, created much later. There are thousands of illegitimate orders, created by the whim of men, mainly for money-making purposes.

OPERATIVE GUILDS: Organizations of craftsmen created to defend their rights and privileges and transmit the secrets of their individual crafts. There is historical proof to show that they existed as early as 852 AD, because the Bishop of Reims publishes an edict prohibiting them. Historical conjecture seems to point to their existence as early as the 1st century BC. Still extant in a few countries, flourishing in France with some 10,000 members and three major GL-like organizations.

EXAMPLES:

1.We can talk about a knightly or Templar origin of Freemasonry till we're blue in the face. There is no HISTORICAL PROOF whatsoever for such an origin. There is some HISTORICAL CONJECTURE about it, but it seems to be mainly WISHFUL THINKING. Not surprising. How flattering to imagine ourselves descended from shiny knights, the like of Percival (just let's forget the Templar killing machines of the 11th century)! Who cares that we have only HISTORICAL FICTION to rely on!

2.There is HISTORICAL PROOF of an Operative origin of Freemasonry, as well as very strong HISTORICAL CONJECTURE. Little WISHFUL THINKING however; who likes being the offspring of smelly, dirty-nailed, plaster- dust-covered mediaeval workmen?

Table of Contents:

Appendix 2

During the course of this discussion in the forum Michael Segall was asked by Bill Mauk where he could start his research in the antiquity of the Operative Guilds, here is part of the reply:

>>Where should I begin studying to find this proof?<<

Well, "begin" is the keyword. Craft guilds are older than Christianity, and the first distinct traces we find of them are in ancient Greek texts. The text of a law promulgated by Solon the Athenian and cited by Roman historian Gaius (Digeste, lib. XLVII, tit. 22, "De Collegiis et Corporibus", law 4), allows the creation of various guilds and corporations (etairias) in Athens and notably the boatsmen's guild (nautes). These guilds may freely give themselves rules and regulations, inasmuch as these rules and regulations do not go against the laws of the state.

Another example among dozens is that of Plutarchus, attributing the creation of Roman operative guilds to Numa Pompilius (circa 700 BC, possibly legendary) and of Heinecius (De Colegiis et Corporis Opificum), Florus, and others more accurately attributing it to Servius Tullius (578-535 BC), fifth king of Rome. Note that the important point is not that the information given by these ancent sources is or not accurate, but the fact that they were aware, at least in their time, of the existence of guilds. Clear and documented traces of intense guild activity exist through the Roman Kingdom, Republic and Empire. These guilds seemed to follow the Old Charges, because they practised the religion of their country.