I don’t think that we will ever truly know precisely where or how Freemasonry began. I fear that those details are most likely lost to the mists of time.
We do however have no shortage of theories. That we grew out of craft guilds, that we were created by Templars who escaped the violence engineered by the Pope and King of France, some believe that we don’t really have much history prior to a meeting in a London tavern in 1717, or that we came about due to the intense interest garnered by the Rosicrucian Manifestos.
Many believe that we are the current inheritors of the Ancient Mystery religions.
One thing I think we can all agree upon is that everyone has their own theory, and ideas about the birth of Freemasonry. I thought it would be something fun, and perhaps enlightening to discuss, so…
Let’s talk about where we may have come from, when this may have happened, and what we were created to be.
On Thursday, in addition to our regular discussion topic, we will have an open, live, discussion thread for those with a paid subscription to Emeth.
We did this last Thursday, and I for one thought it was great.
The Thread will be opened to paying subscribers at 8:00 AM. It will remain open until 6:00 PM. I’ll be on the entire time, and ready to respond to anything posted as needed. We can discuss anything anyone would like to discuss, and of course if there are any questions, you should feel free to ask me anything.
I think that this will be fun and informative. I hope that you’ll feel free to chime in with anything that is on your mind.
As mentioned, this live open thread will be limited to those with a paid subscription, and the email opening it will go out at 8:00 AM on Thursday. If you want to participate and need to upgrade your account to do so, please upgrade before then.
To me and of course this is my opinion is that this subject is mostly academic.
I will start with these questions.
Did roses exist before someone decided to call them "roses"?
Did rocks exist before someone decided to call them "rocks"?
Did the virtues and lessons Freemasonry teaches exist before someone decided to call it "Masonry" or "Freemasonry"?
To me the answer to these questions is, "Of course they did, of course they did and of course they did".
While the question of when it was called "Freemasonry" is something worth talking about, discussing, and contemplating on I think time is better spent on talking about what it is now and where it is going. The past is something I cannot change but the here and now and what lies ahead is something I can change. There is much work to be done.
Masonic lodges (guilds) were basically the union halls of their day. But as time went on, and the demand for large stone cathedrals and castles waned, work became harder and harder to find. In it, at the same time that Masonry was slowly evolving from operative to speculative, there was also a shift in focus where the masonic lodge started spending more time supporting each other when times got lean. The influx of the gentlemen class was a welcome relief for everyone.
Not only did the speculative masons adopt the working tools, grips, signs and tokens as philosophical representatives, but also the brotherly support amongst each other, which is illustrated all through each of the three degrees.
I'm probably one of the few people on the planet that doesn't necessarily agree with what some perceive as a fundamental part of Masonry - charity. Nothing wrong with charity, mind you. Makes me feel great to have been part of scholarship committees and bikes for books helping our communities. But first and foremost, we are a brotherhood tasked with helping each other.
I think the biggest mistakes we are making today is accepting what Masonry has evolved (devolved) into instead of looking back at the past and finding purpose within that context.
Unfortunately, much of what once was has been lost to the sands of time.
I will clarify, that when I refer to charity, I am referring to the incorrect modern interpretation of that word in our work. Charity, the act of giving, versus charity, that love for mankind. It's the latter I agree with, not the former.
Historically there is much to support your view. My own bible doesn't even use the word Charity in the verses Masonry borrows. It uses the word Love instead, and it is a very old translation.
>>"I think the biggest mistakes we are making today is accepting what Masonry has evolved >>(devolved) into instead of looking back at the past and finding purpose within that context."
In my opinion there is a great deal of wisdom in this statement.
We have a tremendous amount of knowledge about Freemasonry between the years of 1723 and 1910 to consider. We can learn what the Masons of that time found important, and we can emulate the best of them.
Another take on our Masonic Origins involves the origins of our Concordant bodies. This includes the Scottish Rite, the York Rite, The Order of the Eastern Star, among many others.
Some members might view some of the Masonic organizations as clubs, offshoots, or more negatively, even distractions from Craft Freemasonry. However, many of them go back quite a ways.
The York Rite actually goes back more than 200 years, and in the case of the Royal Arch, even further than that! The schism between the Antients and the Moderns had a lot to do the the Royal Arch degree, and even when they united to form the United Grand Lodge of England in 1813, this is found in their Constitutions: “"...pure Antient Masonry consists of three degrees and no more, viz. those of the Entered Apprentice, the Fellow Craft, and the Master Mason including the Supreme Order of the Holy Royal Arch" The Councils of Royal & Select Masters date back to the early 1800’s. Therefore, it is obvious that these degrees are just as relevant as the well-known Blue Lodge degrees.
The Scottish Rite has long been considered the “University of Freemasonry.” As many of our fellow Brothers know, there is a considerable amount of literature concerning these degrees, including one of the most famous Masonic tomes of all, Morals and Dogma.
The Order of the Eastern Star was originated by Bro. Robert Morris in the early 1860’s, and has quite an interesting history in itself. As do several other concordant and appendant bodies in the Masonic Family.
As has been mentioned in several of the previous posts on Emeth, the changes of the early-to-mid 20th Century have evolved (or as some say, devolved) Freemasonry into what it is today. The same can be said of the Concordant Bodies. However, many of the good ideas mentioned in this forum can also apply to these Bodies as well.
My Brothers, there IS a place in our Fraternity for these key members of the Masonic Family. They are not distractions or superfluous clubs. I invite all of you to do some research and find out what role they have played in Masonic History.
- I don't claim to understand the York Rite well. I do understand that the 'Ancients' considered the Royal Arch Degree to be a part of Craft Masonry, but I'm given to understand that in the York (American) Rite there are other Degrees between the Master Mason and the Royal Arch? Or does the Royal Arch Degree directly follow the Master Mason?
- The Scottish Rite has always been a great love of mine. The traditions of the Degrees, and how it all came to be are quite well known and documented, but the Governance of the Rite is much less clear. While there is the official history of both the SJ and the NMJ, both seemed to go out of existence at points after founding, both fought bitter battles, perhaps unfairly against Cerneau, and the SJ had all manner of battles in New Orleans as well. Things have been well settled for a very long time of course, but they don't seem to have been easy at all in the early days.
And of course the whole bit with Frederick the Great. Alas.
- OES, as I understand it, a three body system consisting of OES, Queen of the South, and Amaranth. Now all divorced from each other and what was intended to be a Rite now three completely different organizations. I don't doubt but that there is some extremely interesting history there for the person who wants to explore it.
Concerning the York Rite, in this case, the Royal Arch, there are indeed three degrees preceding the actual Degree of the Royal Arch. The Mark Master degree is also an 18th Century degree, and from what I understand, there are Mark Master Lodges in England, which is one of the reasons why the English refer to our York Rite as the American Rite.
Another of those Chapter degrees is the degree of Past Master. In the 18th Century, in some Lodges, you had to be a Past Master to receive the Royal Arch, which is the rest of the story of the Master Mason degree. In some cases, some Brothers were able to "pass the chair" and get the RA degree without presiding over a Masonic Lodge. I believe this is one of the causes of the Schism, but I don't know for sure, as there's a ritual story and a real story, and I don't know if they're both the same. Now, in America, the PM degree in the York Rite is a ceremony of investiture, and is colloquially called the "virtual Past Master" degree, and is simpler, but very similar, to the degree we received shortly after our first terms as WM's in our Lodges.
From a ritualistic standpoint, the Royal Arch degree answers questions that might arise from the MM degree ritual. Attentive candidates who receive the RA degree will no doubt go, A-ha! from time to time as some key aspects to the drama of OGMHA becomes more clear. Then you do the research and find out that the degree isn't a 20th century afterthought, it was developed around the same era as the MM drama itself and was associated with it. Therefore, it is my opinion that anyone who is a serious into the historical and ritualistic aspects of Freemasonry should receive at least the Royal Arch degree of the York Rite. If you are at least a 14th degree SR Mason, it is similar, as I think it's in the 12th or 13th degree (I can't remember.) But for those Master Masons who are not members of any concordant body, I strongly recommend the Royal Arch degree.
I've read the same as you have concerning the early OES, and its 3 'degrees.' All that broke up before the turn of the 20th Century. I've heard (but don't know for sure) that the Prince Hall version of the OES still has the Queen of the South.
Just a few thoughts, in no particular order, and probably not important, but they spring to mind.
- As you say, the UGLE defines Ancient Craft Masonry as the Three Degrees, and no more, including the Royal Arch. An artful dodge that allowed the union to take place.
But from that, given that there are two additional Degrees in the York (American) Rite between the MM and the RA, we could not assume that a guy could receive the Three, including the RA, and have that entire experience be Ancient Craft Masonry. Because there are the other two slipped in there.
If of course we were overly concerned about the UGLE. Personally, I think that it lost its way quite some time ago, most visibly with its change to our traditional Square and Compass identifier.
- There are popular, contemporary Masonic historians who claim that at the founding of the Grand Lodge system in 1717 there were only two Degrees, that of the EA and FC, and that the MM came later.
In my view, that belief holds zero water. Without the MM Degree, Masonry wouldn't be Masonry. It is the fundamental essence of Freemasonry.
What I believe is that the EA and FC Degrees were conferred upon the general membership, just as we now confer the EA, FC, and MM Degrees on the general membership.
That in those earliest days of the Grand Lodge system, the MM Degree was reserved for those who were in fact Masters of their Lodge. When a Mason moved into the East, at that time he was made a Master Mason.
Once the change was made so that all Three Degrees were conferred on the general membership, then it would have made perfect sense to restrict the RA to those who were in fact Masters of their Lodge.
But then once more, there was desire to more openly confer the RA, so the Virtual PM made that possible, and it is very likely that out of that grew our PM Degree. I think it should be pointed out though that the PM Degree isn't done everywhere, not even everywhere within this Jurisdiction as far as I know.
- Yes, it is my understanding that the Queen of the South is still practiced in some other Jurisdictions.
An excerpt from Robert Hewitt Brown's Stellar Theology and Masonic Astronomy.
"The Antiquity of Masonry
Q. What is the probable antiquity of masonry?
A. There can be but little doubt that the Mysteries, from which, as we have seen, Freemasonry is the direct descendant, were first arranged when Taurus was on the vernal equinox, Leo at the summer solstice, and Scorpio at the autumnal equinox. The solar allegory, as handed down to us, shows this to be the fact. At the rate of the precession of the equinoxes is known, we can calculate when the vernal equinox was in Taurus. Such a calculation will take us back about four thousand two hundred and eighty years. The antiquity of masonry is thus written on the face of the starry heavens—a record which utters no falsehoods.
It is telling that the transition of vernal equinox from Taurus to Aries astronomically corresponds timewise with the biblical transition of worship among the Israelites under Moses from calf to lamb . The arrival of Jesus marks the transition from Aries to Pisces. The dominant religious symbol to the fish. Simon Peter the fisherman to Jesus and Peter the fishers of men, baptism the immersion in water the natural habitat of fish.
Today, Aquarius is transitioning into the dominant position at vernal equinox. The astronomical heritage of freemasonry is Very old.
From Plato's Timaeus;
"All men, Socrates, who have any degree of right feeling, at the beginning of every great enterprise, always call upon the blessings of God".
Sounds familiar doesn't it?
I have the opinion that masonry is the bastard child of pagan mystery schools such as the druids, the Platonic philosphic and mathematic academicians, and lastly the knights Templar who hid from Roman catholic persecutions on the island of Britain among the professional ranks of real operative stone masons guilds.
Jack, the Astronomical terms you mention here, including Precession of the equinoxes, is what I was planning to explain in my next presentations on Astronomy. Due to its complexity, I was planning to do the presentation in sections, such as beginner, intermediate and advanced. I don't want to lose people too fast; as you mention, items such as Precession are important in speaking of ancient history, and all the wise philosophers in history were familiar with these characteristics of the motion of the stars and planets.
This is how I plan to contribute to Freemasonry as a Teacher; other subjects, I plan to be a Student, and perhaps also a teacher in some respects. I agree with you in this is how the Masonic Lodge should work in its meetings for education.
The Grand Lodge of Washington will finally be creating a speaker's bureau in the upcoming year. I hope that you will sign up to offer your astronomy presentations!
In my view, Freemasonry is the inheritor of the Mysteries. It wasn't the first such inheritor, nor will it be the last, but it is the current.
I am also of the belief that the Templars in England and Scotland did hide within the ranks of the operative Masons. As educated men in the time, they would have been welcomed and could have earned their keep in exchange for their safety. It is this infusion of men that in my view led to the formation of speculative Masonry as we know it.
To me and of course this is my opinion is that this subject is mostly academic.
I will start with these questions.
Did roses exist before someone decided to call them "roses"?
Did rocks exist before someone decided to call them "rocks"?
Did the virtues and lessons Freemasonry teaches exist before someone decided to call it "Masonry" or "Freemasonry"?
To me the answer to these questions is, "Of course they did, of course they did and of course they did".
While the question of when it was called "Freemasonry" is something worth talking about, discussing, and contemplating on I think time is better spent on talking about what it is now and where it is going. The past is something I cannot change but the here and now and what lies ahead is something I can change. There is much work to be done.
Indeed Brother. As Pike said so often, Freemasonry is Labor.
Masonic lodges (guilds) were basically the union halls of their day. But as time went on, and the demand for large stone cathedrals and castles waned, work became harder and harder to find. In it, at the same time that Masonry was slowly evolving from operative to speculative, there was also a shift in focus where the masonic lodge started spending more time supporting each other when times got lean. The influx of the gentlemen class was a welcome relief for everyone.
Not only did the speculative masons adopt the working tools, grips, signs and tokens as philosophical representatives, but also the brotherly support amongst each other, which is illustrated all through each of the three degrees.
I'm probably one of the few people on the planet that doesn't necessarily agree with what some perceive as a fundamental part of Masonry - charity. Nothing wrong with charity, mind you. Makes me feel great to have been part of scholarship committees and bikes for books helping our communities. But first and foremost, we are a brotherhood tasked with helping each other.
I think the biggest mistakes we are making today is accepting what Masonry has evolved (devolved) into instead of looking back at the past and finding purpose within that context.
Unfortunately, much of what once was has been lost to the sands of time.
I will clarify, that when I refer to charity, I am referring to the incorrect modern interpretation of that word in our work. Charity, the act of giving, versus charity, that love for mankind. It's the latter I agree with, not the former.
Historically there is much to support your view. My own bible doesn't even use the word Charity in the verses Masonry borrows. It uses the word Love instead, and it is a very old translation.
>>"I think the biggest mistakes we are making today is accepting what Masonry has evolved >>(devolved) into instead of looking back at the past and finding purpose within that context."
In my opinion there is a great deal of wisdom in this statement.
We have a tremendous amount of knowledge about Freemasonry between the years of 1723 and 1910 to consider. We can learn what the Masons of that time found important, and we can emulate the best of them.
Another take on our Masonic Origins involves the origins of our Concordant bodies. This includes the Scottish Rite, the York Rite, The Order of the Eastern Star, among many others.
Some members might view some of the Masonic organizations as clubs, offshoots, or more negatively, even distractions from Craft Freemasonry. However, many of them go back quite a ways.
The York Rite actually goes back more than 200 years, and in the case of the Royal Arch, even further than that! The schism between the Antients and the Moderns had a lot to do the the Royal Arch degree, and even when they united to form the United Grand Lodge of England in 1813, this is found in their Constitutions: “"...pure Antient Masonry consists of three degrees and no more, viz. those of the Entered Apprentice, the Fellow Craft, and the Master Mason including the Supreme Order of the Holy Royal Arch" The Councils of Royal & Select Masters date back to the early 1800’s. Therefore, it is obvious that these degrees are just as relevant as the well-known Blue Lodge degrees.
The Scottish Rite has long been considered the “University of Freemasonry.” As many of our fellow Brothers know, there is a considerable amount of literature concerning these degrees, including one of the most famous Masonic tomes of all, Morals and Dogma.
The Order of the Eastern Star was originated by Bro. Robert Morris in the early 1860’s, and has quite an interesting history in itself. As do several other concordant and appendant bodies in the Masonic Family.
As has been mentioned in several of the previous posts on Emeth, the changes of the early-to-mid 20th Century have evolved (or as some say, devolved) Freemasonry into what it is today. The same can be said of the Concordant Bodies. However, many of the good ideas mentioned in this forum can also apply to these Bodies as well.
My Brothers, there IS a place in our Fraternity for these key members of the Masonic Family. They are not distractions or superfluous clubs. I invite all of you to do some research and find out what role they have played in Masonic History.
Your comment brings up a number of thoughts:
- I don't claim to understand the York Rite well. I do understand that the 'Ancients' considered the Royal Arch Degree to be a part of Craft Masonry, but I'm given to understand that in the York (American) Rite there are other Degrees between the Master Mason and the Royal Arch? Or does the Royal Arch Degree directly follow the Master Mason?
- The Scottish Rite has always been a great love of mine. The traditions of the Degrees, and how it all came to be are quite well known and documented, but the Governance of the Rite is much less clear. While there is the official history of both the SJ and the NMJ, both seemed to go out of existence at points after founding, both fought bitter battles, perhaps unfairly against Cerneau, and the SJ had all manner of battles in New Orleans as well. Things have been well settled for a very long time of course, but they don't seem to have been easy at all in the early days.
And of course the whole bit with Frederick the Great. Alas.
- OES, as I understand it, a three body system consisting of OES, Queen of the South, and Amaranth. Now all divorced from each other and what was intended to be a Rite now three completely different organizations. I don't doubt but that there is some extremely interesting history there for the person who wants to explore it.
Concerning the York Rite, in this case, the Royal Arch, there are indeed three degrees preceding the actual Degree of the Royal Arch. The Mark Master degree is also an 18th Century degree, and from what I understand, there are Mark Master Lodges in England, which is one of the reasons why the English refer to our York Rite as the American Rite.
Another of those Chapter degrees is the degree of Past Master. In the 18th Century, in some Lodges, you had to be a Past Master to receive the Royal Arch, which is the rest of the story of the Master Mason degree. In some cases, some Brothers were able to "pass the chair" and get the RA degree without presiding over a Masonic Lodge. I believe this is one of the causes of the Schism, but I don't know for sure, as there's a ritual story and a real story, and I don't know if they're both the same. Now, in America, the PM degree in the York Rite is a ceremony of investiture, and is colloquially called the "virtual Past Master" degree, and is simpler, but very similar, to the degree we received shortly after our first terms as WM's in our Lodges.
From a ritualistic standpoint, the Royal Arch degree answers questions that might arise from the MM degree ritual. Attentive candidates who receive the RA degree will no doubt go, A-ha! from time to time as some key aspects to the drama of OGMHA becomes more clear. Then you do the research and find out that the degree isn't a 20th century afterthought, it was developed around the same era as the MM drama itself and was associated with it. Therefore, it is my opinion that anyone who is a serious into the historical and ritualistic aspects of Freemasonry should receive at least the Royal Arch degree of the York Rite. If you are at least a 14th degree SR Mason, it is similar, as I think it's in the 12th or 13th degree (I can't remember.) But for those Master Masons who are not members of any concordant body, I strongly recommend the Royal Arch degree.
I've read the same as you have concerning the early OES, and its 3 'degrees.' All that broke up before the turn of the 20th Century. I've heard (but don't know for sure) that the Prince Hall version of the OES still has the Queen of the South.
Thank you for this additional information.
Just a few thoughts, in no particular order, and probably not important, but they spring to mind.
- As you say, the UGLE defines Ancient Craft Masonry as the Three Degrees, and no more, including the Royal Arch. An artful dodge that allowed the union to take place.
But from that, given that there are two additional Degrees in the York (American) Rite between the MM and the RA, we could not assume that a guy could receive the Three, including the RA, and have that entire experience be Ancient Craft Masonry. Because there are the other two slipped in there.
If of course we were overly concerned about the UGLE. Personally, I think that it lost its way quite some time ago, most visibly with its change to our traditional Square and Compass identifier.
- There are popular, contemporary Masonic historians who claim that at the founding of the Grand Lodge system in 1717 there were only two Degrees, that of the EA and FC, and that the MM came later.
In my view, that belief holds zero water. Without the MM Degree, Masonry wouldn't be Masonry. It is the fundamental essence of Freemasonry.
What I believe is that the EA and FC Degrees were conferred upon the general membership, just as we now confer the EA, FC, and MM Degrees on the general membership.
That in those earliest days of the Grand Lodge system, the MM Degree was reserved for those who were in fact Masters of their Lodge. When a Mason moved into the East, at that time he was made a Master Mason.
Once the change was made so that all Three Degrees were conferred on the general membership, then it would have made perfect sense to restrict the RA to those who were in fact Masters of their Lodge.
But then once more, there was desire to more openly confer the RA, so the Virtual PM made that possible, and it is very likely that out of that grew our PM Degree. I think it should be pointed out though that the PM Degree isn't done everywhere, not even everywhere within this Jurisdiction as far as I know.
- Yes, it is my understanding that the Queen of the South is still practiced in some other Jurisdictions.
An excerpt from Robert Hewitt Brown's Stellar Theology and Masonic Astronomy.
"The Antiquity of Masonry
Q. What is the probable antiquity of masonry?
A. There can be but little doubt that the Mysteries, from which, as we have seen, Freemasonry is the direct descendant, were first arranged when Taurus was on the vernal equinox, Leo at the summer solstice, and Scorpio at the autumnal equinox. The solar allegory, as handed down to us, shows this to be the fact. At the rate of the precession of the equinoxes is known, we can calculate when the vernal equinox was in Taurus. Such a calculation will take us back about four thousand two hundred and eighty years. The antiquity of masonry is thus written on the face of the starry heavens—a record which utters no falsehoods.
It is telling that the transition of vernal equinox from Taurus to Aries astronomically corresponds timewise with the biblical transition of worship among the Israelites under Moses from calf to lamb . The arrival of Jesus marks the transition from Aries to Pisces. The dominant religious symbol to the fish. Simon Peter the fisherman to Jesus and Peter the fishers of men, baptism the immersion in water the natural habitat of fish.
Today, Aquarius is transitioning into the dominant position at vernal equinox. The astronomical heritage of freemasonry is Very old.
From Plato's Timaeus;
"All men, Socrates, who have any degree of right feeling, at the beginning of every great enterprise, always call upon the blessings of God".
Sounds familiar doesn't it?
I have the opinion that masonry is the bastard child of pagan mystery schools such as the druids, the Platonic philosphic and mathematic academicians, and lastly the knights Templar who hid from Roman catholic persecutions on the island of Britain among the professional ranks of real operative stone masons guilds.
Jack, the Astronomical terms you mention here, including Precession of the equinoxes, is what I was planning to explain in my next presentations on Astronomy. Due to its complexity, I was planning to do the presentation in sections, such as beginner, intermediate and advanced. I don't want to lose people too fast; as you mention, items such as Precession are important in speaking of ancient history, and all the wise philosophers in history were familiar with these characteristics of the motion of the stars and planets.
This is how I plan to contribute to Freemasonry as a Teacher; other subjects, I plan to be a Student, and perhaps also a teacher in some respects. I agree with you in this is how the Masonic Lodge should work in its meetings for education.
The Grand Lodge of Washington will finally be creating a speaker's bureau in the upcoming year. I hope that you will sign up to offer your astronomy presentations!
Looks like I'll have to get to work here quite soon! Good to hear!
My own personal theories reflect yours I believe.
In my view, Freemasonry is the inheritor of the Mysteries. It wasn't the first such inheritor, nor will it be the last, but it is the current.
I am also of the belief that the Templars in England and Scotland did hide within the ranks of the operative Masons. As educated men in the time, they would have been welcomed and could have earned their keep in exchange for their safety. It is this infusion of men that in my view led to the formation of speculative Masonry as we know it.