Or has it always been a place for men of all levels of society to mix?
We had this question come up at our recent Rummer & Grapes, and I found our discussion to be quite interesting, so I thought we might do well to discuss it here.
I would need to know what the definition of the author of this post means by "The Common Man" and "All Levels of Society". I will go out on the limb to assume that the above means the coal workers, street cleaners, farmers and coachman etc. of the 17th and 18th centuries. I would think it safe to say that there was not one of the 'common men' or the 'lower levels of society' in the ranks as members of the Ancient Craft during the Transition from Operative to Speculative. I will also go out on the cracking limb and say that 'the common man / all levels of society' membership was a 20th century creation in Europe. In the US the situation was different by leaps and bounds. The migration west during the 18th-19th centuries were full of the 'common man and all levels of society' and these men built the towns and cities from nothingness'. My 2c
Dec 20, 2022·edited Dec 20, 2022Liked by Cameron M. Bailey
The Commons are discrete from the common man.
The common man is an ideal of the American new Republic, and of Jeffersonian democracy, which everyone likes to think about, but nobody really wants to *be.* Because it's not very special except in it's heroic ordinariness. It's the Samwise Gamgees of the world. The common man also comes down to us as an ideal from many cultural traditions of our forebearers. But perhaps everyone are common unless and until they refine themselves, and by that I mean, make themselves more than they were just yesterday. That fortitude is what begins to set them apart. So, it's an ongoing process. Yet it is at the level of "the common man" that the rubber meets the road and the actual work, production, and in times of crisis, saving, of any civilisation takes place.
Thomas Jefferson's idea of a nation (and democracy) was of yeoman small-hold farmers and he contemplated the common man as each and every one landed and producing, and making the land to produce as well. But George Washington's vision was not that - his was of the gentleman, even patrician, farmer who employed the common man as tenant farmers and craftsmen only. And then again, Paul Revere was a master craftsman of silver but not a farmer. John Adams' vision was that of a New England farmer, a small holder who produced in cooperation with other small holders. Below all of them were the vast numbers of tenant farmers, suttlers, dairymen, traders and merchants, common labourers, boatmen, cattlemen, dressmakers, candlemakers, and other craftsmen and women and their workmen and women, who did the actual work of production and whose days were largely absorbed with the business of getting to the next day intact and alive with something to show for it.
The Commons are an idea, and a functionality, that come down to us from many different cultures - Northern European, Indigenous North American, and others, as a means of resource management. It's origins are organic and culturally embedded, and not fungible from the cultural whole. It is not an "add water shake and voila !" kind of proposition among strangers. There is mutual skin in the game and shared personal and experiential history, not because someone in an ivory tower told you it was so, but because generations of lived experience wove it that way and you inherited it. The underlying assumption is that everyone are "in it together" and have a shared vested interest in being able to withdraw from the common Natural community chest and a duty to make deposits back into that shared community chest of resources as well. And there is a happy balance here between individual liberty and property, and The Commons. Both exist together and in fact work better in some kind of dynamic balance with each other. Each supports the other. We see this in the Natural template everywhere.
In New England the settlers established a village commons where people pastured their cows together, held markets, meetings and festivals. They also established a village well, until more individual ones could be dug. The same at Roanoke and then Jamestown before the northern Plymouth colony even got started. What had been the custom in England continued as the custom in North America. The Indigenous people already in North America also had a policy of the commons: Kentucky was a shared hunting ground and everywhere, springs were shared. And for everyone - this was a matter of survival by cooperation.
Later, along the Oregon Trail, the settlers who survived and got to Oregon, did it by cooperation. They pooled together their individually owned teams of horses or mules or oxen to pull wagons over tough grades and across rivers. Those who didn't work together for common cause - didn't make it - and the Oregon trail was littered with those bodies.
I would say if you are referring to speculative Masonry, it can be argued that it was a society for advancing arts and sciences (and when needed, it would balance the political scales by overthrowing corrupt regimes). Speculative Masonry can be traced back to the age of enlightenment and particularly toward Francis Bacon, who is known for developing the scientific method, advancing the arts and sciences. This was not designated for just the “common or the elite class,” but reserved for virtuous men in the field of science and arts.
Bro Jerome Lalande (1769-1732), who is best known for his work as an astronomer and his planetary theories, had a similar but more restricted idea of virtuous men advancing the arts and sciences when he had established the Masonic “Les Sciences” (Lodge of the Sciences) in Paris, of which he served as Master. This became known as a Lodge confined to Masons concerned with scientific research. He changed the names of this lodge in 1776 to "Les Neuf Soeurs" (Lodge of Nine Sisters), and arranged Bro Benjamin Franklin as its first WM. The Masonic rituals embodied Newtonian concepts regarding mechanism and materialism. The name Nine Sisters was in regards to the nine Muses of Greek mythology. The ancient Greek temples of the Muses were called "Mouseion", which were consecrated to arts, sciences, and literature. Mouseion is also where we get the word museum.
The token of the Nine Sisters, contained Masonic symbols regarding the objectives of the society. Inscribed on it was a pyramid with the square, compasses, and the motto “If virtue is lacking, this science is useless”. This emblems further demonstrate the validity of the ancient Masonic belief that virtuous men could cooperate to advance the arts and sciences.
In order to be admitted in the Lodge of the Nine Sisters, the aspirant was required to be gifted with some talent, either in the arts or of science, and have already given public proof and sufficient of this talent. Its rites, also, contained explications of the tenets of classicism, deism, religious toleration, and humanitarianism. The Lodge of the Nine Sisters was a prominent lodge attached to the Grand Orient of France that was particularly influential in organizing French support for the American Revolution (1765-1783), and gaining independence from the British Crown. Later in the uproar, preceded the French Revolution (1789), signaled from the Third Estate, representing the majority of the people.
I think its important to remember this, particularly since the future of mankind depends on advancing the arts and sciences. We have seen the Scientific Method get tossed in the trash can from this last pandemic. And a money grab has been fueling very corrupt regimes from medicines to agriculture and environmental sciences. Should Masonry get back to its roots here?
After reflecting a bit more on this question from sundays discussion, I think you can tie masonic membership to reading.
At one time, only the wealthy (or the church) could afford to get an education. To fall into philosophical debates required being able to read the subject. Thus, only the upper class could not only afford any dues required, but were educated sufficiently to talk about philosophy with others.
As the ability to read became more prevalent, so did the lowering of requirements for membership occur.
Its my opinion its intended for the elite, but not as measured by money or title, but rather the quality of the man. The rough ashlar MUST be of a stone that is strong enough to add to the strength of the building, before its fashioned into the perfect ashlar. A building built from weak stone, no matter how beautiful, will soon fall.....
When Christopher Wren and his associates from the Royal Society took over Freemasonry as we know it, from the operatives. They realised that in order for the original precepts of the organisation to be accomplished, they needed many more people on the case. Otherwise we were never going to see the original Grand Master's plan to build a Tower that reached to Heaven finished. His name was Nimrod. So schools were built that allowed in more students who learnt the 7 Liberal subjects. From there we were on our way. The final part was when Freemasonry became Universal and the commodities from around the world became easier to obtain, especially with a printable currency.
I started to write a comment and it was obvious I could not complete what I wanted to present in a comment box. So instead I decide I would present a dated summary and a reference. But first masonry is as old as history. Here we are discussing Freemasonry of todaywhich also starts in the 12th century. I will also concentrat on British Freemasonry though I must mention that when Freemaonry was introduced to USA it was elite.
1140-1598 Lodges were for the Common Operative Mason though many had elite non-operative
masons as figureheads
1598-1641 BegInning of elite - Sir Robert Moray initiated 1641
1641-1717 Transfer of Lodges from mixture of operative to speculative membership
1717 Forming of first Grand Lodge - elite
1725 Forming of Grand Lodge of Ireland - elite
1736 Forming of Grand Lodge of Scotland - Mainly operative though elite organized it
1732 First Miltary Lodge formed - elite (Officers) and common ( Soldiers)
1682 First immigrant Freemason to arrive in USA - elite
1751-1831 The "Ancient Lodge of England formed, run in paralell with GLOL - mainly elite
The Grand Lodge of England did not want Irish Immigrants joining
1783 First Masonic Lodge to be formed in USA
1832-Present Complete takeover by speculative masons except in Scotland wherea strong common
membership still exists
So in summary masonic lodges were for the "Common Stonemason, then it moved from speculative to Elite, by 1717, outside of Scotland, speculative became the majority and it was elite until mid-19th century.
If you want a more complete history of Modern Freemasonry I can offer my paper. THE SCOTTISH ORIGION OF FREEMASONRY. Just email me at nalamb@umich.edu.
I would like to give a huge Thank You to everyone who has commented here today. I read every comment as it was made and must say that I will retire tonight with a great deal to contemplate, so thank you all. I found this a very interesting discussion when it took place in person the other day, and even more interesting today.
I would need to know what the definition of the author of this post means by "The Common Man" and "All Levels of Society". I will go out on the limb to assume that the above means the coal workers, street cleaners, farmers and coachman etc. of the 17th and 18th centuries. I would think it safe to say that there was not one of the 'common men' or the 'lower levels of society' in the ranks as members of the Ancient Craft during the Transition from Operative to Speculative. I will also go out on the cracking limb and say that 'the common man / all levels of society' membership was a 20th century creation in Europe. In the US the situation was different by leaps and bounds. The migration west during the 18th-19th centuries were full of the 'common man and all levels of society' and these men built the towns and cities from nothingness'. My 2c
The Commons are discrete from the common man.
The common man is an ideal of the American new Republic, and of Jeffersonian democracy, which everyone likes to think about, but nobody really wants to *be.* Because it's not very special except in it's heroic ordinariness. It's the Samwise Gamgees of the world. The common man also comes down to us as an ideal from many cultural traditions of our forebearers. But perhaps everyone are common unless and until they refine themselves, and by that I mean, make themselves more than they were just yesterday. That fortitude is what begins to set them apart. So, it's an ongoing process. Yet it is at the level of "the common man" that the rubber meets the road and the actual work, production, and in times of crisis, saving, of any civilisation takes place.
Thomas Jefferson's idea of a nation (and democracy) was of yeoman small-hold farmers and he contemplated the common man as each and every one landed and producing, and making the land to produce as well. But George Washington's vision was not that - his was of the gentleman, even patrician, farmer who employed the common man as tenant farmers and craftsmen only. And then again, Paul Revere was a master craftsman of silver but not a farmer. John Adams' vision was that of a New England farmer, a small holder who produced in cooperation with other small holders. Below all of them were the vast numbers of tenant farmers, suttlers, dairymen, traders and merchants, common labourers, boatmen, cattlemen, dressmakers, candlemakers, and other craftsmen and women and their workmen and women, who did the actual work of production and whose days were largely absorbed with the business of getting to the next day intact and alive with something to show for it.
The Commons are an idea, and a functionality, that come down to us from many different cultures - Northern European, Indigenous North American, and others, as a means of resource management. It's origins are organic and culturally embedded, and not fungible from the cultural whole. It is not an "add water shake and voila !" kind of proposition among strangers. There is mutual skin in the game and shared personal and experiential history, not because someone in an ivory tower told you it was so, but because generations of lived experience wove it that way and you inherited it. The underlying assumption is that everyone are "in it together" and have a shared vested interest in being able to withdraw from the common Natural community chest and a duty to make deposits back into that shared community chest of resources as well. And there is a happy balance here between individual liberty and property, and The Commons. Both exist together and in fact work better in some kind of dynamic balance with each other. Each supports the other. We see this in the Natural template everywhere.
In New England the settlers established a village commons where people pastured their cows together, held markets, meetings and festivals. They also established a village well, until more individual ones could be dug. The same at Roanoke and then Jamestown before the northern Plymouth colony even got started. What had been the custom in England continued as the custom in North America. The Indigenous people already in North America also had a policy of the commons: Kentucky was a shared hunting ground and everywhere, springs were shared. And for everyone - this was a matter of survival by cooperation.
Later, along the Oregon Trail, the settlers who survived and got to Oregon, did it by cooperation. They pooled together their individually owned teams of horses or mules or oxen to pull wagons over tough grades and across rivers. Those who didn't work together for common cause - didn't make it - and the Oregon trail was littered with those bodies.
I would say if you are referring to speculative Masonry, it can be argued that it was a society for advancing arts and sciences (and when needed, it would balance the political scales by overthrowing corrupt regimes). Speculative Masonry can be traced back to the age of enlightenment and particularly toward Francis Bacon, who is known for developing the scientific method, advancing the arts and sciences. This was not designated for just the “common or the elite class,” but reserved for virtuous men in the field of science and arts.
Bro Jerome Lalande (1769-1732), who is best known for his work as an astronomer and his planetary theories, had a similar but more restricted idea of virtuous men advancing the arts and sciences when he had established the Masonic “Les Sciences” (Lodge of the Sciences) in Paris, of which he served as Master. This became known as a Lodge confined to Masons concerned with scientific research. He changed the names of this lodge in 1776 to "Les Neuf Soeurs" (Lodge of Nine Sisters), and arranged Bro Benjamin Franklin as its first WM. The Masonic rituals embodied Newtonian concepts regarding mechanism and materialism. The name Nine Sisters was in regards to the nine Muses of Greek mythology. The ancient Greek temples of the Muses were called "Mouseion", which were consecrated to arts, sciences, and literature. Mouseion is also where we get the word museum.
The token of the Nine Sisters, contained Masonic symbols regarding the objectives of the society. Inscribed on it was a pyramid with the square, compasses, and the motto “If virtue is lacking, this science is useless”. This emblems further demonstrate the validity of the ancient Masonic belief that virtuous men could cooperate to advance the arts and sciences.
In order to be admitted in the Lodge of the Nine Sisters, the aspirant was required to be gifted with some talent, either in the arts or of science, and have already given public proof and sufficient of this talent. Its rites, also, contained explications of the tenets of classicism, deism, religious toleration, and humanitarianism. The Lodge of the Nine Sisters was a prominent lodge attached to the Grand Orient of France that was particularly influential in organizing French support for the American Revolution (1765-1783), and gaining independence from the British Crown. Later in the uproar, preceded the French Revolution (1789), signaled from the Third Estate, representing the majority of the people.
I think its important to remember this, particularly since the future of mankind depends on advancing the arts and sciences. We have seen the Scientific Method get tossed in the trash can from this last pandemic. And a money grab has been fueling very corrupt regimes from medicines to agriculture and environmental sciences. Should Masonry get back to its roots here?
After reflecting a bit more on this question from sundays discussion, I think you can tie masonic membership to reading.
At one time, only the wealthy (or the church) could afford to get an education. To fall into philosophical debates required being able to read the subject. Thus, only the upper class could not only afford any dues required, but were educated sufficiently to talk about philosophy with others.
As the ability to read became more prevalent, so did the lowering of requirements for membership occur.
Just a musing.
Its my opinion its intended for the elite, but not as measured by money or title, but rather the quality of the man. The rough ashlar MUST be of a stone that is strong enough to add to the strength of the building, before its fashioned into the perfect ashlar. A building built from weak stone, no matter how beautiful, will soon fall.....
When Christopher Wren and his associates from the Royal Society took over Freemasonry as we know it, from the operatives. They realised that in order for the original precepts of the organisation to be accomplished, they needed many more people on the case. Otherwise we were never going to see the original Grand Master's plan to build a Tower that reached to Heaven finished. His name was Nimrod. So schools were built that allowed in more students who learnt the 7 Liberal subjects. From there we were on our way. The final part was when Freemasonry became Universal and the commodities from around the world became easier to obtain, especially with a printable currency.
For the whole story. https://youtu.be/Q--WVfka0k4
I started to write a comment and it was obvious I could not complete what I wanted to present in a comment box. So instead I decide I would present a dated summary and a reference. But first masonry is as old as history. Here we are discussing Freemasonry of todaywhich also starts in the 12th century. I will also concentrat on British Freemasonry though I must mention that when Freemaonry was introduced to USA it was elite.
1140-1598 Lodges were for the Common Operative Mason though many had elite non-operative
masons as figureheads
1598-1641 BegInning of elite - Sir Robert Moray initiated 1641
1641-1717 Transfer of Lodges from mixture of operative to speculative membership
1717 Forming of first Grand Lodge - elite
1725 Forming of Grand Lodge of Ireland - elite
1736 Forming of Grand Lodge of Scotland - Mainly operative though elite organized it
1732 First Miltary Lodge formed - elite (Officers) and common ( Soldiers)
1682 First immigrant Freemason to arrive in USA - elite
1751-1831 The "Ancient Lodge of England formed, run in paralell with GLOL - mainly elite
The Grand Lodge of England did not want Irish Immigrants joining
1783 First Masonic Lodge to be formed in USA
1832-Present Complete takeover by speculative masons except in Scotland wherea strong common
membership still exists
So in summary masonic lodges were for the "Common Stonemason, then it moved from speculative to Elite, by 1717, outside of Scotland, speculative became the majority and it was elite until mid-19th century.
If you want a more complete history of Modern Freemasonry I can offer my paper. THE SCOTTISH ORIGION OF FREEMASONRY. Just email me at nalamb@umich.edu.
I would like to give a huge Thank You to everyone who has commented here today. I read every comment as it was made and must say that I will retire tonight with a great deal to contemplate, so thank you all. I found this a very interesting discussion when it took place in person the other day, and even more interesting today.