The story as I understand it was one of greed. King Philip the Fair of France needed the Templar's wealth (and shall we say 'forgiveness' of loans the order had made to them,) and a weak Pope went along with his scheme. One presumes that the Pope had base motives other than fear as well.
I read the book a long time ago. Interesting theory, but as you said hard to prove.
But the order had to have gone somewhere, not all of the knights were captured, nor all of their ships. And you can see some plausible links on how they possibly integrated with the masons. Can't really talk about it publicly however.
Yeah, none of this can be proven. Nor can the other origin theories. That's what makes it interesting to speculate about in my mind.
I also find the fact that all of the knights themselves (not their support people) were considered nobles prior to their entry into the order. In that time, that would mean that they were quite likely more knowledgeable and better educated than the average person. That would translate into marketable skills after the order's downfall.
Hugues de Payens is the central mystery. He emerges in 1119 and invents a new creature - a monk with a sword. This had not been seen before in an organised way.
He invents a new order, with the blessing of Bernard of Clairvaux, and Council of Troyes, which was a protective religious order for pilgrims: “Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon”
William of Tyre wrote about them. King Baldwin II - a Norman - gave them quarters beside the Temple area of the royal palace complex and that's how they were called Templars.
He also invented a machine that outlived him and grew and propagated itself. It was a multi-national finance machine, a multi-national king maker and unmaker, and a unique thing in the Middle Ages. It was a Medieval distributed social media network with a comms system that was fast, efficient and accurate. And also - it's own Navy.
And all of this happened in a very short amount of time, relatively.
It is truly fascinating that the order went from near obscurity in its early years, to western world reach and presence in so short of time. But, we know from our own time that banking and communications are truly vital for society to thrive, and as you mention, those were their big thing, outlasting their efforts in the holy land.
Perhaps that growth isn't so strange though, we do see it today when a product is considered to be truly vital by all. Google started in late 1998. Today it has worldwide dominance. 27 years.
Most worshipful, I am about to say something and I want you to know, I understand why we are talking about this, and I know we have to from time to time, BUT I hate this subject. While I believe there might be a VERY tenuous link between the KT and Freemasonry, I don't think it's important (and my link is not very sexy). The fact that no one can PROVE the link, means it's open to speculation. With some, this topic can reach near religious fervor. I have also run into men, some Masons, who exploit the lack of evidence and the zeal some member have for the topic, to weave fantastical world views and alternative histories and then to profit from the sale of those ideas. The idea, for some, that we are part of a worldwide conspiracy of ancient wisdom transmitted thru an oppressed order of Knights is an ego inflating idea and I know some people in whom this has become toxic. I think we should remember that we are called to make ourselves better. It's ok to have interests that don't necessarily result in improvement, BUT how much better would we be if we applied all the energy we apply to the KT to being better men?
I get where you're coming from, but to be fair, we do it to ourselves, making grandiose claims about patron saints and obscure artificers woven into our society. They are used to illustrate points, and not being burdened by facts or the truth. You can say the same thing about our use of Templars as an allegory too. The lessons learned in the SR and YR while referencing the Templars are also tools for self improvement. I agree, some folks might be taking things a bit too far, but that's going to always be an issue, the same as people chasing after titles instead of trying to make themselves better. It's not the fault of the SR or YR anymore as chasing after a title in the blue lodges the lodges fault. In the end, we're all brothers.
Thank you Brother, I appreciate you sharing this perspective on the debate, and don't doubt what you write here.
Personally though, I don't think I've really encountered the loss of control of passions in relation to these discussions. Perhaps on Reddit's Freemasonry board, but lots and lots of nonsense is spouted there about just about everything.
That said, I have seen Masons claim absolute knowledge and truth about our Craft's origins, impossible claims, so I can see where a discussion could easily get out of hand. I think though that here on Emeth we have shown through the years that this group can discuss just about anything while remaining thoughtful and reasonable.
I do think that we run a risk, as you point out, when it comes to any of this 'origin' stuff. A little over a year ago I attended a public Masonic event at a Lodge. The WM stood up and explained the history of organized Freemasonry. His 'factual' history started with the building of King Solomon's Temple. I was, as you can imagine, a wee bit horrified at his ignorance.
But, I think that is why we have to teach our Masons the differences between things like myth, speculation, historical fact. And I think that long form discussions, in tiled Lodge settings, at Masonic conferences, and on virtual sites like here on Emeth, are how we do those things.
And I think we have to extend this education to our prospects as well. I'm aware of an EA Mason, a really great guy, who is not of one of the three major Abrahamic religions. He was Initiated on his own holy book. But, the WM accidentally used the words 'Holy Bible' instead of the words 'Volume of Sacred Law' when it came to that part in the ritual directing the new EA to 'Kiss.' That new Mason was lost to the Lodge because of that. (Although he remains quite friendly with the Masons of the Lodge and in plenty of contact with them.) I can't help but believe that the EA would have been retained, had it been properly explained to him that everything in the Lodge is symbolic.
Yep, I really think the element/skill of discernment is lacking in our training and culture. Its addition might well fix a lot of our issues. Discernment leads to good critical thought, and that can be very grounding.
While the origin of the Templars is well known I agree the origin of the first freemasons is not. However I believe that the origin of MODERN Freemasonry is best documented in David Stevenson's book THE ORIGIN OF FREEMASONRY - SCOTLAND'S CENTURY 1598 to 1790
Just purchased the Kindle version. I enjoyed the explanations by WB Tom Lamb’s friend Robert L.D. Cooper in his book “Cracking the Freemasons Code: The Truth About Solomon’s Key and the Brotherhood.”
Bob Cooper is a trained historian and retired curator of the Grand Lodge of Scotland’s Museum & Library. He’s a stickler for substantiated, “authentic” history as opposed to more “romantic” or “speculative” history. I’m most grateful to WB Tom for introducing me to Brother Bob and his work. “The Rosslyn Hoax” is another good read. His work is not yet available on Kindle. ;-)
Tom introduced me to Brother Bob's work as well, and I agree, it's excellent. I also had an opportunity to sit and talk with Bob some years ago, great to match the man with his works!
One of my greatest hopes for Freemasonry is for it to shed this Templar fantasy eventually. Maybe it will be possible after the inevitable demise of the Masonic Templar York Rite thing.
The weak notion of Freemasonry descending from the medieval Knights Templar has an origin we can point out. As I’m sure all of you know, this was fabricated by a Scotsman named Andrew Ramsay. He was a Mason in France and he devised some salesmanship in the 1730s to entice society’s elites to seek Masonic membership. French nobles and other leaders were not to be inspired by tales of stoneworkers getting dirty in manual labor, so it was thought a myth about Crusading knights would capture their imaginations and bring them into lodges.
It’s all nonsense and it doesn’t help us in the twenty-first century.
Freemasonry is about enlightenment, and it is a creation of the Enlightenment. Templarism is about medievalism. Sensible people recognize medieval times may have had some charm in certain ways, but no one wants to revert to a culture without science, civil rights, economic freedom, and democratic elections.
The Freemasonry we inherited is an antidote to medieval thinking.
I understand what you are communicating here. But I do wonder, I guess, about a few things:
If Ramsay hadn't given his oration, would Freemasonry grown and spread throughout the world, or would it have been a short lived thing in the British isles and among English & Scottish expats living in France?
Without his oration, systems such as the Strict Observance and others likely would have never been created. Would that have resulted in the Scottish Rite never ultimately being created? And would an absence of that Rite have been a hurt or a benefit to the broader Craft?
Would Continental style Masonry have developed at all without the oration? If it didn't would that be a good or a bad thing on the whole?
I can't know the answer to these questions of course, but I do find them interesting to consider.
These are good questions, and I think history gives the answers.
It’s funny, but Ramsay didn’t orally deliver his oration. It looked like he was going to, but the Catholic authorities made it known that they wanted to arrest him, so he skedaddled. His speech was printed at some point, and here we are.
As for the Masonic KT being an accelerant in the spread of Freemasonry around the world, I don’t see how that is possible. Craft Masonry already was getting around by the time Ramsay fled Paris. There were lodges in Boston, Philadelphia, and Charleston by 1734, with New York and others not far behind. A Provincial GM was appointed in 1730 for Bengal(!).
And Strict Observance? Was that ever a force? Scottish Rite has outlived its usefulness by more than two generations. It’s an anachronism, and is especially pointless in the NMJ.
Thanks for getting back to me with these thoughts. I appreciate reading your perspective.
I didn't mean to imply that the Masonic KT may have been an accelerant to the spread of Masonry. Rather the concept of Masonic knighthood/nobility in general. That many may have been attracted to a Freemasonry of not just craftsmen, but of craftsman knights. The whole trowel in one hand, sword in the other thing.
I think an argument can be made that Masonry followed wherever English speakers went, but I do wonder if it would have moved beyond that. Just as an example, the French, it seems, were mighty excited about the ideas in the Oration, with Degrees and Degree systems coming about from it. Would the people of that area and culture been nearly as interested in Craft Masonry alone?
I do think that Strict Observance, and other systems from about the same timeframe were a force in that what drove them eventually developed into the Scottish Rite that we know today.
It is though, certainly fair to ask if the Scottish Rite is useful to Masonry today. I've got quite a few years of it under my belt now, and some strong opinions. Some of which mirror yours as expressed here, others that don't. To me, it comes down to the experience.
When I joined Scottish Rite it was at a large, urban, Valley. I found absolutely nothing there but business meetings. Much like Lodge business meetings, but with more division and anger sprinkled on top. I found no value. I also found a couple of messages pretty strongly communicated to me by that Valley. When I was a nobody from a rural Lodge, it was really clear that other than one, maybe two other men, no one at all cared if I came or went. When I was elected JGW, well it was pretty clear that they wanted me then. That's when I decided a demit was in order.
Now I belong to a really tiny Valley. Honestly I wonder sometimes if we are going to get shut down for just being too small. It's a pretty good drive from my house, so I'm not able to attend often, but when I do, I find a great deal of value. We are tiny, and poor, so there isn't really much business to take care of at all. That means the meetings consist of nothing but ritual, socializing, and always something interesting in the way of Masonic education. I've never left there without having learned something. I find the experience between these two Valleys to be night and day.
Lastly, I would have to mention the Annual Guthrie Spring Reunion. I'd have to rate this yearly event as one of the top ten Masonic experiences of my life. It's truly superb.
All of this is from the perspective of the Southern Jurisdiction.
I heard that Knights had to flee a Pope who wanted to get treasures that the Knights had plundered?
The story as I understand it was one of greed. King Philip the Fair of France needed the Templar's wealth (and shall we say 'forgiveness' of loans the order had made to them,) and a weak Pope went along with his scheme. One presumes that the Pope had base motives other than fear as well.
I read the book a long time ago. Interesting theory, but as you said hard to prove.
But the order had to have gone somewhere, not all of the knights were captured, nor all of their ships. And you can see some plausible links on how they possibly integrated with the masons. Can't really talk about it publicly however.
Yeah, none of this can be proven. Nor can the other origin theories. That's what makes it interesting to speculate about in my mind.
I also find the fact that all of the knights themselves (not their support people) were considered nobles prior to their entry into the order. In that time, that would mean that they were quite likely more knowledgeable and better educated than the average person. That would translate into marketable skills after the order's downfall.
Hugues de Payens is the central mystery. He emerges in 1119 and invents a new creature - a monk with a sword. This had not been seen before in an organised way.
He invents a new order, with the blessing of Bernard of Clairvaux, and Council of Troyes, which was a protective religious order for pilgrims: “Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon”
William of Tyre wrote about them. King Baldwin II - a Norman - gave them quarters beside the Temple area of the royal palace complex and that's how they were called Templars.
He also invented a machine that outlived him and grew and propagated itself. It was a multi-national finance machine, a multi-national king maker and unmaker, and a unique thing in the Middle Ages. It was a Medieval distributed social media network with a comms system that was fast, efficient and accurate. And also - it's own Navy.
And all of this happened in a very short amount of time, relatively.
It is truly fascinating that the order went from near obscurity in its early years, to western world reach and presence in so short of time. But, we know from our own time that banking and communications are truly vital for society to thrive, and as you mention, those were their big thing, outlasting their efforts in the holy land.
Perhaps that growth isn't so strange though, we do see it today when a product is considered to be truly vital by all. Google started in late 1998. Today it has worldwide dominance. 27 years.
He was living at the right time in the right place and had a social network of people of the same mind of things.
It makes all the difference.
Most worshipful, I am about to say something and I want you to know, I understand why we are talking about this, and I know we have to from time to time, BUT I hate this subject. While I believe there might be a VERY tenuous link between the KT and Freemasonry, I don't think it's important (and my link is not very sexy). The fact that no one can PROVE the link, means it's open to speculation. With some, this topic can reach near religious fervor. I have also run into men, some Masons, who exploit the lack of evidence and the zeal some member have for the topic, to weave fantastical world views and alternative histories and then to profit from the sale of those ideas. The idea, for some, that we are part of a worldwide conspiracy of ancient wisdom transmitted thru an oppressed order of Knights is an ego inflating idea and I know some people in whom this has become toxic. I think we should remember that we are called to make ourselves better. It's ok to have interests that don't necessarily result in improvement, BUT how much better would we be if we applied all the energy we apply to the KT to being better men?
I get where you're coming from, but to be fair, we do it to ourselves, making grandiose claims about patron saints and obscure artificers woven into our society. They are used to illustrate points, and not being burdened by facts or the truth. You can say the same thing about our use of Templars as an allegory too. The lessons learned in the SR and YR while referencing the Templars are also tools for self improvement. I agree, some folks might be taking things a bit too far, but that's going to always be an issue, the same as people chasing after titles instead of trying to make themselves better. It's not the fault of the SR or YR anymore as chasing after a title in the blue lodges the lodges fault. In the end, we're all brothers.
Thank you Brother, I appreciate you sharing this perspective on the debate, and don't doubt what you write here.
Personally though, I don't think I've really encountered the loss of control of passions in relation to these discussions. Perhaps on Reddit's Freemasonry board, but lots and lots of nonsense is spouted there about just about everything.
That said, I have seen Masons claim absolute knowledge and truth about our Craft's origins, impossible claims, so I can see where a discussion could easily get out of hand. I think though that here on Emeth we have shown through the years that this group can discuss just about anything while remaining thoughtful and reasonable.
I do think that we run a risk, as you point out, when it comes to any of this 'origin' stuff. A little over a year ago I attended a public Masonic event at a Lodge. The WM stood up and explained the history of organized Freemasonry. His 'factual' history started with the building of King Solomon's Temple. I was, as you can imagine, a wee bit horrified at his ignorance.
But, I think that is why we have to teach our Masons the differences between things like myth, speculation, historical fact. And I think that long form discussions, in tiled Lodge settings, at Masonic conferences, and on virtual sites like here on Emeth, are how we do those things.
And I think we have to extend this education to our prospects as well. I'm aware of an EA Mason, a really great guy, who is not of one of the three major Abrahamic religions. He was Initiated on his own holy book. But, the WM accidentally used the words 'Holy Bible' instead of the words 'Volume of Sacred Law' when it came to that part in the ritual directing the new EA to 'Kiss.' That new Mason was lost to the Lodge because of that. (Although he remains quite friendly with the Masons of the Lodge and in plenty of contact with them.) I can't help but believe that the EA would have been retained, had it been properly explained to him that everything in the Lodge is symbolic.
In any event, just some random thoughts.
Yep, I really think the element/skill of discernment is lacking in our training and culture. Its addition might well fix a lot of our issues. Discernment leads to good critical thought, and that can be very grounding.
Have a wonderful holiday MW!
Thank you Brother! I hope that you as well have a great holiday!
If anyone is interested in something I wrote a while back ...
https://www.academia.edu/31592842/The_Arabic_Cipher_Hypothesis_Was_Banking_the_Holy_Grail_and_Numerals_Its_Keeper
Interesting read.
Awesome! Thanks for sharing the paper. I'll be downloading the .PDF today!
While the origin of the Templars is well known I agree the origin of the first freemasons is not. However I believe that the origin of MODERN Freemasonry is best documented in David Stevenson's book THE ORIGIN OF FREEMASONRY - SCOTLAND'S CENTURY 1598 to 1790
Thank you for this recommendation W. Brother. I appreciate it!
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-origins-of-freemasonry-david-stevenson/1100954242
Just purchased the Kindle version. I enjoyed the explanations by WB Tom Lamb’s friend Robert L.D. Cooper in his book “Cracking the Freemasons Code: The Truth About Solomon’s Key and the Brotherhood.”
Bob Cooper is a trained historian and retired curator of the Grand Lodge of Scotland’s Museum & Library. He’s a stickler for substantiated, “authentic” history as opposed to more “romantic” or “speculative” history. I’m most grateful to WB Tom for introducing me to Brother Bob and his work. “The Rosslyn Hoax” is another good read. His work is not yet available on Kindle. ;-)
Tom introduced me to Brother Bob's work as well, and I agree, it's excellent. I also had an opportunity to sit and talk with Bob some years ago, great to match the man with his works!
Very cool deck! I think the Templar story would make a great topic of discussion for a Rummer & Grapes discussion or a Masonic Education Night.
Yep, our Brother has indeed created a great Tarot deck! We'll be talking Templar Origin soon.
One of my greatest hopes for Freemasonry is for it to shed this Templar fantasy eventually. Maybe it will be possible after the inevitable demise of the Masonic Templar York Rite thing.
The weak notion of Freemasonry descending from the medieval Knights Templar has an origin we can point out. As I’m sure all of you know, this was fabricated by a Scotsman named Andrew Ramsay. He was a Mason in France and he devised some salesmanship in the 1730s to entice society’s elites to seek Masonic membership. French nobles and other leaders were not to be inspired by tales of stoneworkers getting dirty in manual labor, so it was thought a myth about Crusading knights would capture their imaginations and bring them into lodges.
It’s all nonsense and it doesn’t help us in the twenty-first century.
Freemasonry is about enlightenment, and it is a creation of the Enlightenment. Templarism is about medievalism. Sensible people recognize medieval times may have had some charm in certain ways, but no one wants to revert to a culture without science, civil rights, economic freedom, and democratic elections.
The Freemasonry we inherited is an antidote to medieval thinking.
Jay
I understand what you are communicating here. But I do wonder, I guess, about a few things:
If Ramsay hadn't given his oration, would Freemasonry grown and spread throughout the world, or would it have been a short lived thing in the British isles and among English & Scottish expats living in France?
Without his oration, systems such as the Strict Observance and others likely would have never been created. Would that have resulted in the Scottish Rite never ultimately being created? And would an absence of that Rite have been a hurt or a benefit to the broader Craft?
Would Continental style Masonry have developed at all without the oration? If it didn't would that be a good or a bad thing on the whole?
I can't know the answer to these questions of course, but I do find them interesting to consider.
These are good questions, and I think history gives the answers.
It’s funny, but Ramsay didn’t orally deliver his oration. It looked like he was going to, but the Catholic authorities made it known that they wanted to arrest him, so he skedaddled. His speech was printed at some point, and here we are.
As for the Masonic KT being an accelerant in the spread of Freemasonry around the world, I don’t see how that is possible. Craft Masonry already was getting around by the time Ramsay fled Paris. There were lodges in Boston, Philadelphia, and Charleston by 1734, with New York and others not far behind. A Provincial GM was appointed in 1730 for Bengal(!).
And Strict Observance? Was that ever a force? Scottish Rite has outlived its usefulness by more than two generations. It’s an anachronism, and is especially pointless in the NMJ.
Jay
Thanks for getting back to me with these thoughts. I appreciate reading your perspective.
I didn't mean to imply that the Masonic KT may have been an accelerant to the spread of Masonry. Rather the concept of Masonic knighthood/nobility in general. That many may have been attracted to a Freemasonry of not just craftsmen, but of craftsman knights. The whole trowel in one hand, sword in the other thing.
I think an argument can be made that Masonry followed wherever English speakers went, but I do wonder if it would have moved beyond that. Just as an example, the French, it seems, were mighty excited about the ideas in the Oration, with Degrees and Degree systems coming about from it. Would the people of that area and culture been nearly as interested in Craft Masonry alone?
I do think that Strict Observance, and other systems from about the same timeframe were a force in that what drove them eventually developed into the Scottish Rite that we know today.
It is though, certainly fair to ask if the Scottish Rite is useful to Masonry today. I've got quite a few years of it under my belt now, and some strong opinions. Some of which mirror yours as expressed here, others that don't. To me, it comes down to the experience.
When I joined Scottish Rite it was at a large, urban, Valley. I found absolutely nothing there but business meetings. Much like Lodge business meetings, but with more division and anger sprinkled on top. I found no value. I also found a couple of messages pretty strongly communicated to me by that Valley. When I was a nobody from a rural Lodge, it was really clear that other than one, maybe two other men, no one at all cared if I came or went. When I was elected JGW, well it was pretty clear that they wanted me then. That's when I decided a demit was in order.
Now I belong to a really tiny Valley. Honestly I wonder sometimes if we are going to get shut down for just being too small. It's a pretty good drive from my house, so I'm not able to attend often, but when I do, I find a great deal of value. We are tiny, and poor, so there isn't really much business to take care of at all. That means the meetings consist of nothing but ritual, socializing, and always something interesting in the way of Masonic education. I've never left there without having learned something. I find the experience between these two Valleys to be night and day.
Lastly, I would have to mention the Annual Guthrie Spring Reunion. I'd have to rate this yearly event as one of the top ten Masonic experiences of my life. It's truly superb.
All of this is from the perspective of the Southern Jurisdiction.