Note:  This material was scanned into text files for the sole purpose of convenient electronic research. This material is NOT intended as a reproduction of the original volumes. However close the material is to becoming a reproduced work, it should ONLY be regarded as a textual reference.  Scanned at Phoenixmasonry by Ralph W. Omholt, PM in May 2007.
 

GOULD'S HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY

THROUGHOUT THE WORLD

 

VOLUME III 

 

CONTENTS

 

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION OF FREEMASONRY ABROAD

‑ THE RISE OF ADDITIONAL RITES‑ THE CHEVALIER RAMSAY I

 

CHAPTER TWO

FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE

 

CHAPTER THREE

FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE

 

CHAPTER FOUR

FREEMASONRY IN AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY 161

 

CHAPTER FIVE

 FREEMASONRY IN RUSSIA

 

CHAPTER SIX

 FREEMASONRY IN DENMARK AND HOLLAND

 

CHAPTER SEVEN

FREEMASONRY IN SWEDEN,

 NORWAY AND FINLAND - FREEMASONRY IN ITALY -

 FREEMASONRY IN BELGIUM - FREEMASONRY IN SPAIN

 

CHAPTER EIGHT

FREEMASONRY IN SWITZERLAND

 

CHAPTER NINE

 

CHAPTER TEN

 

CHAPTER ELEVEN

 

CHAPTER TWELVE

 FREEMASONRY IN PORTUGAL

 

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

 FREEMASONRY IN MALTA PAGE - FREEMASONRY

 IN POLAND

 

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

 

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

 FREEMASONRY IN BOHEMIA AND CZECHO‑SLOVAKIA

 

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

FREEMASONRY IN RUMANIA AND JUGO‑SLAVIA

 

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN

 FREEMASONRY IN TURKEY, GREECE AND CYPRUS

 

ILLUSTRATIONS VOLUME III

 

King Gustav of Sweden Frontispiece PACING PADS A Masonic Lodge in Paris, 1740 16 Comte de Clermont 26 Regalia of the Grand Orient of France (Colour) 40 Louis Philippe Joseph d'Orleans 42 Joseph Bonaparte 54 Napoleon Bonaparte, at the Lodge of Faubourg St. Marcel 56 A Masonic Banquet ‑ A Toast 66 The Reception of an Apprentice 84 A Freemason's Lodge, Frederick the Great Presiding 9o F. L. Schroeder, Ritual Reformer, 1744‑1816 92 Freemason's Sword of Frederick the Great 94 A Representative Selection of German Lodge Jewels (Colour) io8 J. G. Fichte, Masonic Historian and German Philosopher, 1762‑1814 132 Altar in the Little Temple, Berlin 144 A Master with Apron 158 Headquarters of the Grand East of the Netherlands, at The Hague 204 Lodge Room at Copenhagen, Denmark 206 Masonic Temple, Amsterdam 214 Masonic Temple, Amsterdam ‑ West End 218 Freemasons' Hall, Oslo, Norway 222 A Rare Swiss Jewel of the Second Degree 234 is ILLUSTRATIONS Heinrich Zschokke Grand Master Giuseppe Garibaldi The Duke of Cumberland Prominent Churchmen, Members of the Masonic Fraternity PAQNO PAOH 2‑4o zso 2.5 6 Hosea Ballou, Edward Bass, Gregory T. Bedell, Sr., Thomas C. Brownell, Thomas Chalmers, Philander Chase, Leighton Coleman, James E. Freeman, Alexander V. Griswold, Thomas Starr King, William H. Odenheimer, Henry C. Potter, Samuel Seabury At end of volume GOULD'S HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY THROUGHOUT THE WORLD VOLUME III A HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY THROUGHOUT THE WORLD VOL. III CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION OF FREEMASONRY ABROAD‑THE RISE OF ADDITIONAL RITES‑THE CHEVALIER RAMSAY IT has been regarded as a matter for astonishment that, in the short space of from ten to twenty years after the establishment of the Grand Lodge of England, Freemasonry should have obtained a firm footing in the remotest parts of the continent of Europe. The circumstance, however, seems to be a natural result. England at that time was, without doubt, the centre of all eyes and any important movement in this country was bound to attract especial attention from the world at large. Marlborough's brilliant achievements abroad had made her weight felt on the Continent ; the States of Europe were distracted and impoverished by constant wars, whilst England was at least undisturbed within her own frontiers and had become exceedingly wealthy. Her possession of Hanover brought her into close contact with Germany, but her alliance and, above all, her large subsidies, were desired by each of the contending States in turn and, as a consequence, her capital was the rendezvous of thousands of foreigners. In these circumstances the formation of the Grand Lodge could barely have escaped notice ; but, when noblemen of high position and men celebrated for their learning began to frequent the assemblies, to accept office, to take part in public processions, proudly wearing the jewels and aprons, no foreigner resident in the City of London could fail to be struck with the phenomenon. For in those days London was not a province of vast extent. It was a city of ordinary dimensions and each citizen might fairly be expected to be acquainted with every part of it, as well as with the personal appearance of its chief notabilities. A duke or earl was not lost amongst the millions of people who now throng the thoroughfares. His person, equipages and liveries were familiar to the majority of residents, his words and actions the talk of every club and coffee‑house. The Fraternity, so suddenly brought into prominence, must have attracted everyone's attention and many visitors to the metropolis must have been introduced into its circle. Returning to their own country, what more natural than a wish to enjoy there also those charming meetings 2 INTRODUCTION OF FREEMASONRY ABROAD‑THE RISE OF where kindliness and charity prevailed, where the strife of parties was unknown, where the slightest allusion to political or religious controversy was forbidden. What more natural than that those debarred from visiting its shores should desire to benefit by the new whim of " those eccentric islanders" and that, given a sufficient number of the initiated in any one town, Lodges should be formed ? Even before regular Lodges were constituted, it cannot be doubted that informal receptions into the Fraternity took place whenever a few Freemasons met together. Wherever the earliest Lodges existed, there are found traces of previous meetings and, in no other way, can the presence in the first stated Lodges, of undoubted Freemasons initiated elsewhere, be accounted for. There seems little doubt that, within five years of 1717, Freemasons were by no means scarce on the Continent. But little doubt can exist that no single Freemason ever lived on the Continent or elsewhere, whose Masonic pedigree did not begin in Great Britain. No former association, guild or otherwise, ever grew into a Fraternity of Freemasons outside these islands, nor was any connexion with the building trades of the Continent ever claimed by the first Freemasons of Europe. The Craft there is a direct importation from England and, in its infancy and for many subsequent years, was confined entirely to the upper classes without the least admixture of the artisan. Even in Germany the language of the Fraternity was French, being that of the court and of diplomacy. All the earlier Minutes are recorded in that tongue and all the names of the first Lodges are French. For a few years the references are invariably to England and to English usages but, about 1740, a change took place. In contradistinction to English Masonry, a Scottish Masonry, supposed to hail from Scotland, but having no real connexion with the sister kingdom, arose, which was presumed to be superior to the hitherto known Craft and possessed of more recondite knowledge and extensive privileges.

 

Fertile imaginations soon invented fresh Degrees based upon and overlapping the English ritual. These Scottish Degrees were supplemented by additions of Chivalric Degrees, claiming connexion with and descent from all the various extinct orders of knighthood, till finally we meet with systems of 7, 10, 25, 3 3, go and, eventually, 95 Degrees! The example was no doubt set in France and the fashion spread throughout Europe, till the Craft's stated origin in the societies of English builders was utterly lost sight of. It has been maintained that the impulse was given by the partisans of the Stuarts‑refugees in France at the court of St. Germain ‑and that it was the result of intrigues to win the Craft to their political purposes. Colour is lent to this view by the fact that the earliest names mentioned in connexion with French Freemasonry are those of well‑known adherents of the Pretender. That Scotsmen and Englishmen residing in Paris should take the lead in an essentially English institution, does not appear sufficiently remarkable to warrant such a conclusion and, in the absence of anything like proof, cannot be entertained. In a solitary instance‑the Strict Observance‑it is possible that some such political design may have been cherished but, if so, it was dropped as useless almost before it was conceived and, certainly, the Stuarts themselves, on their own showing, never ADDITIONAL RITES‑THE CHEVALIER RAMSAY 3 were Freemasons at all. Contemporary records are so scarce, that little argument can be adduced on either side, whereas any amount of assertion has been freely indulged in. As the inducement to change possibly arose from the unlucky speech of a Scotsman‑the Chevalier Ramsay‑every arbitrary innovation was at first foisted on Scotland, as the most likely birthplace‑in contradistinction to England, the land of the original Rite. How could a new Rite be fathered on France, Spain, Germany or Italy, where twenty years previously, as could at once be demonstrated, no Freemasonry had ever been heard of ? There was absolutely no choice but Scotland, or peradventure Ireland, so Scotland obtained the credit of every new invention. The alleged connexion with the Jacobites was clearly an afterthought. What is designated as Scots Masonry was unknown before the date of Ramsay's speech, but it appeared shortly afterwards. There is, therefore, a certain plausibility in representing the two as cause and effect ; but the man and the discourse will now be considered and an endeavour made to present the facts in what seems to be their true light, for probably never was any character in Masonic annals with, perhaps, the single exception of the Baron von Hund, more unjustly held up to opprobrium and the scorn of posterity. Yet von Hund has always had a few upholders of his probity, whereas until quite recently no name has been too bad for Ramsay. Every petty author of the merest tract on Freemasonry has concurred in reviling a dead man on whose public or private life no slur can be cast, who was highly esteemed by great and good men of his own generation‑whilst even writers of weight and authority have not disdained to heap obloquy upon him without one thought of his possible innocence. The general accusation against Ramsay is, that he was a devoted partisan of the exiled Royal Family of England; that he delivered or wrote a speech; that, in this speech, he wilfully and knowingly, oú malice prepense, fouled the pure stream of Masonic history ; and that he so acted in the interests and to further the intrigues of a political faction. In view of acknowledged principles, no impeachment of a Freemason could be more serious, no action more reprehensible. Therefore, such a charge should only be brought on the clearest possible proof. Now the only particle of truth is, that Ramsay certainly did write the speech. As for the other statements, if it can be shown that Ramsay was not a partisan of the Stuarts the whole libel loses the little consistency it ever possessed.

 

Rebold (Histoire des trois grander‑loges, Paris, 1864, p. 44) says : " Ramsay was a partisan of the Stuarts and introduced a system of Masonry, created at Edinbro' by a chapter of Canongate‑Kilwinning Lodge, in the political interests of the Stuarts and with the intention of enslaving Freemasonry to Roman Catholicism." The statement respecting the Edinbro' Chapter is too absurd to require refutation. Even the usually critical and judicious Kloss (Geschichte der Frehnaurerei in Frankreich, Darmstadt, 18 52, vol. i, p. 46) declares " that it is clear that Ramsay purposely introduced higher Degrees in order to make a selection from the ranks of the brotherhood in the interests of the Stuarts and to collect funds for the Pretender " ; whilst Findel does not scruple to call him " infamous." Two 4 INTRODUCTION OF FREEMASONRY ABROAD‑THE RISE OF writers only have attempted to clear Ramsay's good name. Pinkerton (Notes and ,Queries, 4th series, December 18, 1869), the first of these, unfortunately takes up wrong ground. He argues that the speech is evidently a skit on Freemasonry and, therefore, not Ramsay's at all ; further, that in view of Pope Clement's Bull‑In Eminenti‑Ramsay, who was a sincere convert to Romanism, could not by any possibility have been a Freemason. But facts have since come to light which render it probable that the speech was delivered on March 21, 1737, whilst the Bull is dated 1738 ; while it is well known that, in spite of repeated Bulls, many conscientious members of the Roman Church have been at all times, are even now, members of the Craft. A few years ago, however, the Rev. G. A. Schiffmann, who, on other occasions, has shown that he possesses an unprejudiced mind and the courage of his convictions, published a pamphlet study of Ramsay (Andreas Michael Ramsay, Eine Studie, etc., Leipzig, 1878) and, although a few trifling details in his work may be subject to correction, his viewsin spite of Findel having done his best to prove their fallacy‑are in the main those which merit the adoption of every critical reader. Had Masonic history always been studied in the same spirit of fearless, candid inquiry, there would be fewer fables and errors to correct. Although Schiffmann held an official appointment in Zinnendorff's Grand [National] Lodge, he, in 1870‑6, gave expression to his opinion of the duplicity and deceit on which the whole Rite was based, supporting the Crown Prince's demand for inquiry and reform. He was consequently expelled in 1876, but received with high honour by all the more enlightened Lodges of Germany.

 

One of the most romantic figures in the history of Freemasonry is the Chevalier Andrew Michael Ramsay. He was born in Ayr on June 9, 1686, his father being a baker and, apparently, a strict Calvinist. The dates ascribed to his birth vary considerably. Rees' Cyclopadia states he died in 1743, aged 5 7, which would place his birth in 1686, as stated. Chambers' Biographical Dictionary of Eminent Scotsmen gives the date as June 9, 1688. Findel also has 1686 and that date has been accepted by D. Murray Lyon. But, according to his own account (if correctly reported), he must have been born in 168o‑i, because in 1741 he told Heir von Geusau that he was then sixty years old. This would make him sixty‑two at the time of his death in 1743. Herr von Geusau was tutor to the son of the sovereign prince of Reuss, whom he accompanied in his travels through Germany, France and Italy. In Paris they met Ramsay, then tutor to the Prince of Turenne. Geusau kept a careful diary, anecdotal, personal, historical and geographical of the whole tour. This diary came into the possession of Dr. Anton Friedrich Buesching, who made extensive use of it for his Geography. He further gave copious extracts from it in Beitrdge Zu der Lebensgeschichte denkavurdiger Personen, Halle, 1783‑9, 5 vols. In vol. iii some fifty pages are devoted to Ramsay's conversations with Geusau, respecting himself in general and his Masonic proceedings in particular, together with Geusau's reflections thereon. The Diary has unfortunately never been published in extenso, all allusions therefore by Masonic writers to Geusau's Diary are really to this collection ADDITIONAL RITES‑THE CHEVALIER RAMSAY S of anecdotes of celebrated men. The value of the work consists in the fact that we have here a contemporary account of Ramsay, written with no ulterior object and, although at second‑hand, Ramsay's own words concerning his Masonic career. Geusau was not a Freemason‑a fact which enhances the value of his testimony.

 

After a brief period of tuition in a school at Ayr, Andrew entered Edinburgh University at the age of fourteen and, for three years, studied classics, mathematics and theology. He attained some fame in classical research and, throughout his life, the great Greek thinkers were his constant study and delight. Eventually he broke with Calvinism and was attracted to the mystical writings of Antoinette Bourignon, who was at that time enjoying a considerable following in Aberdeen. It was at one time believed that the famous Quietist travelled through Scotland in the dress of a hermit. She became famous at a time when both Scottish Episcopalianism and Scottish Catholicism had lost nearly all their spiritual vigour. As the outcome of her teachings, Ramsay got into touch with Poiret and the Quietist Movement in France, although he had become known as a Deist.

 

On leaving the University he took up the work of a tutor and was engaged to teach the two sons of the Earl of Wemyss. About 17o6, however, he left Britain, only to return to it for short periods. He went first to Flanders, where he entered the army under the Duke of Marlborough, who was then engaged in the War of the Spanish Succession. In 171o he obtained an introduction to Fenelon, Archbishop of Cambrai and, as the outcome of an interview with him, Ramsay left the army and took up his abode with Fenelon, to study religion and to endeavour to gain peace of mind. He entered the Catholic Church in order to come directly under the Quietist Movement and he remained with Fenelon until the death of that dignitary in January 1715. Ramsay afterwards wrote the life of Fenelon, which was published at The Hague in 1723, in which there are vivid sketches of Madame Guyon and the violent Bishop Bossuet, the bitter opponent of Fenelon.

 

There is no need to wonder that Ramsay was attracted by the beautiful life, words and actions of the celebrated Archbishop, whose all‑embracing Christianity never shone more conspicuously than during the Flemish campaigns and by whom he was converted to the Roman faith. There is no proof or symptom of proof that Ramsay became such a fervid Ultramontanist as has been stated. The character of his master would almost forbid it. Fenelon was one of the pillars of the Gallican Church, which was by no means in servile submission to that of Rome, although in communion with it; and the liberal breadth of his views was so widely spread as to incur the enmity of the great Bossuet and the open hostility of the Jesuits. Ramsay's printed works breathe a spirit of toleration worthy of his master. To Geusau we are indebted for an anecdote which goes far to prove that he was no bigot. During his short residence at Rome an English lord lived at James's Court who was married to a Protestant lady. A little girl was born to the couple and, the parents being in doubt as to their proceedings, Ramsay advised that she should be christened by one of the two Protestant chaplains of the household and exerted himself to such good effect in the cause as to win the consent of the Cardinal Chief of the G INTRODUCTION OF FREEMASONRY ABROAD‑THE RISE OF Inquisition. And Geusau, himself a Protestant, declares that Ramsay was a learned man, especially well informed in both ancient and modern history. He praises his upright and genial nature, his aversion to bigotry and sectarianism of all kinds and avers that he never once made the least attempt to shake his faith. Was this the kind of man to pervert Freemasonry in the interest and at the bidding of the Jesuits ? After Fenelon's death Ramsay went to Paris and became tutor to the young Duc de Chateau‑Thierry and gained the friendship of the Regent, Philippe d'Orleans. The Regent was the Grand Master of the Order of St. Lazarus, into which he admitted Ramsay, who thus became known as the Chevalier Ramsay. This Order was founded in the fourth century in Palestine and erected hospitals for lepers, which were known as Lazarettes. It was founded as a military and religious community, at the time of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem. Popes, princes and nobles endowed it with estates and privileges, but the knights were driven from the Holy Land by the Saracens and, in i2gi, migrated to France and to Naples in 1311. It is now combined with the Order of St. Maurice and is conferred by the King of Italy, who is Grand Master, on persons distinguished in the public service, science, art, letters and charitable works, to which last‑named its income is devoted.

 

Ramsay remained in Paris until 1724, when he accepted the post of tutor to Charles Edward and Henry (afterwards Cardinal of York), the two young Princes of the exiled House of Stuart, sons of the Pretender, James Francis Edward (James III), who had been on terms of friendship with Fenelon. He found the strange, though interesting, Court of St. James at Rome an uncomfortable abode and, after about a year, he resigned his position, in consequence of the constant intrigues and petty jealousies that surrounded the unfortunate James. Ramsay was an ardent Jacobite and he described the Pretender as " a very clever, fine, jovial, free‑thinking man." In 1725, Ramsay was offered the post of tutor to the Duke of Cumberland, the second son of George II, but refused because of his adoption of the Roman Catholic faith and because he had no liking for that reigning monarch. He was, however, given a safe conduct to Britain and, towards the end of 1728, he arrived in London and immediately proceeded to Scotland, where he became the guest of the Duke of Argyll at Inverary. The Duke possessed one of the largest libraries in the United Kingdom, was a man of culture and a friend to higher education.

 

Ramsay made his way quickly into literary circles. He was in Oxford in 1728 as the guest of the Marquis d'Abais. On March 12, 1729, he was made a member of the Gentlemen's Society at Spalding, the membership of which was composed largely of Freemasons and, in the same year, he was elected F.R.S. , whilst, in the following year, Oxford conferred upon him the degree of D.C.L., he having previously been admitted a member of St. Mary's Hall. There was a strong minority opposed to him, which showed itself after the Earl of Arran, then Chancellor of the University, had proposed him for the honour. The opposition was on the grounds that he was a Roman Catholic, a ‑Jacobite and had been in the service of the Pretender. Dr. King, the principal of St. Mary's Hall, spoke in Ramsay's defence and concluded ADDITIONAL RITES‑THE CHEVALIER RAMSAY 7 his speech by saying: Quod instar omnium est. Fenelonii magni archi prasulis Camara censis alumnum prasento vohis. Thefe were 85 votes in favour of his receiving the degree and 17 against. He was the first Roman Catholic to receive a degree at Oxford since the Reformation.

 

Hearne's Diary, under date of April 2o, 173o, has the following entry Last night Mr. Joyce and I (and nobody else) spending the evening together in Oxford, he told me that the Chevalier Ramsay (who is gone out of town) gave (before he went) in consideration of Dr. William King's Civilities to him in Oxford, the perpetual right of printing his Travells of Cyrus in French (wch is) original, (the English being a translation and the Right given to another) provided the profits be turned to the benefit of St. Mary Hall. Inquirie more of this. Mr. Joye was one of the witnesses to the deed of gift.

 

Chambers (Biographical Dictionary of Eminent Scotsmen, 1835, vol. iv, p. 137) is under a mistake in stating that the degree was conferred upon him by Dr. King, principal of St. Mary's Hall. Dr. King not being Vice‑Chancellor, could not have conferred the degree, though he might have been instrumental in procuring it for him. The only record of members of St. Mary's Hall is the buttery‑book and Ramsay's name first appears there as charged for battels on the same date but, although his name is kept on the books for some years afterwards, he is never again charged, so that it is to be presumed he never went into residence. Curiously enough the usual entry of his admission to the Hall cannot be found, while another peculiarity is, that he is always described in the buttery‑book as " Chevalier Ramsay, LL.D.," probably in error, this being the Cambridge degree, whereas the Oxford degree was D.C.L. Evidently this man, taking such a prominent position in London life, could not have been a notorious Jacobite intriguant.

 

Ramsay's work, the Travels of Cyrus, had been published in Paris in 1727 and immediately attained world‑wide popularity, although the author was denounced by the critics as a " deistical, freethinking, socinian, latitudinarian, despiser of external ordinances." The work was widely translated and editions published at London, Glasgow, Breslau, Lisbon, Madrid, Naples and Leyden ; the last British edition being published at London in 1816. It had, as an appendix, A Discourse upon the Theology and Mythology of the Pagans, the design of which was to show that " the most celebrated philosophers of all ages and of all countries have had the notion of a Supreme Deity, who produced the world by his power and governed it by his wisdom." That Ramsay was no Freethinker is proved by the opening lines of his poem on " Divine Friendship " O sovereign beauty, boundless source of love, From Thee I'm sprung, to Thee again I move 1 Like some small gleam of light, some feeble ray That lost itself by wandering from the day.

 

Or some eclips'd, some faint and struggling beam That fain would wrestle back from whence it came. So I, poor banished I, oft strive to flee Through the dark maze of nothing up to Thee 1 8 INTRODUCTION OF FREEMASONRY ABROAD‑THE RISE OF When Ramsay returned to France, he accepted the post of tutor to the Vicomte de Turenne, son of the Duc de Bouillon. He became actively associated with Freemasonry and it is claimed that he instituted new Degrees, the funds of which were devoted to the assistance of the exiled Stuarts. In 1737 he was Chancellor or Orator of the Grand Lodge of France, during the Grand Mastership of Lord Harnouster, when he delivered an oration, which has made his name famous in the annals of the Craft. This was published afterwards as the Relation apologique du FrancMafonnerie which, Kloss says, was the first thorough and circumstantial defence of the Craft. It was publicly burned at Rome by command of the Pope, on the ground that it was a work which tended to weaken the loyalty of the people. The incident is referred to in the Gentleman's Magazine for 173 8, in the following words There was lately burnt at Rome, with great solemnity, by order of the Inquisition, a piece in French, written by the Chevalier Ramsay, author of the Travels of Cyrus, entitled An Apologetical and Historical Relation of the Secrets of Freemasonry, printed at Dublin, by Patric Odonoko. This was published at Paris in answer to a pretended catechism, printed there by order of the Lieutenant of Police.

 

That Ramsay was a Freemason and Grand Chancellor of the Paris Grand Lodge is known from his conversations with Geusau, but he never stated when and where he was initiated. Inasmuch as he was in Flanders in 1709 and did not return to England till 172.5 at the earliest, he could scarcely at that time have been a member of the Craft, unless " entered " at Kilwinning previous to the era of Grand Lodges. Lyon (History of the Lodge of Edinburgh, p. 308), however, vouches for the fact that he was not a member of Kilwinning. It would appear probable that he was initiated in London circa 1728‑c9. Among his fellow members of the Gentlemen's Society of Spalding, were no fewer than seven very prominent Freemasons and among his brother Fellows of the Royal Society, from '1730 to 1736 (the probable limit of his stay in England), were Martin Folkes, Rawlinson, Desaguliers, Lord Paisley, Stukeley, the Duke of Montagu, Richard Manningham, the Earl of Dalkeith, Lord Coleraine, the Duke of Lorraine (afterwards Emperor of Germany), the Earls Strathmore, Crawford and Aberdour, Martin Clare and Francis Drake. In such a company of distinguished Freemasons, it can scarcely be doubted that Ramsay soon became a prey to the fashion of the hour and solicited admission to the Fraternity, also that the Lodge to which he is most likely to have applied was that of the " Old Horn," of which Desaguliers and Richard Manningham were members. This supposition cannot be verified, because that Lodge (unlike some of the rest) has preserved no list of its members for 1730. If he left the Continent circa 1726, he could scarcely have been initiated there, except perhaps by individual Brethren, in an irregular manner, because the first Lodge heard of‑out of Britain‑was held at Paris in '1725. The facts, however, are by no means as clear as might be desired.

 

The Almanac, des Cocus was published in Paris from 1741‑3. Pinkerton states it was a vile and obscene publication. If so, it merely reflected the lascivious ADDITIONAL RITES‑THE CHEVALIER RAMSAY 9 tendencies of the age and country and there is no reason on that account to declare that Ramsay could be the author of no part of its contents. It naturally treated the subjects of the day and,might have published his Oration without previously consulting the writer. In the edition for 1741 appeared " Discourse pronounced the new articles Of 1738, with various introductions by the author. He claims to at the reception of Freemasons by Monsieur de R‑, Grand Orator of the Order." The next publication of the same Oration was in 174z by De la Tierce (Histoire, Obligations etStatuts delatr. ven. ConfraternWdesF.M., etc., 1742, 1745), who describes himself as a former member of the Duke of Lorraine's Lodge, London, whose book is in substance a translation of the Constitutions of 17zI, supplemented by i have produced facts omitted by Anderson ; indeed gives a very detailed account of the Grand Masters, from Noah onwards, reserving a disti‑n‑gui‑s‑he‑d‑place to Mistaim. The introduction preceding the " Obligations of a Freemason " consists of " the following discourse pronounced by the Grand Master of the Freemasons of France, in the Grand Lodge, assembled solemnly at Paris, in the year of Freemasonry, five thousand seven hundred and forty." It reappeared in other publicapublica tions, London, 1757 and 1795 (in French) ; the Hague, 1773 (also French); in the appendix to the second (1743) and third (176z) editions of the first translation into German of Anderson's Constitutions (Frankfort, 1741) ; and elsewhere. It will be observed that the Almanac, attributes,the speech to a Mr. R. and gives no date; Tierce, to the Grand Master in 1740; whilst, according to Kloss (Gescbicbte, etc., op. cit., vol. i, p. 44), the German translations merely state that the Grand Orator delivered it. That the speech was Ramsay's is known from his confession to Geusau and the only remaining matter of doubt is the exact date of its delivery. Jouast (Histoire du Grand Orient de France, Paris, 1865, p. 63) maintains that it was delivered on June 24, 1738, on the occasion of the installation of the Duc D'Antin as Grand Master, referring to the Duke some expressions therein which probably applied to Cardinal Fleury ; states that the speech was first printed at the Hague in 1738, bound up with some poems attributed to Voltaire and some licentious tales of Piron. If such a work really existed at that date, it was probably the original of the Lettre pbilosopbique par M. de V‑, avec plusieurs pieces galantes, London, 175 7 and, again, in 1795 ; but Kloss, in his Bibliograpbie, knows nothing of it.

 

Thory dates the appearance of Ramsay as Orator, December 24, 1736 (Acta Latomorum, Paris, 1815, vol. i, p. 3z). But J. Emile Daruty would appear to have settled the matter almost beyond doubt, by the discovery, in a very rare work (P. E. Lemontey, Histoire de la Regence et de la Minorite de Louis XV, jusq'au Ministere du Cardinal de Fleury, Paris, vol. vii, pp. z9z et seq.) of the two following letters (Recbercbes sur le rite Ecossais, etc., Mauritius and Paris, 1879, pp. z87, 288), addressed by Ramsay to Cardinal Fleury, the all‑powerful prime minister of France.

 

March zo, 1737.

 

Deign, Monseigneur, to support the Society of Freemasons [Ramsay used the English spelling] in the large views which they entertain and your Excellency will render your name more illustrious by this protection than Richelieu did his by 1o INTRODUCTION OF FREEMASONRY ABROAD‑THE RISE OF founding the French Academy. The object of the one is much vaster than that of the other. To encourage a society which tends only to reunite all nations by a love of truth and of the fine arts, is an action worthy of a great minister, of a Father of the Church and of a holy Pontiff.

 

As I am to read my discourse to‑morrow in a general assembly of the Order and to hand it on Monday to the examiners of the Chancellerie [the censors of the Press‑prior to publication], I pray your Excellency to return it to me to‑morrow before mid‑day by express messenger. You will infinitely oblige a man whose heart is devoted to you.

 

March zz, 1737 I learn that the assemblies of Freemasons displease your Excellency. I have never frequented them except with a view of spreading maxims which would render by degrees incredulity ridiculous, vice odious and ignorance shameful. I am persuaded that if wise men of your Excellency's choice were introduced to head these assemblies, they would become very useful to religion, the state and literature. Of this I hope to convince your Excellency if you will accord me a short interview at Issy. Awaiting that happy moment, I pray you to inform me whether I should return to these assemblies and I will conform to your Excellency's wishes with a boundless docility.

 

Cardinal Fleury wrote on the margin of this letter in pencil, Le roi ne le vent pas. This probably explains Ramsay's meteor‑like appearance in Masonic annals; for the only sign we have of his activity in Lodge is connected with this speech. Thory's assertions that he promulgated a new Rite was made sixty years afterwards without a shadow of proof. His speech may possibly have given rise to new Degrees, but what grounds are there for ascribing their invention and propagation to him ? But precisely because Ramsay is only known by this one speech, does it appear probable, that in the above letters he is alluding to this one and no other ; if so, it was beyond doubt delivered on March s.i, 1737.

 

The speech itself‑in its entirety‑is unknown in an English garb and, as the various versions differ slightly, the translation chosen is that of De la Tierce, which is generally accepted as the most correct.

 

RAmsAY's ORATION The noble ardour which you, gentlemen, evince to enter into the most noble and very illustrious Order of Freemasons, is a certain proof that you already possess all the qualities necessary to become members, that is, humanity, pure morals, inviolable secrecy and a taste for the fine arts.

 

Lycurgus, Solon, Numa and all political legislators have failed to make their institutions lasting. However wise their laws may have been, they have not been able to spread through all countries and ages. As they only kept in view victories and conquests, military violence and the elevation of one people at the expense of another, they have not had the power to become universal, nor to make themselves acceptable to the taste, spirit and interest of all nations. Philanthropy was not their basis. Patriotism badly understood and pushed to excess, often destroyed in these warrior republics love and humanity in general. Mankind is not essentially ADDITIONAL RITES‑THE CHEVALIER RAMSAY II distinguished by the tongues spoken, the clothes worn, the lands occupied or the dignities with which it is invested. The world is nothing but a huge republic, of which every nation is a family, every individual a child. Our Society was at the outset established to revive and spread these essential maxims borrowed from the nature of man. We desire to reunite all men of enlightened minds, gentle manners and agreeable wit, not only by a love for the fine arts but, much more, by the grand principles of virtue, science and religion, where the interests of the Fraternity shall become those of the whole human race, whence all nations shall be enabled to draw useful knowledge and where the subjects of all kingdoms shall learn to cherish one another without renouncing their own country. Our ancestors, the Crusaders, gathered together from all parts of Christendom in the Holy Land, desired thus to reunite into one sole Fraternity the individuals of all nations. What obligations do we not owe to these superior men who, without gross selfish interests, without even listening to the inborn tendency to dominate, imagined such an institution, the sole aim of which is to unite minds and hearts in order to make them better, to form in the course of ages a spiritual empire where, without derogating from the various duties which different States exact, a new people shall be created, which, composed of many nations, shall in some sort cement them all into one by the tie of virtue and science.

 

The second requisite of our Society is sound morals. The religious orders were established to make perfect Christians, military orders to inspire a love of true glory and the Order of Freemasons to make men lovable men, good citizens, good subjects, inviolable in their promises, faithful adorers of the God of Love, lovers rather of virtue than of reward.

 

Polliciti servare fidem, sanctumque vereri Numen amicitir?, mores, non munera amare.

 

Nevertheless, we do not confine ourselves to purely civic virtues. We have amongst us three kinds of brothers : Novices or Apprentices, Fellows or Professed Brothers, Masters or Perfected Brothers. To the first are explained the moral virtues ; to the second the heroic virtues ; to the last the Christian virtues ; so that our Institution embraces the whole philosophy of sentiment and the complete theology of the heart. This is why one of our Brothers has said Freemason, illustrious Grand Master, Receive my first transports, In my heart the Order has given them birth, Happy I, if noble efforts Cause me to merit your esteem By elevating me to the sublime, The primeval Truth, To the Essence pure and divine, The celestial Origin of the soul, The Source of life and love.

 

Because a sad, savage and misanthropic philosophy disgusts virtuous men, our ancestors, the Crusaders, wished to render it lovable by the attractions of innocent pleasures, agreeable music, pure joy and moderate gaiety. Our festivals are not what the profane world and the ignorant vulgar imagine. All the vices of heart and soul are banished there and irreligion, libertinage, incredulity and debauch I2 INTRODUCTION OF FREEMASONRY ABROAD‑THE RISE OF are proscribed. Our banquets resemble those virtuous symposia of Horace, where the conversation only touched what could enlighten the soul, discipline the heart and inspire a taste for the true, the good and the beautiful.

 

O noctes ccznaque Deum . . .

 

Sermo oritur, non de regnis domibusve alienis . .red quad magis ad nos Pertinet, et nescire malum est, agitamus ; utrumne Divitiis homines, an lint virtute beati ; Quidve ad amicitias usus rectumve trahat nos, Et qua sit natura boni, summumque quid ius.

 

Thus the obligations imposed upon you by the Order, are to protect your Brothers by your authority, to enlighten them by your knowledge, to edify them by your virtues, to succour them in their necessities, to sacrifice all personal resentment, to strive after all that may contribute to the peace and unity of society.

 

We have secrets ; they are figurative signs and sacred words, composing a language sometimes mute, sometimes very eloquent, in order to communicate with one another at the greatest distance, to recognize our Brothers of whatsoever tongue. These were words of war which the Crusaders gave each other in order to guarantee them from the surprises of the Saracens, who often crept in amongst them to kill them. These signs and words recall the remembrance either of some part of our science, of some moral virtue or of some mystery of the faith. That has happened to us which never befell any former Society. Our Lodges have been established, are spread in all civilized nations and, nevertheless, among this numerous multitude of men never has a Brother betrayed our secrets. Those natures most trivial, most indiscreet, least schooled to silence, learn this great art on entering our Society. Such is the power over all natures of the idea of a fraternal bond 1 This inviolable secret contributes powerfully to unite the subjects of all nations, to render the communication of benefits easy and mutual between us. We have many examples in the annals of our Order. Our Brothers, travelling in divers lands, have only needed to make themselves known in our Lodges in order to be there immediately overwhelmed by all kinds of succour, even in time of the most bloody wars, while illustrious prisoners have found Brothers where they only expected to meet enemies.

 

Should any fail in the solemn promises which bind us, you know, gentlemen, that the penalties which we impose upon him are remorse of conscience, shame at his perfidy and exclusion from our Society, according to those beautiful lines of Horace Est et fideli tuta silencio Merces ; vetabo qui Cereris sacrum Vulgarit arcanum, sub iisdem Sit trabibus, fragilemque mecum Salvat phaselum.. . .

 

Yes, sirs, the famous festivals of Ceres at Eleusis, of Isis in Egypt, of Minerva at Athens, of Urania amongst the Phcenicians, of Diana in Scythia were connected with ours. In those places mysteries were celebrated which concealed many vestiges of the ancient religion of Noah and the Patriarchs. They concluded with banquets and libations when neither that intemperance nor excess were known into which the heathen gradually fell. The source of these infamies was the admission ADDITIONAL RITES‑THE CHEVALIER RAMSAY 13 to the nocturnal assemblies of persons of both sexes in contravention of the primitive usages. It is in order to prevent similar abuses that women are excluded from our Order. We are not so unjust as to regard the fair sex as incapable of keeping a secret. But their presence might insensibly corrupt the purity of our maxims and manners.

 

The fourth quality required in our Order is the taste for useful sciences and the liberal arts. Thus, the Order exacts of each of you to contribute, by his protection, liberality or labour, to a vast work for which no academy can suffice, because all these societies being composed of a very small number of men, their work cannot embrace an object so extended. All the Grand Masters in Germany, England, Italy and elsewhere, exhort all the learned men and all the artisans of the Fraternity to unite to furnish the materials for a Universal Dictionary of the liberal arts and useful sciences, excepting only theology and politics. [This proposed Dictionary is a curious crux‑it is possible that the Royal Society may have formed some such idea ? But at least Ramsay's express exclusion of theology and politics should have shielded him from the accusation of wishing to employ Freemasonry for Jesuitical and Jacobite purposes. With the exception of the constant harping on the Crusades, there is so far nothing in the speech of which to complain.] The work has already been commenced in London and, by means of the union of our Brothers, it may be carried to a conclusion in a few years. Not only are technical words and their etymology explained, but the history of each art and science, its principles and operations, are described. By this means the lights of all nations will be united in one single work, which will be a universal library of all that is beautiful, great, luminous, solid and useful in all the sciences and in all noble arts. This work will augment in each century, according to the increase of knowledge, it will spread everywhere emulation and the taste for things of beauty and utility.

 

The word Freemason must therefore not be taken in a literal, gross and material sense, as if our founders had been simple workers in stone, or merely curious geniuses who wished to perfect the arts. They were not only skilful architects, desirous of consecrating their talents and goods to the construction of material temples ; but also religious and warrior princes who designed to enlighten, edify and protect the living Temples of the Most High. This I will demonstrate by developing the history or rather the renewal of the Order.

 

Every family, every Republic, every Empire, of which the origin is lost in obscure antiquity, has its fable and its truth, its legend and its history. Some ascribe our institution to Solomon, some to Moses, some to Abraham, some to Noah, some to Enoch, who built the first city, or even to Adam. Without any pretence of denying these origins, I pass on to matters less ancient. This, then, is a part of what I have gathered in the annals of Great Britain, in the Acts of Parliament, which speak often of our privileges and in the living traditions of the English people, which has been the centre of our Society since the eleventh century.

 

At the time of the Crusades in Palestine many princes, lords and citizens associated themselves and vowed to restore the Temple of the Christians in the Holy Land, to employ themselves in bringing back their architecture to its first institution. They agreed upon several ancient signs and symbolic words drawn from the well of religion in order to recognize themselves amongst the heathen and Saracens. These signs and words were only communicated to those who 14 INTRODUCTION OF FREEMASONRY ABROAD‑THE RISE OF promised solemnly, even sometimes at the foot of the altar, never to reveal them. This sacred promise was therefore not an execrable oath, as it has been called, but a respectable bond to unite Christians of all nationalities in one confraternity. Some time afterwards our Order formed an intimate union with the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem. From that time our Lodges took the name of Lodges of St. John. This union was made after the example set by the Israelites when they erected the second Temple who, whilst they handled the trowel and mortar with one hand, in the other held the sword and buckler. [This idea forms the groundwork of all subsequent Scots grades : Knightly Scotch Masons who, in the old Temple, rediscovered the Sacred Name, the trowel in one hand, the sword in the other. Ramsay's allusion, it will be observed, is not to any existing Degree of his day, but an innocent allegory in illustration of his thesis.] Our Order, therefore, must not be considered a revival of the Bacchanals, but as an Order founded in remote antiquity, renewed in the Holy Land by our ancestors in order to recall the memory of the most sublime truths amidst the pleasures of society. The kings, princes and lords returned from Palestine to their own lands and there established divers Lodges. At the time of the last Crusades many Lodges were already erected in Germany, Italy, Spain, France and, from thence, in Scotland, because of the close alliance between the French and the Scotch. James, Lord Steward of Scotland, was Grand Master of a Lodge established at Kilwinning, in the West of Scotland, MCCLXXXVI [this passage has been seized upon by the inventors of Scots rites, all pretending to hail from Heredom Kilwinning, asserting the superiority in point of antiquity and pure tenets of the Grand Lodge held therewhich body, it is almost unnecessary to say, never existed], shortly after the death of Alexander III, King of Scotland, and one year before John Baliol mounted the throne. This lord received as Freemasons into his Lodge the Earls of Gloucester and Ulster, the one English, the other Irish.

 

By degrees our Lodges and our Rites were neglected in most places. This is why of so many historians only those of Great Britain speak of our Order. Nevertheless it preserved its splendour among those Scotsmen of whom the Kings of France confided during many centuries the safeguard of their royal persons.

 

After the deplorable mishaps in the Crusades, the perishing of the Christian armies and the triumph of Bendocdar, Sultan of Egypt, during the eighth and last Crusade, that great Prince Edward, son of Henry III, King of England, seeing there was no longer any safety for his Brethren in the Holy Land, whence the Christian troops were retiring, brought them all back and this colony of Brothers was established in England. As this prince was endowed with all heroic qualities, he loved the fine arts, declared himself protector of our Order, conceded to it new privileges and then the members of this Fraternity took the name of Freemasons after the example set by their ancestors.

 

Since that time Great Britain became the seat of our Order, the conservator of our laws and the depository of our secrets. The fatal religious discords which embarrassed and tore Europe in the sixteenth century caused our Order to degenerate from the nobility of its origin. Many of our Rites and usages which were contrary to the prejudices of the times were changed, disguised, suppressed. Thus it was that many of our Brothers forgot, like the ancient Jews, the spirit of our laws and retained only the letter and shell. The beginnings of a remedy have already been made. It is necessary only to continue and, at last, to bring everything back to ADDITIONAL RITES‑THE CHEVALIER RAMSAY 15 its original institution. This work cannot be difficult in a State where religion and the Government can only be favourable to our laws.

 

From the British Isles the Royal Art is now repassing into France, under the reign of the most amiable of Kings, whose humanity animates all his virtues and under the ministry of a Mentor [evidently Cardinal Fleury], who has realized all that could be imagined most fabulous. In this happy age when love of peace has become the virtue of heroes, this nation [France] one of the most spiritual of Europe, will become the centre of the Order. She will clothe our work, our statutes, our customs with grace, delicacy and good taste, essential qualities of the Order, of which the basis is the wisdom, strength and beauty of genius. It is in future in our Lodges, as it were in public schools, that Frenchmen shall learn, without travelling, the characters of all nations and that strangers shall experience that France is the home of all peoples. Patria gentis human&,.

 

Now to what does this speech amount? a mere embellishment of Anderson! Builders and princes had united in Palestine for a humane purpose; the Society had been introduced into Europe, especially Scotland ; had perished and been reintro duced into England by Prince Edward. From that time they had continued a privileged class of builders‑Ramsay no longer claims for them knightly attributes ‑and had lost their moral tenets during the Reformation, becoming mere operative artisans ; they had lately recovered or revived their old doctrines ; and France was destined to be the centre of the reformed Fraternity. The introduction of the legend of the Crusades may be taken to be a natural consequence of Ramsay's position in life, of the high nobility and gentry he was addressing, to whom the purely mechanical ancestry may have wanted toning down. But surely the Oration is not such a very heinous one ? More dangerous and absurd speeches are still made in the Craft. That inventive minds, for their own purposes, may have seized upon and falsely interpreted certain passages, is no fault of Ramsay. It was looked upon with approbation by his contemporaries; it is simply impossible to find in it any indication of a desire to pervert Masonic ceremonies. One or two points may be further inquired into. The cause of the allusion to Kilwinning may simply be that Ramsay was from Ayr and, probably, as an antiquary acquainted with its very ancient history, brought in the Lodge merely as an ornament. His choice of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem may easily be accounted for. It was not the St. John of Malta, nor was he ever known to allude to the Templars. The fact is, he was himself a Knight of St. John of Jerusalem and thus paid a tribute to his own Order. In 1714‑19 Helyot's great work on the spiritual and temporal orders was published at Paris (Hilt. des Ordres Monastiques, Religieux et Militaires). The third volume contains the history of the Order of St. Lazarus, of which Ramsay was a knight. Who can doubt that he read it ? This states that in the fourth century an Order of St. Lazarus was established in Palestine and erected everywhere hospitals for lepers, which were called Lazarettes. Later on the Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem were established. The two associations united and worked under the same master, called the Master of the Hospital. When the Order of St. John added the vow of celibacy, these two separated. One retook the name of St.

 

16 INTRODUCTION OF FREEMASONRY ABROAD‑THE RISE OF Lazarus, the other changed theirs to St. John the Baptist. At the time that the Hospitallers were in the service of the King of Jerusalem, they consisted of three Orders‑knights to fight, servitors to nurse and clerics or chaplains. King Henry of England increased considerably their income, but France did most for the Order and it ultimately took refuge in that country. The Grand Master of that day was styled Grand Master of the Holy Order of Lazarus cis et translvare. In 1354 the Grand Master empowered John Halliday, a Scot, to rule over the temporal and spiritual affairs of the Order in Great Britain. In some sort, then, Ramsay was a descendant of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, which, however, as such, was extinct and thus may be understood the very natural selection made of that Order on which to found his romance.

 

Following the Oration we have a copy of Statutes in usage [at that time] in France. These are a paraphrase, more or less, of Anderson's Old Regulations. One in particular must be quoted, because they are all attributed to Ramsay‑though without rhyme or reason‑and because this especial one has been used to prove that he intended to employ Freemasonry for the propagation of the Roman Catholic religion.

 

Every incredulous brawler who shall have spoken or written against the holy dogmas of the ancient faith of the Crusaders shall be for ever excluded from the Order; etc., etc.

 

But who would think that this was meant to exclude Protestants ? The ancient faith of the Crusaders was Christianity. At a time when the Protestants were not thought of, no distinction could possibly be made between them and the then Universal Church. It would be absurd to call the Crusaders Roman Catholics in contradistinction to Protestants. The article simply means that Masons must be Christians ; must be of the Catholic Church: whether Roman, Anglican, Greek or any other variety, was not even thought of. Therefore, even should these articles owe their inspiration to Ramsay‑owing to want of evidence‑they are quite powerless to strengthen the odious calumny under which he has so long lain.

 

One other matter must be referred to, although of no great importance. In 1736, the Lieutenant‑General of Police in Paris, Herault, is said to have obtained, through an opera dancer, Madame Carton, a Masonic examination, mainly a trans ation of Pritchard's Masonry Dissected, which he caused to be published as an exposure of Freemasonry. In reply to this appeared Relation apologique et historique de la Socidtd des F.M., par J. G. D. M. F. M., Dublin, Chez Patrice Odonoko, 1738, 8░‑2nd edition, in London, 1749. It was burned at Rome, as mentioned already, by, the Public Executioner, on February 1, 17 Many ingenious attempts have been made to prove the truth of this statement and to show the community of style and ideas between Ramsay's Oration and the Relation. As long as there was reason to suppose that the Oration was delivered in 1740, it was difficult to decide why Ramsay should have been selected to father this production and the very audacity of the assertion carried conviction with it. It could only be assumed that the ADDITIONAL RITES‑THE CHEVALIER RAMSAY 17 correspondent of the Gentleman's Magazine was possessed of certain private information. But if the Oration was delivered in 1737, it is easy to conceive that the Relation might well have been attributed to the same hand in 1738. A mere guess at the hidden authorship. This fact tends to corroborate the Oration's date of 1737, for it may safely be affirmed that Ramsay did not write the Relation. Its style is far less pure than his, the orthography is totally distinct. Ramsay doubles all his consonants in such words as apprendre, combattre, dffcile ; the author of the Relation writes aprendre, combatre, dificile, etc. The initials of the author, J. G. D. M. F. M., might perhaps be read as J. G., Dr. Med., Free Mason.

 

A word must, however, be said as to the case for the plaintiff.

 

Dr. George Oliver paid the Chevalier a high tribute for inventive genius, when he said If I had not found certain unmistakeable inventions of a Master's part at an earlier date than the period when the Chevalier Ramsay flourished, I should have assigned the invention of this legend to him, as he was possibly the fabricator of the Degrees called Ineffable, which exemplify and complete the allegory of Hiram Abiff and, if judiciously managed, might, together, have formed a pleasing fiction.

 

Prince Charles Edward Stuart is said to have established the Rite de la VielleBrethren at Toulouse, which he denominated 1~cossais Fideles, in honour of the kind reception his aide‑de‑camp, Sir Samuel Lockhart, had received from the Free masons in Scotland. The Degrees of Ramsay were blended in this Rite. Ramsay issued a manifesto to the town of Arras, giving to the Lodge there the power to confer his Degree of the Eagle and Pelican. This thus formed the first authorized Chapter for the working of the higher grades.

 

There were nine Degrees in Ramsay's system, the first four of which comprehended Symbolical Masonry and formed the first Chapter. The second Chapter was composed of four further Degrees and comprehended what was called the Masonry of the Crusaders. The third Chapter was formed of those who had been admitted to the ninth or last Degree or into the secrets of Scientific Masonry. The three Chapters were united into a Consistory.

 

It would appear indisputable that Freemasonry was used as a tie to cement the adherents of James more closely to each other, notwithstanding the Papal denunciations of the Craft. Ladislas de Malezovich, in his Sketch of the Earlier History of Masonry in Austria and Hungary (A.Q.C., vol. v) claims that Ramsay must be regarded as the father of the Higher Degrees, for, in his famous oration, he first connected ‑without historical foundation‑Masonry with the Crusades and the great historical orders of knighthood. He asserts that Ramsay established three Degrees, viz. Ecossais, Novice and Knight Templar and that out of this system sprang up, with a number of others, the so‑called Rite de Clermont, which was founded at Paris, in 1754, by the Chevalier de Bonneville, although some claim that this was of Jesuit origin and that the Jesuits introduced several new Degrees, founded on Ramsay's system, which they used for the extension of their order. Ramsay, he says, added four other Degrees, making seven in all, viz. Maitre Ecossais, Maitre Elu or F. Iv‑2 18 INTRODUCTION OF FREEMASONRY ABROAD‑THE RISE OF Chevalier de 1'Aigle, Chevalier illustre de Templier, also called Knight of the Most Holy Sepulchre; and Chevalier Sublime or Knight of God.

 

Baron Hunde, then a Protestant (though he afterwards became a Roman Catholic at the importunity of his wife), contrived to obtain admission to the Order. The lessons he learned there formed the nucleus in his mind for a new system of the Degrees, seven in all, which he introduced into Germany, under the imposing title of Templeorden or Orden des Stricten Observantz.

 

Oliver, in his Historical Landmarks, asserts that Ramsay changed the names of the Degrees from Irlandais to Ecossais, as he was a Scot by birth and made use of the existing machinery for the purpose of excluding all Masons who were not pre pared for partisanship. In inventing the new Degrees, Ramsay claimed that they dated their origin from the Crusades and that Godfrey de Bouillon was the Grand Master. He began, says Oliver, like all other innovators, by exacting the most inviolable secrecy from his novices. He told them that silence and secrecy are the very soul of the Order and you will carefully observe this silence, as well with those whom you may have reason to suppose are already initiated as with those whom you may hereafter know really belong to the Order. You will never reveal to any person, at present or hereafter, the slightest circumstances relative to your admission, the Degree you have received; nor the time when admitted. In a word, you will never speak of any object relating to the Order, even before Brethren, without the strongest necessity.

 

Oliver also asserts that, stimulated by the success which attended the promulgation of his manufactured Degrees in France, Ramsay brought his system of pretended Scottish Freemasonry into England, with the intention, it is supposed, of extending it indefinitely, if he found it acceptable to the English Fraternity, being commissioned by the Pretender, as an agent, to convert his interest with the Freemasons to the advantage of his employer. The attempt, however, failed and the overtures of Ramsay were unceremoniously rejected.

 

Ramsay, continues Oliver, returned to Paris, where he was received with enthusiasm and his system became the root and stem of so many additional Degrees of Scottish Masonry (so called) that their number cannot accurately be ascertained.

 

According to Burnes's History of the Knights Templar, Ramsay appeared in Germany under the sanction of a patent with the sign‑manual of Edward Stuart appointing him Grand Master of the seventh province; but, although he had invented a plausible tale in support of his title and authority‑both of which he affirmed had been made over to him bythe Earl Marischal on his death‑bed‑and of the antiquity of his Order, which he derived, of course, from Scotland, where the chief seat of the Templars was at Aberdeen, the imposture was soon detected; it was even discovered that he had himself enticed and initiated the ill‑fated Pretender into his fabulous order of chivalry. The delusions on this subject, however, had taken such a hold in Germany that they were not altogether dispelled until a deputation had actually visited and found, among the worthy and astonished Brethren there, no trace, either of very ancient Templars or Freemasonry.

 

ADDITIONAL RITES‑THE CHEVALIER RAMSAY 19 But if Ramsay stands acquitted of wilfully perverting Freemasonry, can he be brought in guilty of unintentionally being the cause of the numerous inventions ,which so soon followed his discourse ? Given a nation such as we know the French to be, volatile, imaginative, decidedly not conservative in their instincts, suddenly introduced to mysterious ceremonies unconnected with their past history ‑given a ritual which appeals in no way to their peculiar love of glory and distinction‑which fails to harmonize with their bent of mind‑it was almost inevitable that some " improvements " should have been attempted. Add to this a certain number of more or less clever men, ambitious to rise at once to an elevated position in the Craft, perhaps to replenish their purses by the sale of their own inventions. All these elements existed, as events have proved and thus France was ready for the crop of high grades which so soon sprang up. Finding in Ramsay's speech indications which they could twist to their own purpose, they cleverly made use of them as a sort of guarantee of the genuineness of their goods. But they soon went far beyond any allusions contained in the Oration, for not a word can there be found pointing to the various degrees of vengeance, Elus, Kadosch, etc., or to the Templars. Although this speech did not suggest additional Degrees, it is probable that it aided intending inventors in their previously conceived designs. The distinction is a fine one and not worth arguing. It will suffice to have proved that Ramsay did write the speech, that his intentions were quite compatible with the most absolute innocence, that he was neither a Stuart intriguer nor a Jesuit missionary in disguise. As already remarked, he immediately disappeared from the Masonic stage, although he lived for seven years afterwards. His name had not previously been mentioned in connexion with Freemasonry, therefore, if any persons assert that he was the concocter of a new rite of seven Degrees, the onus of proving anything so wildly improbable rests entirely upon themselves.

 

Ramsay's great and final secret was that " every Mason is a Knight Templar." His monumental work was published posthumously at Glasgow in 1749 and was entitled The Philosophical Principles of Natural and Revealed Religion. It created con siderable stir in Roman Catholic circles, as the author enunciated views at variance with the doctrines of that Church. It was highly praised by Jonathan Edwards and Dr. A. V. G. Allen, in his Biography of that Calvinistic divine, describes the book as one of the most remarkable works of the eighteenth century.

 

Always a great linguist, Ramsay, towards .the end of his life, studied Chinese and became able to read that difficult language. His intimate friends were few in number, his chief confidant in Edinburgh being Dr. John Stevenson. He was also acquainted with Dean Swift and on friendly terms with J. B. Rousseau and Racine. Ramsay passed away on May 6, 1743, at St. Germain‑en‑Laye, where he was buried and, at his own request, on his tomb was engraved Universitv Religionis vindex et Martyr. His heart was removed from his body and transferred to the nunnery of St. Sacrament at Paris. He was survived by his wife, who was a daughter of Sir David Nairn.

 

CHAPTER H FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE A NATIVE historian of French Freemasonry would, naturally, turn first of all to the archives of the Grand Orient of France. These have been utilized to their full extent, but unfortunately they contain little to aid research before the commencement of the nineteenth century.

 

The Grand Librarian thus describes them in an official report (Rebold, Histoire des trois Grandes Loges, p. 173) The library consists only of some few profane [i.e. non‑Masonic] volumes, about forty volumes in German, some English works and a bundle of pamphlets. The minutes of the Grand Orient from 1789 onwards are in a tolerably satisfactory state. In a portfolio are to be found the minutes of the Grande Loge de Conseil from 1773 to 1778 ; those from 1788‑18oo are very incomplete. There is no collection of its circulars to subordinate Lodges and it would be impossible to form a complete series of printed calendars. The earliest is that of 1807 and numerous intervals occur in subsequent times.

 

Kloss (Geschichte der Freimaurerei in Frankreich, vol i, p. 193) adds that no complete list of French Lodges is anywhere in existence of a date preceding the end of the last century.

 

French Freemasonry is supposed to date from about the year 1721 and, as no Minutes whatever, relating to any earlier period than 1773, are to be found, it is obvious that, failing contemporaneous writings, the history of its first half century must be open to much doubt. The first comprehensive account of the French Craft appeared in 1773 as a five‑page article, s.v. " Franche‑Macgonnerie," by De Lalande, in the Encyclopedie Yverdon. Joseph Jerome Lefrangais de Lalande, the celebrated astronomer and director of the Paris Observatory, was born July ii, 1732 and died April 4, 1807. He could, therefore, have scarcely been initiated before circa 1750, so that his account of early French Masonry resolves itself into hearsay. He was Master of the famous Lodge of the Nine Sisters (or Muses) at Paris, of which Benjamin Franklin, John Paul Jones, together with the French leaders of the arts and sciences, were members. Subsequent writers have been enabled to make use of some few pamphlets, circulars, or exposures and none had more opportunities in this respect, or availed himself of them to greater advantage, than Kloss. Another historical contribution is that of De‑la‑Chaussee in his Memoire Justifzcatif, a printed defence of his official conduct, which had been impugned by Labady, published in 1772.

 

20 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 2i The first real historian of French Freemasonry was Thory (18 I2‑15, Annales Originis Magni Galliaruna Orientis and Arta Lato)vorum) and his principal successors in chronological order have been Von Nettlebladt (circa 1836,Gescbicbte Freimaurischer Systeme, published 1879), Kloss (1852, op. cit.), Rebold (1864, op. cit.), Jouast (1865, Histoire du Grand Orient de France) and Daruty (1879, Recherches sur le Rite Ecossais). De‑la‑Chaussee's work is a defence of his own particular conduct and, therefore, not always to be trusted implicitly. Thory wrote nearly ninety years after the first beginnings of Freemasonry in France. His early facts are taken from Lalande and, in the total absence of any other authority, every later historian has been more or less obliged to follow him. It may also further be remarked that Thory was an uncompromising partisan of the High Degrees and can be proved to have distorted historical facts and misquoted documents to suit his own views. Nettlebladt was as strong a partisan of Zinnendorff's system and equally guilty of historical perversion. Kloss was painstaking, though sometimes blinded by his hatred of the High Degrees. Rebold suffered under the same defect, combined with a prejudice against the Grand Orient, of which his party became a rival. Jouast, on the contrary, wrote as the avowed advocate of that body and errs in the opposite direction; whilst Daruty, a member of the rival Ancient and Accepted Rite, with a personal grievance against the Grand Orient, is very one‑sided in his views and not sufficiently critical in his acceptance of alleged facts. In these circumstances it will be seen that the history of the first fifty years of French Freemasonry cannot be otherwise than a series of possibilities, probabilities, surmises and traditions ; whereas, in recording that of the following hundred and fifty years one must steer very carefully between contending opinions‑with a leaning towards those of Kloss in doubtful matters.

 

According to De Lalande, or tradition, which, in this case, amounts to much the same thing, the first Lodge in France was founded in Paris by the Earl of Derwentwater in 17 z5 on a Warrant from the Grand Lodge of England. It is true that a Lodge at Dunkirk (Amitie et Fraternite), which affiliated with the Grand Orient in 1756, then claimed to have been constituted from England in 1721 ; that claim was allowed; but, as it certainly never was constituted by the Grand Lodge of England at all, its alleged early origin may be ascribed to the ambition of its members. Anderson, in his Book. of Constitutions, mentions the 1725, but not the 17z1, Lodge. The colleagues of Lord Derwentwater are stated to have been a Chevalier Maskelyne, a Squire Henquelty, with others, all partisans of the Stuarts. The Lodge assembled at the restaurant of an Englishman called Hurre, in the Rue des Boucheries. A second Lodge was established in 1726 by an English lapidary, Goustand. Neither of these names has the sound of being English. A circular of the Grand Orient‑September 4, 1788‑mentions as existing in 1725‑3o five Lodges, Louis d'Argent, Bussy, Aumont, Parfaite Union and Bernouville. Lalande ascribes no name to Derwentwater's Lodge and calls the Louis d'Argent the third Lodge in Paris. Clavel (who was an active Freemason and Master of the Lodge Emeth) makes the Lodge of 1726 the third in Paris, says it was called St. Thomas and was zz FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE identical with the Louis d'Argent. Ragon agrees, but gives the date as 1729. Rebold looks upon these names as those of two distinct Lodges under the dates 1726 and 1729 respectively and thinks the first one identical with Derwentwater's Lodge. Speaking of the latter Lalande says (Daruty, Recherches, etc., p. 84, note 4z) In less than ten years the reputation of this Lodge attracted five to six hundred Brethren within the circle of the Craft and caused other Lodges to be established.

 

Nothing, however, can positively be said of these early Lodges for want of contemporary evidence. If we turn to the English Engraved Lists we find that whatever Lodge (or Lodges) may have existed in Paris in 1725 must have been unchartered, for the first French Lodge on the roll is on the list for 1730‑2, No. go, the King's Head, Paris (see Gould's Four Old Lodges, p. 5o). King's Head is identical with Louis d'Argent‑a silver coin bearing the effigy of King Louis. In 1736‑9, No. go is shown at the Hotel de Bussy, Rue de Bussy and the date of constitution as April 3, 173z. This was known afterwards as Loge d'Aumont, because le Duc d'Aumont was initiated therein. The first two of the five Lodges cited by the Grand Orient in 1788 were, therefore, in reality one and the same. In 1740 it became No. 78 and met at the Ville de Tonnerre, Rue des Boucheriesin 1756 it received the number 49 and was erased in 1768. It would appear probable ‑more cannot be said‑that Derwentwater's Lodge is identical with this Lodge; that it was an informal Lodge and did not petition for a Warrant till ‑173z. Further proof of irregularity is afforded by extracts from the daily papers (reprinted in Masonic Magazine, vol. iv, 1876, p. 419).

 

St. James's Evening Post, September 7, 1734.‑We hear from Paris that a Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons was lately held there at her Grace the Duchesse of Portsmouth's house, where his Grace the Duke of Richmond, assisted by another English nobleman of distinction there, President Montesquieu, Brigadier Churchill, Ed. Yonge and Walter Strickland, Esq., admitted several persons of distinction, into that most Ancient and Honourable Society.

 

St. James's Evening Post, September 20, 173 5.‑They write from Paris that his Grace the Duke of Richmond and the Rev. Dr. Desaguliers .‑. .‑. now authorized by the present Grand Master (under his hand and seal and the seal of the Order), having called a Lodge at the Hotel Bussy in the Rue Bussy, [several] noblemen and gentlemen‑were admitted to the Order. . . .

 

It is noteworthy that this assembly was held in the premises of the only Lodge then warranted in France, but was evidently not a meeting of that Lodge, as it was " called " or convoked by the Duke of Richmond and Dr. Desaguliers. On May 12, 1737‑the same journal informs us‑on the authority of a private letter from Paris, that " five Lodges are already established." Of these one only is known to have been warranted. The second in France was constituted at Valenciennes as No. 127 (Four Old Lodges, p. 52), but dropped off the English roll (as No. 40) in 1813. The third on August 22, 1735, as No. 133, by the Duke of Richmond and FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 23 Aubigny, at his castle of Aubigny (see Anderson's Constitutions, 1738), and was erased in 1768. It is also known that, at that time the English Lodge at Bordeaux (Loge 1'Anglaise, No. zoo) was working, though not yet warranted by the Grand Lodge of England and it seems certain that no other French Lodge received an English Charter until 1766. It is, therefore, clear that of these five Paris Lodges, four were either self‑constituted or derived their authority irregularly from the first, Au Louis d'Argent, No. go.

 

The earliest publication which fixes a date for the introduction of Freemasonry into France is the Sceau Rompu of 1745 (Le Sceau Romp, ou la Loge ouverte aux profanes, par un francmafon, Cosmopolis), twenty‑eight years before Lalande. It states As regards Freemasonry, its introduction may be placed at eighteen years ago [consequently in 1727], but at first it was worked under the deepest secrecy.

 

Lalande says Lord Derwentwater was looked upon as Grand Master of the Masons ; he afterwards went to England and was beheaded. My Lord Harnouester was elected in 1736 by the four [Clavel says six, the St. James's Evening Post mentions five] Lodges which then existed in Paris ; he is the first regularly elected Grand Master. In 173 8 the Duc d'Antin was elected General Grand Master ad vitam for France. . . . In 1742 twenty‑one Lodges existed in Paris.

 

On the other hand, a Frankfort publication (Grundlicbe Nacbricbt) of 1738 declares that nothing was heard of the French Craft before 1736 ; whilst another Frankfort publication of 1744 (Der sicb selbst vertbeidigende Freimaurerei) affirms that at the end of 1736, there were six Lodges in France and more than sixty Masons [one‑tenth of the number cited by Lalande], who at that date [which is usually assigned to Lord Harnouester] elected the Earl of Derwentwater to succeed James Hector Maclean, who had served some years previously. How is it possible to reconcile all these conflicting statements ? Putting aside the above solitary reference to an alleged Grand Master Maclean anterior to Derwentwater, as a question impossible of solution with our present knowledge, it may well be asked how came Derwentwater to be a Mason at all ? Charles Radcliffe was the brother of James Radcliffe, third and last Earl of Derwentwater. They were arrested for rebellion in 1715 and James was beheaded. Charles escaped to France and assumed the title‑which had been forfeited for high treason ‑became concerned in the rebellion of 1745 and was beheaded on Tower Hill December 8, 1746 (Collins, Peerage of England, 1812, vol. ix, p. 407), meeting his fate as became a brave gentleman (General Advertiser, December 9, 1746). Having left England before the revival, where was he initiated ? Not in Paris apparently, because he opened the first Lodge there. Also, why does the St. James's Evening Post, which mentions many men of lesser note in its Masonic news, never say a word about Charles Radcliffe, who was then at the head of the Craft in France ? Moreover, who were the Chevalier Maskelyne and Squire Henquelty, his colleagues ? Their identity cannot be traced. Maskelyne is an English name, that of a Wiltshire 24 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE family, from which Nevil Maskelyne, the distinguished Astronomer‑Royal, born in 1734, was descended, but there is no identification of this Chevalier Maskelyne with that family. The name Henquelty has been spelt in various ways‑Heguetty, Heguetty, Heguelly, etc. Above all, who was Lord Harnouester ? It must be admitted that Frenchmen‑indeed, Continental writers generallyare not renowned for orthographical accuracy. By them Charles Radcliffe is invariably styled " Dervent‑Waters," even M. de St. Simon continually calls the eldest son of John Dalrymple, created Viscount Stair by William III, " Mi‑lord Flairs." The editor of the private reprint of Heutzner, on that writer's tradition respecting " the Kings of Denmark who reigned in England," buried in the Temple Church, metamorphosed the two Inns of Court, Gray's Inn and Lincoln's Inn, into the names of the Danish Kings, Gresin and Lyconin. Erroneous proper names of places occur continually in early writers, particularly French ones. There are some in Froissart that cannot be at all understood. Bassompierre is equally erroneous. Jorchaux is intended by him for York House; and, more wonderful still, Inhimthort proves by the context to be Kensington ! " (Disraeli, Curiosities of Literature, ed. 1859, vol. i, p. 327). But can the utmost ingenuity convert Harnouester into the similitude of any name known to the English peerage ? The only satisfactory hypothesis is that, previously to 1738, there existed in Paris one and, in the Departments, two regularly constituted Lodges, besides several others more or less irregular and that the fashion had, probably, been set in the first instance by refugees at the court of the Pretender and by other English visitors to the capital. Whether these Scottish names were not an afterthought, consequent on the rage for what is termed Scots Masonry which arose in 1740, or whether they really played an important part in the early days of the Craft in France must be left undecided.

 

We first appear to touch really solid ground in 173 8, when the Duc d'Antin, a. peer of France, said to have been initiated by the Duke of Richmond at Aubigny in 1737, was elected Grand Master ad vitarri of French Freemasonry. That, from this moment, French Freemasonry, as such, distinct from the English Lodges. warranted in France, was recognized as existing, may be gathered from Anderson's. Constitutions of 1738 (p. 196).

 

All these foreign Lodges are under the patronage of our Grand Master of England, but the old Lodge at York City and the Lodges of Scotland, Ireland, France and Italy affecting independency, are under their own Grand Masters; though they have the same Constitutions, Charges, Regulations, etc., for substance, with their brethren of England.

 

This also tends incidentally to prove that up to this date French innovations on the rite of Masonry had not made themselves known. There is no authentic record that the Grand Lodge of England or any Grand Master of England ever granted a Warrant, Deputation, Dispensation, or Authority for the establishment of a Provincial Grand Master or Grand Lodge of France. Mackey in his Revised History of Freemasonry (Clegg's edition, p. i z66), says FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 25 It has been very plausibly urged that the granting of such a Deputation to the titular Earl of Derwentwater would have been a political impossibility. He was a convicted disloyalist to the English Government and his execution had only been averted in 1715 by his escape from prison.

 

In opposition to this Rebold (Histoire des trois Grander Loges, p. 44) says Lord Derwentwater, who, in 1725, received from the Grand Lodge at London full power to constitute Lodges in France, was, in 1735, invested by the same Grand Lodge with the functions of Provincial Grand Master. When he quitted France to return to England, where soon after he perished on the scaffold, a victim to his attachment to the Stuarts, he transferred the full power which he possessed to his friend, Lord Harnouester, whom he appointed as the representative during his absence, of his office of Provincial Grand Master.

 

Thory says that Derwentwater was chosen Grand Master by the Brethren at the time of the introduction of Freemasonry into Paris, whilst Lalande (Encyclopedie) says that, as the first Paris Lodge had been opened by Lord Derwentwater, he was regarded as the Grand Master and so continued until his return to England, without any formal recognition on the part of the Brethren.

 

In 1743 d'Antin died and, on December 11, 1743, sixteen Masters of Paris Lodges elected as his successor Prince Louis de Bourbon, Count de Clermont. The country Lodges accepted the nomination. Of the chief fact‑Clermont's election‑there can be no doubt ; the other statements are on the authority of a Grand Orient publication of 1777. Admitting them, we arrive at the probable number of Lodges in Paris and at the conclusion that Grand Lodge consisted only of the Paris Masters and that the Provinces were not represented in the governing body. But, whilst the Grand Orient in 1777 thus lays claim to only sixteen Lodges, Lalande in 1773 had referred to twenty‑one. Perhaps five were not represented ? Meanwhile the new Society had awakened the suspicions of the police under Louis XV who, in 1737, ordered his courtiers, under threat of the Bastille, to abstain from joining it. The meetings of English Masons resident in Paris appear to have been tolerated, but the police sought to prevent Frenchmen from joining. The same year Chapelot‑an innkeeper‑was severely fined for receiving a Lodge on his premises. On December 27, 1738, the Lieutenant‑General of Police, Herault, dispersed an assembly in the Rue des Deux Ecus (Acta Latomorum, vol. i, p. 38) and really did imprison some of the members for a time. His machinations with the opera danseuse Carton in the same year and the consequent issue of the Relation Apologique, are well known. All this did not prevent the Count de Clermont from accepting the Grand Mastership ; nor did his acceptance prevent the police interdicting Masonry once more in 1744 and, in 1745, descending on the Hotel de Soissons, seizing the Lodge furniture and fining the proprietor, Leroy, heavily. This seems to have been the last act of the French authorities against Freemasonry. Findel, quoting Lalande, says that 26 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE at first only the nobles solicited and obtained admittance into the Lodges and, as long as this was the case, Freemasonry remained unmolested; but, when the middle classes began to take an interest in it and the Lodges were gradually formed of less immaculate materials, the expediency of suppressing them altogether began to be debated. Louis XV, urged thereto, it is alleged, by his Father Confessor and his mistress, published an edict in 1737, in which he declared that, as the inviolable secrets of the Masons might cover some dreadful design, he prohibited all his loyal subjects from holding any intercourse with them. All Freemasons belonging to the nobility were forbidden to appear at Court. But, instead of being discouraged by this prohibition, curiosity was only the more awakened. Lodges were assembled in secret and the number of candidates for initiation increased daily. The wealthy Englishmen resident in Paris warmly defended the cause, nor could they easily be intimidated. One of them had the temerity boldly to announce publicly that a Lodge would meet for the purpose of electing a Grand Master.

 

Findel also says that Herault published the Ritual which was found among the confiscated papers.

 

The Bull issued by Pope Clement XII in 1738 was non‑effective in France, it not being published in that country; nor was that issued a few years later by Pope Benedict XIV. One of the results of the Bull, however, was the formation of the Society known as the Mopses, whose customs are described in L'Ordre des Francsnaafons trahi. This Society is said to have originated in Germany in order to take the place of the Masonic Order among Catholics, who composed the membership. Instead of an oath, the word of honour was taken and several of the Princes of the German Empire became Grand Masters of the Society, into which women were admitted as members.

 

During the period just sketched, it has always been maintained that Ramsay introduced a Rite of five Degrees between 1736‑8, called the Rite de Ramsay or de Bouillon. Beyond mere assertions, echoes of Thory, there is not the slightest evidence that a Rite de Ramsay ever existed. The appellation is a comparatively modern one, not being heard of until Thory invented it. Nevertheless, about 1740, various Rites or Degrees of what has been called Scots Masonry did spring into existence, followed shortly afterwards by Scots Mother‑Lodges controlling systems of subordinate Scots Lodges. At first all these had reference to the recovery of the lost word, but before long additions were made. In 1743 the Masons of Lyons invented the Kadosh Degree, comprising the vengeance of the Templars and thus laid the foundation for all the Templar rites. It was at first called junior Elect; but developed into Elect of 9 or of Perignan, Elect of 15, Illustrious Master, Knight of Aurora, Grand Inquisitor, Grand Elect, Commander of the Temple, etc. 1751 is given as the date of the Lodge St. John of Scotland, subsequently Mother‑Lodge of Marseilles and Mother Scots Lodge of France; 1754 as that of the establishment of the Chapter of Clermont ; 1754 of Martinez Paschalis's Elect Coens, etc. These dates may not be altogether accurate, but that they are sufficiently so is probable. Three works (Le Secret des Francsmafons, Perau, Geneva, 1742 ; L'Ordre de Francsmafons trahi, Amsterdam, 1745 ; and Catechisme des Francsmafons, Leonard Gabanon FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 27 (Travenol, Paris) a Jerusalem, 1744. Cf. Kloss, Bibliog., Nos. 1848, 1850, and 1851) Of 1742‑5 make no mention of anything beyond the Master's Degree, but the Sceau Rompu of 1745 alludes to the connexion with the Knightly orders, as do Travenol's further editions of his Catdcbisme in 1747 and 1749. Le parfait Mason ou les veritables Secrets des quatre grades d'Aprentis, Compagnons, Maitres ordinaires et Ecossais, etc., of 1744 professes to expose a Scots Degree, speaks of there being six or seven such and says that " this variation of Freemasonry is beginning to find favour in France " ; and the Franc Mafonne of 1744 reproaches the majority of the Paris Masters with not knowing that Freemasonry consists of seven Degrees. Article zo of the Rules and Regulations of the Grand Lodge, dated December 11, 1743, reads As it appears that lately some Brothers announce themselves as Scots Masters, claiming prerogatives in private Lodges and asserting privileges of which no traces are to be found in the archives and usages of the Lodges spread over the globe, the Grand Lodge, in order to cement the unity and harmony which should reign amongst Freemasons, has decreed that these Scots Masters, unless they are Officers of Grand Lodge or of a private Lodge, shall not be more highly considered by the Brothers than the other apprentices and fellows and shall wear no sign of distinction whatever.

 

It was possibly on account of the intrigues of these so‑called Scots Masons that Clermont's Grand Lodge in 1743, according to Thory, took the title of Grande Loge Anglaise de France. Thory, for his own purposes, has chosen to consider that the title implied a connexion with England, a sort of Provincial Grand Lodge for France. Anderson, in 1738, acknowledged that the independent authority of the Grand Master of French Freemasonry was recognized in England. As a member of the High Degrees, Clermont naturally felt disinclined to see in the title either a protest against innovation, or a disclaimer of any connexion with the Scots Masters ; but, in order to support his assertions, he has been disingenuous enough to invent an alleged correspondence with England, of which not a trace exists.

 

He belonged to the royal family of Orleans and was the uncle of the Duke of Chartres, afterwards Duke of Orleans, the father of Louis Philippe, the popular King of France.

 

Louis de Bourbon, Count de Clermont, was born in 1709 and entered the Church, but, in 1733, joined the army‑the Pope granting a special dispensation and allowing him to retain his clerical emoluments‑succeeded Marshal Richelieu as commander, but got soundly thrashed by Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick at Crefeld in July 175 7, left the army, retired from court, applied himself to science and works of benevolence and died June 15, 1771 (Allgemeines Handbucb).

 

Although elected Grand Master in 1743, it was not until 1747 that he succeeded in obtaining the royal permission to preside, even then he appears to have taken no great interest in the affairs of the Craft. Under his rule a state of confusion and mismanagement arose. Thory attributes it chiefly to the low character of his Deputies, as well as to the irremovability of the Masters of Lodges; Kloss and 28 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE Rebold to the factions and strife of the different systems of High Degrees; others to the neglect of the rulers ; and many of the exposures to all these causes, combined with the negligence shown in admitting men of worthless character to the privileges of the Society. Almost the only clue we possess in this labyrinth is the already cited Memoire Justificatif of Brest‑de‑la‑Chaussee in his quarrel with Labady. Unfortunately no copy is procurable.

 

Taking these allegations in their order, let us first inquire into the personality of the Deputies of the Grand Master and of a later class of officials called Substitutes. Thory and, following him, all French writers, knew of only one Deputy, the banker Bauer, appointed in 1745. But Kloss shows clearly enough that two others, La Cour and Le Dran, had previously filled the office, so that it was probably an annual appointment. We also hear of another called Dache. Bauer is charged with having neglected his duties ; but, if the office was only held for one year, his neglect could not have been of vital importance. In 1761 it would appear that the office no longer existed, having given place to that of Substitute. Clermont's Substitut Particulier was Lacorne, a dancing master. This wretched person has been burthened with the sins of many other people. La Chaussee refers to him merely as having assisted the Duke at some initiations and speaks of him as an amiable man. Thory (Acta Latomorum, vol. i, p. 78 andAnnale.r Originis,p. 20), on his own authority, improves upon this. He declares that Lacorne's amiability extended so far as to assist Clermont in his amorous intrigues, which procured him his post of Substitut Particulier ; that he surrounded himself with all the lowest characters in Masonry, out of whom he composed the Grand Lodge; that all the better members retired, setting up a rival Grand Lodge in 1761 ; that the split was only healed on June 24, 1762, by revoking Lacorne's appointment in favour of Chaillou de Jonville as Substitut General. It is probable that at this epoch there were two bodies claiming to be the Grand Lodge for a few months, but the facts are evidently distorted, as the signatures to Morin's patent in 1761 will sufficiently attest. We there find Lacorne associating intimately with the elite of the Craft‑the Prince de Rohan, Chaillon de Jonville (Master of the Premier Lodge of France), Count Choiseul, etc. and that the assembly of the Emperors is called at Lacorne's request. This does not look as if he were a despicable pandar, nor as if his associates were the dregs of Masonry. Brest‑de‑la‑Chaussee, who was a co‑signatory of the same document, makes no such charge against him. As to Lacorne's being deposed in favour of Jonville, that very patent records their signatures side by side‑each with his wellknown title of Substitute‑General and Substitute‑Particular. It is evident, therefore, that one office was not merged in the other, but that they were co‑existent. Another charge is, that the Lodges were proprietary, presided over by irremovable Masters who had bought their patents and, in order to make a profit out of them, initiated every applicant, however unworthy. That this may have happened in some few cases, especially where the Master was an innkeeper, cannot be denied; the taunts of some of the contemporary so‑called exposures would almost imply as much ; but, considering how many high names were enrolled in the Craft at FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 29 this period, it cannot be imagined that the evil was of intolerable extent. Thory maintains that from the very first, Patents of Constitution were made proprietary, but Lalande says that, in 1738, the Masters were elected quarterly. Nevertheless, irremovable Masters did exist at the period we are considering and there is proof of their existence as early as 1742, i.e. before Clermont's time. Lalande again gives the reason. Grand Lodge was composed of the Paris Masters only, not the Provincial and, to avoid the effect of inexperienced Masters assuming the rule of the Craft, the Paris Masters were made such ad vitam. That this agrees with facts, so far as they are known, may be inferred from the Minutes of the Versailles (a Provincial) Lodge which elected its W.M. yearly (Kloss, op. cit., vol. i, p. 47). In view of the questions arising out of Morin's patent, it is well to note that this Lodge calls the Grand Lodge " The Grand Lodge of St. John at Paris." The statutes of the Grand Lodge of 175 5 ordain, in Article 29, that the Master shall be elected annually on St. John the Baptist's Day. But, although Masters ad vitam doubtless existed, even in considerable numbers, there is no proof that the Lodges were proprietary, nor would such a state of matters have conduced to the prosperity of the Grand Lodge funds. The perpetual Masters, say a few of them who were innkeepers, may have had a bad effect upon the status of the Craft in general, but it is scarcely possible to connect them with the dissensions in Grand Lodge. Kloss has furnished the true reason in the strife of rival high‑grade systems and Rebold, Findel and Jouast were perfectly justified in accepting his conclusions.

 

Studying the history of the Grand Lodge chronologically, the facts appear to be as follow. In 1754 the Chapter of Clermont was established and granted supplementary Degrees, being joined chiefly by the elite of the Craft. In 175 5 Grand Lodge revised its statutes and dropped the title of English which it had hitherto borne, possibly in deference to the wishes of its members, many of whom belonged to the Clermont Chapter and all were probably admitted to some of the various Scots Degrees. No copy of these statutes is to be found in France, but Kloss was enabled to use a magnificently illuminated edition belonging to a Frankfort Lodge. (Kloss, op. cit., vol. i, p. z8. Published in full with translation, in The Freemason, June and July 18 8 5, by G. W. Speth, from a certified copy of the original manuscript. Cf. also the letters on the subject in previous numbers of The Freemason, beginning January 17, 1885, between Speth and the Rev. A. F. A. Woodford, who combats the views entertained by Speth.) They are headed, Status dresses par la Resp. L. St. Jean de Jerusalem de I'Orient de Paris gouvernee par le trds haut et trds puissant Seigneur Louis de Bourbon, Comte de Clermont, Prince du Sang, Grand Maitre de toutes les Loges regulieres de France, pour servir de Reglement a toutes celles du Royaume. They consist of forty‑four articles, and conclude thus Given at Paris, in a Lodge specially summoned for the purpose and regularly held between square and compass, in the presence of 6o Brothers, Masters and Wardens. In the year of the Great Light 575 5, on July 4, of the vulgar era 1755ò 30 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE Attached is the " mysterious seal of the Scots Lodge," in red wax with gold and sky blue thread; signed, Louis de Bourbon. Articles i, z and 3 contain the Mason's duty to God, his sovereign and the civil authorities. Article 4 preaches the equality of rich and poor. Articles 5 and ii describe the moral requisites of a Mason. Article 13 gives the age of a candidate as twenty‑five‑a Lewis may be made and passed before that age, but not raised. Article ig provides that the Master on the day of St. John Baptist shall fix the dates of the twelve ensuing monthly meetings. Article z1 provides for the relief of applicants of all nations. Article 23, " Only the Master of the Lodge and the Scots Masters are permitted to remain covered," etc. Article 29 enacts that the Lodge is to attend Mass on St. John's Day, elect its Master, who shall appoint the officers, etc. Article 3 3 refers to the governing body as Grande Loge de France, omitting the word Anglaise. It therefore becomes evident that the Grand, like every private Lodge, possessed a title and that it was St. John of Jerusalem‑an echo possibly of Ramsay's discourse. Article 4z is important The Scots Masters are to superintend the work. They alone can censure faults. They are always at liberty to speak (prendre la parole), to be always armed and covered and, if they fall into error, can only be impeached by the Scots Masters.

 

That there must have been a powerful high‑grade influence at work in Grand Lodge can no longer be doubted, but it must not therefore be imagined that Grand Lodge worked the so‑called High Degrees; this was doubtless done by the same individuals, but in another capacity and in Chapter.

 

In 1756 the Knights of the East were established, consisting principally of the middle class, in rivalry of the Chapter of Clermont and the two organizations probably intrigued for the direction of Grand Lodge, the triennial election of Grand Officers forming, of course, the chief ground of battle.

 

In 175 8 arose the Sovereign Council of the Emperors of the East and West. This was probably only a development of the Clermont Chapter and very likely possessed a preponderating influence in Grand Lodge, as we know that both the Substitute‑General and the Substitute‑Particular were members of the Council. It bestowed Warrants for the Lodges of the Higher Degrees, nominated Grand Inspectors and Deputies for the furtherance of the so‑called " Perfect and Sublime Masonry " throughout Europe and organized, in the interior of France," several special Councils, such, for example, as the Conseil des Princes du Royal Secret at Bordeaux.

 

1761.‑The Lodge was divided into two camps, each arrogating to itself the authority of Grand Lodge, but Thory goes beyond the truth in his statement, that Lacorne withdrew with a rabble and set up a Grand Lodge of his own. In this year, indeed, the faction (or Grand Lodge) headed by Lacorne and Jonville, held a joint meeting with the Emperors, which resulted in the grant to Morin of his famous patent.

 

1761.‑Owing to a quarrel, the College de Valois, the governing body of the Knights, was dissolved and a Sovereign Council of the Rite took its place.

 

FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 31 The triennial election of Grand Officers took place June z4. A compromise having been effected between the rival camps, each faction ensured the election of some of its members. There not being room for all, Lacorne was unprovided for. As to his removal by the Count de Clermont, it rests only on Thory's assertion. As an indication of the probable innocence of Lacorne, it is a curious fact that the only mention of his name in any documentary evidence which has been handed down, occurs in his own signature to Morin's patent. Nothing whatever of his official career as a Mason is known and from that moment he entirely disappears from the scene. The two momentarily separated Grand Lodges now only formed one.

 

1765.‑At the next election, it would appear as if the battle had been fought out to the end and that the Emperors had secured almost all the offices. This gave rise to violent debates and recriminations, both in Lodge and in print, which ultimately became unendurable. As a consequence the most violent were banished; they appear to have belonged some to one faction, some to another. But the Emperors must always have had a great support in Brest‑de‑la‑Chaussee, the Grand Keeper of the Seals and Chaillou de Jonville, the Substitute‑General. Among the exiles may be mentioned Daubertin, the former secretary of the Emperors and Labady, Chaussee's subsequent enemy.

 

On August 14, 1766, to put an end (if possible) to all strife, the Grand Lodge issued a circular forbidding its Lodges to have anything to do with any High Grades whatsoever. It is probable that this was the result of another battle royal. That the Knights had been thoroughly worsted may be gathered from the fact that on October z, 1766, Gaillard, the Grand Orator, moved and carried that the decree be repealed and insisted upon the necessity of incorporation with the Council of the Emperors. The proposal was placed before the private Lodges by circular for their consideration. The Knights retaliated by a circular denouncing all Templar degrees ; they themselves not working any of that description.

 

On February 4, 1767, the Knights made a last effort in Grand Lodge and this time came to blows. Labady, who had been expelled, afterwards declared before a committee of the Grand Orient, August 13, 1773, that he had been present at this meeting and had engaged in a personal quarrel. From which it appears probable, as before stated, that the excluded Brethren entered Grand Lodge by force and were expelled by the stronger party.

 

The report of these occurrences having reached the ear of the King, a decree of State was laid before Grand Lodge on February 21, 1767, ordering it to cease to meet. Freemasonry itself, however, was laid under no ban, but the dissolution of Grand Lodge made the governance of the Craft very difficult and, of course, prevented the proposed amalgamation with the Emperors. The direction of affairs remained in the hands of Jonville and Chaussee and it is the latter's conduct during the interval that was afterwards impugned by Labady, who, on his side, formed a Grand Lodge of his own and entered into correspondence with the Provincial Lodges ; but Chaussee, who, of course, kept possession of the seals, etc., issued 32 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE a circular giving the names of the excluded Brethren and so prevented his doing much mischief. In this way the strife was continued and, in spite of the dissolution of Grand Lodge, new Lodges were chartered, the Warrants being antedated by Chaussee (see Kloss, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 78‑i 2o).

 

On June 15, 1771, the Grand Master, the Count de Clermont, died. As his death was followed by the establishment of two new and rival Grand bodies, neither of which can exactly claim to be the successor of his Grand Lodge, its history may be considered closed at this point. Rebold asserts that from 1743 to 1772 it had constituted over 3oo Lodges in all and has rescued the names and dates of seventy‑four, of which he gives a list (Histoire des trois Grander Loges, pp. 53‑5).

 

One curious fact remains to be mentioned before we proceed to the establishment of the Grand Orient of France. The following is an extract from the English Book of Constitutions January 27, 1768.‑The Grand Master informed the Brethren that two letters had been received from the Grand Lodge of France expressing a desire of opening a correspondence with the Grand Lodge of England; and the said letters being read, Resolved, that a mutual correspondence be kept up and that a Book of Constitutions, a list of Lodges and a form of a deputation, bound in an elegant manner, be presented to the Grand Lodge of France.

 

As the original Grand Lodge of France had ceased to exist legally for over a year, it would be interesting to know from which Grand Lodge these letters came, whether from Jonville or from Labady and, above all, to whom the answer was directed and how its arrival was ensured. Apparently the English rulers knew nothing whatever of French Freemasonry and took it all as a matter of course; but as will presently be shown, the English Grand Lodge was never kept au courant of passing affairs and, in consequence, on more than one occasion, acted outrageously towards its own most faithful Continental daughters. This official recognition of the Grand Lodge of France did not apparently entail any acknowledgment of its sole sovereignty. In 1767 England had constituted the English Lodge at Bordeaux, according it seniority from 1732 and the Lodge Sagesse at Havre and, in 1767, one at Grenoble. Subsequently to the receipt of the letters it warranted in 1772 the Lodge Candour at Strasburg (which, in 1774, became the seat of government of the Province of Burgundy under the Strict Observance) and, in 1785, the Parfaite Amitie at Avignon Languedoc. None of these Lodges was carried forward on the roll of the United Grand Lodge of England in 1813 ; and those at the Louis d'Argent and at Aubigny were erased on the same day that the letters from France were received, because they had either " ceased to meet or had neglected to conform to the laws of the Society." The death of the Count de Clermont was the signal for momentous events. His influence at court had long been nil ; if, therefore, he could be replaced by someone of more power, the Grand Lodge might again be allowed to meet. This really took place and the new Grand Lodge thereafter immediately split into two rival FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 33 Grand Lodges. Up to the present it has been necessary to pick the way to a great extent between conflicting traditions but, in describing approaching events, a choice must be made between diametrically opposite views based on documentary evidence, of which a great quantity exists. No point of Masonic history has given rise to greater bitterness and recrimination than the foundation of the Grand Orient. It has been vatiously maintained that it was a base scheme of the Brethren exiled in 1765, to revenge themselves on the former Grand Lodge; that it was the work of a rabble of no standing ; that it was a deeply laid device of Montmorency ; that it was brought about by the High Degrees ; that it was a usurpation of the Provinces ; that it was un‑Masonic and illegal; and that it was a conspiracy of the Commissioners of Grand Lodge‑together with other accusations equally diverse and imaginary. Exigencies of space prevent these allegations being brought before the bar of history, or dwelling upon them in any way. They are all the fruits of a marked enmity to the Grand Orient ; the example was set by Thory. That writer, like all the others, can only make a lame attempt to prove his charges by tampering with documentary evidence, or by wholesale suppression and perversion. There follows, therefore, a bare recital of events in chronological sequence, further details of which can be seen in Kloss's History of French Freemasonry, vol. i, pp. 121‑86 and in the pages of Jouast. The strife between De‑la‑Chaussee and Labady‑so frequently alluded to ‑is interwoven with these proceedings and contributed, possibly, not a little to the ultimate results.

 

In the first place it will be well to cite the names of the exiled Brethren, viz. *Perrault, *Pethe, *Peny, Hardy, Duret, Guillot, *Daubertin, *Guillot, *Lacan, Bigarre, Morin and *Labady. Of these, Daubertin and Labady were certainly members the Council of the Emperors and, possibly, also some of the others, though this is uncertain and they all appear to have held the status of simple citizens. The seven whose names are marked with an asterisk were Masters ad vitam of Paris Lodges and Guillot was a Paris Master, but whether elected or irremovable cannot be ascertained.

 

From subsequent statements of De‑la‑Chaussee and the Duke of Montmorency, we learn that the latter had already been preferred to high office under the Count de Clermont, who had appointed him Substitute, in which capacity he had initiated the Duke of Chartres in his own Lodge. The date of this initiation is nowhere stated.

 

Tradition has it, that immediately on the death of Clermont‑June 15, 1771the exiles communicated with Anne Charles Sigismond, Duke of MontmorencyLuxemburg and, through him, induced Louis Philippe Joseph, Duke of Chartres from 1787 Duke of Orleans, a Prince of the blood Royal, father of Louis Philippe, born April 13, 1747, guillotined as Citizen Egalite, November 6, 1793‑to declare that if he were elected he would accept the post of Grand Master. In view of the social position of the exiles, we may perhaps inquire with Kloss whether the Duke of Luxemburg did not act on his own initiative and simply communicate the result through these Brethren. But this is a matter of small moment F. IV‑3 34 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 1771 June 2i.‑Six days after Clermont's death a meeting was held of the Paris Masters, who then and there resolved to revive the Communications of Grand Lodge. As the Grand Lodge consisted of the Paris Masters only, they were doubt less within their rights. At whose suggestion the Lodge was convoked is not clear, but it was summoned and very properly, according to Masonic usage, presided over by De Puisieux (initiated December 15, 1729), assisted by Leveille and Le Lorrain, the three Senior Masters of Lodges present. As the assembly was proceeding to elect a new Master, the exiles were announced and admitted. They demanded restitution of their rights, throwing the blame of past events on Zambault, Grand Secretary, then deceased. They retired and the Grand Lodge agreed not to go into the matter too closely, out of respect for Zambault's memory, but hinted that this Brother's conduct in other respects tended to justify the charge. The exiles were readmitted and received with open arms and the kiss of peace. One of them, Duret, then announced the glorious news that through their efforts the Dukes of Chartres and Luxemburg had consented to accept the offices of Grand Master and Substitute‑General respectively. In order not to waste time, it was decided not to consult the Provinces pro bac vice‑and the election was fixed for June 24. A committee was then appointed to verify De‑la‑Chaussee's acts during the interregnum. These were Martin, Pirlet, Leroy, Daubertin, Bourgeois, Sec.Gen. ; Duret, Le Lorrain, Lescombart, Bruneteau, Guillot and Labady, four of whom were former exiles. Although the reinstatement of the exiles was accomplished on this day, it was not placed on the Minutes before October 17, possibly because this meeting of the Grand Lodge was considered informal.

 

1771 June z4.‑Grand Lodge. Unanimous election of the two Dukes ; appointment of a deputation to the Duc de Chartres to acquaint him thereof and to pray his acceptance of office. The deputation consisted of Peny, Duret, L'Eveille, Guillot, Daubertin and Bruneteau‑with the exception of L'Eveille and Bruneteau ‑all former exiles. The Duc de Chartres showed no great anxiety to take over the duties of his office and, from 1771 to 1778, the Duke of Luxemburg, who soon assumed the title of General Administrator, was, in all but the name, the real Grand Master.

 

August 14.‑Grand Lodge. Approbation of revised Statutes in 5 3 and 41 Articles. Legend on seal, Grande Loge des Maitres de 1'Orient de Paris. " Art. 1. G. Lodge is composed of the Masters of all regularly constituted Lodges." It will be observed that there is here the first step in a very salutary reform. Article 3 gives Wardens a consultative voice in Grand Lodge, but no vote. Article 5 ordains that the twenty‑seven Grand Officers be elected from the Paris Masters only. These Grand Officers formed the Loge de Conseil or Managing Board. Article 8. The Loge de Conseil to meet monthly.

 

October 17.‑Circular of Grand Lodge announcing past events and calling upon the Lodges in the Provinces to appoint Deputies to attend the installation of the Grand Master at a date to be subsequently decided. It gives a list of the Grand Officers, of whom may be named as important for our researches, Daubertin, FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 35 Secretary‑General ; Guillot, Treasurer ; Duret, Warden of the Seals ; Labady, Secretary for the Provinces ; Bigarre, 2nd Expert; Maurin, Assistant Secretary for the Provinces. So that of twenty‑four officials six belonged to the exiled party. 1772 January 29.‑Committee reported on De‑la‑Chaussee's acts during the interregnum. Labady, among others, signed " of his own free will and accord " and all was pronounced in order, showing a balance of 2oi livres, 16 sols, against De‑la‑Chaussee, who was granted an Honorary Diploma as Past Grand Warden of the Seals.

 

April 5.‑Chartres signs a document, wherein he says that in view of the resolution passed in Grand Lodge June 24, 1771 and in the Sovereign Council of the Emperors, August 26, 1771, he has accepted the offices of Grand Master of all regular Lodges in France and Sovereign Grand Master of all Councils, Chapters and Scots Lodges of the Grand Globe of France. This last phrase was the newest title of the organization of the Emperors.

 

April i8.‑Grand Lodge. The Duke of Luxemburg is congratulated on the birth of a son and proposes that the Lodge St. Jean de Montmorency‑Luxemburg, in which the Grand Master had received initiation, shall be made members of Grand Lodge. Agreed that they shall all have seats and votes in Grand Lodge and that three in turn shall sit and vote in the Loge de Conseil. These Brothers were all members of the nobility and thus helped to weaken the majority in Grand Lodge, composed of Parisian perpetual Masters. Labady, as Secretary for the Provinces, then reported on the state of the Lodges and reviewed the past legislation from 1765. The speech is lost, but it contained a malicious impeachment of De‑laChaussee and was the immediate cause of the Memoire Justificatif. It will be remembered that, during the interregnum, Chaussee officiated for the Grand Lodge and that Labady attempted to set up a Grand Lodge of his own. The embittered personal quarrel which ensued is sad to contemplate but, perhaps, not unnatural. Labady had on February z9 thoroughly approved De‑la‑Chaussee's acts, so that his conduct was inconsistent, to say the least. The Grand Master's manifesto of April 5 was read to and approved by Grand Lodge.

 

1772 July.‑Circular to all Lodges reporting past events and preparing their Deputies to receive an invitation for the installation in November or December. July 26.‑Meeting of the Emperors of the East and West, Sublime Scots Lodge, President, the Duke of Luxemburg. The Grand Orator Gaillard, SecretaryGeneral Labady, Baron Toussainct and De Lalande were appointed a Deputation to Grand Lodge to renew proposals of fusion made October 2, 1766.

 

August g.‑Grand Lodge. President, Puisieux. Appeared the Deputation of the Emperors. Gaillard submitted the proposal, Bruneteau, Grand Orator of Grand Lodge, replied. It was unanimously and irrevocably decided that the Supreme Council of the Emperors of the East and West‑Sublime Mother Scots Lodge‑shall be, and from this moment is, united to the very respectable G.L. to constitute with it one sole and FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE inseparable body, uniting all Masonic knowledge and legislative power over all the Degrees of Masonry under the title of Sovereign and very respectable Grand Lodge of France.

 

The Commissioners of the Emperors had been empowered to request the appointment of Grand Lodge Commissioners and, with them, to revise the Statutes, the revision to be approved of at a joint meeting of the two bodies. The Grand Lodge appointed their Grand Secretary, Daubertin‑himself an Emperor and a signatory of Morin's patent‑Bruneteau, Lacan and Boulainvilliers. These are the eight commissioners who were afterwards accused of treachery to Grand Lodge. It will be observed that Labady, Daubertin and Lacan were old exiles.

 

August z9.‑Grand Lodge. The Commissioners receive extra instructions. I. They are to obtain audience of the Administrator‑General and request him to represent to Grand Lodge the possible inconvenience of his accepting the Presidency of other Councils, Chapters, etc. III. To circulate such representation, when obtained, amongst the Lodges. IV. They are enjoined to occupy themselves at once with the preparation of the necessary reform of the abuses which had crept into the Craft. The other instructions may be omitted. It will be observed that No. IV gives them very wide powers indeed.

 

September 4.‑Luxemburg declares that, although he had accepted the Presidency of the Lodge of the Knights of the East [erected March 7, 1771], Grand Lodge may be assured that he will never acknowledge any foreign body as independent of it and that, in this particular case, he will never allow said Lodge any special jurisdiction, etc., etc. From this it would appear that the Knights of the East were then so reduced in number as to consist of no more than one Lodge, that only lately re‑established. He also informed Grand Lodge that the Grand Master had fixed December 8 for his installation and ordered that all Parisian and Provincial Lodges be informed of the fact; that they be requested to accredit Deputies for the festival ; that they be further informed Commissioners would then be appointed to examine the proposed new statutes.

 

1772‑September 12.‑A circular to the above effect was sent to all the Lodges. September 17.‑Circular signed by seven of the eight Commissioners, Lalande failing to sign. After describing the disorders produced by so many independent Chapters all claiming a supremacy over Grand Lodge, it continues The Grand Lodge is occupied with the means of meeting this evil. . . . Since it resumed work its first care has been devoted to this subject, . . . and it has united with the Sovereign Council of the Emperors, etc., to form one sole body, etc., etc. ; . . . further, it intends to examine all Grades, to bring them back to their original form and to indicate their rank. We have been specially instructed to make the necessary preparations. . . . We flatter ourselves you will help us by forwarding your views upon the administration in general, etc.

 

October 9.‑Grand Lodge. Labady v. De‑la‑Chaussee. Resolved by 30 to 15 as follows: I. All titles conferred by Chaussee during the interregnum, except‑ FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 37 ing that of W.M., are declared nul. II. Chaussee is within fourteen days to deliver to Grand Lodge all documents in his possession. III. He is to refund to the Treasurer, according to his own proposal, 336 livres. V. He is to pay the Tyler 6 livres for unintentionally accusing Boucher de Lenoncourt of having been excluded from Grand Lodge. VI. Chaussee is acquitted of all other faults imputed to him in Labady's essay. De‑la‑Chaussee was, apparently, not satisfied, for, on March 9 following, appeared his Memoire Justificatif.

 

November 16.‑Circular postponing the installation. Several Deputies returned to the Provinces, the greater number, however, remaining in Paris to participate in the work of the Commissioners.

 

December io.‑Last meeting of the revived Grand Lodge. None was subse quently called under the pretence of superior orders. As a matter of fact the decree against the meeting of Grand Lodge had never been revoked.

 

December 24.‑The old Grand Lodge of France was declared to have ceased to exist.

 

1773‑March 5.‑Meeting at the Hotel de Chaulnes, the residence of the Duke of Luxemburg, between the eight Commissioners and the Deputies of Provincial Lodges. Jouast gives the list of these Deputies; including the Duke of Luxemburg and the Grand Officers they number ninety‑six and, for the most part, were men of high position or attainments. Nor were they all Provincials. Either as Grand Officers or Provincial Deputies, the Paris Masters were represented by Bodson, Bruneteau, Daubertin, Baron Clauzels, Gaillard, Gouillard, Guillot, Labady‑alone the proxy of twenty‑seven Lodges in the Provinces‑Lacan, Lafin, De Lalande, the Abbe Boulainvilliers and others. But it will, of course, be seen that the Parisians were in a minority for the first time in French Freemasonry. Nothing was decided at this meeting, but the first two chapters of the new Constitutions were read.

 

March 8.‑Meeting of the Provincials only. The election of June 24, 1771, by the Paris Masters was confirmed amid acclamation. Count Buzen~ois de Luxemburg, Bacon de la Chevalerie and Richard de Begnicourt were elected to form with three Paris Masters (Baron Toussainct, De Lalande, and Bruneteau), a Deputation to inform the Dukes of the confirmation. Resolved to join the deliberations of the. Paris Brethren respecting the welfare of the Order.

 

March 9.‑Meeting of Commissioners and Provincial Deputies. President, Luxemburg. The sole and unique tribunal of the Order was proclaimed with the title of " National Grand Lodge of France," exercising in the greatest amplitude the supreme power of the Order. The first two chapters of the new Constitutions were accepted, subject to definition. A committee of definition was appointed, consisting of Buzen~ois, B. de la Chevalerie, Chev. Champeau, R. de Begnicourt, De Bauclas, Morin, Toussainct, De Lalande and Bruneteau, the four latter being Paris Masters. Chaussee's Memoire, which had recently appeared, was brought to the notice of the meeting. A Judicial Committee was appointed to take it into consideration, revise the decision of October 9, 1772 and adjudicate in the matter, FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE their judgment to be without appeal, to be made known to all the Lodges and Chaussee to refrain from further publishing his Memoire. Hence the scarcity of that valuable document. The Committee consisted in great part of the same members as the committee of definition; only to avoid any chance of partiality, the Paris Masters were replaced by Provincials. President, De Bauclas ; members, Count BuzenCois, Begnicourt, Abbe Roziers, Guillotin, Furcy, Varenne de Beost, Mariette de Castaing. They received their written authority the next day, Pyron was added to the number as Secretary, Carbonnel as a member of the former Committee, but in each case without a vote.

 

March ig.‑Labady demanded permission to print his defence and offered to accept a coadjutor in his office of Secretary for the Provinces. The first request was denied and he was relieved of his appointment during inquiries. Begnicourt, Castaing and Buzencois, being on the point of leaving Paris, were replaced by Lamarque 1'Americain of St. Domingo, Lucadon and the Abbe Jossot. This Commission sat seventeen times.

 

The last meeting of the Commissioners and Provincial Deputies had taken place on March 9. It was probably felt that the former could scarcely be considered to represent Grand Lodge in arriving at a decision, as their duty was merely to prepare a scheme; but that the Provincial Lodges being represented by Deputies, the Paris Masters should follow suit. Whether that was the reason or not, a long interval occurred and, during the delay, twenty Paris Masters met and chose three Deputies, viz. De Mery d'Arcy, Leroy and Mangeau ; a second division‑or as it was termed, column‑of fifteen Masters, chose two Deputies, Regnard and Gouillard, Senior; a third column, of twelve Masters, chose four Deputies, Richard, Joubert de la Bourdiniere, Count de Jagny and Herault ; while a fourth column, of fourteen Paris Masters, elected two Deputies, Packault and Theaulon. As they took care not to elect members already on the board, they thus strengthened their own side considerably.

 

April 7.‑Meeting of Provincial and Paris Deputies, Commissioners and Grand Officers. Toussainct appointed Secretary to the Board of Revision‑this name is not historic and is merely used for convenience.

 

April i 3.‑A fifth column, of twenty Masters, elected three Deputies, Gerbier, Martin and Caseuil, Jun.

 

April 14.‑Board of Revision. Junction of last‑named Deputies.

 

April i7.‑Board of Revision. The first chapter of the new Statutes as amended by the new Commissioners adopted with enthusiasm.

 

April 22.‑Board of Revision. The second chapter read amidst partial applause. In recognition of his services Luxemburg was permitted to nominate ‑pro hac vice‑all the officers of Grand Lodge.

 

May 24.‑Board of Revision. Savalette de Langes, in the name of Chaillon de Jonville, acknowledged the two Dukes as regularly elected and resigned his appoint ment. Jonville now disappears from the scene as mysteriously as Lacorne had previously done. First chapter of the Statutes confirmed with acclamation.

 

FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 39 May ZS.‑Board of Revision. Count Buzen~ois de Luxemburg and fifteen honorary Grand Officers elected, installed and acclaimed. Revision proceeded with. June 2.‑Board of Revision. Confirmation by the Administrator‑General of all officers elected. The second chapter of the Statutes also confirmed. Three members of the Committee of Definition being absent, were replaced by the Marquis de Tonnerre, Varenne de Beost and Leroy, the latter being a Paris Master.

 

June 7.‑Board of Revision. Final confirmation of the first two chapters.

 

June 14.‑Board of Revision. First signs of dissatisfaction on the part of the Paris Masters. They began to perceive that a most salutary reform‑the abolition of perpetual Masters‑affected their vested interests. The Statutes_, strange to say, presented at the first meeting of the Board on March 5, recognized as Masters, only such as should have received the 15 Degrees and the last three, i.e. 18 in all. It must not be forgotten that the Grand Lodge was at that time practically identical with the Emperors, so that we are left somewhat in the dark as to whether the Emperors really worked 25 Degrees. If they did not, then there can remain no doubt that the Grand Constitutions of B in 1762, which particularize 25 Degrees, were really manufactured‑like the last 8 Degrees themselves‑in America. The new Committee of 9‑March 9‑had, however, defined as follows Article 4. The Grand Orient acknowledges in future only such Masters as shall have been freely elected to this office by the Lodge.

 

Article 5. The Masonic body of France shall in future be represented in the Grand Orient by all actual Worshipful Masters or by the Lodge deputies.

 

The term Grand Orient had first been used in a circular of June 5, 1772, by the unreformed Grand Lodge. Grand Orient is a term used by the Latin races, such as those of France, Spain, Italy and the South American States and is, in a sense, synonymous with Grand Lodge. The Grand Orient frequently exercises jurisdiction over the High Degrees. This is, however, the first instance of its use. It will be perceived that these two articles not only struck a blow at the perpetuity of a Paris Master's tenure of office, but also changed entirely the nature of Grand Lodge, which had previously consisted of these monopolists only. However, concessions were made to their protests. Article 4 was maintained, but it was agreed that each Master ad vitam should resign " name and seniority to his Lodge " and receive in recompense the title of Founder and Past Master ; all charges incurred by him for purchase of Warrant, jewels and furniture, etc., to be refunded by the members. He might be re‑elected but could not be forced to accept an inferior office ; took precedence immediately after the Master and was a member of Grand Lodge. To enjoy these prerogatives, however, those who held a personal Warrant, but no Lodge, were required to affiliate with one forthwith. This justifies the conclusion that every one of the Paris Masters of the 5 Columns‑81 in number‑could not actually have presided over a Lodge, a rather curious state of things. This was, of course, the opportunity for Labady, who had been, pending process, relieved of his office on March 19.

 

40 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE June 17.‑Paris Masters' Grand Lodge. A general assembly of the old Grand Lodge was called. Present 4z of the 81 Paris Masters ; in all, 48 Parisians, including Labady, Toussainct (Sec. of the Board of Revision), De Lalande, Bruneteau, Lacan and Boulainvilliers. Gaillard and Daubertin did not appear. The powers granted to the 8 Commissioners of August 9, 1772, were withdrawn; the 15 Deputies declared divested of their charge; and a protest sketched out by a Committee of 18. Lalande and Toussainct withdrew before the Minutes were signed; Bruneteau, Gaillard and Daubertin subsequently joined the new Grand Orient; of the eight Commissioners, three only‑Labady, Lacan, and Boulainvilliers‑went back to the old Paris Masters' Lodge.

 

June 18 and 2o.‑Meetings of this Committee and preparation of the protest. June zi.‑Board of Revision. Labady presents himself as the emissary of the Old Grand Lodge and hands in the protest, which, after many " whereas's," declares that every act of the board is illegal, null, of no value, calls upon the Lodges to rally to their old Grand Lodge, to help him in persuading the Duke of Luxemburg to put himself once more at their head. He then declared the so‑called National Grand Lodge non‑existent and desired to withdraw from several Brethren the title of Deputy (of various Lodges) with which he had formerly entrusted them. The meeting declared this to be impracticable and Labady retired. New honorary Grand Officers were appointed, the third chapter of the Statutes agreed to and it was ordered that the first three chapters should be printed.

 

June 24.‑Grand fete given to the new Grand body by the Duke of Luxemburg ; present 81 convives.

 

June z6.‑Last meeting of the Board of Revision. The fourth chapter of the Statutes approved of and ordered to be printed and a circular detailing the whole course of events drawn up and confirmed. The assembly then separated and, from this day, may be dated the final completion of the National Grand Lodge of France, which, however, soon changed its name to Grand Orient. Among the 45 officials of the new Grand Lodge are ig Paris Masters, who therefore resigned their privileges.

 

Kloss and Jouast‑who are in substantial accord‑are authorities for the foregoing. These writers rely, on the following publications. The numbers within parenthesis refer to the Bibliograpbie der Freimaurerei by Dr. Kloss. Statuts et Reglements de la Grande Loge de France, arrete par deliberation du 14 aout 1771 (zo3 and 41zz) ; Grand Elu, etc., Paris, 1781 (1916) ; La tres R.G.L. de France a toutes les loges reguldres, June z4, 1771 (021); Proces‑Verbal de la scdance, etc., du 18 juin 1772 (4123) ; La trds R.G.L. de France a toutes les loges reguNres, May 18, 1772 (4124) ; Extrait des Rgistres de la Soup. G.L. de France, September i z, 1772 (41 z6) ; Mdmoire Justificatif, 1772 (4128) ; La Grande Loge Nat. de France a toutes, etc., 1773 (4129) ; Statuts du Grand Orient de France, etc., 1773 (4130) ; Extrait des Registres, etc. (4131) ; La tr~s R.G.L. de France a toutes, etc., 1773 (4132) ; Au Grand Orient de France, etc. (4341) July 23.‑The old Lodge‑which, in future, will be referred to as the Grand FRANCE REGALIA OF THE GRAND ORIENT THIS plate shows some old specimens of the clothing worn in Lodges under the Grand Orient of France. The Grand Lodge of England has no present fraternal intercourse or relationship with this Grand Orient, on account of its violation of all Masonic principles of late years, by the expunging of the name of T.G.A.O.T.U. from its laws and by its avowed political tendencies. No authoritative details of the present clothing, therefore, can be given.

 

No. i is a Master Mason apron of satin, embroidered in coloured silks, gold and spangles. The edging is of blue ribbon and, on the fall, is an irradiated star enclosing a G. On the body of the apron are the sun and moon and two stars ; the letters M and B ; the crowned compasses ; the tetragrammaton in an irradiated triangle and acacia branches.

 

No. 2 is an older specimen, is printed on leather and hand‑coloured, with an edging of crimson silk. The design is very handsome and shows, amongst a number of other emblems, a temple on a chequered floor ; the two pillars J and B, with two acacia trees ; altars, working tools, &c.

 

No. 3 is more recent and is embroidered in gold and colours on a white satin ground with the blazing star and G, the temple, the letters M and B, the level, the compasses and two acacia sprays. It is bound with red silk and the flap is imitated by a semicircle of red edging.

 

No. q. is an old M.M. sash of blue silk, on which are embroidered seven stars, the square and compasses, with level, and acacia, the letters D, M and M, with a red rosette at the point, whilst the inside is lined with black silk, embroidered with the emblems of mortality and " tears," in silver, for use when working the 3rd Degree.

 

No. 5 is the jewel of the W.M., consisting of a square, compasses, star and acacia leav es.

 

FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 41 Lodge‑met again and on July 29 held a festival in the name of the Duke of Luxemburg, whom it continued to look upon as its head.

 

It may be admitted that the taunts and gibes of Thory and his congeners are misplaced, that all things were done in perfect order and with due legality. The Paris Masters, that is, the old Grand Lodge, concurred in all the proceedings until their vested rights were threatened. That the Grand Lodge was justified in abrogating these rights in the general interest must be freely conceded. " In all countries [and communities] the legislative power must, to a general intent, be absolute." Compensation was offered, which was not always the case‑witness the emancipation of the slaves in the United States. Neither, indeed, could the Masters raise any valid objection to their privileges having been cut down by a mixed body of Metropolitan and Provincial Deputies, because, on August 14, 1771, they had themselves enacted Article I of the first new Statutes. They might certainly have contended that the compensation offered was inadequate and have said, " If you prefer a new Grand Lodge, well and good, we are satisfied with the old one and will revive it by virtue of our inherent authority." This is what practically they did, but when they proceeded to stigmatize the new body as illegal, they went altogether beyond their province. Both parties, therefore, were strictly " within their rights " and to cast imputations upon one or the other is unjust. Nor can either of them be denominated a rabble‑certainly not the brilliant assembly of the new Lodge and, with equal certainty, not the older body, because, in spite of the possibly worthless character of Labady himself, it comprised within its ranks many honourable men and some who were highly distinguished both by their social position and intellectual attainments. A very peculiar fact is, that the Council of the Emperors was quite overlooked in the new Statutes, so much so that they soon showed themselves again as an independent body.

 

August 13.‑Sitting of the judicial Commission. De‑la‑Chaussee v. Labady.

 

Seventeenth meeting. Report. i. The Commission refers the validity of Consti tutions delivered during the recess to the Grand Orient. 2. De‑la‑Chaussee to make a stipulated declaration before the next assembly. 3. The money alleged to be owing is remitted for want of proof. 5. The fine of 6 livres formally imposed is unjustified. 5. General acquittal. The declaration stipulated for, which he eventually made most handsomely, was to the effect that he was sorry he had published his Memoire, or that it should be considered that he intended to injure any person, which was far from being his intention. Labady is convicted of having maliciously renewed on April 18, 1772, unfounded charges, of which he had himself acquitted De‑la‑Chaussee on January 29 previously and of having failed to clear himself of Chaussee's counter charges. He is therefore suspended for nine months and other charges made against him by private Lodges are left to the judgment of the Grand Orient.

 

September i.‑National Grand Lodge. Chaussee reinstated and made a Grand Officer.

 

September io.‑The Grand Lodge issued a circular stamped with the old seal, 42 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE calculated in many ways to lead to confusion, especially as it made use of Montmorency's name and was signed by Duret and Labady, names familiar in another capacity to the Provinces. Montmorency forgot himself in his anger and obtained a lettre de cachet under which Labady and Duret were imprisoned, in order to force them to deliver up the documents, seals and archives of the old Lodge. They were shortly released, but without the desired effect being produced. The Emperors made common cause with the Grand Lodge at first, but, after 1775 circa, were once more quite independent, although we do not hear much more of them. Labady became their Secretary‑General and, in 1780, they erected a bust to this Masonic martyr, bearing the punning lines, " Whilst abhorring vice, fly the pit of perdition " (La Chaussee de perdition). A librarian by profession, he appears to have made an income by selling cheap rituals, those of the Emperors included.

 

The Composition of the new body as finally settled by the last board meeting of June z6, 1773, was a distinct advance on any previous Grand Lodge in France. The entire Brotherhood, or confederacy, which took the title of Grand Orient and met for the festivals, was composed of all the Masters or their Deputies. Out of these members, 77 were chosen to form the Grande Loge Nationale, viz. the Grand Master, Grand Administrator and Grand Conservator, 15 officers d'honneur of the Grand Orient, at their head being the representative of the Grand Master; 45 officers (en exercice)‑composing the subsidiary boards‑7 Lodge Masters of Paris and 7 of the Provinces. The Grande Loge Nationale thus constituted, met quarterly. The subsidiary boards were‑1. The Loge de Conseil or Chamber of Appeal. z. The Chambre d'Administration or Board of General Purposes. 3. The Chambre de Paris or Metropolitan Board; and 4, The Chambre des Provinces for the Lodges outside Paris. The three superior officers were elected ad vitam and the honorary officers for the whole duration of the Grand Master's tenure ; the working Officers, i.e. the other 45, went out by thirds each twelve‑month, but were eligible for re election by the Grand Orient. On December z7, 1773, the Grande Loge Nationale was dissolved as such and its members, from thenceforth, constituted the Loge de Conseil, meeting monthly. In its place the whole of the Grand Orient was to meet quarterly, so that at last every Lodge was represented by its Master or Deputy in the governing body. From that date, therefore, the Grande Loge Nationale a 1'Orient de Paris became the Grand Orient of France.

 

Up to October 14 the Grand Master had refused to receive the deputations from Grand Lodge. On that day he received them and appointed the date of his instal lation. It was to take place after his return from a visit to Fontainebleau.

 

October z8.‑Installation of the Duc de Chartres in his own house in the Rue de Montreuil.

 

December z7.‑Grand Orient constituted as above. A commission consisting of Bacon de la Chevalerie, Count Stroganoff and Baron Toussainct was appointed to revise and examine all the High Degrees and all Lodges were directed to work meanwhile in the three Symbolic Degrees only.

 

December z7.‑The Grand Lodge‑professing to work under the auspices of FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 43 the Duc de Chartres‑appointed its officers in his name, inveighed against the Grand Orient as illegal and forbade its members to visit Lodges of the rival body. It assumed as its full title Tres respectable Grande Loge, seul et unique Grand Orient de France.

 

1774.‑March 7.‑Grand Orient. Proposal to establish thirty‑two Provincial Grand Lodges in order to lighten the labours of Grand Orient. Subsequently carried on October zo, but the resolution produced little effect, as there were never more than four or five established. In 18o6 they were declared unnecessary and, in 18io, were entirely done away with (Kloss, op. cit., vol. i, p. 198).

 

June z4.‑Resolution not to admit artisans until they shall have attained the Mastership in their trade. Domestic servants were declared ineligible, except as Serving Brothers. In the course of this year, members of the theatrical profession were precluded from receiving the privileges of the Craft, on the ground of their being too dependent on the favour of the public. An exception was made, however, in the case of musicians.

 

Deputies to Grand Orient were only allowed to represent in future five Lodges each and Grand Orient formally approved of Lodges of Adoption in which ladies were admitted to ceremonies somewhat resembling Freemasonry. These Lodges soon became brilliant assemblies, that is, having regard to the persons who took part in them, especially under the Empire, but, inasmuch as they are scarcely of Masonic interest, there will be no further allusion to them.

 

August 12.‑The Grand Orient having completed its new premises in the Rue Pot‑de‑Fer, took possession of them. The grand address on this occasion was delivered by De Lalande.

 

September 9.‑A new Lodge, St. Jean de Chartres, was constituted at Mousseaux near Paris, for H.S.H. the Duc de Chartres, in which he occupied the Master's chair. December z7.‑On the proposal of Luxemburg the Honorary Grand Officers were in future to hold their offices subject to re‑election every three years ; their appointment was left in the hands of the Grand Orient.

 

In this year‑1774‑three Templar Directories were formed at Lyons, Bordeaux and Strasburg. The Grand Orient is stated to have been at the head of 144 Lodges, of which 64 had been constituted or rectified during the year and the Grand Lodge had constituted 3 new ones (Kloss, op. cit., vol. i, p. zo4).

 

1775.‑February 3.‑The Inquisition dispersed the Mere Loge du Comtat Venaissin and, during the year, the old Grand Lodge warranted eight Lodges in Paris and nine in the Provinces.

 

1776.‑March z4.‑The Grand Orient replaced the former Committee to inquire into the High Grades, by Guillotin, Savalette de Langes, Morin, De‑la‑Chaussee and De Lalande.

 

May 31.‑From the beginning of 1775 a Commission had been engaged in formulating a compact between the Scots Directories of the IInd, IIIrd, and Vth Provinces and the Grand Orient. Several of the Commissioners representing the Grand Orient were already members of the Strict Observance system, so that it is 44 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE not surprising that the treaty concluded on this date was more advantageous to the Directories than to the Grand Orient. The Templar Lodges were to use their own ritual and obey their own Superiors, but had to be chartered by the Grand Orient and pay fees to that body, returning also a list of their members. Mutual visiting was to be permitted and, although a French Mason was not allowed to belong to two French Lodges at one and the same time, he might under this Concor dat belong to one Lodge under each of the two contracting systems. Many French Lodges protested, for two especial reasons. By the treaty French Masons were rendered subject to unknown (and presumably foreign) Superiors, which Superiors were themselves no party to the contract. It is probable that the success of the Scots Philosophic Rite, a Scots system purely French, may be ascribed to the feeling of patriotism thus awakened.

 

The circular of June 24, 1776, announcing the conclusion of the treaty, was not issued till later and contains an appendix of August icy, with a list of 205 LodgesParis, 34; Provincial, 148 ; Regimental, 23. Some, however, are described as dormant. In the same year the Lodge Neuf Sceurs (Nine Muses) was founded by De Lalande. It comprised much of the literary, artistic and scientific talent of Paris. On April 7, 1778, a few weeks before his death, Voltaire, whose pungent pen had previously satirized Masonry, was initiated in this Lodge.

 

December q.‑The Grand Orient refused to recognize the Contrat Social as a Mother‑Lodge and ordered it either to withdraw its pretensions or to submit to erasure. This recent head of the new Scots Philosophic Rite replied by electing a Grand Master, constituting a Lodge at Rome (December 31), also by a circular discountenancing Templar Degrees (February 2o, 1777). On May 18, 1778, the Lodge was erased, to which it replied by a circular‑July 5, 1778‑which procured it the adhesion of many Lodges (Kloss, op. Cit., vol. i, pp. 230, 231).

 

1777. July 3.‑Grand Orient. The Duc de Chartres attended for the first time since his installation, the only occasion on which he is mentioned as being present.

 

October 3.‑Circular of the Grand Orient chiefly respecting the High Degrees. It adverts to the Committee as being still at work on the subject, counsels the Lodges to await the end of its labours, meanwhile to confine themselves to three Degrees. It may almost be assumed that the document owes its origin to the increasing influence of the Scots Philosophic Rite and of another recent invention, the Sublime Elects of Truth, whose field lay chiefly in Rennes and the north of France. It was, however, powerless to prevent the rise in 1778 of yet another Rite, the Academy of True Masons, at Montpellier, with alchemical tendencies.

 

Of the Grand Lodge all we know is that on January i 9, 1777, it installed three representatives of the Grand Master‑still assumed to be the Duc de Chartres ; and that, according to Thory, it constituted five Lodges.

 

November 21.‑The Grand Orient forbade its Lodges to assemble in taverns. To ensure the exclusion of irregular Masons, le mot de semestre was introduced in this year, the knowledge of which was necessary to obtain admission to a strange FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 45 Lodge. It was changed half‑yearly and communicated through the Masters of Lodges.

 

1778. January i8.‑The Grand Lodge published a circular, to which was attached a list of its Lodges. It enumerates zoo Paris Masters of Lodges, besides 27 absent and 247 in the Provinces. Now, as the Masters of the five Paris Columns in 1773 were only 81 in number and Thory, the great partisan of this Grand Lodge, has only claimed that, in the interval, it had constituted 16 Lodges, if we admit that these were all Paris Lodges, also that the list of 81 was not a complete list of all the Paris Masters, we shall still have great difficulty in converting the number from 81 to zoo ! It is also known for a fact that many of the 81 Masters joined the Grand Orient. Therefore we are driven to the conclusion that the number of Masters by no means corresponded with that of the Lodges, in fact that the great majority of these Masters had no Lodges to preside over. As regards the Provinces, Jouast asserts, after due comparison, that many of these Lodges were also on the list of the Grand Orient and suggests that the Grand Lodge simply continued to carry forward all such as had not actually announced their affiliation with the former.

 

February z6.‑The Grand Orient published a list, in all z5 8 Lodges, of which there were in Paris 34 and 7 dormant; in regiments 30 and i dormant. In this list a Lodge in the Irish Regiment " Walsh," quartered at Bapaume, claims as its date of constitution March z5, 1688 ! It is scarcely necessary to refute this assumption. Of foreign Lodges we find 4 at St. Domingo, 5 at Guadaloupe and i at Martinique. Of Strict Observance Lodges there are 6, besides 3 Directories.

 

November z 5 to December 27.‑The Convent des Gaules‑under the Strict Observance‑was held at Lyons.

 

For the next few years nothing very remarkable is to be recorded of the rival Grand bodies, but the systems opposed to either or both of them began to multiply exceedingly and to wax strong. In 1768 the Martinists, confined hitherto to Bordeaux, Lyons and Marseilles, made a settlement in Paris ; in 1770 the Illumines of Avignon came to the front; and, in 17'80, the Emperors had apparently recovered momentarily some strength and consistency.

 

1779.‑October 8.‑On this date Cagliostro founded his Egyptian Rite in a Strasburg Lodge and this androgynous system had arrived at such favour in 1784 that the Duke of Luxemburg actually accepted the dignity of a Grand Master Protector. In the same year the Lodge Constance at Arras erected the Chapitre Primordial de Rose Croix. Its patent is alleged to have been granted by the Pretender, Charles Edward, April 18, 1745. According to Thory's version it commences, " We, Charles Edward Stuart, King of England " ; whilst Jouast gives it as pretendant roi d'Angleterre 1 It will be sufficient to point out that Charles Edward did not call himself " King " during his father's lifetime, or Pretender at any time. The use of the latter term indeed he, very naturally, left to others. Moreover, no historian has yet shown that he ever was in Arras, where, according to this legend, he remained for a period of six months‑whilst we have it on his own authority that he never was a Freemason at all.

 

9 46 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 1780.‑In this year the Chapter at Arras founded another in the capital under the title of Chapitre d'Arras, de la Vallee de Paris, with constituent rights, which it exercised to a large extent and, finally, went over‑with its progeny‑to the Grand Orient in 18oi. The original Chapter at Arras remained, however, independent. In 1779 Count Schmettau, who had some thirty years previously carried the Scots Degrees to Berlin, imported the Zinnendorff Rite into Paris and established a Lodge there ; and in the following year‑1780‑the Lodge Amis Reunis (Philalethes) began to make progress with its system and was immediately followed by the Philadelphes of Narbonne. The Grand Lodge, in 1780, appointed three Honorary Presidents, who were to supply the place of the Grand Master in his absence from the meetings. 1781.‑March 6.‑The Scots Directory of the Strict Observance for Septimania at Montpellier became a party to the pact already subsisting between the Grand Orient and the other Directories.

 

July ii.‑Grand Lodge issued a circular and a list of Lodges. Of the Masters of 1772, 47 were still in existence ; 4 Lodges date from 1774, 7 from 1775, 8 from 1776, 5 from 1777, 9 from 1778, 18 from 1779, 7 from 178 o, and 3 from 1781 ; there were also z8 Provincial Lodges : in all, 136.

 

November 5.‑Compact between the Grand Orient and the Scots Philosophic Rite.

 

1782. January 18.‑The Grand Orient erected a Chamber of Grades to continue and conclude the work of the Committee previously appointed. With such a number of rivals all conferring High Degrees it became urgent to take some step or other. December 27.‑Grand Orient. A question arose as to the eligibility of a blind candidate. Given in his favour by 24 votes to i g. The Minutes were not confirmed on January 21, 1783 and, on April 4 ensuing, a contrary decision was arrived at In 1803, however, after the Egyptian campaign, owing to the prevalence of ophthalmia among the officers, blindness ceased to be a bar to admission.

 

1783.‑May 16.‑Circular of the Grand Orient calling upon its Lodges to send copies of all High‑Grade rituals in their possession to the Chamber of Grades, as a help to its labours.

 

Then followed a series of remarkable events, which ultimately relieved the Chamber of Grades of its commission, by placing in its hands four extra Degrees all ready made‑‑culminating in that of the Rose Croix. Kloss produces cogent reasons for looking upon the whole transaction as a prearranged drama calculated to supply the Grand Orient with what a brand‑new Rite would have lacked, i.e. a respectable antiquity. It is, however, evident that the Rite Francais was invented neither by the Commission nor the Chamber of Grades, but simply accepted by the latter. Space will only admit of the most material facts being quoted.

 

Among the Paris Lodges dependent upon the Grand Orient at the beginning of 1784 there were 9, each of which possessed a Rose Croix Chapter, probably selfconstituted. Roettiers de Montaleau, the most conspicuous Mason of postrevolutionary days, was a member of one of these fraternities.

 

1784. January 18.‑Montaleau brought forward in his Chapter a compre‑ FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 47 hensive plan which was to redound to the benefit of the Rose Croix Grade and a Committee was appointed to secure the co‑operation of other Chapters under the Grand Orient.

 

February 2.‑Present 8o Knights Rose Croix, representing seven Chapters ; Montaleau, Grand Orator, proposed that the seven Chapters should unite and form a Grand Chapitre General de France, gradually to. attract and absorb all other Sovereign Chapters and form the sole constitutive capitular body in France. A pact of union in 8 articles was then and there drawn up and agreed to. Three only need be adverted to. Article 6. Affiliation will only be conceded to Chapters grafted on Lodges under the Grand Orient. Article 8. Grand Chapter resolves at once to prepare a simplified revision of all existing High Degrees. This, we see, was practi cally undertaking the work confided to the Chamber of Grades. Article 7 ordered statutes to be drawn up.

 

March i g.‑Grand Chapter General. New Statutes approved and confirmed. It will be perceived that the Chapter was less dilatory than the Chamber of Grades ; also that the assertions of Thory and his followers that this body was the result of a fusion between the Emperors and the Knights is unfounded.

 

October.‑Grand Orient. Waltersdorff complained of these proceedings in Grand Orient, which, as he was one of those who met in Grand Chapter General, looks like a piece of prearranged by‑play.

 

November 2o.‑The Grand Chapter General seized the opportunity procured by Waltersdorff's speech to declare that it was only " acting for the greater honour of Grand Orient and, in order to lay its acquired light at the feet of Grand Orient, so soon as that body should decide to use its undoubted right of conferring High Degrees." After this the Grand Orient and Grand Chapter entered into pourparlers and Act I is closed. But if the fusion had then taken place the Grand Orient would only have possessed a usurped authority with no flavour of antiquity, so the curtain rises on Act II.

 

Dr. Humbert Gerbier de Werschamp now appears upon the scene claiming to be the sovereign authority in Rose Croix matters. He produced three documents in support of his claim. i. In Latin, given at the Orient of the World and Sanctuary of Edinburgh, January 21, 172I, constituting a Grand Chapter, Rose Croix, at Paris, for France, in favour of the Duc d'Antin. This voucher was very unskilfully manufactured, for, not to mention the alleged Edinburgh authority, it must be remembered that there was no Freemasonry in France before 1725 at the earliest. Also that the Duc d'Antin was not made Grand Master until 1738‑in fact in 1721 he was only fourteen years of age, then Duc d'Epernon, his grandfather the Duc d'Antin being still alive (Daruty, Recbercbe sur le Rite Ecossais, p. 94). But it was necessary before all things to produce an earlier authority than that of the Chapter of Arras (1745). 2. A certificate from the Lodge of Perfect Union at Paris, signed Antin, under the date June 23,1721, in favour of Brother Quadt as a Chevalier Rose Croix. This was to prove that Antin's Chapter had really been at work. 3. A certificate, dated February 6, 176o, signed by De Tellins‑who is not otherwise 48 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE known‑Substitute‑General of the Count de Clermont, from the Grand Chapter of France, appointing Gerbier Tres Sage ad vitam of the said Chapter. These documents are worthless, really beneath contempt. One is known to have been manufactured in a cafe and the wine stains are plainly perceptible ; but they answered the required purpose and are preserved in the archives of the Grand Orient, constituting, in effect, the foundation of its claim to control the High Degrees. Owing to these parchments, no Frenchman, in the midst of all the ensuing party strife, ever questioned the right of the Grand Orient to confer the 18░ or Rose Croix grade. But the old Paris Masters were not to be outdone ; they immediately concocted another fabulous genealogy, proving the existence of a Chapter connected with their Lodge, dating from still earlier times, viz. 1686 ! and managed to bring over the Arras Chapters in Paris to their side.

 

As regards this last date it was apparently thought necessary to produce an earlier authority than the alleged Charter of the Welsh regiment of 1688, so as to make the Chapter referred to the first of its kind in France.

 

1785.‑March 24.‑Treaty of fusion in thirteen articles between the Chapitre General de France and Gerbier's Grand Chapitre de France. Gerbier deposited his papers in the archives, ceded his rights, received the title of Past Grand Master; and Roettiers de Montaleau was appointed Grand Master of the Rose Croix.‑Close of Act II.

 

We now come to an interlude not arranged by the Grand Orient.

 

December 13.‑A self‑constituted Chapter at Rouen asked for affiliation, which was refused, but reconstitution was offered. With this the Lodge was not satisfied and applied to the Royal Order of Heredom of Kilwinning at Edinburgh for a patent.

 

1786.‑February 17.‑Opening of Act III. The Grand Orient resolved to amalgamate with the Grand Chapter and commissioners were appointed.

 

May i.‑The Royal Order of Scotland grants to Jean Matheus of Rouen a patent as Provincial Grand Master of all France. His installation followed on August 26 and Louis Clavel was named Deputy Grand Master. Thus arose a fresh rival system to that of the Grand Orient. In 1811 this system comprised twenty‑six Lodges and Chapters. (Thory, Annales Originis, p. 173, gives a list of these ; two were Colonial, two Italian, one at Brussels.) 1787. July I3.‑The Grand Orient approves of a Treaty of Fusion in twentyfour articles between the Grand Orient and the Grand Chapter. The Grand Chapter follows suit on August 4 and a circular of September zo conveys the information to the Lodges. Article 6 provides that the Chapter shall in future be called Chapitre Metropolitain, receiving a patent from Grand Orient, recognizing its activity from March 21, 172I. Article ii, the present Orders, i.e. collections of grades, in number 4‑worked by the Chapter, are to be continued till otherwise decreed. The ritual was never altered in any great degree, so that there are the four extra Degrees of the French Grand Orient, denominated the Modern or French Rite. The first order comprised all the Kadosh or Degrees of Vengeance, renamed FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 49 Secret Elect; the second, the Scots Degrees, called the Order of the Scottish Knights ; the third, the Crusading Degrees, under the style of Knights of the East and West ; and the fourth, the Christian or Rose Croix Degrees, under the appellation Knights of the Eagle and Pelican. Article 15 provides for new Statutes. 1788.‑August 13.‑Installation of the Metropolitan Chapter. End of Act III.

 

November zi.‑Epilogue. Rearrangement of the Grand Orient into the three following Boards :‑Of Administration, Symbolic Freemasonry and High Degrees. December 5.‑New Statutes approved and communicated by circular of January 19, 1789, also a list showing forty‑five Chapters at work. Thus the curtain falls on this very pretty little comedy. (For further details, see Kloss, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 280‑330ò) Nothing of very great importance remains to be recorded anterior to the French Revolution. Both systems (Grand Orient and Grand Lodge) apparently continued to prosper until 1788 or 1789, at which time they arrived at their greatest prosperity. Then came the political troubles and, one by one, the Lodges closed. The Etat of the Grand Orient, November 16, 1787, enumerates 636 Lodges, of which 3 0 were dormant. Of these, 35 were in the colonies, 71 in various regiments, 17 in foreign countries, 67 in Paris. The Grand Lodge Etit of 1788 shows 88 Paris, 43 Provincial and Colonial Lodges, the latter being mostly warranted during the years 1780‑7. Under the two governing (or Grand) bodies, there were, therefore, 767 Lodges (more or less) and if to these are added the Lodges of the Scots Philosophic Rite (37) of the Philalethes, the Illumines, the Royal Order of Scotland, the various Scots Mother‑Lodge systems, the English Lodge (No. Zoo) at Bordeaux, the number might easily reach goo or more. The first to close its doors was the Philosophic Rite‑July 31, 1791‑on the 16th it had sent a circular to its Lodges, advising them to cease from working, if required to do so by the magistrates and not to forget their duty towards their sovereign, Louis XVI. It is therefore not at all surprising to find that many of its members fell victims to the guillotine. 1791.‑In this year the Grand Lodge ceased to meet and, on October 13, the French branch of Royal Order of Scotland. The Grand Orient constituted two Lodges and, in 1792, three more. On February 24, 1793, it issued a circular, stating that it had taken precautions to preserve the archives and, on the same date, the Grand Master, the Duke of Orleans, published the following abject manifesto in the journal de Paris.

 

From Citizen Egalite to Citizen Milscent.

 

Notwithstanding my quality of Grand Master, I am unable to give you any information concerning these matters to me unknown. . . . However this may be, the following is my Masonic history:‑At a time when truly no one foresaw our Revolution, I joined Freemasonry, which presents a sort of picture of equality, just as I entered Parliament, which presented also a sort of picture of freedom. Meanwhile I have exchanged the shadow for the substance. Last December the Secretary of the Grand Orient applied to the person who in my household filled F. 1v‑4 50 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE the post of Secretary of the Grand Master, in order to hand me a question relating to the affairs of this Society. I replied to him under date of January 5, as follows :" As I know nothing of the composition of Grand Lodge and, moreover, do not believe that there should exist any mystery, nor any secret assembly.in a republic, more especially at the commencement of its rule, I desire in no way to be mixed up with the Grand Orient, nor with the assemblies of Freemasons." . . . L. P. J. Egalite.

 

On August 8, 1793, the Grand Orient published a circular announcing that on May 13 the office of Grand Master had been declared vacant. In the usual stamps impressed on this document the fleurs‑de‑lys had been effaced.

 

1794.‑In this year‑it may be remarked‑Freemasonry in France had practically ceased to exist.

 

Three Lodges only in Paris had the courage to continue working throughout the reign of terror. The Master of one of these, the Amis Reunis, was Roettiers de Montaleau, whose acquaintance has already been made. Born at Paris in 1748, he was made in the celebrated Scots Mother‑Lodge of Marseilles in 1772 and joined the Grand Orient in 1780; in 1785 became Grand Master of Grand Chapter; in 1788, President of the Chamber of Paris and, in 1793, of the Chamber of Administration, his predecessor having been removed by the guillotine. He was subsequently imprisoned, but July z8, 1794, which restored so many wretched ddtenus to their liberty, broke also his bonds. Thory attributes to him the preservation of the Grand Orient archives. In 1795 he ventured to summon the remnant of the Grand Orient together with other Masons not previously eligible ; and to resume work. The members of the Grand Orient had in great part consisted of personages attached in one way or another to the court of Louis XVI, so it is not surprising to find that, even on June z4, 1797, the number which assembled was only forty. Montaleau was offered the post of Grand Master, which he modestly declined, but accepted, however, the title of Most Worshipful (Grand Venerable) and, in that capacity, presided over Grand Lodge. The first new Constitution was issued to a Geneva Lodge June 17, 1796 ; and the report of June 24 only includes eighteen Lodges, of which three met at Paris.

 

1796.‑October 17.‑Grand Lodge also reassembled for the first time since 1792. This governing body found itself in an even worse plight than its chief rival. In the Grand Orient certain members were dispersed, others killed, the same may be said of each private Lodge, but these at least retained the power of revival as soon as a few members once more met together. But with the Grand Lodge, if a Paris Master was killed or had fled his Lodge, being proprietary, became extinct and it is asserted that, at the period now under consideration, very few of the perpetual Masters remained alive.

 

Montaleau saw his opportunity arrive and at once seized it. He made personal overtures to the Grand Lodge, which lasted for more than a year, but ultimately were crowned with success. On May 3, 1799, he was able to inform the Grand Orient that the Grand Lodge was ready to accede to a fusion. A committee was appointed FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 51 and, on May zo, Grand Lodge also named its commissioners. On May zi a contract in nine articles was drawn up, agreed to by the Grand Orient on May 23 and by the Grand Lodge on June 9. Article z abolished Perpetual Masters. Article z prolonged their tenure of office for nine years and provided for certain honourable compensations. Article 3 withdrew the appointment of officers from the Master and conferred it on the Lodge. The others need not be specially alluded to.

 

1799. June z2.‑Formal junction of the two Grand bodies. June z8, Grand Festival. There were present 4 Past Grand Officers, the first on the list being Lalande. Among the 28 officials of the Grand Orient there were 5, and among the ‑15 Masters 9 of the old Grand Lodge (Kloss, op. cit., vol. i, p. 3 5 8).

 

The following figures will show the rate at which the Craft recovered itself in these early years. On December z7, i8oo, we know of 74 Lodges which had resumed work and of these, 23 were in Paris. In i8oz there were 114 Lodges, of which 27 were in Paris, also 37 Chapters seem to have been in existence at that time.

 

I8oi. June z4.‑The Scots Philosophic Rite recommenced work under the lead of the Lodge St. Jean d'Ecosse, the Social Contract having almost taken its last sleep during the Revolution.

 

The Grand Lodge having united with the Grand Orient, it was only natural that its former Chapter and all the dependent Chapters of Arras should follow suit. It will be sufficient to state that this final step was completed on December z4, I8oi.

 

But, although the Grand Orient had thus made an ally of its former most powerful rival, many others still remained in the field. The Philalethes had died out during the Revolution and the Scots Directories of the Strict Observance were still dormant; but the Provincial Chapter of Arras, the Scots Mother‑Lodge of Marseilles, the Scots Philosophic Rite and the Royal Order of Scotland, besides various other smaller Rites unnecessary to name, were warranting Lodges and Chapters in every direction. Even many of its own Lodges, not content with a single comprehensive Scots Grade‑the Rite Fran~ais‑had opened Lodges and Chapters to work one or more of the Scots Degrees, whose number was infinite, while the latter found a leader in Abraham, the publisher of a Masonic paper called the Mirror. A curious circumstance in all these quarrels is, that we invariably find one and the same member highly placed in two or more Rites that were fighting to the death. To give a solitary example : Thory was the life and soul of the Scots Philosophic Rite, yet, from 1804 to 1813, he was also Treasurer of the Grand Chapter of the Grand Orient and a member of it still in 1814. In i8o8 he was Tersata or Grand Master of the Royal Order of Scotland in Paris ; and, until 18 z r, he was the Secretary of the Holy Empire in the Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Rite. Members of these Scots Lodges‑grafted on the Grand Orient Lodgesassumed airs of superiority and, at last, in i 8oi, appeared at the Lodge Reunion des Etrangers at Paris in clothing unrecognized by the Grand Orient. The result was an official indictment of their proceedings on November 17 and, again, on March z5, Sz FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 18o2. This was met by a circular from Abraham in June 18oz calling upon the Scots Masons to rally round the standard. A meeting of the Scots Masons was accordingly held on August S and elicited another circular from the Grand Orient on November 12, 18oz ; the ultimate result being a very embittered feeling on both sides (Kloss, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 373‑400) 1803.‑August 5.‑The Grand Orient resolved to reappoint Grands Officers Honoraires. This was an institution dating from Luxemburg's time, by which all officers of the Grand Orient were duplicated, one set for active service, the other for show on state occasions, the latter class being, of course, composed of very highly placed court personages. On this occasion the leading idea was, that by appointing generals and other military officers, as well as state officials, the active support of the First Consul would be acquired. Among the Honorary Officers and members actually elected on September 30 then ensuing, may be mentioned Murat, the Governor of Paris ; Lacepede, the Director of the Jardin des Plantes ; De Lalande, Director of the Observatory; Generals Beurnonville and Macdonald and Marshal Kellermann. Meanwhile French Freemasonry followed the French arms and increased so remarkably that, on March z3, 1804, upwards of 3oo Lodges were in existence and a corresponding number of Rose Croix Chapters. But, although outwardly prosperous, the spirit of Masonry had, to a great extent, departed, to make way for a fulsome adulation of Napoleon, far exceeding the bounds of loyalty so properly set up in all countries by the Craft. Lodges were convoked for no other purpose than to celebrate the victories of the French idol of the day. Even the orators ceased to confine themselves to Masonic themes, in order to vaunt the majesty and power of the French army‑and of its hero. This excess of patriotism naturally led to very awkward results in 1814 ; and a continuance of the practice was followed by very similar consequences at every subsequent change of Government. Yet, although this feature of Continental Freemasonry need not be further dwelt upon, it must not, however, be forgotten that the French Brethren might have adduced very weighty reasons for the habit into which they had fallen. The Craft there has never existed by virtue of the freedom of the subject‑to assemble when and where he likes, provided he transgresses not the law. It has never rested on any such solid basis, but simply on the sufferance of the civil authorities and, at any moment, even under the third Republic, a mere police decree might compel every Lodge in France to close its doors. Ought one, therefore, in fairness, to wonder very greatly that the French Masons have always been time‑servers, or that they should have abased themselves at successive periods, with a boundless docility, at the shrine of authority ? In 1804 Hacquet appeared on the scene with his revived Rite of Perfection z5░ and De Grasse‑Tilly with the Ancient and Accepted Rite 33░. Around the latter rallied all the disaffected Scots Masons and the Scots Philosophic Rite granted them the use of its temple. From January 11 to September 1804, Tilly lavished his 3z and 3 3 Degrees right and left and erected his Supreme Council; and, on October z z, 1804, the Grande Loge Gdnerale Ecossaise was constituted, all the various Scots FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 53 Rites assisting and becoming constituent parts of that Grand Lodge. Even the Rite Philosophique for a time effaced itself, in spite of Thory's assertions, for on September 6, 1805, it was distinctly agreed " from this day the Lodge St. Jean d'Acosse resumes its title and attributes of a Mother‑Lodge." This, to a certain extent, was an advantage to the Grand Orient, as it reduced its innumerable rivals to one body, with whom it might be possible to treat. The new Grand Lodge had, without his previous consent, 'proclaimed Prince Louis Buonaparte as its head. The Grand Orient replied on November 7, 1804 (Kioss, op. cit., vol. i, p. 423), by resolving to petition the Princes Joseph and Louis Buonaparte and Marshal Murat to accept its highest offices. But here, as we know by repeated statements of Cambaceres at a later period, the Emperor himself stepped in and directed his brother, Joseph, to accept the office of Grand Master and the Chancellor, Prince Cambaceres, that of Associate Grand Master, holding the latter directly responsible for the good conduct of the Craft and for its internal peace. In fact, as events proved, the astute Emperor was apprehensive lest, by altogether suppressing the Craft, he might encounter the attendant ill‑will of such a numerous body and, therefore, resolved to make it subservient to his interests and keep it under the powerful control of his most trusted Minister. From that time every one who wished to please the Emperor became a Freemason and the highest officials were soon made members and officers of the Grand Orient. That Cambaceres thoroughly understood his mission and, with a firm hand, kept peace among the rival factions, will shortly become clear. No sooner was the Grand Scots Lodge established, than Roettiers de Montaleau took measures to avert the blow and caused negotiations to be opened for a union. Marshal Massena represented the Grand Orient and Marshal Kellermann the Scots Masons; then, when matters were somewhat in trim, they were joined by Montaleau and Pyron. But here again we are startled to find, as was always the case, that all four of the Commissioners were officers of the Grand Orient. Pyron, however, who was a thorough‑going partisan of the Supreme Council, eventually libelled the members of the Grand Orient infamously and was suspended for several years. Matters were so hurried that the pact of union was signed before the necessary alterations in the Constitutions of the Grand Orient were settled, which gave rise to the subsequent quarrels.

 

At midnight on December 3, 1804, in the palace of Kellermann, the treaty was concluded and signed in duplicate; but Pyron was incomprehensibly allowed to retain both copies. The instrument contained the following passage: " The G.O. therefore declares that it incorporates with itself the Brethren of every Rite." When Pyron at a later period‑March 1, 1805‑was forced to deliver up these writings, we may imagine the consternation of the Grand Orient at reading the following substituted passage: " The G.O. therefore declares that it incorporates itself with the Brethren of every Rite." This slight distinction represents the different views of the contracting parties. The Scots Masons desired to rule Grand Lodge by force of their High Degrees, whilst the Grand Lodge intended to rule all Degrees through those members of its body who possessed them. On one hand FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE the 33░ was to be supreme; on the other hand it was to be accountable, like every other body, to the Grand Orient in its collective capacity.

 

1804.‑December 5.‑Grand Orient. The treaty was approved and, at mid night, the Scots Masons, De Grasse‑Tilly at their head, were admitted. De GrasseTilly and Montaleau each received the oath of fealty to the Grand Orient from the other, one as representative of the Grand Master in the Supreme Council, the other as representative of the Grand Master in the Grand Orient. Kellermann and Massena were deputed to wait upon his Majesty and to request him to permit his brothers to preside over the Order.

 

December i g.‑Circular of Grand Orient announcing the union and informing its Lodges that in future it would grant Warrants of Constitution for each and every Rite. In order to carry this plan out, it was decided to form a Grand Chapitre General to confer all Degrees above the 18░ or Rose Croix, which was the limit of jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Chapter. It was therefore necessary to confer the 33░ on various members of the Grand Orient, which was accordingly done on the 29th of the same month (Rebold, Histoire des trois Grandes Loges, p. 102).

 

1805. January z.‑Inauguration of the Grand Chapitre General and election of Grand Officers. Joseph Buonaparte and his brother Louis were proposed as Grand and Deputy Grand Masters (ibid., p. 98). The former was not at that time a Mason, not did he ever attend a Lodge meeting, although he signed all official documents as Grand Master and even certificates of initiation. Rebold (ibid., p. i o6) asserts that he was made by Cambaceres, Kellermann and Murat on April 15, 1805, at the Tuileries and that a circular issued two days later announced the fact to the Lodges. It may be so, but Rebold does not quote his authority and the circular has escaped the notice of all other writers, even of Thory, who, writing only eleven years afterwards, ought to have been well aware of the fact, if such it were. The exact date of Joseph's accession is somewhat doubtful, for, although Jouast says he was appointed by the Emperor‑October ii, 18o5‑Cambaceres, on April 27 previously, in promising to attend the meetings of the Grand Orient as often as possible, already speaks of Joseph as the Grand Master. Prince Louis seems never really to have been elected ; in fact in 1815 he left for Holland.

 

July 2i.‑Circular of the Grand Orient announcing the formation of a Directory of Rites. This Board was to rule all the allied Rites and all such as might in future be aggregated. The members were to be chosen by the body of the Grand Orient but, although necessarily possessing the highest Degrees of the various Rites, were to be in no way privileged in the Grand Orient or to assert any supremacy over the other members. The new Board, or Grand Committee, of course, destroyed all hopes which the members of the Supreme Council had conceived of ruling the Craft autocratically by virtue of their 3 3'.

 

September 6.‑Protest of Scots Masons in the palace of Kellermann and, on September 16, the pact of union was declared broken. But here the power of Cambaceres made itself felt and the Supreme Council, instead of at once warranting Lodges, Chapters, Consistories and other bodies, prudently resigned itself to FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 55 raising individual Masons to its highest Grades; and, as the Grand Orient already worked a Rose Croix Grade equal to the 18░ Ancient and Accepted Rite, it merely advanced its members on application. So that for years subsequently the Supreme Council, instead of being a governing and constitutive body, was nothing more than a private Lodge of the 33░. The Grand Orient, on the other side, although counting among its most faithful members more than one Grand Inspector‑General, was quite content to let matters remain on this footing. The arrangement has sometimes been called a compact or treaty. It was nothing of the kind ; there is no proof that it was even a verbal understanding. The fact is, the Supreme Council was simply restrained by Cambaceres from aggressive measures and the Grand Orient was only too glad to see the threatening danger thus averted. There existed, doubtless, a sort of implied but unexpressed understanding to let matters rest on both sides, but no mutual agreement of any sort, not did the Grand Orient ever admit that the compact of union was vitiated. Most of the allied Scots Rites recovered their liberty at the same time; Hacquet's Rite of Perfection (Heredom 25') remained, however, true to the Concordat and worked under the shield of the Grand Orient, but gradually became extinct. Hacquet himself, although at the head of his own Rite, filled nevertheless important offices in the Ancient and Accepted Rite and De Grasse‑Tilly, on the other hand, for many years subsequently appears on the list of officers of the Grand Orient. With the exception of one Consistory of the 3z░, which it dissolved in 181 o, it was not till 1811 that the Supreme Council began to erect Tribunals, Councils, etc., but not Lodges or Chapters.

 

18o5.‑October 21 .‑Joseph Buonaparte was proclaimed Grand Master in the Grand Orient and, on December 13, Prince Cambaceres was installed as first Assistant Grand Master.

 

December z7.‑The Grand Orient celebrated the solstitial fete of the Order and, at the same time, the victories of the French armies. At this meeting, le mot de semestre, which had not been given for many years, was again communicated.

 

i8o6. July i.‑Cambaceres was elected Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council 33░ and installed as such August 13.

 

Shortly afterwards‑October z5‑he was also elected Honorary Grand Master (Tersata) of the Royal Order of Scotland in Paris.

 

November i 7.‑The Grand Orient published its new Statutes, chiefly remarkable for suppressing any further erection of Provincial Grand Lodges. It feared they might become powerful rivals. Grand Orient was to be composed of a Deputy from each Chapter and Lodge, such Deputy to be a resident Parisian. A Deputy might represent as many as five Lodges. There were also 169 Grand Officersviz. 7 Grand Dignitaries, 63 honorary and 99 working officers, the last‑named being chosen from the Deputies. These officers formed six Boards (Ateliers) 1. Grande‑Loge d'Administration ; II. Grande‑Loge Symbolique ; III. GrandeChapitre ; IV. Grande‑Loge de Conseil et d'Appel ; V. Grande‑Loge des GrandeExperts; and VI. Grande‑Directoire des Rites. A certain number of Deputies also served on these Boards, with the exception of No. VI, which was composed ex‑ 5 6 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE clusively of Grand Officers. The whole scheme was of a most centralizing character and it will be perceived that Provincial Lodges were forced to entrust their affairs to Paris Deputies.

 

The Ordre du Temple (New Templars) was instituted circa 1805 and grafted on Les Chevaliers de la Croix, a Lodge‑formed October 14‑from which its members were subsequently recruited. The pretensions of this Society‑which claimed a lineal descent from the Knights Templars and did not even profess to be a Masonic body‑are elsewhere referred to. It ultimately developed religious views of a some,vhat peculiar nature, but of its remaining history, it will be sufficient to add, that it lay dormant during the restoration, revived about 1830 and apparently died of inanition about 1845. In 1807 a Portuguese called Nunex grafted on another Paris Lodge the Ordrf of Christ, also a Templar Rite with a Templar Degree beyond the 3 3 ░ of the Ancient and Accepted Rite. It erected a few subordinate Chapters at Perpignan, Limoges, Toulouse, etc., but soon died out. A proposed new Ordre de la Misericorde in 1807 never acquired any substance. An Order of St. Sepulchre also arose and, according to Begue‑Clavel, died out with its commander, ViceAdmiral Count Allemand, in 18i9. The latter was an important personage in the strife between the rival Supreme Councils. It will be seen that the era of new Rites had not yet closed.

 

1807. January zg.‑The Rit Primitif de Narbonne joined the Grand Orient and deputed three representatives to the Grand Directoire des Rites.

 

March z6.‑Cambaceres was installed Supreme Chief of the French Rite in the Metropolitan Chapter and, on March 3o, Grand Maitre d'Honneur of the Rite Philosophique.

 

April 4.‑Death of De Lalande. January 30, 18o8, of Roettiers de Montaleau.

 

1808. January z3.‑Cambaceres installed Grand Master of the Order of Christ. February 8.‑Montaleau's son‑Alex. H. N. Roettiers de Montaleauappointed to succeed him as representative of the Grand Master, chiefly as a compliment to his father's memory. He was installed on the i zth.

 

March 8.‑Cambaceres was installed Grand Master of the Rit Primitif de Narbonne and, in June, of the Ve Province at Strasburg. In March and May 18og the Ile and IIIe Provinces at Lyons and Montpellier followed suit. In the same year he was elected Protector of the High Alchemical Grades of Avignon. Being thus at the head of all the Rites of any importance, one can understand how the peace was kept.

 

18og.‑August 11.‑The Grand Orient allowed its Lodges and Chapters to cumulate several Rites, i.e. to work as many as they pleased under as many different warrants, all of which were to be obtained from the Directoire des Rites.

 

181 o.‑December zg.‑The existing Provincial Grand Lodges (three in number) were dissolved (Rebold, op. cit., p. i 19).

 

1811. January i 9.‑The Ancient and Accepted Rite resolved to commence instituting subordinate bodies beyond the 18░. The fact is, they found that such FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 57 ,were being erected without their Warrant by private individuals and their hand was thus forced.

 

June 24.‑Renewal of the former Concordat with the Scots Directories. August 9.‑A circular of Grand Orient was issued, severely censuring certain foreign jurisdictions and a few French Lodges for refusing to initiate Jews.

 

1813.‑October 27.‑The Supreme Council for America recognized the sole authority of the Grand Orient and sought amalgamation. Political events prevented further action.

 

Of this period little remains to be recorded. From 1796 to 1813 the Grand Orient practically acquired sole and supreme authority in Masonic matters, other Rites being merely subsidiary or supplementary, but not antagonistic. Its Lodges increased remarkably in France itself, also beyond the borders, for every fresh conquest meant an increase of French Masonic jurisdiction. In 1813, however, owing to the members being in such great numbers with the army, very many Lodges became dormant. On the restoration in May 1814 of Louis XVIII almost all the Imperialists who were officials of the Grand Orient became conspicuous by their absence. The Craft immediately became effusively Royal and the number of its Lodges dropped suddenly, owing to the reacquired independence of so many European States. During the Hundred Days the Craft was once more violently Imperial and, after Waterloo, it professed to breathe freely at last, owing to the removal of the Napoleonic incubus. On July 1, 1814 (Rebold, op. Cit., p. 123), several Lodges united to celebrate the return of Louis XVIII and their labours were concluded by a unanimous vote and oath to " protect the Lilies and die in defence of the Bourbons." The Grand Orient made speed to declare the Grand Mastership vacant and‑May ii‑voted i,ooo francs for the restoration of the Statue of Henri IV, whilst, on June 24, its orators expatiated on the joy which Masonry felt in at length seeing its legitimate king surrounded by his august family.

 

According to Rebold's list the progress of the Grand Orient was as follows 1803, 6o new Chapters and Lodges ; 1804, 49 ; I 8o5, 67 ; I 8o6, 47 ; 1807, 56 ; 18o8, 47; 1809, 44 ; 1810, 36 ; 1811, 27 ; 1812, 27 ; I8I3, I8 ; I8I4, 7‑but these figures do not include the dormant Lodges which resumed work. The last list under the Empire, published in IS 14, gives 764 active Lodges and z9o Chapters in France ; in the infantry, 63 Lodges and 24 Chapters ; in the cavalry, 7 Lodges and z Chapters ; in the auxiliary forces, 4 Lodges ; in the colonies, 16 Lodges and 7 Chapters ; abroad, 31 Lodges and 14 Chapters‑in all, 886 Lodges and 337 Chap ters. When we remember that, after the Revolution, the report of the Grand Orient on June 24, 1796, could only enumerate 18 Lodges, it must be confessed that the Craft had advanced by leaps and bounds. The list of 1814 also mentions 6 dormant Lodges as about to reopen and that there were applications for 3 5 new Lodges and 24 new Chapters, bringing the total number up to iz88, the result of eighteen years' activity.

 

At this period the Grand Orient of France was in communication with the Grand Lodges of Baden in Swabia, of the kingdoms of Italy and Naples, of Poland FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE and Lithuania, of the Three Globes at Berlin, of the Duchy of Warsaw, of Vienna and of the kingdom of Westphalia (Kloss, op. cit., vol. i, p. 5 8z). The Grand Lodges at Frankfort, Hanover, The Hague, etc., were ignored by French Masons as having no right to exist in territory occupied by France.

 

One further allusion, which is of historical interest, will be made to Dr. Guillotin, an officer of the Grand Orient, who died March z6, 1814. There is the authority of the Grand Orator on June z4 of that year, for the statement that his last days were embittered by the thought, that his name had been so prominently connected with the excesses of the Revolution ; the dreaded instrument which bore his name having been suggested by him out of pure pity for the former sufferings of condemned criminals (Kloss, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 3). This oration consequently refutes the so often alleged fable that Dr. Guillotin's head was one of the first to fall under his own invention.

 

On the whole, the restoration had a disastrous effect on French Freemasonry. Apart from the number of foreign Lodges which naturally reverted to their own native jurisdictions, a great number of French Lodges had so identified themselves with Napoleon and were so largely composed of his adherents, that nothing remained for them but to close their doors, at least for a time. In addition to this, the police and clergy under the restored family were by no means favourable to the Craft and prevented its progress. The king himself firmly refused to allow a prince of his family to be placed at its head and no Grand Master, consequently, was elected, but, in his place, three Deputies of the non‑existent Grand Master or Grand Conservators and one representative of the Grand Master, viz. Montaleau. General‑afterwards Marshal‑Beurnonville offered the king to become surety for the good behaviour of the Craft, if allowed to assume the command, to which His Majesty agreed, so that the General, as first Deputy Grand Master, or first Grand Conservator, took the place previously occupied by Cambaceres. The precarious state of toleration in which the Craft managed to drag on its existence is reflected in its own conduct. The individual initiative of the Lodges was everywhere hemmed in and fenced around ; representations of the police, even if unfounded, were immediately followed by erasure of the supposed peccant Lodges ; Masonic publications were on several occasions forbidden bythe Grand Orient, which did its best to suppress them entirely; and, in sympathy with the government, the increasing centralizing tendency of its authority was day by day more pronounced. The influence of political events is shown by the fact that immediately after the Hundred Days more than 45o Lodges became dormant (Rebold, op. cit., p. 145).

 

I8'4. July i.‑The Grand Orient declared the Grand Mastership (Joseph's) vacant and sent a Deputation to Cambaceres to require and accept his resignation. July zcg.‑The Grand Orient received a report of the fruitless efforts of its Committee to induce the king to grant them a Royal Grand Master; elected and proclaimed in his stead three Grand Conservators, Marshal Macdonald, General Beurnonville and Timbrunne, Count de Valence. Montaleau was elected special representative of these three officers and, among the other officers of later interest, FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 59 may be mentioned the following members of the Ancient and Accepted Rite Lacepede, Kellermann, Rampon, Muraire, Perignon, Lefevre, Massena, Clement de Ris, Beurnonville, Montaleau, Valence, De Segur, Challan and Tour d'Auvergne. Beurnonville declared that he would extend his protection to the Grand Orient alone, as in his eyes it was the legal Masonic authority (Kloss, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 4, i1).

 

August ig.‑The Grand Orient, at a meeting of one of its Boards, the Grande Loge de Conseil, resolved to exercise the control to which it laid claim over all rites of Freemasonry (ibid., p. s) and, on August 26, informed the Supreme Council of its intention, announcing that it had appointed a Committee to treat with them.

 

As the events which followed this step are, even at the present day, the source of mutual recriminations between the members of the two leading systems of French Freemasonry, the facts will be related in chronological order with minuteness of detail, allowing readers to arrive at their own conclusions. A few introductory ,vords, however, are necessary, in order that the position of the parties may be clearly understood. The Grand Orient, although shorn of some of its higher dignitaries, had not been severely crippled by the change of government. The Supreme Council, on the other hand, which largely consisted of military officers attached to the late Emperor, had fallen into a state of paralysis and was quite dormant. This is admitted on all sides. The last list of the Supreme Council enumerates the following members : Cambaceres, *Valence, Pyron, Thory, Hacquet, *Challan, *Kellermann, *Lacepede, d'Anduze, Renier, *Massena, *De Ris, *Beurnonville, *Muraire, Aigrefeuille, d'Aunay, Rapp, Chasset, *Segur, *Rampon, Langiers‑Villars, Peny, Rouyer, *Montaleau, Joly ; honorary members, De GrasseTilly, Trogoff, Baillache, *Tour d'Auvergne, d'Harmensen and De Villiere. Of these thirty‑one Brethren, the twelve whose names are in each case distinguished by an asterisk, are known to have been Officers of the Grand Orient. Moreover, Hacquet and some of the others were members of the same body; all were, of course, in the circumstances which had hitherto obtained, members of Lodges under the jurisdiction of the Grand Orient, because the Ancient and Accepted Rite had not, so far, warranted any bodies under the 18░.

 

September 8.‑Jolt' reported the announcement of August 26 to the Supreme Council, which on September 23 appointed a Committee of Inquiry, consisting of Beurnonville, Muraire and Aigrefeuille, the two former being officials of the Grand Orient (ibid., p. 6).

 

October 28.‑The Supreme Council handed in an answer declining a fusion, signed *Valence, Pyron, Thory, *Hacquet, *Challan, *De Ris, *Beurnonville, *Perignon, *Muraire, Aigrefeuille, d'Aunay, *Lefevre, *Segur, Langiers‑Villars, Peny, Rouyer, Joly and Desfourneaux. This list is remarkable and affords evidence of the continual play of cross purposes in French Freemasonry. Desfourneaux was not a real member at all of the Supreme Council for France, but of the Supreme Council for America, dormant until better times ; the nine names marked * were Officers of the Grand Orient and General Beurnonville, its Senior Grand Conservator‑who Go FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE had declared he would acknowledge no authority but that of the Grand Orient itself. But, still more remarkable is the fact, that a Committee previously‑ appointed by the Grand Orient on August 22, to prepare a report on the subject, did unanimously ‑November 12‑approve of a fusion‑or, in the language of the Scots Masons, a usurpation‑and that of the nine members of this Committee, two were Joly and Hacquet, who signed the answer of October 28, as above.

 

November i 8.‑The Grand Orient considered the report and resolved to resume its inherent authority over all Rites, to dissolve the Directory of Rites as no longer necessary, etc. Among the signatures we find Joly's ; the others, with the excep tion of Montaleau's, are not given in any work at command. The results of this resolution on the organization of the Grand Orient may now be taken out of their chronological sequence. That body separated the legislative from the administrative functions of the 33░ and it constituted on one hand a Chambre du Supreme Conseil des Rites (another name for the old Grand Chapitre) to warrant and administer ALL bodies beyond the 3░, on the other a Grand Consistoire des Rites divided into two sections. Section i, the Grand Council of Prince Masons, to initiate into the 32░ or the equivalent Degree in the other Rites and to delegate the right to other Consistories in France. Section 2 to be the sole authority conferring the 3 3'. The Grand Consistory was erected September i 2 and inaugurated November zz, 1815. It will be observed that the autocratic powers of a few 33░ members were thus suppressed and that they became only an integral part in one combined whole‑the Grand Orient.

 

November 25.‑The Supreme Council issued a circular protest against the action of the Grand Orient on the preceding 18th. This was only signed by Muraire, Aigrefeuille, d'Aunay and Pyron (Kloss, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 8). So that apparently all the others had joined the party of the Grand Orient.

 

December 3.‑De Grasse‑Tilly returned, revived the Supreme Council for America and attempted to assume the place left vacant by the moribund Supreme Council for France.

 

December 28.‑Installation of a modified list of Grand Officers. Among these are found the following former members of the Supreme Council for France Beurnonville, Valence, Lacepede, Kellermann, Rampon, Muraire, Massena, Challan, Tour d'Auvergne, De Ris, Hacquet, Montaleau, Perignon and, possibly, others, as Kloss does not give the complete list (ibid., p. i2). As it includes Muraire, it would appear as if the protesting remnant of the Supreme Council had been reduced to three. Of course those who were not in Paris at the moment, owing to political reasons, cannot be reckoned with. Certain it is, that the great majority had at this time rallied to the Grand Orient, although some afterwards went back to their previous allegiance. But of what effect can a majority be, in a society where one single 3 3 ░ man who may hold out, is allowed to make others and, with them, reconstruct the whole edifice ? 1815.‑March 15.‑Napoleon lands at Cannes, when the Grand Orient reinstated Prince Joseph and Cambaceres and became imperialist. On June 18 the FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 61 Emperor was overthrown at Waterloo and the order, " As you were," was passed along the line.

 

August i 8.‑The Supreme Council for France issues a fresh circular protest, which had affixed to it the signatures of Aigrefeuille, Thory, Hacquet, Muraire, d'Aunay, De Tinan and Pyron. Here we meet with the last sign of this body for some years, with the exception of Joly's resignation on November io following, when he joined the Grand Orient. That Hacquet should have signed is incomprehensible, seeing that he presided over‑the Grand Consistory of Rites, or, in other words, was the head of the Scots branch of the Grand Orient. Muraire and Lacepede, it may incidentally be observed, had, however, at that time deserted the Grand Orient.

 

December 27.‑This meeting of the Grand Orient is of interest, because it afforded Admiral Sir Sidney Smith an opportunity of presenting several printed projects for freeing the white slaves in Algiers.

 

1815 is also remarkable as being the year in which the Rite of Misraim began to arouse attention. Joly, to whom allusion has frequently been made, was a member at the time and so, of course, was Thory, who seems to have joined every thing 1 Joly and other members of the Grand Orient united in a petition to that body, that the new Rite might be placed under the xgis of the Grand Consistory of Rites, which, however, was rejected on January 14, 1817 (Rebold, op. cit., p. 1 z6).

 

1817.‑August 8.‑The Grand Orient passed a resolution‑embodied in a circular, September 18, 1817‑declaring all soi‑disant Masonic bodies not warranted by itself, to be irregular and clandestine and forbidding its Lodges to recognize any such associations as Masonic, or to exchange visits with their members (Kloss, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 37). This attitude was persisted in by the Grand Orient until 1841. The Ancient and Accepted Rite, on the other hand, always professed tolerance and acknowledged as legitimate all Masons, under whatever jurisdiction. As a stroke of policy coming from the weaker side, this action was eminently well conceived and met with the success which has invariably attended every such proceeding, from historic times down to the present day. It would nevertheless be difficult for an English Mason to dispute the strict legality of the proceedings of the Grand Orient ; nor, from the point of view of that body, would it be altogether easy to call in question their expediency ; but, even as in England at the time of the rival Grand Lodges, so in France, the prohibition of mutual recognition was constantly broken by the subordinate Lodges of the Grand Orient, which more than once entailed erasure. At all great meetings, it may be observed, of the Supreme Council, members of the Grand Orient were present in large numbers and were invariably well received.

 

October 7.‑The Grand Orient prohibited its Lodges from assembling at the Prado because the Supreme Council for America and a Misraim Lodge met there. It was not until September 12, 18zi, that the proprietor of the Prado purged himself of his offences and the Grand Orient reinaugurated the premises, besprinkling them 62 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE with water to exorcize the unclean spirits of the past ; a proceeding which brought down upon its head the Homeric laughter of its rivals, indeed, of all Paris. November 7.‑A letter was read from Marshal Beurnonville enjoining the Grand Orient to follow the example of the Government and to look upon all Lodges not dependent upon itself as secret societies prohibited by the law.

 

December 27.‑The Grand Orient declared the Rite of Misraim to be illegal and erased a Lodge for taking its part. It also called upon its own members to leave the Rite within thirty‑three days, an order which they one and all obeyed.

 

1818.‑February 23.‑The Supreme Council for America, having completed its organization, met for the first time. The list of Grand Officers comprises names which subsequently became of importance, but none was connected with its past proceedings except those of De Grasse‑Tilly and Desfourneaux, the latter of whom signed the document of October 28, 1814, which professedly emanated from the dormant Supreme Council for France, of which he was not even a member.

 

March 24.‑Constitution of the Rainbow Lodge as the Mother‑Lodge of Misraim.

 

April 8.‑The Supreme Council marked its new departure by warranting two Craft Lodges. This is the date of its first attack upon the Craft in the sense that expression is understood generally.

 

August 7.‑Pyron, in a circular, attempted to revive the Old Supreme Council for France, but unsuccessfully. He died on September 28 following.

 

August 18.‑De Grasse‑Tilly, having been deposed by the Supreme Council which he had constituted anew, issued a manifesto and retired with his adherents to the Pompei.

 

October 15.‑The Grand Consistory of Rites, established September 15, 1815, issued its Statutes.

 

November 9.‑The Supreme Grand Scots Lodge, at the Pompei (De GrasseTilly's), completed its Statutes, which, however, were not published until July 9, 1810.

 

181g.‑April 24.‑This date marks the commencement of one of many efforts on the part of the Grand Orient to conciliate the Ancient and Accepted Rite. The negotiations were conducted with the Supreme Council at the Pompei, the one in the Prado being moribund and the ancient Supreme Council for France, or rather what remained of it, not having yet awoke from its slumber. On the day in question, the highest officials of the Supreme Council met at a ball in a Paris Lodge‑Commanders of Mount Tabor‑two influential members of the Grand Orient, de Mangourit and Boulle. As a consequence of advances made by the latter, commissioners were appointed and, on May 2, Roi and Baccarat on the one side and de Mangourit and Boulle on the other, held a conference. Boulle's proposal was as follows A friendly fusion, the Count de Cazes to be third Deputy Grand Master, Baron Fernig to be Lieutenant Grand Commander, the other members of Supreme FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 63 Council to receive posts or become honorary members, all members of the 33░ to be recognized and all former inimical manifestoes to be annulled.

 

This liberal offer surprised the other side, who had only come prepared with a proposal that the independence of the Supreme Council should be acknowledged and harmony‑though not fusion‑established between the rival bodies. Accord ing to Kloss, on May 7, additional commissioners were appointed by both parties ; whilst if we follow Jouast, this occurred two days previously. The names, however, of the Supreme Council representatives given by these two authorities do not agree. Conferences were held on June 16, from 10 A.M. to 5 P.M. and, again on June zi and the Grand Orient appears to have been so confident of a happy result as to prepare for the festival of reunion. But the negotiations were wrecked on the usual rock. The Grand Orient insisted that the united body ought not only to be supreme but singly governed ; but the Supreme Council refused to part with its fancied prerogative of ruling the first three Degrees. The Supreme Council wished to absorb and rule the Grand Orient, whilst the latter wished to place the other side in the same position as its own branch of the Ancient and Accepted Rite. The independence within itself of a small body of men‑an imperium in imperionaturally enough could not be tolerated and the other side would accept nothing less. The Count‑afterwards Duc‑de Cazes appears to have been unfeignedly sorry at the rupture of these negotiations ; and Lacep6de demitted from the Supreme Council in order to accept the post of Grand Administrator‑General in the Grand Orient. The circular of Grand Orient of July 31, 18 i,g, gives a complete history of all these transactions and conclusively proves that the Grand Orient never relinquished the rights acquired by the Concordat of 1804, but merely held them in suspense until 1815, at which date the great majority of the old Supreme Council had joined it in erecting the Grand Consistory of Rites.

 

i 82o. June 2o.‑The Grand Orient renewed its decree forbidding Masonic assemblies in public‑houses, but excepted four by name.

 

1821.‑March 9.‑Vassal opened the discussion on the projected new Statutes. These were not presented in a complete form to the Grand Orient until 1826, although the Committee of Revision had been appointed in 1817.

 

April 23.‑Death of Peter Riel, Marquis de Beurnonville, Marshal and Peer of France, Senior Grand Conservator of the Grand Orient; born May 10, 1752. Valence, one of his co‑Deputy Grand Masters, had deserted to the Supreme Council. Lacepede took the position vacated by the decease of Beurnonville and was replaced in 1823 by Count Rampon. The Marquis de Lauriston succeeded Valence in 1822. May 4.‑What remained of the original Supreme Council for France met, after a repose of six years and, on the 7th, amalgamated with the Pompei Council for America; the united body becoming the Supreme Council for France and the French possessions. The Articles of Union were signed by Valence, Muraire, Segur and Peny. The Prado Council attempted to organize a festival as a counter demonstration on June 28 and July 31 and then incontinently expired. Hacquet 64 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE demitted and threw in his lot finally with the Grand Orient, Lacepede becoming Grand Director of Ceremonies in his place. It was discovered that of the ancient (or original) Supreme Council eight members were dead, three in continuous absence and four others resigned. In the list of the new Supreme Council we find the following names of members of the old‑Counts *de Valence, *Segur and *Muraire, Baron de Peny, Thory, *Challan, Counts *Lacepede, De Grasse‑Tilly, *Rampon, *De Ris and Langier‑Villars, the seven marked‑with an asterisk having all at different times, sanctioned, by their participation therein, the former action of the Grand Orient in assuming the control of this Rite. It is singular that De Ris and Rampon for many subsequent years held high office in the Grand Orient. Through this constant shuffling of names and transfer of allegiance, the study of French Freemasonry is beset with almost insuperable difficulties.

 

June 24.‑Lacepede‑notwithstanding the occurrences of May 7‑presided in the Grand Orient at the proceedings in memory of Beurnonville. He afterwards resigned his membership, retaining only that of the Supreme Council.

 

August 6.‑Erection by the Supreme Council of the Very Illustrious Lodge of the Supreme Council, to admit members to the 30░‑33░. The Lodge de la Grande Commanderie had been constituted on June 24 preceding, to admit to the z9░ inclusive.

 

December zi.‑The Grand Orient denounced the Rite of Misraim to the civil authorities and, on September 7, 1822, the latter took advantage of a slight infraction of the police rules to suppress the meetings of the Rite, which became dormant (Rebold, op. cit., pp. 133, 134).

 

1823.‑November 2o.‑The Royal Order of Scotland (Heredom) united with the Grand Orient and, on November 25, the Grand Orient met to mourn the death of Louis XVIII.

 

1824.‑The accession of Charles X does not seem to have been very beneficial to the Craft. In this year many Lodges in the Provinces were forcibly closed by the police.

 

1826. June 26.‑The new Constitutions, commenced in 1817, were completed and laid before the Grand Orient; they consisted of 898 articles. The Grand Orient‑in its entirety‑was to consist of a Grand Master (not appointed at this time), three Deputy Grand Masters (Marshals Macdonald and Lauriston and Count Rampon), Grand and Past Grand Officers and Masters and Deputies from the Lodges. The Boards, or Grand Committees (Chambres), were to be five in number.

 

1. Correspondence and Finance, or La Chambre d'Administration. z. La Chambre Symbolique. 3. La Chambre des Hauts Grades, or Supreme‑Conseil des Rites. These three Boards were called Chambres Administrative. 4. Counsel and Appeal ‑a composite body‑consisting of nine officers of each of the three first Boards and some others. The members were required to possess the highest grades of the Rites practised. Besides hearing appeals, this Board settled the agenda paper for the Grand Orient. 5. La Comite Central et d'Elections, formed by the union of the three first, or Administrative Boards. Its functions were to nominate to all FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 65 the different offices. Besides these, there was a Grand College of Rites, formed of all members of the Grand Orient holding the W‑33' and directed by thirty‑six officers of that body, its duty being to grant the W‑33% or the corresponding ones of the other Rites and to warrant Consistories of the 32'.

 

These Constitutions‑containing more than 40o regulations for private Lodgeswere declared subject to revision every five years.

 

November 30.‑We now meet with another series of efforts to accomplish a fusion between the two rival Rites. On this date Benou wrote anonymously to the Duc de Choiseul, Grand Commander of the Supreme Council, urging a union. Choiseul answered anonymously on December 5, expressing a willingness to treat on the basis of the Concordat of 1804. On the 6th these letters were laid before the Chambre des Rites, which appointed Commissioners and prepared a room for the committee. Benou informed Choiseul of the foregoing on the 7th. On the loth the Supreme Council for France appointed its Commissioners. The first meeting took place December zz, and the Deputies from the Grand Orient handed in their proposal‑complete fusion : Choiseul to be made a Deputy Grand Master ; Muraire, President of the College des Rites ; 15 members of the Supreme Council chosen by Choiseul, to be made Grand Officers ; 5 others to enter the College des Rites, 5 the Chambre Symbolique and 5 the Chambre d'Administration ; all Choiseul's Lodges to be acknowledged, etc. It will be seen that, as on every other occasion, the Grand Orient was the first to make overtures and proffered generous terms. But the same cause was ever destined to nullify the most well‑meant efforts. Besuchet (Secretary to this Committee of Fusion) relates an anecdote of these meetings. General Pully, in order to explain the views of his colleagues, betook himself to professional terms and remarked, " We wish to enter in amongst you with shouldered arms as a battalion square (bataillon carre). Yes, was the reply ; it only needs that you should place your fieldpieces at the four corners and we shall doubtless conclude a famous treaty of peace ! " After this declaration of first principles, it will occasion no surprise that, in spite of frequent meetings and interminable colloquies, the Supreme Council announced‑April 8‑that further negotiation was useless, whereupon the Com mittee dissolved. On April 13, I8z7, the Grand Orient received the report of its Commissioners, and the proceedings closed.

 

I83o.‑The documentary evidence preserved, presents very little of importance, till we come to the three revolutionary days of July z8‑30, which deposed the elder branch of the Bourbons and placed Louis Philippe on the throne. The Lodge of the Trinosophes atParis feted the event onAugust 6 and a Deputation of the Supreme Council attended, Muraire at its head. Bouilly and Merilhon of the Grand Orient took the opportunity of improving the occasion by desiring that the auspicious political events should be followed by a fusion of the two Rites. Muraire replied and concluded by expressing a wish to exchange the kiss of peace with Bouilly.

 

Then followed a truly French scene. Desetangs seized each orator by the hand, led them into the middle of the Lodge and, amidst the acclamation of the assembly, F. IV‑5 66 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE they threw themselves into each other's arms. A speech in honour of Lafayette, the hero of the hour, followed. On October 1o the Supreme Council gave a fete in honour of Lafayette, at which he was present and the official chairs of the Lodge were partly vacated in favour of officers of the Grand Orient, who attended in a body. A similar festival in compliment to Lafayette was given by the Grand Orient, at which the Supreme Council assisted. But these reunions were only of passing importance; the rivalry was very soon resumed.

 

This would seem a fitting point to review the progress of both systems since the last comparison. In 1827 they stood thus : Grand Orient, Paris, 67 Lodges, 37 Chapters, 6 Councils 30░, 1 of the 3z░ ; in the Provinces, 203 Lodges, 78 Chapters, 8 Councils 30░, 1 Tribunal 31░, 5 Councils of the 3z░ ; in the Colonies, abroad and in regiments, zo Lodges, 18 Chapters, 3 Councils 30░, z Councils 32░ : in all, 450 bodies, besides 156 dormant. At the same date the Supreme Council had only warranted z7 bodies. In 1831 the Grand Orient stood thus : 268 Lodges, 130 Chapters, z7 Councils in France ; abroad 54 : in all, 479 bodies. Of these, 114 met in Paris, 97 were still dormant. At the same date the Supreme Council ruled over i o Lodges and 8 Chapters in Paris ; in the Provinces, i o Lodges, 4 Chapters, i Council ; abroad i Lodge : in all, 34. The net result as regards these, the only two remaining constituent bodies in France, is thus : 513 Lodges, all told ; which compares unfavourably with the 1,288 of 1814. According to Rebold's lists, the annual progress of the Grand Orient was (Lodges and Chapters) in 1814, 7 ; 1815, 1 ; 1816, 6 ; 1817, 8 ; 1818, 17 ; 181g, 23 ; 1820, 9 ; 1821, 14 ; 1822, 10 (35 at least closed during the preceding two years) ; 18 z3, 5 ; 18 z4, 12 ; 18 z5, 15 ; 1826, 1z (though the grand total was no higher than in 18zo) ; 1827, 6 ; 1828, 6 ; i8zcg, 17 ; 1830, 9 (more than 6o, however, ceased work during this year).

 

The first efforts of the Grand Orient, on the accession of Louis Philippe, were directed to procuring his assent in the nomination of the Duke of Orleans as Grand Master. Failing in this, the office was still considered vacant and held, as it were, in commission by the three Grand Conservators or Deputy Grand Masters, as they were variously styled. These were the Marquis de Lauriston (1822), Count Rampon (1823), Count Alexander de Laborde (1825) ; Roettiers de Montaleau, Jun. (1808); being still the representative of the Grand Master.

 

According to the Statute requiring a revision of the Constitutions every five years, this duty was entrusted to a Committee, October 27, 1831. A report was furnished to the Grand Orient‑March 24, 1832‑and remitted to the Boards. Here it underwent revision from June 1z, 1832, to June 11, 1833 and returned to the Committee, who apparently went to sleep over it for the next six years. 1833.‑August 2i.‑The Grand Orient was obliged to caution its Lodges against inter‑meddling with politics. During the whole of this reign, 1830‑48, the Lodges showed a tendency to political discussions, which often began innocently enough with politico‑economic questions and humanitarian projects, but were not kept within due bounds. Many Lodges were, in consequence, from time to time suspended, some at the instance of the police and, on these occasions, the Grand FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 67 Orient was so anxious to make submission, that it occasionally refrained from any inquiry into the alleged offences. The first to suffer was the Indivisible Trinity of Paris, September ii.

 

18 A police law of April io, placed the Lodges still more under the arbitrary control of the police ; so much so, that the Grand Orient thought of asking the special protection of government, but Bouilly induced the members to reject this dangerous project. The result was, however, that the Grand Orient became more pusillanimous than ever and even sought to suppress all Masonic publications. In this it could not succeed, but it could and did exclude their authors and the next to suffer was Peigne (1835), the editor of the Revue Mafonique. This course of action was by no means new to the Grand Orient, but earlier examples could not have been mentioned without excluding matters of more importance.

 

The anathema pronounced by the Grand Orient on the Supreme Council was a constant source of remonstrance from its own Lodges. In 1835 fresh efforts at a fusion were made, but the proposals on either side were a counterpart of those of i 8z6 and, therefore, failed.

 

1836.‑The Grand Orient received continual complaints as to the tardy progress made with the revision of the Statutes. At one tumultuous meeting the President closed the Lodge, but the members would not disperse. Besuchet harangued the assembly and proposed to withdraw from the tyranny of the Grand Orient by forming a new body with the title Central and National Grand Lodge. As a consequence, on October 14 and z8, the Orator and his Lodge were alike suspended. Six other Lodges then ranged themselves on the side of the Schismatics ; and, on January 14, 1837, at the recommendation of Laborde, not only were these also suspended, but the names of their members were even handed in to the civil authorities. In 1836, Bouilly succeeded Montaleau as Representative of the Grand Master.

 

1837.‑The Committee of Revision complained of the difficulties under which they laboured and, on October 27, their meetings were, in consequence, declared to be private and visitors were pronounced incapable of taking part in their discussions.

 

1838.‑Rise of the Rite of Memphis.

 

1839.‑A general amnesty was granted to all previous Masonic offenders on January 4. The new Statutes were at length produced‑March 15‑and approved and published on June z4. There were few alterations of importance. Honorary officers were discontinued; all articles making it impossible for members of the two Masonic jurisdictions to inter‑visit were withdrawn. As a check to the admission of members already verging on pauperism, a minimum initiation fee was fixed for each separate Degree. Visitors to the Grand Orient were deprived of the right of addressing the Lodge‑which, in spite of the absence of voting power, had, in i8zg and 1836, led to scandalous tumults. The historical introduction to these Statutes (or Constitutions), affords a melancholy proof of the lamentable Masonic ignorance of those by whom they were compiled.

 

November 13.‑The Loge 1'Anglaise, No. zoo, Bordeaux, petitioned the Grand 68 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE Orient to put an end to its enmity with the Supreme Council. In 1840 several other Lodges joined in the plea for toleration and a circular of the Grand Orient‑October i9, 184o‑which sought to awaken slumbering animosities, was severely criticized on all sides. The Supreme Council seized the opportunity December 15‑of once more proclaiming that it opened its arms to all Masons, either as members or visitors ; and, in spite of the intolerance of the Grand Orient, it forbade its own Lodges from entering upon reprisals of any sort.

 

1841.‑A last effort at a fusion was made by the Grand Orient and, in order to ensure success, it was agreed that the negotiations should be conducted by the five highest dignitaries on either side. These, severally headed by Bouilly and the Duc de Cazes, met for the first time on March z8, 1841. The Supreme Council proposed a return to the tacit understanding of 18o5, that the Grand Orient should place all Degrees above the 18░ under the authority of the Supreme Council. Each body to remain independent, but under the same Grand Master and two Deputy Grand Masters, one for each Rite; with the joint title "The Grand Orient of France and the Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Rite United." The Grand Orient could not accept those terms, but it made every possible concession. Nothing, however, would satisfy the Supreme Council but absolute supremacy and the conservation of their hierarchical system. Later‑June z9‑it declared that no fusion could ever be possible between two bodies so fundamentally different in organization. In the same year‑November 6‑the Grand Orient at length gave way to the wishes of its Lodges, and decreed " That Lodges under its jurisdiction might interchange visits with those under the Supreme Council." From that time all quarrels were buried and the two Grand bodies have worked side by side in peace, although the Grand Orient has never ceased to confer the 33 Degrees of the Ancient and Accepted Rite, or the Supreme Council to warrant Lodges of the Craft.

 

1842.‑February ii.‑Baron Las Cases was named Deputy Grand Master vice De Laborde and installed on the 19th ; and‑September 3‑Bertrand was installed as Representative of the Grand Master in the place of Bouilly deceased.

 

1843.‑Ragon, the author of Cours Philosophique et Interprdtatif des Initiations Anciennes et Modernes, was censured‑September zcg‑for publishing the second part of that work and‑October zo‑Begue‑Clavel was expelled for publishing his Histoire Pittoresque. On November 8, however, the latter penalty was commuted to a formal censure.

 

1844.‑September 6.‑The Lodge of the Trinosophes at Paris affiliated a Brother Noel de Quersoniers, aged I 15 (Rebold, op. cit., p. 186).

 

1845.‑In this year there began a series of Congresses to discuss questions of general and Masonic interest, such as pauperism, schools and cognate subjects, some of which approached perilously near to the vwlum prohibitum, viz. current politics. The Revolution of 1848 was already in the air. The first Congress was heldJuly 3o‑at La Rochelle ; and August 31, the Lodges at Strasburg inaugurated one at Steinbach in honour of Erwin, the architect of the cathedral, at which many German Lodges were represented. Six Lodges met at Rochefort June 7, 1846 ; FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 69 others assembled at Strasburg, August 18 ; at Saintes, June 5‑7, 1847 ; at Toulouse, June zz. A further one was projected at Bordeaux for 1848, but the Grand Orient stepped in on January 17, 1848 and forbade these Congresses altogether.

 

1846.‑February z7.‑The Grand Orient held a Lodge of mourning for its deceased members‑1843‑5‑amongst whom was Joseph Napoleon, last Grand Master of France.

 

April 3.‑Reports and complaints that the Prussian Lodges refused to receive as visitors Frenchmen who were Jews, were taken into consideration. The Grand Orient expressed its indignation and instructed its representatives at the Berlin Grand Lodges, to endeavour to procure an alteration in the Statutes of those bodies, but, at the same time, strictly enjoined French Lodges to refrain from reprisals. A more pronounced action on the part of England may have possibly assisted in bringing one at least of those bigoted Grand Lodges more into harmony with the spirit of the age.

 

June i.‑The Supreme Council issued its first code of Regulations. 1847.‑April z.‑Bertrand was elected Deputy Grand Master and was succeeded in the office of Representative‑June z4‑by Desanlis. On December 17 the Commission entrusted with the revision of the Statutes made its report to the Grand Orient.

 

1848.‑March 4.‑The Grand Orient met after the overthrow of the Monarchy and the formation of a Provisional Government and resolved to send a Deputation to the latter expressing sympathy with the Revolution and joy at finding that its own maxim of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity had become the watchwords of the nation. Thus, again, it was unable to refrain from political action‑and worship, more or less sincere, of the rising sun. These sentiments were expressed to the Lodges in a circular of the 13th. The Deputation presented itself on the 6th and was received by Cremieux and Garnier‑Pages, members of the government, both wearing Masonic regalia. The addresses on either side may be passed over with the bare comment that, though confining themselves to the letter of the truth respecting the role of the Craft, they violated its spirit by implication. But political events also tinged the preparations for passing the new Constitutions just announced as complete. A resolution was agreed to‑March 2o‑ordering a new election of Deputies in all Lodges to assist at the framing of the new ordinances and a circular of the z 5 th calls upon all Lodges, without regard to Rites and jurisdictions, to send Deputies to form in the Grand Orient a really National Masonic assembly for all France. A further circular of April 7 was still more explicit. It invited all Lodges and Masons in France to come and aid in establishing a Masonic unity of government. Here we plainly recognize the cloven hoof, the idea presumably being, to utilize the awakened democratic spirit of the nation, to the detriment of the aristocratically governed Supreme Council.

 

At the close of this epoch it will be convenient to review the progress of the Grand Orient from 183o. According to Rebold's list, the following Lodges, Chapters, etc., were constituted by the Grand Orient in 1831, 4 [it had lost over go 70 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE bodies of all sorts in the year and the number of its Lodges was reduced to 2209] ; 11832, 14; 11833, 4 ; 1834, 8 [but some 115 had become dormant] ; 1835, 6 ; 1836, 10 ; 11837, 3 ; 1838, 4 [but so many Lodges had become dormant that there remained only 2116 active ones] ; 11839, 111 ; 1840, 3 ; 1841, 6 ; 11842, 6 ; 1843, 4; 1844, 8 ; 1845, 7 [the number of active Lodges had risen to 28o] ; 1846, 9 ; 11847, 9 [but as upwards of 3o had closed, the number of Craft Lodges only reached 2‑55]. The same year the number of bodies of all sorts under the Supreme Council amounted to 71.

 

A further incentive to the unusually liberal action of the Grand Orient, may be found in a movement then recently initiated, of which, as it was of short duration, an account will here be given before proceeding with the history of that body. Curiously enough, this democratic attempt arose in the bosom of the oligarchical Ancient and Accepted Rite ; or, rather, the fact is not really curious, because the worst tyranny usually gives birth to the most republican sentiments. A detailed account of this movement, which deserved a better fate than befell it, is concisely given by Rebold in his Histoire des trois Grander Loges.

 

It would appear that, in the course of 1847, a few earnest Masons discussed the possibility of erecting a really representative Grand Lodge, on the model of the Grand Lodge of England, confining itself to the simple ceremonies of the Craft.

 

The first step was taken by the Lodge Patronage des Orphelins of the Ancient and Accepted Rite under its Master, Juge Jun. and a manifesto was issued‑March 5, 1848‑in conformity with certain resolutions duly passed August io, 1847. After inveighing against the monstrosities in the direction of affairs under both Rites, it declared that the time had arrived for the Lodges, which are the basis of the Craft, to govern themselves for themselves and to assert their absolute right to form their own By‑laws, subject to the confirmation of the Grand Lodge. It proposed that each Lodge should send three representatives to form a National Grand Lodge (no Deputy to represent two Lodges), to choose their own Grand Officers, to work only three Degrees and to suppress all others ; that in private Lodges each member should be at liberty to address the chair‑a right hitherto confined to the Orators and High Degree Masons‑the liberty of the Masonic press to be established, the Grand Lodge to have no right to control the election of Deputies, etc. These clauses indicate very plainly the grievances of the Craft. It concludes No more Rites of 7, 3 3, or of coo Degrees, each anathematizing and fighting with the others ; but one simple Rite, founded on good sense, comprising in itself all useful instruction and which shall at length annihilate the nonsense, the revolting absurdities and the perpetual strife which these brilliant fantasies have introduced amongst us.

 

Six other Lodges of the Ancient and Accepted Rite soon joined this party and were, naturally enough, erased. A committee was appointed, which‑March iowaited on the authorities at the Hotel de Ville, to obtain police permission for their future action and to congratulate the Provisional Government. Lamartine's reply FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 71 was as poetical as might have been expected; space forbids its insertion. The next step was to placard Paris with an invitation to all Masons to meet in General Assembly on April 17. The circular was forwarded to all the Lodges, signed by Barbier, Vanderheyen, Jorry, Du Planty, Juge, Minoret, Lefran~ois, Desrivieres and Dutilleul. Juge, however, almost immediately afterwards withdrew ; he had conceived the fanciful idea of causing the new Grand Lodge to be inaugurated by the Grand Lodge Union of Frankfort, with himself as Grand Master. On April 17 the assembly met and resolved to call a larger one, requesting each Lodge in France to send three Deputies. At this second assembly 400 Masons appeared, by whom, unanimously, the original self‑elected Committee was directed to prepare a code of ordinances. Full meetings of the new Grand Lodge were held on November z9, December 14 and 17 ; each article was discussed and the code adopted on the last‑named date. A report and manifesto, dated February z5, 1849, signed, among others, by Rebold, was then forwarded together with the new Constitutions, to every Lodge in France. On April z9, the Committee summoned a meeting of Grand Lodge for May 19 following, announcing that no insignia beyond that of the three Degrees would be permitted. At this meeting seven Grand Officers were elected, viz. the Marquis du Planty, M.D., Mayor of St. Ouen‑Master of the Grand Lodge; Barbier, Avocat General ‑S.W. ; General Jorry‑J.W. ; Rebold‑Grand Expert; Humbert‑Secretary General, etc. During the whole of that year the Grand Lodge occupied itself with settling its rituals, organization, etc., but does not appear to have attempted to seduce the Lodges under other governing bodies, from their allegiance ; and, in answer to all inquiries, refrained from persuasion, contenting itself with forwarding its manifesto and Constitutions. It is more than probable that more energetic proceedings would have resulted in the ruin of the Grand Orient and the Supreme Council but they were not taken.

 

In 18 5 o the Supreme Council and the Grand Orient both applied to the authorities to suppress the new body ; whilst fear on the one hand, caution on the other and the apparent wish to reform itself evinced by the Grand Orient, combined to diminish the number of Lodges which adhered to the National Grand Lodge. At this time they were only eight. Towards the end of the year, several Lodges in France‑for one cause or another‑were closed by the police and the enemies of the National Grand Lodge were astute enough to throw the blame on their young rival. The result was, an edict of the Prefect of Police, dated December 6, 1850, dissolving the Lodge. The Grand Lodge resolved to obey the authorities and issued a circular to that effect to all its members on January 10, 18 51. On January 14 it held its final meeting. Its 5 Lodges and more than Goo visitors, met on the occasion, when, amid a mournful silence the President delivered his valedictory address and closed the Lodge. Had it not been for Rebold himself, matters might have turned out differently. On December 14, 1848, some members of the Provisional Government of the Republic, who also belonged to the Grand Lodge, came to a meeting of the latter, prepared to counsel its members to petition the government to dissolve both the Grand Orient and the Supreme Council and to hint that 72 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE the request would meet with a ready compliance. Rebold, however, who was taken into their confidence, evinced a strong repugnance to make use of the Civil arm and so worked upon the members in question, that the communication was never made. Herein he showed much Masonic feeling, but little worldly wisdombut to return to the Grand Orient.

 

i 848. June 9.‑The Deputies summoned by the Grand Orient assembled and were addressed by the president Bertrand, Junior Deputy Grand Master. One sentence of his allocution will describe the purpose of the meeting. " To revise the whole Masonic Code and to establish the institution on new bases, in consonance with the present state of feeling." The Master dissolved the old Grand Orient by laying his insignia qn the table before him and was unanimously elected President of the new constituent assembly. The powers of the Deputies were examined, five officers elected to administer the Craft ad interim, etc., etc. From then to August 10, 1849, twenty‑six meetings were held and, on the latter date, the new Constitutions were confirmed by the Grand Orient thus newly erected. In spite of the liberal promises of the circulars of 1848, the organization was scarcely more democratic than previously, but one fact deserves mention, for the first time in French Freemasonry this code unequivocally declares (Art. i), that the basis of Freemasonry is a belief in a God and the immortality of the soul.

 

i 8 5 o.‑December 13.‑Appointment of Berville as Senior Deputy Grand Master and of Desanlis as President of Grand Orient and Representative of the Grand Master. They were installed on the 27th following.

 

18 51. June i 2.‑The following words sum up the report made to Grand Orient on this date : " Confusion in the archives, confusion in the property, confusion in the finances, this is what our researches have disclosed, this is what we are forced to report to you." On December io, following, in view of political disturbances which were then anticipated, the Grand Orient ordered all Masonic meetings to cease. In the same month Louis Napoleon was elected President of the Republic for ten years, and‑January i, 18 5 2‑the Grand Orient withdrew its prohibition. The existence of Freemasonry appearing very precarious, Prince Lucien Murat was asked whether he would accept the Grand Mastership and, having obtained the permission of his cousin, signified his assent. Whereupon, he was unanimously elected‑January 9, 18 5 2, received the 3 3 ░ on the 27th‑and was installed February 26. On the same date Bugnot was invested as President of the Grand Orient, rice Desanlis, who had resigned that office July i i, 18 5 i .

 

The first act of the new Grand Master was to adopt measures for the erection of a Masonic Hall in the Rue Cadet. He succeeded, thanks to a large loan (i25,000 francs) from his son, but the expenses were for years a heavy burden on the resources of the Craft. A house was purchased and sufficiently altered, in part, to be opened formally on June 30 of the same year.

 

1853.‑March ii.‑Desanlis was installed as second Deputy Grand Master and, on April 12, three members were nominated for the Presidency of the Grand Orient from whom the Grand Master selected Janin, who was installed on the 29th. It FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 73 was on this occasion that Murat gave the first indication of the despotic manner in which he intended to rule. On the occasion in question, the Grand Secretary, Hubert, had voted against the candidate most acceptable to the Prince‑which, although a salaried officer, he was quite entitled to do‑but he was immediately relieved of his duties by the Grand Master, in spite of the fact that, during his short tenure of office, he had contrived to increase the correspondence tenfold, to restore order in the bureau and to convert the financial deficit of the Grand Lodge into a balance on the other side.

 

1854.‑December 15.‑The Grand Master convoked a Constituent Convent for October 15 to " take measures for Masonic unity and to assure to the directing power the means of action which are indispensable, etc." On the 16th the Convent met and verified the mandates of the Deputies and the following day the questions to be discussed were submitted, the first being the modifications of the Constitutions. The Grand Master allowed it to become known, through Desanlis, that the Government had resolved not to permit in future a deliberative and legislative assembly. It required that all power should be in the hands of the Grand Master, who would be assisted by a Council‑that this was the only way to offer the Government a valid guarantee, etc. The Commission of Revision was chosen from those members most likely to be amenable to such thinly veiled hints‑and proceeded to work. On October 26 it brought up its report, which was so badly received and gave rise to such tumult, that the sitting was prematurely closed. As the whole spirit of the new ordinances may be gathered from one single article, it is here reproduced side by side with the corresponding paragraph of 1849 1849 1854 Art. 3 z.‑The Grand Orient, the legislator Art. 3 i.‑The Grand Master is the Supreme and regulator of the Order, is possessed of all Chief of the Order, its representative near its power. It exercises directly the legislative foreign Masonic jurisdictions and its official power, delegates the executive to the Grand organ with the Government ; he is the executive Master, assisted by a council and confides the administrative, and directing power. administrative to Boards (Chambres) formed of its own members.

 

In fact Murat had determined to rule the Grand Orient and the Craft after the manner of a general in the field, who directs everything, although he may and, for his own convenience, occasionally does, ask the advice of his stag'‑the members of which, however, would hold their offices by a very frail tenure, were they in the habit of often disagreeing with their chief. In spite of protests and struggles, the Convent was obliged to ratify these Constitutions on October z8. Next day the members of the Council were appointed and, on the 3oth, the Grand Master by a decree appointed Desanlis and Heuillant Deputy Grand Masters. The most noticeable name on the Council is that of Rexes, of whom more will be heard. In order to convey some faint impression of the pitiable state of subserviency into which the Craft was reduced during this period of its history, a few of Murat's many arbitrary acts may now be cited.

 

74 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE On May 13, 1856, a member of the Grand Orient demanded that certain decrees of the Grand Master should be submitted to the assembly. He was informed that such decrees could not be discussed and, continuing to urge the point, was ordered to resume his seat. Blanche, a member of the Grand Master's council, on one occasion indignantly exclaimed, " But what are we then ? " " Nothing without me," said Murat, " and I‑I am everything, even without you." Blanche resigned his seat. In 1861, Murat suspended, in one month, more than 40 Presidents and Deputies of Lodges for opposing the arbitrary government of the Grand Orient. Previously‑April 16, 185 8‑he had distributed, of his own will, the 40 Paris Lodges amongst the 13 Chapters of the city and, on November 30, of the same year, he decreed that no Masonic writings should be published, except by the printers to the Grand Orient. A Lyons Lodge was suspended‑March 31, 1859‑for having " permitted itself to discuss a decree of the Grand Master " and a similar fate befell a Paris Lodge on May 9, ensuing. In 18 5 8, the Grand Master warned the assembly general " to deliberate only on such subjects as are placed before it by his council and, on no account to wander, accidentally or otherwise, from the ordre du jour." These are only a few incidents taken at haphazard, yet, something, after all, may be urged in Murat's favour. He was the first French Grand Master who ever interested himself in the slightest degree in the affairs of the Craft. His intentions were doubtless good‑according to his lights‑his speeches often had a true Masonic ring, but he was apparently much misled by worthless and ambitious members of his Council and wholly unable to appreciate the beauties of self‑government, or to divest himself of the effects of his barrack training. In his eyes the Craft was a regiment and himself the colonel and there‑so far as he was concerned‑was an end of the matter. Discussion meant mutiny and was therefore to be kept under with a firm hand.

 

i 855.‑February 26.‑The Grand Master invited all the world to a Masonic Congress at Paris, to be held June i. Desanlis resigned the position of Deputy Grand Master March 3o and, on June 4, was made an Honorary Grand Officer, and Razy appointed Deputy Grand Master ad interim.

 

June 7.‑The Grand Masonic Congress assembled under the presidency of Heuillant, Deputy Grand Master and was officially opened on the 8th by Murat in person. The Grand Orient was represented by twenty‑two members and officers. Five foreign Grand Bodies had accepted the invitation, but did not put in an appearance, viz. the Grand Lodges of Switzerland, Hamburg, Louisiana, Saxony and the Supreme Council of Luxemburg. Three‑the Grand Lodges of Haiti, New York and Sweden‑had appointed Deputies, but they were unable to arrive in time. Four Grand Lodges and one Provincial Grand Lodge were really represented, viz. Columbia, Ireland, Virginia, Holland and the Provincial Grand Lodge of Munster. Inasmuch as there are some ninety Grand Lodges in the world, besides any number of Provincial Grand Lodges, the outlook was not encouraging. Only five proposals were agreed to; these were of the most unimportant description and not one of them was carried into effect.

 

FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 75 18 5 7. June 6.‑By a decree of Murat, Doumet was appointed Deputy Grand Master, vice Desanlis resigned; and Razy, who had acted ad interim, was made an Honorary Grand Officer. A decree of September 30 placed Rexes at the head of the correspondence of the Grand Orient and entrusted him with other important charges. In fact, the Deputy Grand Master became such an unimportant personage that Heuillant resigned. From that time the Grand Orient was practically under a triumvirate‑Murat, Doumet and Rexes. This paved the way for a very disgraceful transaction. On June 2, 186o, Murat accepted the resignation of Rexes, but asked him to continue his duties ad interim. On the i ith Rexes presided over the Grand Master's Council and delivered a message to the effect that the finances of the Grand Orient being now capable of supporting the charges upon them, the Grand Master was unwilling to ask any longer for the services of such an important officer as Rexes' successor would be, without offering,, an equivalent. The Council was therefore requested to name the sum it could set apart for the purpose and, on the i 8th, offered a maximum of 9,ooo francs per annum. As a matter of fact, the finances of the Grand Orient showed a large and increasing annual deficit, but the Council was chiefly composed of Brethren, who are best described as the creatures of the Grand Master. Moreover, as Rexes' successor could only be appointed from among themselves, each member felt that he had at least a chance of being appointed to an office worth some C350 a year. Their consternation, however, maybe imagined when a decree appeared‑June zi‑stating that on and after July i the office formerly occupied by Rexes would be endowed with a salary of 9,ooo francswhich was followed by another of July 17, appointing Rexes himself to this office and instructing him to assume thenceforth the title of Representative of the Grand Master.

 

We now approach some scandalous series of scenes in French Freemasonry. Many thinking Masons had, long since, become disheartened; in fact, very many Lodges in France had, for years, preferred to declare themselves dormant rather than live on shamefully. Only one hope remained, the Grand Master was not appointed ad vitam and the next election was no longer far distant. Murat had been appointed on June 9, 1852 ; Art. 30 of the Statutes provided for a renewal of election every seven years but, as the election was confirmed by the Constitutive Convent‑October 28, 1854‑his appointment was regarded as bearing that date. The new election ought, therefore, to have taken place October 28, 1861, but Murat, in convoking the General Assembly falling due May zo, 1861, had warned the Grand Orient to take that opportunity of renewing the election, in order to avoid double journeys and expenses to the Deputies. Already the attention of the Brethren had been called to the liberal tendencies of Prince Jerome Napoleon, as exemplified by his parliamentary conduct, which contrasted favourably with the Ultramontane votes of Prince Murat and there is no doubt that canvassing on a large scale had been used to promote his possible candidature. The first open act of hostility was an article in the March‑April number of Initiation, respecting the approaching election and contrasting the two princes much in Hamlet's style, with regard to the Two Pictures. At some time in April a number of the Paris Masters addressed a letter to Prince Napoleon. Space will only admit of a short extract Whereas Prince Murat's attitude of late incapacitates him from acting any longer as the representative of the Craft, whereas we have finally decided not to re‑elect him, but have cast our eyes on you, who, though not yet the representative of the Craft, have nevertheless always proclaimed its principles aloud ; whereas it behoves us under present circumstances to choose a leader who will, etc., etc., we have decided to nominate and elect your Imperial Highness and beg to remind you that, being a Freemason, you owe certain duties to the Fraternity, etc., etc.

 

The Prince's reply, stating his readiness to accept the office, if elected, was received by the Masters, April icy. About the same time, or shortly afterwards, appeared a circular of Murat to the Lodges respecting the election. It speaks of an intrigue organized amongst some Masons, desirous of utilizing Freemasonry for political ends, to produce a schism on the occasion of the election. The name of an illustrious prince having been used to cover these machinations, the Grand Master desirous not to enter into rivalry with a member of the Imperial family, had inquired of Prince Jerome whether he intended to stand ; and this prince had answered, that, having ceased to occupy himself with Freemasonry since 1852, he should certainly decline a nomination. Murat therefore warned the Brethren against these intriguers, but disclaimed any idea of wishing to influence the election. It appears that Jerome omitted to inform Murat of his change of views until May 17 and the latter was thus placed in a very equivocal position, because, at the time his circular appeared, Jerome's letter was already in the hands of the Paris Masters. On May 2 a decree of Murat suspended the author of the newspaper article in question, as being in the highest degree disrespectful to the Grand Master whose civil actions it had ventured to criticize. About the same time Rexes reported several Brothers for daring to intrigue to procure the nomination of Prince Jerome and denounced them as factious. On May 14 they were consequently suspended.

 

Two of them were members of the Grand Master's Council. Among the names of nine others is that of Jouast. This wholesale suspension of voters was certainly a curious way to avoid influencing the elections. After all this it is easy to conceive that, when the Grand Orient met, it was in no very equable frame of mind. 186i.‑May 2o.‑First meeting of the Grand Orient. President‑Doumet, Deputy Grand Master. The first business was necessarily of a routine character, to verify the powers of the deputies. Rousselle proposed that this should be undertaken by a Committee of Scrutineers nominated ad hoc by the assembly, as in the olden days, not by the Grand Master's Council as had been arbitrarily carried out since 1852. After debate Rousselle carried the day ; each of the nine Boards (or Chambers) of the Grand Orient named one member to form a Committee of nine Scrutineers. Only one belonged to the party of the Grand Master. From that moment the majority escaped from the control of Rexes.

 

May 2I.‑The Committee of Scrutineers and the Boards met, when the Scru‑ FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 77 tineers commenced the examination of the mandates. Dissatisfaction became soon openly expressed and, in his excitement, Hovins, the member of the Grand Master's party, so far forgot himself as to exclaim, " Your methods will produce excitement and the police will be called upon to interfere." The Boards began to review past decrees and rejected almost all the propositions of the Grand Master. They decided that it would be wise to at once elect the new Grand Master and were about to resolve themselves into a plenary seance, when a decree of that very morning was presented to them, suspending the sittings of the full Orient till the 24th, but per mitting the Boards to continue sitting. A Committee to interview the Grand Master and procure the repeal of this decree was about to be elected, when Doumet expressed his intention of taking that dutyupon himself the first thing in the morning, it being then five o'clock and too late. The meeting broke up, to resume at eight o'clock‑at which hour the committee rooms being occupied by private Lodges, all nine Boards met in the large hall in separate groups to continue their work. Whilst thus engaged, Rexes strolled into the room, struck his hand on the table to procure silence and said, " Sirs, I come to tell you that you are not legally assembled, the hour is unsuitable, you must retire." On being remonstrated with, he exclaimed, " If you persist I must call in the police " and withdrew. Steps were taken that one man only should protest for all, if the police interfered and the work was con tinued. Meanwhile a squad of police entered the building under the orders of Rexes. Masons leaving their private Lodges met these in the corridor and ordered them to leave. Rexes ordered the police to clear the building. The Masons present, answered by warning the police that they were the proprietors of the building, both as shareholders and as rent‑payers and that Rexes was their salaried servant. Rexes exclaimed, " Sirs, you are ruining Freemasonry." " Sir," they replied, " you disgrace it." In the end the police retired. The Committees, who had meanwhile remained undisturbed, not being able to meet as a Grand Orient, had, in each Board, separately elected Prince Napoleon and drawn up a Minute to that effect, after which they left to meet the next day at nine o'clock.

 

May 22.‑Doumet and the Council called upon the Grand Master, who, after persuasion, consented that they might announce to the assembly the repeal of the decree. The Council returned to the hall and was about to summon the Boards to meet as a Grand Orient, when Rexes appeared and announced that the Council had misunderstood the Prince. The indignant members sent to request Murat's presence; but meanwhile Doumet was called away to the Ministry of the Interior and, as he did not reappear, the Boards were not summoned. These meanwhile obtained 98 signatures to the Minute of Election out of a possible 152 and left, in order to return at eight o'clock to resume their departmental work. On arriving at that hour they found the building closed, not only to themselves, but to private Lodges whose night of meeting it was. The Lodge of the United Brothers had even prepared for a brilliant soiree and were not made acquainted with the order until their arrival at the Hall.

 

May 23.‑A deputation waited upon Prince Napoleon at ten in the morning 78 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE and handed him a written report showing that, debarred from effecting a regular election, they had had recourse to the best means available, accompanied by a Minute of the election signed by 98 Deputies. They were graciously received and proceeded thence to a notary public in order to deposit with him a Minute of the election, etc. They then separated to meet at two o'clock as a Grand Orient. But Rexes had meanwhile interviewed the Prefect of the Police and, when the Brethren arrived, they found this notice on the door‑" Freemasons are forbidden to meet for the election of a Grand Master before the end of next October. Signed Boitelle," etc., etc.

 

May z4.‑The members of the Grand Orient published a formal and dignified protest against all these proceedings, attaching, very naturally and, it may be, justly, all the blame to Rexes, the only one interested, to the extent of g,ooo francs per annum, in the then existing arrangements.

 

May 28.‑The Opinion Nationale published a letter from Prince Napoleon thanking the Fraternity for their sympathies ; but, in view of the strife which the election was engendering, requesting that his name might be no more mixed up in the matter. Then followed decrees of Murat. The Grand Orient would not be convoked till October. Lodges in the metropolitan department of the Seine were suspended till further notice. A third, on May 29, after many " whereas's," goes on to say All Brothers who have taken part in these illegal and un‑Masonic meetings in the hotel of the Grand Orient, without our authority and in spite of our prohibition, are hereby declared unworthy; as soon as their names shall be known and, failing a disavowal on their part, they will be suspended. [Then follow the names of 24 Brothers who were known and consequently suspended.] Signed Murat.

 

July z9.‑In a long manifesto, very dignified and Masonic, but misstating the facts, Murat declared that thenceforth the duties devolving upon him as Grand Master had ceased to be pleasing. In fact he declined re‑election and appointed a Committee composed of Boubee, Desanlis, Rexes and the Grand Master's Council to manage affairs until the election in October.

 

September zg.‑The Grand Master's Council convoked an extraordinary General Assembly for October 14. As its sole business was to elect a Grand Master the sitting was to close on the same date. This was followed by a dignified letter of advice from Murat to the Fraternity and the publication of a private letter of Prince Napoleon begging the Craft to give their votes to some other Brother. October i o.

 

We, Prefect of Police, on information received, in the interests of public security, do decree; all Masons are hereby interdicted from meeting in order to elect a Grand Master before the month of May 186z. Signed Boitelle.

 

This naturally raised further protests, amid which October z8 arrived and the Order was without a Grand Master. Murat's time had lapsed and no successor FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 79 had been elected. In these circumstances a committee handed in the name of three Brothers to the Minister of the Interior, as administrators of the Craft and claimed that their legal power should be acknowledged ; but Murat had already advised the minister of five of his own appointing, so that there now were two Committees claiming to rule the Craft and more discord.

 

i862.‑January I I.‑At last the Emperor took the matter into his own hands Napoleon, by the grace of God, .‑. .‑. whereas, etc. Art. i. The Grand Master of Freemasons in France, hitherto elected every three years according to the Statutes of the Order, is now appointed directly by me for the same period. Art. z. His Excellency, Marshal Magnan, is appointed Grand Master of the Grand Orient of France. Art. 3. Our Minister of the Interior is charged with the execution of this decree. Given at our palace of the Tuileries, 1 i Jan. 18 62. Napoleon.

 

January i z.‑Rexes waited upon Magnan to receive instructions for his initiation. This took place on the following day, Rexes and four others conferring upon him from the i ░ to the 3 3 ░ at one sitting ! This, of course, was exceedingly irregular and Blanche and Sauley told the Marshal so the day succeeding, when they in turn came to make arrangements. Their conversation with the new Grand Master resulted in Rexes's immediate impeachment, trial and degradation from his office.

 

It will scarcely be expected that the Craft should have prospered during these troublous times. According to Rebold's lists, the Grand Orient constituted Lodges and Chapters, etc., in 1848, 7 ; 1849, 8 ; 1850, 9 ; 1851, 4 ; 185z, 4 ; 1853, 2 ; 18 5 4, 2 ; 18 5 5, o [about i o had become dormant this year ; the total number of Craft Lodges was only i 8o active, as against z 5 5 in 1847] ; 18 5 6, z ; 18 5 7, 5 [and 5 relieved from suspension] ; 1858, i z ; 1859, 7 [and 3 reinstated] ; i860, 9 [and 7 reinstated] ; 1861, 5 [and 3 reinstated].

 

In 185 z, at the election of Murat, the bank book of the Grand Orient showed a credit to the amount of over 50,000 francs (~z,ooo) ; at the close of his term, October 31, 1861, it presented a deficit of 68,446 francs.

 

One more and last fact to show the decadence which had overtaken the spirit of Masonry during the past lamentable period. In order to provide funds for the continually increasing needs of the Grand Orient, the Grand Master's Council had hired out a part of its premises, within the very walls of its own hotel, to serve as a ballroom for the use of the demi‑monde. Need it be wondered that thoughtful and earnest Masons, meeting within the same walls, should have grown indignant at this forced proximity of a school of morals to a rendezvous of immorality and that, in their own corridors, the sons of light should jostle the modern representatives of Phryne and the Bacchantes.

 

At the entrance of Magnan on the scene, the position of the rival jurisdictions `vas, as nearly as can be estimated : Grand Orient‑France, 15 8 Lodges, 5 Chapters, Councils, etc. ; Algeria, i i Lodges, 7 Chapters ; Colonies and abroad, zo Lodges, 14 Chapters : in all, 189 Lodges, 8o Chapters. Ancient and Accepted Rite‑France, 41 Lodges, io Chapters ; Algeria, Colonies and abroad, 9 Lodges, 5 Chapters 8o FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE in all, 5 o Lodges, 15 Chapters. Rite of Misraim‑5 Lodges. Grand total of French Freemasonry :‑244 Lodges practising Degrees of the Craft and 95 bodies‑composed of Masons‑playing at philosophy.

 

January 15.‑Magnan presided over the Grand Orient for the first time and appointed as his Deputy Grand Masters, Doumet and Heuillant. He was installed on the 8th February. His speeches on these occasions foreshadowed his subsequent conduct. He admitted, in so many words, that his appointment by the Emperor was an infraction of the Landmarks, but he promised to rule constitutionally and to obtain as soon as possible, the restoration to the Grand Orient of its privileges, and observed, " Your Grand Master is but one Brother the more primus inter pares." Of this Latin phrase he was very fond, often using it to define his position. Under his sway order and regularity were soon restored and the arbitrary character of Murat's administration considerably amended. Magnan, however, could himself occasionally play the tyrant, as his action respecting the Ancient and Accepted Rite will show. Soon after his nomination he met Viennet, the Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council, whom he informed that he read the Emperor's decree as appointing him to be Grand Master of all French Freemasons and concluded " prepare to receive me as your Grand Master also, I will no longer suffer petites eglises." Viennet smiled and retired. On February i, he wrote kindly to Viennet, announcing his formal intention of reuniting dissenting Lodges to the Grand Orient. Viennet replied on the 3rd, pointing out that the Constitution of the Supreme Council rendered this absolutely impossible and that so long as a single 33░ man remained, he would become the head of the Rite, etc. On April 30 Magnan addressed a circular to all the Scots Lodges For many years a deplorable schism has desolated French Masonry, . . . a Sovereign Will desires to‑day its unity ... and has confided to me the universal direction of all French Rites. . . . I trust you will not force me to use measures repugnant to my fraternal feelings. . . . Presidents of Lodges under the ex‑Supreme Council, do not misunderstand the position: it is from me, from the Grand Orient, that you now hold. . . . On June 9 I trust to be surrounded by the Deputies of all Lodges. Signed Magnan.

 

No satisfactory answers arriving, on May 22 he issued a decree abolishing the Supreme Council.

 

Whereas . . . by this decree the Emperor recognizes only one Masonic authority, that of the Grand Orient. . . . Art. i. The Masonic powers known as Supreme Council, Misraim, etc., are dissolved, etc., etc.

 

Viennet replied on May 2 5 M. le Marechal, for the third time you summon me to recognize your authority. . . . I declare I will not comply. . . . The Imperial decree named you Grand Master of the Grand Orient, established 1772, but gave you no authority over ancient Masonry dating from 1723. . . . The Emperor alone has power to dissolve us. If he should believe it to be his duty to do so, I shall submit without hesitation ; but as no law obliges us to be Masons in spite of our wishes, I shall permit myself, for my own part, to withdraw from your domination. Signed Viennet.

 

Shortly afterwards the Emperor expressed to Viennet his wish to see a fusion accomplished. The latter replied that he could not, according to the Statutes, allow a fusion, but would dissolve the Supreme Council if the Emperor wished it. As nothing further was done, it is probable the Emperor hinted to Magnan to let the matter drop. The circular of April 30 above mentioned caused, however, the dormant Rite of Memphis to petition for admission under the College of Rites, which took effect on October 18.

 

1862.‑March 25.‑Magnan wrote to the Minister of the Interior that, as he was now the person responsible to the Emperor, he must insist on the decrees closing several Provincial Lodges being annulled. To which Persigny consented on the 29th.

 

May Zo.‑Magnan summoned the Grand Orient to meet on June 9 to revise the Constitution. Accordingly, on that and succeeding days it was slightly altered, the change consisting in increasing greatly the number of the Grand Master's Council, which was made entirely elective and vested with the administrative power, subject to a veto of the Grand Master, who preserved the executive functions. This was certainly a step in the right direction. In 1862, 22 Lodges and Chapters were constituted and 3 restored from dormancy to activity‑a joyful sign of progress. 1864.‑May.‑Magnan, having restored order and won the general approbation of the Fraternity, induced the Emperor to restore to the Craft its right of election and was immediately re‑elected by the Grand Orient. He died May 29, 18 1865. June 5‑io.‑Meeting of the Grand Orient. General Mellinet was elected Grand Master. A movement in favour of abolishing all High Degrees made itself strongly felt and the motion was only lost on the 7th by 86 votes to 83‑a very narrow majority.

 

1868.‑In this year even the Supreme Council made advances towards a more liberal Constitution. The lately appointed Sovereign Grand Commander, Cremieux, caused his appointment to be confirmed by the Lodges and thus abrogated the hitherto existing right of a Sovereign Grand Commander to appoint his successor‑a great blow at the autocratic nature of the institution.

 

1869. July 8.‑The Grand Orient passed a resolution that neither colour, race, nor religion, should disqualify a man for initiation. This procured the friendship of the Supreme Council of Louisiana, the first Grand Body to receive ex‑slaves, but entailed the rupture of amicable relations with almost all the other Grand Lodges in the United States.

 

1870. June.‑At the General Assembly, Mellinet resigned the office of Grand Master, which the Grand Orient resolved to abolish and, until the confirmation of a resolution to that effect, elected and installed Babaud‑Lariviere.

 

F. Iv‑6 8z FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 1871.‑September 6.‑The Grand Orient confirmed the above resolution, the Grand Master resigned and was appointed President of the Council. In 187z he was succeeded by St. Jean, M.D., as President. Although it is possible that true Freemasonry might exist without a Grand Master, subsequent events proved that this was only the first step in a series marking the decadence of the French Craft, which resulted in its being ignored entirely by almost all the Freemasons of other countries. The Lodges had become filled by men of advanced socialistic ideas. Their influence made itself felt in a sphere which should have been jealously kept free from political or religious controversy; and the French Fraternity, which, as seen, never did possess a distinct idea of the true purposes of the Craft, or of its history and origin, gradually and surely effaced every landmark till it arrived at its present pitiful condition. One landmark, that it should not interfere in the politics of its native land, it had, from the very first, constantly overstepped ; the deposition of the Grand Master‑himself the type of a constitutional monarch‑was the reflex action of the Republican feelings of its members. We shall next see it intermeddling in the most ridiculous fashion with international politics and, finally, effacing the very name of the Deity from its records. One single virtue it retains ; it still exercises great charity in the narrowest sense ; charity in its divine signification, in its highest attributes, it has seldom exemplified. At various times, individual Lodges have indeed excelled in all that Freemasonry should be, but, as a whole, the Freemasons of France have ever been wanting in dignity and independence ; and their representative bodies, whether Grand Lodge, Grand Orient, or Supreme Council, have been arbitrary, quarrelsome, slavishly subservient to the Government, repressive towards their Lodges, bureaucratic and devoid of all idea of their true mission.

 

A general Masonic Congress was projected for December 8 in reply to the (Ecumenical Council at Rome in 1869, but it was first delayed, then rendered impossible by the Franco‑German war of 1870 1871.‑September 16.‑Ten Paris Lodges published a ridiculous circular, citing the German Emperor and Crown Prince to appear before them and answer to a Masonic charge of perjury! In November, another Paris Lodge summoned a convent of impartial Masons to meet on March 15, 1871, at Lausanne, in Switzerland and try their cause of complaint against Brothers William and Frederick of Hohenzollern, i.e. the Emperor and Crown Prince. All the Grand Lodges of Europe and America, those of Germany excepted, were invited to attend and, in case of the non‑appearance of the accused, they were threatened with divers pains and penalties. It is surprising that the Grand Lodge Alpina of Switzerland should have even deigned to protest and, of course, nothing else was ever heard of this insane project. During the time of the Commune, many Paris Lodges united in a public demonstration against the French Government; and, after the war, many a Lodges throughout the country excluded all Germans from their membership ; even the Loge 1'Anglaise, No. 204, of Bordeaux, descended to this exhibition of I,, malevolence. The number of Lodges under the Grand Orient was considerably FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 83 reduced at this time by the loss of Alsace and Lorraine and the formation of a Grand Orient in Hungary, where many French Lodges existed.

 

1873.‑September zz.‑The Grand Orient held its centenary festival. On this occasion the High Degrees, as such, were refused participation by III votes against 99. The Chapters, etc., threatened to secede from the Grand Orient in consequence, but few really did so. The war had very much thinned their ranks and reduced their importance.

 

1875.‑In this year the veteran academician Littre was initiated ; his reception was considered in the Craft as an anti‑clerical demonstration and awakened much satisfaction in consequence.

 

1877. September Io.‑The Grand Orient resolved to alter the first article of the Constitutions of 1849. As already pointed out, on August Io, 1849, for the first time in French Masonry, it was distinctly formulated " that the basis of Free masonry is a belief in God and in the immortality of the soul, and the solidarity of Humanity." With the consent of two‑thirds of the Lodges, this now reads, " Its basis is absolute liberty of Conscience and the solidarity of Humanity." The rituals were then changed in conformity ; all allusions to The Great Architect of the Universe being everywhere eliminated, though it was not forbidden to be used. At one time any ritual containing this reference may be used, on the formality of obtaining permission from the College of Rites, but this permission was refused to Loge Le Centre des Amis in 1913. In consequence of this measure, the Grand Lodges of England, Scotland, Ireland and Canada ceased to be in communion with the French Craft. Not that the relations between England and the Grand Orient had ever been very close. The latter was, doubtless, tacitly acknowledged by England as an independent Masonic power, never formally so. No correspondence passed between the two, no exchange of representatives was ever made. But French Masons who were formerly received and welcomed in all English Lodges could, afterwards, only be admitted, on certifying that they were made in a Lodge acknowledging T.G.A.O.T.U. and that they themselves hold such a belief to be a prerequisite to Freemasonry.

 

In December 1877, the United Grand Lodge of England appointed a Committee of eleven to consider the matter and, in the following February, that Committee reported that the alteration in its Constitutions by the Grand Orient of France was " opposed to the traditions, practice and feelings of all true and genuine Freemasons from the earliest to the present time." The following circular, which is placed in the hands of every candidate for initiation in a Lodge under the jurisdiction of the Grand Orient of France, will be of interest GRAND ORIENT OF FRANCE INSTRUCTIONS FOR CANDIDATES PROPOSED FOR INITIATION The Candidate for initiation should read carefully the following instructions, which will enable him to understand the principles of Freemasonry and to decide 84 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE whether he will persevere in his application. At his initiation he will be questioned upon the general sense of these instructions.

 

Freemasonry is essentially a philanthropic, philosophic and progressive institution, having for its object the search for truth, the study of morality and the practice of brotherhood. It aims at material and moral development and the intellectual and social perfection of humanity. Its principles are mutual toleration, respect for others and for self and absolute liberty of conscience. Regarding metaphysical conceptions as belonging exclusively to individual appraisement, it refuses all dogmatic affirmation. Its motto is Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.

 

The duty of Freemasons is to extend to the whole of humanity those fraternal ties which bind together the whole body of Freemasons throughout the globe. The duty of the individual Freemason is, on every occasion, to assist, enlighten and protect his Brother, even at the risk of his own life and to shield him against injustice. Freemasonry regards work as one of the essential duties of humanity. It honours equally manual labour and intellectual work.

 

Initiation consists of several Degrees or Grades. The three first Degrees are those of E.A., F.C. and M.M., the last alone conferring full Masonic rights upon the candidate. Nothing can dispense with these Degrees as prescribed by the ritual. No one can be admitted and enjoy the privileges attached to the title of Freemason i. If he is not of full age‑that is, at least 2i years ; z. If he is not of irreproachable reputation and morals ; 3. If he has not honourable and sufficient means of existence ; 4. If he does not possess at least education sufficient to comprehend Masonic teachings.

 

The Masonic qualification, together with its rights and privileges, are lost i. By dishonourable action; z. By undertaking work regarded in the social scale as notoriously disreputable ; 3. By the violation of the Masonic obligations undertaken on initiation.

 

No one can be admitted until his application has been considered by a special committee appointed for that purpose and every admission is subject to ballot.

 

The Grand Orient of France does not constitute Lodges in foreign countries where there is existing a regular Masonic organization in fraternal communication with it.

 

Freemasonry having to provide its own working expenses and funds for other fraternal purposes, the candidate must, immediately prior to his initiation, pay to the Treasurer of the Lodge to which his application has been made the sum of .............. and undertake to pay an annual fee of ............

 

NoTE.‑Freemasonry has at all times granted full liberty to all creeds and faiths. The United Grand Lodge of England, in contradistinction to the Grand Orient of France and Lodges allied to it, imposes the obligation of a belief in a Living, Supreme Being, whilst the Grand Orient regards all creeds as personal matters. The United Grand Lodge of England, while proclaiming the liberty of human conscience, yet at the same time believes in the imposition of a dogma, which compels not infrequently acts of hypocrisy. The Grand Orient of France, adopting a logical, sincere and tolerant attitude, objects to the imposition of such a religious belief, which is a modern innovation in Freemasonry and takes its stand on the individual liberty of each of its members, a liberty to be exercised in the paths of honour and brotherhood.

 

FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 85 As was the case in 1848, from the bosom of the autocratic Scots Rite the cry arose for the autonomy of the Craft; it was the Ancient and Accepted Rite Masons, who, feeling most the yoke, made one more effort to free themselves from the irresponsible rule of the High Degrees.

 

On January 3, 1879, papers were read in the Lodge, La Justice, No. 133, Ancient and Accepted Rite and subsequently printed, calling for‑ a judicious rearrangement of the Constitutions. On March 15 following, the first Section of the Grande Loge Centrale (corresponding to a Grand Lodge of Master Masons) met. A Bro. Ballue of the Lodge justice dropped a proposal of amendment into the box. On April 15, five members of the first Section, viz. the Vice‑President Goumain‑Cornille ; the Senior Warden Denus ; the Orator Mesureur ; the Secretary Dubois ; and Ballue, Master of justice, issued a circular embodying these proposals, calling upon Masters of Lodges for support. A few extracts from this circular will define the grievances of the Lodges and explain the wished‑for reforms.

 

Scottish Freemasonry in France is passing through a crisis, crushed by the dogmatic authority which rules it. . . . Without control over the finances of the Rite, our Lodges find their existence seriously menaced by the many taxes and dues which weigh upon them. All manly effort is blamed, all work inspired by the spirit of liberty censured, all initiative is rendered sterile by excessive regulations which condemn all to a fatal stagnation. . . . We ask then to be free, . . . etc.

 

The chief points of the proposal to the first Section were (i) The President of the first Section to be elected by members of the Masters' Lodges ; (2) the first Section to itself arrange the dates of its meetings and the agenda paper, instead of this being done by the Supreme Council; (3) the Supreme Council to confine itself to governing the High Degrees, but the Lodges to govern themselves, through their Deputies assembled in the first Section.

 

In a word, it was sought to establish a procedure, like that obtaining in England with regard to the Craft and the Royal Arch.

 

It will readily be understood that strife at once arose. Lodge La justice and the first Section were both accused of irregularity in issuing circulars without the previous consent of the Supreme Council. Their accusers, however, committed precisely the same offence and were not reprimanded by the Supreme Council, whereas at a meeting of the first Section on May zo, 18 79 (the officers having been all replaced by others), a decree from the Supreme Council was read, suspending for two years the five subscribers to the circular, closing Lodge justice and forbidding the first Section to entertain the proposal of said Lodge. Hereupon ensued a scene of disorder, the President quitted the chair, the gas was turned off and the meeting broke up.

 

1879. July 14.‑No fewer than sixteen Lodges protested against the recent proceedings of the Supreme Council, and‑August 12‑a circular was issued signed by 103 Masons, announcing the formation of a provisional Committee of five for the following purposes 86 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE (i) To inform the Supreme Council of the resolution to form a Grande Loge Symbolique under the obedience of the Supreme Council, or temporarily outside such obedience; and (z) to obtain as soon as possible the support of the various Lodges who had already shown themselves favourable to the movement.

 

Cremieux, the Sovereign Grand Commander, then intervened and, of his own accord, reinstated all the suspended members, but the Supreme Council disavowed his act on October 3o, by erasing the names of the six most prominent offenders. This naturally meant war to the knife and nine Lodges issued a circular on November zo, declaring that they thereby constituted themselves into a Grand Independent Symbolic Lodge and inviting the other Lodges to join them. Therein, they curiously profess to remain, as ever, Ancient and Accepted Masons ; they did not wish to establish a new Rite, but to resume the rights and power which the Supreme Council had usurped in their despite. Their motto is thus expressed‑" The government of the High Degrees to the Supreme Council, that of the Lodges to the Grand Lodge." This retention of the (so‑called) Scottish Rite, with its 3 3 Degrees, has been further emphasized by a change of title to Grande Loge Symbolique Ecossaise, but in Lodge or Grand Lodge no Degree beyond that of Master Mason is recognized. The first constituent assembly was called for December zo, 1879. The Supreme Council replied to this on November z9 and December 5 by erasing more names; and on February io, 188o, all hopes of a reconciliation were destroyed by the death of the Sovereign Grand Commander, Cremieux.

 

On February 12 the new Grand Lodge received the permission of government to hold its meetings and announced its existence at home and abroad by circular of March 8. It was composed of 12 Lodges‑8 at Paris and i each in Havre, Saintes, Lyons and Egypt.

 

i88o.‑March ii.‑The Supreme Council, thoroughly worsted, issued a general amnesty, but it was too late. The Grand Lodge had attained a separate existence and refused to give up its independence; but it acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Supreme Council, in all matters concerning the High Degrees, over such of its members as passed beyond the 3rd Degree.

 

Its Constitutions, approved August 23, i88o, deserve a few words of notice. The first declaration of principles reads, " Freemasonry rests on the solidarite humaine." This evasion of the acknowledgment of a Divine Power placed it outside Anglo‑Saxon Freemasonry. It required of its members loyalty to their country and abstention from politics in Lodge. The Grand Lodge is composed of deputies from each Lodge, who need not be members of the Provincial‑but must be of the Paris Lodges and residents in the metropolis. Three members of Grand Lodge are elected as the Executive Commission; they may not accept or hold Grand Office. A President directs the meetings of Grand Lodge, but he is not a Grand Master, having no executive power. Also‑unheard‑of liberality in French Masonry‑no restriction or censorship is placed upon Masonic publications, whether emanating from an individual or a Lodge. The remainder of the 71 articles breathe a like spirit of liberty with order and were it not for the agnostic FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 87 principles of that new body, it would appear worthy of support. Its jurisdiction on November i o, 1884, extended over 26 Lodges, of which i g were in Paris, S at Lyons, 1 at Havre, and 1 at Tours.

 

In October 1913 there was formed by Loge Le Centre des Amis and Loge 1'Anglaise of Bordeaux, La Grande Loge Nationale Independente et Reguliere pour la France et Les Colonies Fran~aises, which requires its Lodges to observe the following rules SDuring the work the Bible shall always be upon the altar at the first chapter of t. John.

 

The ceremonies shall conform strictly to the Ritual of the Rectified Regime, revised in 1778 and approved in 1782. [This is a Deistic Rite similar to English and American practice.] Communications shall always be opened and closed with prayer in the name of The Grand Architect of the Universe. Lodges shall insert upon their documents the inscription A.L.G.D.A.DTU [the initials of the French words meaning, " To the Glory of the Grand Architect of the Universe "].

 

Religious and political discussions shall not be allowed in the Lodges.

 

The Brethren shall never officially, as a Lodge, take part in political affairs. Each Brother shall reserve his own personal liberty of action.

 

Lodges of this obedience shall receive as Visitors only the Brethren belonging to bodies recognized by the Grand Lodge of England.

 

This Grand Lodge was recognized officially by the United Grand Lodge of England in December 1913, when the following message was read from the Grand Master A body of Freemasons in France, confronted by a prohibition on the part of the Grand Orient to work in the name of the T.G.A.O.T.U., have, in fidelity to their Masonic pledges, resolved to uphold the true principles and tenets of the Craft and have united several Lodges as the Independent and Regular National Grand Lodge of France and of the French Colonies.

 

This new body has approached me with the request that it may be recognized by the Grand Lodge of England and having received full assurance that it pledged to adhere to those principles of Freemasonry which we regard as fundamental and essential, I have joyfully assented to the establishment of fraternal relations and the exchange of representatives.

 

In 1924 the Grand Orient severed relations with the Supreme Council but retained its relations with the Grand Lodge of France (formed in 188o).

 

THE ENGLISH LODGE, No. 204, BORDEAUX This Lodge, L'Anglaise, No. Zoo, merits a short sketch. Not because it founded a new system, but because, for a long series of years, it remained independent of the Grand Bodies of France‑clinging to its English parentage and usurped the privileges of a Grand Lodge. Another claim to notice is, that 88 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE throughout the Masonic revolutions of the eighteenth century, it remained true to the three Grades of English Freemasonry, a distinction which it probably alone shares with the Lodge Union in Frankfort‑on‑the‑Main. It is the only Lodge still active in France which was constituted by the Grand Lodge of England and retains to this day, as part of its title, the last number granted to it on the roll of that body.

 

This Lodge first appears on our roll in the list for 1766, where it is shown at the number 363, with the clause, " have met since the year 1732." According to the Handbuch, its first meeting was held under the presidency of Martin Kelly, Sunday, April 27, 1732 and, doubtless, its original members consisted largely of English merchants. The labours of the Lodge appear to have been several times suspended, but from 1737 they were for many years uninterrupted, although the civil authority ordered it‑but in vain‑to close its doors in 1742. It constituted in 1740 the Lodge, La FranFaise, in Bordeaux; in 1746, two Lodges in Brest ; in 1751, one at Limoges ; 1754, one at Paris ; 175 5, one at Cayenne; 1760, one at Cognac; and in 1765, one each at Perigueux and New Orleans. Over these Lodges it exercised the patriarchal sway of a Mother‑Lodge‑i.e. all the authority of a Grand Lodge without its representative character. In 1749 it threatened to erase Loge La Franraise unless it ceased at once to content itself with a promise instead of an oath and, from the fact that the latter did not receive a Warrant from the Grand Lodge of France until 1765, it may be concluded that it made due submission. In 1782 it showed itself equally active in enforcing pure and ancient Freemasonry, for it threatened the proprietor of the building in which it met, to leave the premises if he continued to allow a Rose Croix Chapter to assemble there. On March 8, 1766, the Lodge obtained a Warrant of Confirmation from the Grand Lodge of England as No. 363, which number was successively altered in 1770 to 298, in 1781 to 240 and, in 1792, to 204. The Lodge would appear at one time to have joined the Grand Orient, being included in the list of that body for 1776 as constituted May 11, 1775. The Calendar of the Grand Orient of 1810 gives, however, the date as 1785 and that of 1851 as 1778. In 1790 L'Anglaise was once more independent, for on August 31 of that year this Lodge and four others of Bordeaux formed a separate body and it only joined the Grand Orient definitely in 1803, preserving its number 204 and date of 1732. None of its daughter Lodges received at any time an English number or constitution. During this long period its rivalry was a cause of much uneasiness to the rulers of the Craft in France. To‑day it is registered as No. 96 on the register of the Grand Lodge of France and. is, therefore, no longer in communion with the Grand Lodge of England.

 

CHAPTER III FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE HE whole organization of German Freemasonry was demolished by the Great War of IgI4.‑I 8. Until that event the Craft was divided in its allegiance amongst eight Grand Lodges. There were also five perfectly regular and recognized Lodges which were " a law unto themselves." Besides these, many Grand Bodies of the Craft lived their span and died and, without some allusion to their former existence, a history of German Freemasonry would be incomplete and incomprehensible. An endeavour will, therefore, be made to describe all these communities and this branch of the inquiry will conclude by a reference to various combinations of German Masons, which do not come under the heading of Grand Lodges. The Chart given with this Chapter will serve to present the various governing bodies in their contemporaneous aspect.

 

GRAND LODGES I. THE GRAND LODGE OF HAMBURG Of all the German Grand Lodges this deserves the first mention, for two reasons, its earliest beginnings can be carried farthest back along the stream of time and, in the purity and legitimacy of its English origin, it is only equalled by the Grand Lodge of the Eclectic Union, at Frankfort, which, however, falls slightly behind it in point of antiquity.

 

The earliest date connecting the Craft with Hamburg, is contained in a speech delivered January 30, 1765, by Dr. Jaenisch, then Provincial Grand Master, who, according to Nettlebladt, Geseb. Freim. Systeme, p. 5 5 5, declared that his appoint ment as such dated from the time of his departure from London between 17i8‑zo. This assertion can only be explained by supposing that at this very early period Jaenisch had received some verbal permission to make Freemasons on the Continent; anything more definite or formal is inconceivable.

 

The next reference to Hamburg occurs under the administration of the Duke of Norfolk (see Constitutions, 1756, p. 333), when a Monsieur Thuanus, sometimes called Du Thom, was appointed in 1729 Provincial Grand Master for the circle of Lower Saxony. This person, however, is no more heard of, therefore his influence, if ever exercised, must have been of a very fugitive character.

 

In 1733 the Earl of Strathmore is stated by Preston (i8zi, p. z13) to have granted to eleven German Masons a Deputation to open a Lodge at Hamburg, concerning which there is no further information.

 

89 go FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE The Minutes (in French) of an anonymous Hamburg Lodge have been preserved, dated December 6, 1737. According to these, the meeting was held under the presidency of Karl Sarry, English Provincial Grand Master for Prussia and Branden burg. This gentleman's name is not mentioned in the English records, but he may have had some reason for assuming the above title nevertheless. The Lodge in question is usually considered to have developed into the Absalom. If so, it performed the unnecessary act of obtaining a fresh Charter, because it was almost certainly already warranted in 1733, for in the Engraved List for 1734 we find No. 124 at Hamburg without a date and, in the later List for 1740, as No. io8, constituted in 1733. Findel says the reason for the previous non‑adoption of the name was because Luttmann did not receive his patent as Provincial Grand Master until 1740. It is possible, however, that it was the Lodge of the eleven German Masons, as above. On October 23, 1740, Lodge Absalom at Hamburg was warranted as No. 119 (see Engraved List, 1756), the dates and numbers both showing that the Lodges were considered distinct in England. If one Lodge was a continuation of the other, it is somewhat difficult to account for these two Warrants and the consequent loss of seniority. In all probability when, in 1740, Luttmann was appointed Provincial Grand Master for Hamburg and Lower Saxony, he applied for a Warrant for a new Lodge Absalom‑and that the old Lodge gradually died out. The latter had been ruled in turn by Brothers Carpser, Von Oberg and Luttmann himself. The most remarkable incidents of the existence of this old Lodge are, that on March 7, 1738, according to Nettlebladt, it drew upon itself the very short‑lived prohibition of the magistrates and, in the same year, sent a Deputation to initiate the future Frederick the Great.

 

Lodge Absalom was warranted October 23, 174o and, on the 3oth, Luttmann received his patent as Provincial Grand Master. He was also the Master of Absalom, but having perfected and opened the Provincial Grand Lodge in 1741‑the highest Masonic authority in Germany‑he resigned the chair of the Lodge in 174z and, says Keller in Gescb. der Freim. in Deutscbland, 18 5 9, p. 82, accepted the position of Treasurer. Even Marschall, the Provincial Grand Master for Upper Saxony, did not disdain to occupy a Warden's chair in this Lodge whilst residing at Hamburg.

 

The first act of the Provincial Grand Master, was to legitimate an existing unchartered Lodge in Hamburg, under the name of St. George, September 24, 1743. This Lodge first appears in the English List of 1744 as No. 196. The constitution of a Lodge in Brunswick followed in 1744; at Copenhagen, 1745 ; Hanover, 1746 ; Celle, 1748 ; Oldenberg, 1752 ; Schwerin, 1754; and at Hildesheim, 1762. The last two received English numbers, but the subsequent history of all was very soon divorced from that of the Grand Lodge of Hamburg. Scarcely was the Provincial Grand Lodge established before Scots Masonry made itself felt. In 1744 Count Schmettau, who had carried the Scots Degrees to Berlin, introduced them to Hamburg and erected the Scots Lodges Schmettau and Judica, of which von Oberg and von Ronigk, the Masters of St. George and Absalom, became respectively the Scots Masters (Handbucb, s.v. Hamburg). At the same time many FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 91 surreptitious Lodges sprang up and, in 1749, there even existed a clandestine Tylers' or Serving Brothers' Lodge, in which other Serving Brethren were initiated (see op. cit.). In 1747 there was at Hamburg an African Lodge, which, although it passed away and left no trace, has been viewed as a forerunner of von Koppen's Rite of African Architects, '1768‑97.

 

Luttmann (a dyer), who resigned in 1759 and had ceased to exist in 1764, was followed‑November zo, '1759‑by Gottfried J. Jaenisch, M.D.‑born 1707; initiated in Lodge Absalom, December '18, '1743 ; and died May z8, '178'1. The latter's patent as Provincial Grand Master was signed by Lord Aberdour (Constitutions, '1767) ; but he was scarcely installed before, in 1762, he associated himself with the Degrees of the Clermont Chapter introduced by Rosa from Berlin. The way was thus prepared for the Strict Observance.

 

In the first month of '1765, Schubart arrived in Hamburg, where he consorted with Bode, who had been present at Johnstone's Altenberg Convent. The rule of the Strict Observance, which required noble birth of its candidates, proved no bar to Schubart's success in this notably plebeian city, for Hund was induced to sanction Schubart's proposition whereby enhanced fees not only ensured knighthood, but also ennoblement. A prominent Hamburg Mason at this time was Joh. Gottfr. von Exter, M.D.‑born in Bremen 1734‑who was made a knight (together with Jaenisch) by Schubart, January ", '1765. The Templar missionary promised to raise Hamburg to the position of an independent Prefectory. Accordingly, on January 30, Jaenisch appeared in the Provincial Grand Lodge, dissolved all Lodges formerly warranted by its authority, closed the Provincial Grand Lodge, declared the Strict Observance Rite the only true one, reconstituted the Lodges Absalom and St. George and proclaimed Hamburg as the Prefectory Ivenach. (Nettlebladt, Geschichte Freimaurerei Systeme, p. 5 5 8). Bode, who had been made in the Absalom Lodge‑February ", '176i‑became for a time a leading light in the Strict Observance. The Chapter, which had been formed of i z members, grew in the space of a few weeks to 29. The generality of the Fraternity proved, however, by no means enthusiastically disposed towards the new Rite; for, in '1768, the two Hamburg Lodges were practically dormant and the Grand Lodge closed (Handhuch, s.v. Hamburg), a state of things which permitted other systems to force an entrance.

 

In 1768 Rosenberg‑who is mentioned in connexion with Russia‑erected in Hamburg the Lodge of the Three Roses, Sudthausen that of Olympia, both according to the Swedish Rite. But Zinnendorff, who had cast off the Strict Observance in '1767 and founded his own rival Swedish Rite in '1768, came to Hamburg in '1770, and reconstituted these two Lodges under his own system; and, in '177'1, founded two others, the Pelican and Red Eagle, in Altona, a suburb of Hamburg. At the head of Olympia, afterwards the Golden Sphere, was J. Leonhardi‑not to be confounded with Leonhardi of Frankfort‑who was for many years Zinnendorff's representative in the Grand Lodge at London. (For Leonhardi's actions in London, see History of Loge der Pilger, Masonic Nears, London, October 26, '1929.) The first two Lodges took part in the formation‑June 24, 1770‑Of Zinnendorff's Grand 92 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE National Lodge. Meanwhile, in spite of the efforts of the Provincial Grand Master for Foreign Lodges, De Vignolles, who seems to have been the only English Mason who thoroughly understood the character of Zinnendorff's usurpation, the Grand Lodge of England had recognized the sole authority in Germany of the Grand National Lodge at Berlin‑November 30, 1773‑so that when Jaenisch at length attempted to resume his duties as English Provincial Grand Master, he found that his patent had been annulled by Lord Petre, May 31, 1773. In the letter of Heseltine, the Grand Secretary, demanding the immediate return of his patent, jaenisch is deservedly reproached, not only with regard to former acts of negligence, but for having made an illegal use of the document for the furtherance of the Sect of the Strict Observance (Nettlebladt, p. 778). The proceedings of Zinnendorff, however, in whose favour the letter was issued, were no less illegal and far more reprehensible. In 1774 fourteen Brethren deserted Zinnendorff's Lodges and were constituted by Jaenisch as a Strict Observance Lodge under the name Emanuel, thus forming the third Lodge of the system which had once been the Provincial Grand Lodge and was destined to become so again. This Lodge was, of course, not immediately registered in England and first appears in the list for 1792, as No. 508, with the note " have met since 1774." In the same list (1792), Lodges Absalom and St. George, which were dropped out at the closing up of numbers in 1770, reappear. The year 1774‑September 8 ‑witnessed the initiation in this Lodge Emanuel, of Fried. Ludwig Schroeder, one of the most prominent reformers of German Freemasonry, who was born at Schwerin, March 3, 1744. Schroeder's public career as an actor and dramatic poet is well known and, in his later function of impresario, he was, at least, equally successful. At a comparatively early age he was enabled to devote his well‑earned leisure to the reform of the Craft; here also success attended him. He was Master of the Emanuel Lodge, 1787‑99; Deputy Provincial Grand Master of Lower Saxony, 1799‑184; and Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Hamburg from 1814 until his death, September 3, 1816. His first acts as a Freemason showed no promise of his future career, for in 1774, being then only an Apprentice, he opened a clandestine Lodge in Hamburg, Eliza of the Warm Heart, which lasted until 1777.

 

In 1776 the Princes Karl of Hesse and Ferdinand of Brunswick founded the Lodge Ferdinand Caroline in Hamburg, the fourth Lodge of the Hamburg system. In 1792 this Lodge received the English No. 509, with the date of 1776.

 

In 1778 Bode was Master of Absalom ; Dresser of St. George. This latter not being acceptable to the Brethren, who under the Strict Observance rules, were powerless to remove him, the Hamburg Fraternity seized the occasion of Karl's presence in Altona‑then a town of Denmark, although apparently a suburb of Hamburgto offer him the presidency of all four Lodges. This he accepted‑March 28, 1778‑but disappointed the Brethren in his choice of a Deputy; so the ruse having failed, the Chapter was induced to influence him to resign the office in 178o, accepting the title of Protector, allowing the Lodges, pro hac vice, to choose their own Masters. Dresser, as will be easily understood, was not re‑elected.

 

FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 93 Meanwhile, the Hamburg Fraternity had grown tired of the Strict Observance, which was itself moribund. On May z8, 1781, Jaenisch died and was succeeded by Dr. von Exter, under whom‑by amalgamation‑the four Lodges became two and renounced the Templar Rite. Exter, however, was won over by the New or Gold Rosicrucians and announced himself as a Grand Master under this system, with Dresser as Deputy. Through the latter, Hamburg was nearly induced by the Wetzlar Brotherhood to join the newly‑formed Eclectic Union as a third Directoral Lodge; but the negotiations were interrupted by his death. At this period Aug. Graefe, a former Provincial Grand Master for Canada, arrived in Hamburg as the representative in Germany of the Grand Lodge of England. He was a strong opponent of Zinnendorff, although accredited to his Grand Lodge by a patent dated March 24, 178 5 and strongly encouraged a return to first principles, holding out hopes of the Provincial Grand Lodge being revived (Keller, pp. 19q, zoo).

 

In 1783 Hamburg was invaded by Eckhoffen with a Lodge oú Asiatic Brothers and, in 1785, Schroeder returned from Vienna (Findel, P. 497), his influence soon making itself felt throughout the Hamburg Craft.

 

In 1786, the negotiations with England being now complete and Zinnendorff disowned, the two Hamburg Lodges redivided into the original four and, on August 24, Graefe installed von Exter as Provincial Grand Master for Hamburg and Lower Saxony (Keller, pp. zoo, zo1). Exter's patent was dated July 5, 1786. In 1787 Schroeder was elected Master of Lodge Emanuel and soon after was intrusted with the revision of the Statutes. He completed his work in 1788 and laid the first stone of his reform by establishing the Old Charges of 17 2 3 as the foundation of all Masonry. But, whilst bent on cutting down extravagance on the one hand, he was equally energetic in preventing extreme measures on the other; and it must be ascribed to his influence that a proposal made in 1789 to forego rites and ceremonies of all kinds was rejected (Findel, pp. 497, 498).

 

This return to English Freemasonry was naturally distasteful to Karl of Hesse, Ferdinand's coadjutor, in the direction of the Rectified Strict Observance. He, therefore, in 1787, erected a Lodge, Ferdinand of the Rock, at Hamburg, which was, of course, looked upon as clandestine, as were also at this time the Zinnendorff Lodges. In September 179o Bode, who had migrated to Gotha, issued a circular proposing a General Union of German Lodges. The circular failed to shake the allegiance of a single Hamburg Lodge, but possibly it had the effect of stimulating Schroeder to further measures, for we next find that‑at his instigation‑the Scots Lodges and Degrees were abolished in 1790‑1, thus leaving nothing but pure English Freemasonry. This step was followed in 1795 by the adhesion of Lodge Ferdinand of the Rock, which, in the Freemasons' Calendar for 1798, appears as No. 56z, with the words " have met since 1788 " in a parenthesis.

 

At Exter's death‑April 12, 1799‑Beckmann became Provincial Grand Master and Schroeder Deputy (Nettlebladt, p. 598). The latter, who had previously revised the Constitutions, now turned his attention to the Ceremonial and, having discovered what he imagined to be the earliest diction, recast it in a form more 94 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE applicable to the times. The result was a simple yet impressive Ritual, differing little from the English, which was approved and accepted by the Grand Lodge of Hamburg, April 29, 18o1. Its daughter Lodges had meanwhile increased from 5 to 9 (Nettlebladt, pp. Goo, 6oi).

 

In i 8oz Schroeder procured the acceptance of what, until quite lately, was the distinguishing feature of the Hamburg system, viz. the Engbund‑i.e. Select Bond. It was intended to forestall any hankering after High Degrees by rendering it possible for Master Masons to become historically acquainted with all the High Degrees of the various Rites. At the same time, to raise its value as a distinction, it was not open to all Master Masons, while it possessed its own means of recognition, etc. Certain Grand Officers and all Masters of Lodgeswere ex officio members and, in each Lodge, a certain number of the Master Masons were admitted. The Hamburg En gbund was a sort of Grand Engbund for all the private ones; a further selection from each En gbund conducted the correspondence with the others. This second division was called the Correspondence Circle. The members, as such, exercised no influence over their Lodges and their intention was, by research into all the usages and fallacies of the High Degrees, to demonstrate their uselessness and absence of historical basis.

 

Under its new guise the Provincial Grand Lodge of Hamburg prospered for some years, until, in 1811, the success of the French arms and Napoleon's Interdict rendered it impossible to continue the connexion with England. On February i i, 1811, therefore, the Provincial Grand Lodge declared itself independent, under the name of the Grand Lodge of Hamburg (Nettlebladt, p. 613). At that time its sway was exerted over i z Lodges (Findel, p. 499). The remainder of its history is uneventful enough.

 

Beckmann died‑June z8, 1814‑and was succeeded as Grand Master by Schroeder ; at whose death‑September 3, 1816‑Beseler was elected and, at his resignation, Schleiden, July z8, 1825. In 1828 W. H. Goschen (a member of Loge der Pilger, No. 238, London) was appointed the first representative at the Grand Lodge of England. In 1834 Schleiden resigned and was succeeded by Moraht. On December 6, 1837, Lodge Absalom held its centenary festival and, in 1838, the Grand Lodge of England appointed H. J. Wenck as its first representative at Hamburg. Hamburg was from that time closely allied with England and its representative often enjoyed the special honour of being appointed Grand Secretary for German Correspondence. Moraht died February 13, 1838 and was succeeded by Dav. Andr. Cords, under whom the Constitutions were revised in 1845. The latter was followed by his former Deputy, Dr. H. W. Buek, in 1847 and, under this Grand Master, the Constitutions were again revised in 1862. The 150 years' jubilee of Freemasonry was held in 1867.

 

In 1869 it was considered expedient that the historical acquirements of the Engbund should no longer be reserved as the special privilege of a select few. The Grand Engbund was therefore dissolved and reconstituted as a private Engbund, open to all Master Masons ; the daughter associations followed suit. They then FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 95 existed as purely literary Masonic societies ; but the want of the previous cohesion and superior direction had so seriously hampered their efforts, that in '1 878 the Lodge at Rostock made proposals for re‑establishing the former organization (Findel p. 5oi). The completion of Dr. Buek's twenty‑fifth year as Grand Master was celebrated by the Grand Lodge, June 24,187z. He then resigned and was followed by Glitza. In 1874 and 1875 the Grand Lodge of Hamburg recognized the coloured Lodges of Prince Hall in Boston and of Ohio and, in 1877‑8, the Constitutions underwent a last revision.

 

In 1878 the Grand Lodge of Hamburg ruled over 32 Lodges, of which 5 were in that city and i g in other parts of Germany, 8 being abroad. In Hamburg itself there existed 9 other Lodges owing allegiance to other German Grand Lodges. The total number of Masons under the Grand Lodge was 3,726, an average of I16 per Lodge. Two foreign Lodges were then added, one at Bucharest, another at Vera Cruz (Cosmopolitan Calendar, 1885). With a solitary exception, Hamburg was the only German Grand Lodge which warranted Lodges outside the Empire; it ignored the American theory of Grand Lodge sovereignty, possessing no fewer than three Lodges in New York itself. The Pilgrim Lodge (Loge der Pilger) in London, works in German according to the Hamburg or Schroeder Ritual, but under the rule of the Grand Lodge of England.

 

The history of the Grand Lodge of Hamburg may thus briefly be summarized ‑173o, Du Thom, Provincial Grand Master; 1733‑40, anonymous Lodge; 174065, Provincial Grand Lodge for Hamburg and Lower Saxony under Luttmann and Jaenisch ; 1765‑82, a part of the Strict Observance system ; 1782‑8, under Exter, indoctrinated with the fancies of the New Rosicrucians, though always‑it must in fairness be recorded‑inclining more and more towards a return to the practice under the Grand Lodge of England; 1786‑1811, Provincial Grand Lodge once more ; from 1811 to 18 5 5, Grand Lodge of Hamburg.

 

II. THE MOTHER GRAND LODGE OF THE ECLECTIC UNION, FRANKFORT‑ON‑THE‑MAIN This system claims emphatically the first place in an English Mason's regard for two reasons other than antiquity, viz. the filial persistency with which it adhered under most difficult circumstances to its connexion with England and the strong common sense which, under every allurement, kept it practically free at all times from the blighting influence of High Degrees, Strict Observance and other Masonic ‑aberrations. The Lodge Union of Frankfort and its allies have never ceased for one moment to work in the purely English and only Freemasonry of three Degrees. Individual members have taken accessory Degrees, have even been commissioned by the Lodge to join other Rites in order to report upon their value and have always reported adversely! The history of this body affords no mysteries to be cleared up ; its Minutes are full and complete from the earliest one to the latest ; its records are admirably preserved; every statement‑on their authority‑rests on documentary evidence and, from '1742, literally no question is open to doubt.

 

96 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE The annals of the Eclectic Union have been written by three of its own membersKloss (Annalen der Loge fur Einigkeit, 1842.), Keller (Geschich. des Eklektischen Freimaurerbundes, 18 5 7), and Karl Paul (Annalen des Eklektischen Freimaurerbundes, 18 8 3. The Handbuch also gives a parallel account, s.v. Frankfurt and Eklektisches‑Bund), and as to facts do not differ in the slightest degree. Paul's account is compiled in chronological order, therefore, no difficulties of verification can be experienced.

 

Frankfort, from its position as a free town of the Empire, the seat of Germany's largest banking houses, the coronation city of its Emperors and the place of meeting of the Imperial Diet, enjoyed obvious advantages for the early propagation of Freemasonry. Evidence, indeed, is not wanting of informal meetings of the Craft at a very early date. But the first indications of a permanent Lodge are the records of fines inflicted as per cash‑book of the Union Lodge under date of March 1, 1742. In the same year‑March zg‑By‑laws were drawn up and signed by the members, June 27. On the last date the Lodge was formally constituted by General de Beaujeu, Marquis de Gentils and Baron won Schell, styling themselves Grand Master and Grand Wardens pro tempore. It is not known by what right they assumed to represent the Grand Lodge of England in this matter ; but even if the offices were self‑conferred, in this very irregularity itself may be perceived a striving after the regularity which has since so honourably distinguished this Lodge. That the act (if a usurpation) was soon afterwards condoned, may be gathered from the Charter granted by Lord Ward, Grand Master‑February 8, 1743‑which recites that Brother Beaumont, oculist to the Prince of Wales, having assured " us " that the Lodge had been constituted in due form, under the name of Union, as a daughter of the Union Lodge in London, " we do hereby recognize it, etc. and order that the members of either Lodge be considered equally members of the other." Its first Master was Steinheil, its first Warden De la Tierce, who in 1742 produced one of the earliest translations of Anderson's Constitutions (1723) for the use of the Lodge. In the Engraved List, 1744‑5, it is depicted as a Union of Angels and its date of constitution is acknowledged, June 17, 1742, with the number 192. Its proceedings were conducted in French until 1744, when it was resolved to work alternately in German and French.

 

In 1743 Count Schmettau, whose name has several times been mentioned, established a military Lodge in Frankfort, which amalgamated with the UnionJanuary 17, 1744‑and in 1745 the Union assumed the powers of a Mother‑Lodge by constituting the Lodge of the Three Lions at Marburg, which was not, however, registered in England at the time and first appears in the Engraved List for 1767 as No. 393.

 

In 1746‑October 24‑the Lodge resolved to close its doors, owing to the paucity of attendance and other reasons. It was reopened August 16, 1752, by Steinheil. In 1758 a Constitution was granted to a very short‑lived Lodge at Mayence and the occupation of Frankfort by the French army gave rise to several irregular Lodges in the city. The Lodge strove its best to preserve order, but ineffectually for some time, until it at length singled out for mutual support and FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 97 assistance a Lodge which had grown up in the Swedish regiment, Royal Deux Ponts, quartered at Frankfort. On May 12, 1761, it constituted the Lodge Joseph of Union in Nuremberg and‑May 29, 1762‑legitimated the Royal Deux Ponts Lodge. The invitation of the Berlin Three Globes‑March 8, 1765‑to join the Strict Observance, was declined, also a proposal to pay Schubart's expenses in order that he might instruct them in the new Rite. The Daughter‑Lodge at Nuremberg was, however, at this time won over to the Templars, although it did not formally sever its connexion with Frankfort till two years later‑1767. The greatest blot on the history of the Lodge Union, is its refusal from a very early date to recognize the eligibility of Jewish candidates, an error nevertheless which it amended much earlier than many other German Lodges. In 1766 it refused a warrant to Cassel, because Jews were among the petitioners. At this period J. P. Gogel, a former Master of the Lodge, whose commercial pursuits often called him to England, was commissioned to petition for a Provincial Grand Lodge patent for Frankfort, which was granted by Lord Blaney, Grand Master‑August zo, 1766‑to J. P. Gogel, Provincial Grand Master for the Upper and Lower Rhine and of Franconia. Gogel produced his patent in Frankfort‑October z8‑and the Provincial Grand Lodge was accordingly constituted on the 31st, with the Lodges Union of Frankfort, Marburg, Deux Ponts and Nuremberg as daughters. On this occasion Gogel declared that he invested the Lodge Union with his personal rights and that no Provincial Grand Master should, in future, exercise the office for more than two or three years. In this he exceeded his powers, because a Provincial patent is always a personal distinction, a Provincial Grand Master not being elected by the Province, but appointed by the Grand Master; and, as events proved, the well‑meant intentions of Gogel were incapable of realization. The officers of the Provincial Grand Lodge‑Deputy Grand Master, Senior and Junior Wardens‑were the Masters of the Union, Marburg and Nuremberg Lodges respectively; but the members, at first all Master Masons, afterwards Wardens‑present and past‑were drawn from the Union only. Out of the latter, each of the other Lodges might select a repre sentative. It will be seen that the Union, subsequently the other Lodges in Frank fort, were always exceptionally favoured. Among the first members of the Provincial Grand Lodge were Karl Br6nner, Peter F. Passavant and F. W. Mohler. In 1767 the Nuremberg Lodge threw off' its allegiance and joined the Strict Observance, whose emissary, Schubart, had arrived in Frankfort in December 1766. His propaganda failed to influence the Provincial Grand Lodge or its daughter, Union, but he succeeded in erecting, in February 1767, a Lodge of the Three Thistles at Frankfort, which for many years proved a thorn in the side of the Brethren.

 

According to his promise Gogel resigned‑October 23, 1768‑but was reelected‑November 1o, 177o‑Mohler serving as Grand Master in the interim. The former, on his return from England in 1772, constituted a Lodge at Strasburg, which almost immediately afterwards seceded to the Strict Observance. In the same year the Deux Ponts Lodge also joined the enemy.

 

F. 1v‑7 98 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE In December 1772 Prince Ludwig George Karl of Hesse, an enthusiastic convert to von Hund's system, addressed a letter to the Provincial Grand Lodge, expatiating on the advantages of the new Rite, invited the Grand Lodge to join him and quietly proposed that Gogel should abdicate in his favour ! The offer was declined.

 

On November 30, 1773, Zinnendorff concluded his compact with England, by which all the existing German Lodges were handed over to him. The Provincial Grand Lodge at Frankfort, however, was given the choice, during Gogel's life, either of retaining its then existing position, or of making terms for a Provincial Grand Patent with Zinnendorff. In either case, after Gogel's death, the district was to revert to the newly erected National Grand Lodge for all Germany, i.e. Zinnendorff's Prince Ferdinand, Provincial Grand Master for Brunswick, was granted the same alternative. The treaty was not communicated at once to Frankfort and, whatever excuses England might have urged in extenuation, so far as regarded Hamburg, which had strayed from the right road, its action was not only uncalled for, but highly discreditable in the case of Frankfort, the truest daughter the English Grand Lodge ever had cause to rejoice over. No excuse whatever can be pleaded, except the profound ignorance of the Grand Lodge of Englandor, it may be, of its Secretary, James Heseltine‑with regard to the true state of the Craft abroad, an ignorance which, in the opinion of all dispassionate inquirers, will heighten rather than extenuate, the grave error related.

 

In 1774 the Marburg Lodge formally threw off its allegiance, leaving the Union as the sole support of the Provincial Grand Lodge. In spite of this isolated position Gogel accompanied a letter of inquiry respecting the arrangement with Zinnendorff by a contribution of ú3o for Freemasons' Hall and C4 for the Charity. At the same time he pointed out that the only truly English Lodge in Germany was the Frankfort Lodge and that both the Zinnendorff and Strict Observance systems were something totally different. This and further protests on Gogel's part only produced an answer from England in 1775, in which, after praising Frankfort as the best and only support of true Freemasonry, he was nevertheless advised to come to some arrangement with Zinnendorff. It being quite evident that, in these circumstances, England would not acknowledge a successor to Gogel‑in whose name the Provincial patent was made out, on which Frankfort based its claimsit was determined that he should not resign his office as at first intended. Freemasonry in Frankfort, however, languished and, between 1775 and 1777, no sittings of Grand Lodge were held. From 1777‑8o negotiations, initiated by the Landgrave Karl of Hesse, were carried on with this Prince, who held out special inducements to Frankfort to join the Strict Observance. Gogel, Bronner, Pas savant and Ktisstner were advanced to the highest Degree of this Rite as a test and‑advised against it. The negotiations then fell through at the last moment. Knigge, with the teachings of the Illuminati, failed even to obtain a hearing from the Lodge in 178o, although here again several Brethren‑for example, Kusstner, Bronner, J. P. von Leonhardi, Pascha, Noel, Du Fay, etc.‑gave the Society a trial. The Provincial FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 99 Grand Lodge refused to yield to, or capitulate with, Zinnendorff and, with its daughter Union, plodded on its lonely road.

 

In 1782‑March iz‑Gogel died; on the 17th Peter F. Passavant was elected Grand Master; on the 18th Pascha, who was about to leave for London, was commissioned to apply for a new Provincial patent, made out this time in the name of the Lodge, not in that of the Grand Master, also to procure answers to several other questions. In London he failed to obtain the ear of Grand Lodge, except through J. Leonhardi, Master of the Pilgrim Lodge (Loge der Pilger), who, as Zinnendorff's representative, was scarcely likely to assist him. The utmost concession offered to Pascha was, that like the Berlin Royal York, the Frankfort Union should content itself with the position of an English constituted Lodge, independent of any German superior. The result is not surprising. The Frankfort Fraternity decided‑November 24, 1782‑to assert, maintain and exercise its acquired rights as the Provincial Grand Lodge for the Upper and Lower Rhine and Franconia, omitting the title English. They contended‑with much forcethat the right of assembling as a Provincial Grand Lodge had been granted to them, quamdiu se bene gesserint, therefore could not be revoked, except by mutual consent, or on cause shown, that the Frankfort body had been guilty of misconduct or neglect.

 

It will be remembered that it was precisely at this period that von Hund's Templar system received its coup de grdce at Wilhelmsbad and German Freemasonry entered upon a transition state. From the consequent confusion emerged the Eclectic Union. In order thoroughly to understand this movement, we must for the moment turn to the free city of Wetzlar‑on‑the‑Lahn, in Rhenish Prussia. In that city the Frankfort Three Thistles warranted in 1767 a Strict Observance Lodge, Joseph of the Three Helmets. To this was added the Scots Lodge, Joseph of the Imperial Eagle‑‑a mother Lodge, which warranted a whole string of Strict Observance Lodges. The Templar Chapter was, in 1777, transferred from the unfruitful soil of Frankfort to Wetzlar, at its head being von Ditfurth. On the decay of the Templar system, the Scots Lodge assumed the position of an independent Provincial Grand Lodge. Von Ditfurth then conceived the idea of the Eclectic Union and communicated with Bronner of Frankfort, who revised his suggestions ‑considerably improving them‑and at a meeting of the Frankfort Provincial Grand Lodge‑February 9, 1783‑sketched out the future lines of the proposed body. The result was a joint circular to all German Lodges from the two Provincial Grand Lodges in question, dated March 18, and 2i, 1783. The daughter Lodges‑one at Wetzlar excepted‑to the number of 14, immediately gave in their adhesion to the new organization, viz. at Wetzlar, Munich, Augsburg, Neuwied, Munster, Lautern, Cassel, Rothenburg, Aix‑la‑Chapelle, Salzburg, Wiesbaden, Brunn, Giessen and Bentheim‑Steinfurth.

 

On August z4, 1783, after due consideration, the Union Lodge also joined and, in December of the same year, the Strict Observance Lodge of the Three Thistles (at Frankfort) rejected the Rectified Templar Rite and amalgamated with the Union Lodge.

 

100 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE The success of the new organization was such, that by 1789 no fewer than 5 3 Lodges had expressed a desire to be enrolled under its banner, including Lodges in Copenhagen, Warsaw, Kiew, Naples, etc. ; but a great number of these could not be accepted for political and other reasons, while many others had soon after to be closed on similar grounds.

 

The chief features of the Eclectic Union were as follow :‑Perfect equality of all Lodges among themselves and entire independence of any superior authorityMasonry, by common consent, held to be composed of three Degrees only uniformity. of ritual in those three Degrees‑every Lodge free to superimpose any fancy Degrees it chose (hence the term Eclectic), but the Degrees so conferred and the members thereof were to enjoy no recognition as such in the Lodge‑the Master to be elected and himself to appoint the other officers‑the bond of union to consist in the regular communication to each Lodge of every other Lodge's proceedings‑the Provincial Lodges for Frankfort and Wetzlar to be the two centres, undertaking this work of distribution under the name of Directorial Lodges‑the Master Masons of other systems to be admitted as visitors to the Lodges, without any recognition of professedly superior Degrees of which they might be in possession ‑Warrants of Constitution to be granted in the name of the Eclectic Union by either of the Directorial Lodges, etc. The permission to add High Degrees soon lapsed by non‑user and was subsequently withdrawn, even before the Statutes were definitely altered ; with the result that an attempt, a very few years afterwards, to introduce the Royal Arch into Frankfort was summarily suppressed. The Wetzlar Lodge also from the first took a less leading position than Frankfort and gradually died out. In 1783 the Ritual was revised, conformably in all essentials with the English Rite, save that it insisted upon the candidate being a Christian‑an enactment which was the cause of much trouble.

 

In 1784 the Harmony and Concord and, in 1785, the Compasses, Lodges at Trieste and Gotha respectively, joined the Eclectic Union.

 

In 1785 Graefe, of whom mention has already been made in connexion with Hamburg, offered his services to Frankfort and negotiations with England were commenced.

 

On May 21, 1786, Passavant died and was succeeded as Provincial Grand Master by J. P. von Leonhardi. At this date the roll of the Union showed 25 Lodges, 7 of which, however‑probably for political reasons‑were unnamed in the published list.

 

Through Graefe's exertions, a compact was entered into with EnglandMarch 1, 1788‑reinstating the Provincial Grand Lodge. The clauses of most interest to this sketch are 1i, granting the Lodge permission to elect its own Grand Master every two or three years ; 12, promising on the part of London not to issue Warrants in the Jurisdiction of Frankfort, except in cases where the Provincial Grand Lodge could not grant them; 56, Frankfort Lodges might obtain English registry on payment of the usual fees.

 

The last Minute of the Wetzlar Lodge which reached Frankfort is dated July i 1, FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 101 1788 ; it expresses a wish to conclude a similar treaty with England. But the Lodge was already moribund and the desire was never realized.

 

On January 13, 1788, new Statutes were passed by 3o Lodges, of which 8 by desire were unnamed. It is noteworthy that the Provincial Grand Lodge was still formed exclusively of members of the Union Lodge, every other Lodge being allowed‑as before‑to appoint one of these as its representative.

 

Leonhardi's patent as Provincial Grand Master for the Upper and Lower Rhine and Franconia, signed by Lord Effingham, Acting Grand Master, is dated February zo, 1789 ; on its receipt the installation festival was held, October z5, 1789; and Kloss remarks that no fewer than 29 Lodges sought and obtained English registry (Annalen der Loge Zur Einigkeit, p. 238). A careful comparison of the English Lodge lists, however, shows at most io Lodges. These are, according to the numeration from 1792 to 1813, Nos. 456, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479 and 588. On December 5, 1789, Leonhardi was elected Provincial Grand Master for a second term.

 

The peculiar position of the Grand Lodge as a Directorial Lodge of the Union and, at the same time, a Provincial Grand Lodge under England, gave rise to some apprehensions respecting the future independence of the private Lodges. Bode cleverly seized this incident to lend colour to his circular issued November 24, 1790, by the Eclectic Lodge at Gotha, calling on all Eclectic Lodges to rearrange themselves under a new organization with the title of German Masonic Union. As a result the Gotha Lodge was naturally erased from the roll of Eclectic Lodges. In the same year the Lodge at Carlsruhe closed for political reasons, that at Giessen on account of quarrels among its members. The Lodge at Nuremberg, Three Arrows, protested against Gotha's exclusion, because it had been effected without the assent of the other Lodges or hearing Gotha's defence; ultimately, in 1792, it severed its connexion with the Eclectic Union and joined the Gotha or Bode's Union.

 

In 179o a few members of Lodge Union attempted to introduce the Royal Arch. Although they kept the Chapter entirely separate from the Lodge, they met with decided opposition from the other Brethren and the Degree was soon suffered to lapse. After many years it is heard of again. In 1842 the three surviving members of this stillborn Chapter deposited a sealed case in the archives containing the statutes, rituals and documents, to be opened after their deaths. On August 30, 1791, von Ditfurth, of Wetzlar, resigned his office of Provincial Grand Master, also that of Master of his Lodge, from which time Frankfort reigned supreme without even the shadow of a rival.

 

Leonhardi resigned his office‑October 19, 1792‑‑and was succeededFebruary 6, 1793‑‑as Provincial Grand Master by Johann Karl Bronner. During this year the Lodge at Kaufbeuren closed for political reasons. These made themselves also felt in Frankfort, so that‑June 8, 1793‑Bronner closed the Grand Lodge. On the 9th the French troops entered the city and, although the private Lodges still showed some slight activity throughout the occupation, the Grand Master did not reopen Grand Lodge until October z9, 1801. Of all the former toe FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE Eclectic Lodges only seven survived these eight troublous years‑those of Aix‑laChapelle, Altenburg, Frankfort, Hildesheim, Munster, Rudolstadt and Krefeld ; of these only the Frankfort Union had remained faithful to the Provincial Grand Lodge of the Eclectic Union.

 

Unfortunately this long slumber had induced the English Lodge Royal York, at Berlin, which, in 1798, had constituted itself a Grand Lodge, to consider the Provincial Grand Lodge for Frankfort as extinct and, in consequence‑December 4, i 8oi‑it warranted a Frankfort Lodge, Socrates of Constancy. Bronner protested against this infraction of jurisdiction and, in his appeal to England in 1805, com plained of being left for three years without any replies to his letters. This letter also was left unanswered, for which perhaps the wars may be responsible; but the consequent strained relations between Frankfort and Berlin prevented the former joining a union which the Royal York, the Grand Lodge of Hanover and the Provincial Grand Lodge for Hamburg had formed among themselves. This Lodge Socrates remained as a stumbling‑block for many subsequent years.

 

Between 1803 and 1805 the Grand Lodge was once more closed, to which act many reasons, political and otherwise, contributed. Meanwhile the Nuremberg Lodge (formerly of the Eclectic Union) had endeavoured to induce Frankfort to accept Schroeder's Ritual. The Provincial Grand Lodge for Frankfort once more, in spite of England's neglect, showed her filial allegiance by declining‑February 27, 1805‑to accede, being unable to take upon herself the responsibility of eliminating the obligation without superior permission. This subject also formed part of Bronner's letter already alluded to.

 

In 1806 Frankfort became a Grand Duchy, with Karl von Dalberg over it as Prince Primate (Farm Primas). Bronner petitioned for permission to prosecute Masonic work and closed the Provincial Grand Lodge until a reply was received. This arrival‑verbally transmitted‑July 2, 1808, to the effect that, as Prince Primate, he must ignore their labours, but, as Karl von Dalberg, he would permit them. On July 12, 1808, the Grand Orient of France warranted a Lodge in Frankfort, composed chiefly of Jews, under the name of the Nascent Dawn. This Lodge also was a source of trouble and vexation in later days.

 

But the Provincial Grand Lodge was strengthened in 1808 by the reawakening of the Ulm Lodge, in i 8ocg by the revival of the Lodges at Carlsruhe and Freiburg and by a new Lodge at Heidelberg. In this same year the above Lodges at Carlsruhe and Freiburg, together with an old Lodge at Heidelberg, joined in erecting a National Grand Lodge, Union of Baden, without, however, seceding from the Eclectic Union; merely ceasing to own allegiance to the Provincial Grand Lodge as such. On May 3, 1811, a compact was made with the Lodge Socrates, in view of its adhesion to the Provincial Grand Lodge, that the latter should in future be composed of members of the Socrates and Union Lodges equally, but that the Grand Master should always be elected from the Union. Lodge Socrates accordingly entered the Eclectic Union‑May 12, 1811. June 24, Lodge Joseph of Nuremberg, which had been constituted by the Union in 1761 and had seceded to the Strict Observance FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 103 in 1767, took advantage of its jubilee to join the Eclectic Union. Per contra the Ulm Lodge was compelled to close by a royal decree.

 

Bronner died March 22, i 8 i z, and was succeeded as Grand Master by Jean Nod Du Fay.

 

April 4, 1813, a new Lodge was warranted at Offenbach ; but a Grand Ducal decree of February 16 of the same year, closing all Lodges in Baden, robbed the Eclectic Union of its daughter Lodges in Freiburg, Heidelberg and Carlsruhe.

 

A decree of the Prince Primate of April 30, 1813, detrimental to the progress of Freemasonry, had little time allowed it in which to take effect; the events of 1814 being still more detrimental to the Prince himself.

 

1814 witnessed a revisal of the Ritual, in which the oath was ordered to be recited but not taken. With the exception of a few exclusively Christian allusions, this Ritual remained in force until 1871.

 

1816 brought an accession of strength in the Lodges Ernest at Coburg and St. John the Evangelist of Concord at Darmstadt. A new Lodge was constituted at Giessen, May 29, 1817 and, on the 25th of the same month, a Lodge at Worms warranted by the Grand Orient of France in 1811 was affiliated. In 1817 also, a quarrel arose between the Frankfort Provincial Grand Lodge and the Grand Lodge of England. The Lodge Nascent Dawn, chiefly Jewish, warranted by the Grand Orient of France in 18o8, sought anew Constitution. The Jewish element rendering a resort to the Provincial Grand Lodge futile, the Brethren applied to the Landgrave Karl of Hesse, who at once enrolled them among the rectified Templar Lodges, even forced upon them a Scots Lodge with the peculiarly Christian Degrees of that Rite. As a natural consequence, the Lodge split up. The Christians retained Karl's warrant for Lodge Karl of the Dawning Light, whilst the Jews applied to the Duke of Sussex and were constituted as the Nascent Dawn. Both Lodges were treated by the Provincial Grand Lodge as clandestine and much bitterness arose. The Grand Lodge of England, however, in this case had clearly acted within the meaning of 1z of the 1788 compact, although perhaps more time for reflection ought to have been granted to the Provincial Grand Lodge. The latter body, however, by its notorious prohibition of Jewish members, had put itself quite out of court.

 

In 1818 a new Lodge at Mayence was warranted, but seceded to the Royal York Grand Lodge in 1821.

 

Du Fay died February z4, i8zo and, on August 5, Leonhardi, under whom the compact of 1788 was made with England, was elected Grand Master for the second time. It was fated that under him also the broken bonds which he had himself reknit should finally be severed. It was resolved‑August 5, 1821‑to make one more effort to obtain redress from England for its alleged encroachment and this having failed, it was agreed‑January 13, i8zz‑to renounce the English supremacy. Accordingly‑March z7, 1823‑the Provincial Lodge assumed the title of " The Mother Grand Lodge of the Eclectic Union " and notified this 104 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE act to the Masonic world by a circular of November 14, 1823. All allusions to a mere directorial Lodge, primus inter pares, were apparently dropped for ever.

 

The Grand Lodge commenced its new career with a following of 9 Lodges.In Frankfort, z‑Union, Socrates; in Nuremberg, z‑Three Arrows, Joseph; and i each in Darmstadt, Giessen, Coburg, Offenbach and Worms.

 

Leonhardi, who resigned March 3, 1826 and refused a re‑election on account of his advanced age, died November 23, 18 Constantine Fellner succeeded him as Grand Master.

 

On May z following Dr. George Kloss was first elected a member of the Grand Lodge. This celebrated Mason, skilful physician, diligent Masonic student and historian, was born at Frankfort July 31, 1787, admitted to the Fraternity at the age of 18 as a Lewis‑September z8, 1805‑by the Lodge Union, of which he was elected Master in 1828. His Masonic works have been quoted so repeatedly in these pages, as to render any further allusion to them unnecessary. As a Masonic critic, he was emphatically facile princeps and, owing to the strength of his convictions acquired by the study of Masonic documents, it is easy to conceive that from the moment of his entering Grand Lodge, that body would have no peace until it renounced its errors, at the head of which Kloss naturally placed the exclusion of Jews‑as he doubtless would have done in the case of any members of a particular race or religion‑from the benefits of the Craft.

 

With the altered position of the Grand Lodge there remained no valid reason why the Grand Master should be elected from the members of the Union Lodge only. The Socrates Lodge now commenced to agitate for a status in all respects equal to that of the Union and, in 1828, a revision of the Constitutions was commenced, but the work lasted many years.

 

Owing to the religious intolerance of the Grand Lodge, its territory was once more invaded by the Grand Orient of France, which‑December z, 183zwarranted a Lodge, Frankfort Eagle, composed largely of Jews. In the following years a strong feeling favourable to the Jewish Lodges and to the Landgrave Karl's Lodge, Karl of the Dawning Light, sprang up in the Fraternity and was reflected by the younger members of the Grand Lodge. The Grand Officers, who were all old members, finding themselves powerless to stem the current, resigned in a body ‑November 14, 1834‑and, on December z3, Johann Friedrich Fiedler was elected Grand Master, with Kloss as his Deputy. The Landgrave Karl died August 17, 1836 and his Lodge almost immediately afterwards began to negotiate for admission to the Union. On September 24 following, Fielder died andMarch 3, 1837‑Kloss was elected Grand Master. In 1839 one of Karl's Lodges ‑in Alzey‑joined the Eclectic Union.

 

1840 witnessed two important steps. On March 9 it was resolved to admit Jewish Brethren as visitors. This being the date of Kloss's retirement from office, he could, at least, congratulate himself that the battle was half won. He was succeeded as Grand Master by Gerhard Friedrich, D.D. The second step FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 105 was the conclusion of the negotiations with the Lodge Karl of the Dawning Light and its admission to the Eclectic Union, September z7, 1840.

 

The centenary festival of the Union Lodge was held June 27, 184z, when, as already stated, the documents of the long‑forgotten Royal Arch Chapter were deposited in the archives and the proceedings were graced by the presentation of Kloss's Annals of the Union Lodge‑‑an invaluable mine of Masonic lore‑compiled for the occasion.

 

Kloss was re‑elected Grand Master, May 12, 1843 and, under his inspiration, the Grand Officers made a vigorous effort to render the Grand Lodge ordinances less sectarian in their tenor, but unsuccessfully, as the motion was adjouned sine die‑December 4, 1843.

 

But, although most of the Eclectic Lodges were tending towards a more enlightened view on this subject, the newly‑joined Lodge, Karl of the Dawning Light, showed itself strongly conservative. It still insisted on working the Scots Degrees and allowed itself great licence with the Eclectic Ritual. This led to expostulations, recriminations and strife, finally to its exclusion, July z, 1844. The Lodges at Darmstadt and Mayence took the part of Lodge Karl and seceded in September 1845 ; these three then united in order to found the Grand Lodge of Concord at Darmstadt on a purely and rigidly Christian basis. The gap caused by the absence of these Lodges was only partially filled in the same year by a new warrant for a Lodge Of Brotherly Truth at Hamburg, granted to nine dissenting members of the Golden Sphere (Zinnendorff Rite).

 

A necessary statute, the Reorganization Act, was at length passed, December 27, 1845. The arrangements which chiefly interest us were, that the High Degrees were absolutely forbidden; the Grand Lodge was composed of two representatives from each Lodge, to be chosen by them from subscribing members of the Frankfort Lodges (at this time only two, Union and Socrates)‑they were, however, permitted in lieu of this to depute two of their own members ; the Grand Master and the Grand Officers were to be elected for a term of three years from among the representatives.

 

June 17, 1846, Gerhard Friedrich was again elected Grand Master. In the following year‑October 1‑the Grand Lodge was reorganized, as provided by the above Act and the voting for Grand Master resulted in the election of Franz Fresenius, of the Socrates Lodge‑the first holder of that office who was not a member of the Union Lodge.

 

December 15, 1847, twelve more Brethren of the Golden Sphere Lodge in Hamburg were granted an Eclectic Constitution as the Lodge of the Brother‑Chain. At length, early in 1848, the last relic of intolerance was cast aside and the ritual purged of its specifically Christian requirements. This resulted in immediate negotiations with the Jewish Lodge Nascent Dawn, which, however, did not bear fruit for some months. The other Jewish Lodge, Frankfort Eagle, joined the Grand Lodge of Hamburg in the same year. On July 15, 1848, Past Grand Master Fellner died.

 

io6 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE The revision of the Statutes‑November 13, 1849‑is of interest, as, by a clause which insisted that country Lodges should choose their representatives, one from each Frankfort Lodge, the whole power was once more thrown into the hands of the metropolitan Fraternity. It was also decided to elect the Grand Master alternately from the two Frankfort Lodges.

 

Meanwhile, the members of Lodge Karl had altered their views since assisting at the birth of the Darmstadt Grand Lodge. A few of them formed a new Darmstadt Lodge in Frankfort, Karl of Lindenberg ; but Lodge Karl itself, with the majority of the Brethren, rejoined the Eclectic Union, June 30, 1850.

 

In the same year‑December z‑Dr. J. W. J. Pfarr was elected Grand Master, after whom‑November z8, 1853‑came Fresenius once more, then Pfarr again, December 1, 1856. The most important event of these six years was the death of Dr. Kloss, February io, 1854.

 

In 18 5 8 a Constitution was granted to Wiesbaden‑May z‑and the Statutes of Grand Lodge were revised in December, so as to place Karl on an equality with the other two Frankfort Lodges ; the Grand Master to be elected from each Lodge alternately every two years.

 

In 1859‑January 13‑the Grand Duke of Hesse‑Darmstadt ordered all Lodges in his dominions to rally round the Darmstadt Grand Lodge. This entailed the loss of four Lodges to the Eclectic Union.

 

In the following year‑March z3‑the Grand Lodge was reconstituted under the new Act and Dr. George Dancker elected Grand Master. The roll comprised ten Lodges‑Union, Socrates and Karl, of Frankfort; Joseph and Three Arrows, of Nuremberg ; Brotherly Love and Brother‑Chain, of Hamburg; Ernest, of Coburg ; Libanon, of Erlangen ; and Plato, of Wiesbaden.

 

December 6, 1861, Johann Kaspar Bauer was elected Grand Master; December 4, 1863, Julius Fester; and, January iz, 1865, Dr. Dancker once more. In 1866 Frankfort became an integral part of the Kingdom of Prussia, in which, according to law, no Lodges were allowed to exist except those dependent upon one of the three Grand Lodges at Berlin. There was, therefore, much danger of the Eclectic Union being dissolved by the authorities. This, however, was obviated by the prudent and patriotic course of action pursued by its members. Under closely analogous circumstances‑and, presumably, for reasons which did not apply in both cases‑the Grand Lodge of Hanover was extinguished; but the law, although in force, had not been applied as regards Frankfort.

 

In 1867‑December 6‑Hermann H6rster (of Lodge Karl) was elected Grand Master; and, December 3, 1869, Heinrich Weismann, under whom‑December 8, 1871‑the Statutes were once more revised; the Grand Lodge still consisting of Frankfort Brethren as members, but country Lodges were to depute two of their own members as representatives, with votes in certain cases and a consultative voice in all. The Grand Master was to be elected for three years from the Frankfort Lodges only, dropping the rule of alternation. On January z6, 187z, Grand Lodge was reconstituted under the new Act and Weismann re‑elected.

 

FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 107 A new Lodge was warranted at Hanau, April zo, 1872 and, on January io, 1873, the English Lodge at Frankfort, Nascent Dawn, which had been the chief cause of the local declaration of independence, joined the Eclectic Union, entering at once into all the privileges of the other three metropolitan Lodges.

 

Karl Oppel was elected Grand Master December 4, 1874. In 1877 a regular correspondence was resumed with England; and, May 26, 1878, the Darmstadt Lodge, Karl of Lindenburg, at Frankfort, was affiliated. Revised Constitutions were passed on September 21, A79; G. E. van der Heyden was elected Grand Master January 21, 1881 ; and, in 1882‑February 17‑‑another of the Eclectic Lodges was warranted at Strasburg.

 

The Centenary Festival of the Eclectic Union, held March 18, 1883, was graced by the distribution of the lucid and detailed Annals of that body, from the pen of the Grand Secretary, Karl Paul.

 

The epoch‑marking dates of the Grand Lodge of the Eclectic Union are:1742, constitution of Lodge Union; 1746‑52, state of dormancy ; 1766, erection of English Provincial Grand Lodge, 1775‑7, temporary closing of Provincial Grand Lodge, 1782, first period of independence; 1783, formation of the Eclectic Union ; 1789, reinstatement of the Provincial Grand Lodge at Frankfort; 1793, Provincial Grand Lodge closed in anticipation of the entry of French troops; 1801, reopened with one daughter only and territory invaded by the Grand Lodge Royal York; 1803‑5, Provincial Grand Lodge suspended; again, 1806‑8, whilst awaiting Karl von Dalberg's approbation; i808, invasion of jurisdiction by Grand Orient of France; i 8og, loss of Lodges by the formation of the Grand Orient of Baden ; 1814, abolition of the oath; 1817, invasion of jurisdiction by the Grand Lodge of England and Prince Karl of Hesse ; 1823, declaration of independence and proclamation of the Grand Lodge of the Eclectic Union, with 9 daughter Lodges ; 1834, first success of the enlightened party in Grand Lodge; 1840, Karl's Lodge absorbed the Jewish question partly settled; 1845, loss of Lodges by formation of the Grand Lodge of Darmstadt ; 1848, Jewish question solved and Jewish Lodges absorbed; 1859, loss of Lodges by forced union with Darmstadt ; 1866, incorporation of Frankfort with Prussia; 1883, Centenary Festival.

 

III. THE GRAND NATIONAL MOTHER‑LODGE OF THE PRUSSIAN STATES, CALLED "OF THE THREE GLOBES" The archives and Minutes of this Grand Lodge are complete from September 13, 1740, to 1914, with the exception of a short period in 1765. In 1840 O'Etzel, the Grand Master, compiled a history of the Grand Lodge based upon these Minutes, so that, as far as actual facts extend, its accuracy is unimpeachable. This was revised and continued in 1867, 1869, and 1875 ; and the Constitutions ordained in 1873 that every initiate should, in future, be presented with a copy. This history has been carefully collated with many accounts by other writers, whose works will be quoted whenever used, but otherwise the following io8 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE sketch is given on O'Etzel's authority and may easily be verified by the dates affixed. The edition employed is Geschichte der Grossen National‑Mutter‑Loge !Zu den drei Veltkuglen, etc., Berlin, 187 S .

 

In pursuing the history of this Grand Body, none can fail to be struck by a feature to which attention has already been directed in the case of the Eclectic Union, viz. the absence of a representative form of government. This, however is only a natural consequence when a Grand Lodge is established before the birth of any of the private Lodges, which it is destined to control‑the daughter Lodges, in all such cases, accepting the inferior and dependent position usually accorded to them, as a necessary adjunct of their constitution. When, on the other hand, several Lodges, with equal rights, join in establishing a ruling body or Grand Lodge, the representative form of government seems to follow as a matter of course. The relations between a Mother‑Lodge and her daughters may be likened to those between England and her Crown colonies ; whilst those between Grand and private Lodges‑which follow the English precedent‑are in closer approximation to the system of government of the United States. But, in like manner as the power of the House of Commons, at first restricted, has gradually increased, so do we find that under Grand Lodges‑even where the sway is most despotic‑something approaching a representative system is in gradual course of introduction.

 

Individual Masons doubtless existed in Prussia at an early date, but the introduction of Freemasonry into that State may without exaggeration be attributed directly to Frederick the Great as, during the lifetime of his father, who had con ceived an aversion to the Craft, no open assemblage of Masons could possibly take place. In July 173 8 the King of Prussia and the Crown Prince Frederick, being on a visit to the Prince of Orange at Loo, the conversation at table took a Masonic turn. The King attacked the Order violently, but Count Albert Wolfgang of Lippe‑Buckeburg took its part so successfully as to awake in the Crown Prince a desire to join the Craft. Great secrecy was naturally essential to the carrying out of such a project. Count Albert undertook the arrangements and, as the King had announced his intention of visiting. Brunswick during the annual fair, it was resolved that the ceremony of initiation should be performed in that city.

 

A letter from Baron von Bielfeld written to Baron von . . . [Oberg] the Master of the Lodge in which Bielfeld had been initiated, tells how it was that the Crown Prince Frederick became interested in the Craft. The letter is dated July 2o, 173 8 and is as follows You behave towards me, not as Brother, but as a Father Mason. You are desirous that I should participate in the glory of receiving the Crown Prince of Prussia into our Order. I am fully sensible of the high value of this favour, and am ready to accompany you to Brunswick. It appears by the letter of the Count of Lippe Buckeburg that the idea of becoming a Freemason struck that great prince in a manner very singular. You cannot but admire, Worshipful Master, the concatenation of uncommon events. It was necessary that the King of Prussia should come with a numerous retinue to Loo to visit the Prince of Orange, that he GERMANY A REPRESENTATIVE SELECTION OF GERMAN LODGE JEWELS No. i is the jewel of Lodge Zu den drei Saulen am Weinberge, at Guben ; founded 1843 ; under the Grand Lodge of the Three Globes. It consists of a golden crown, above a Maltese Cross enamelled white, on its centre a golden star, bearing the three columns enamelled within a blue border.

 

No. 2 is the jewel of Lodge Zur Bestandigkeit and Eintracht, at Aachen, founded in 1778 ; under Grand Lodge Three Globes. It consists of a gold cross, in the centre of which are enamelled two hands clasped around a thunderbolt, on an irradiated triangle.

 

No. 3 is the jewel of Lodge Zum Verein der Menschenfreunde, at Trier ; founded in 1805 ; under the Royal York Grand Lodge. It consists of a gold ornamented star, in the centre of which, on a white ground, are three hands grasping a wreath. The more modern form of this jewel has a wreath of flowers instead of leaves only.

 

No. 4 is the jewel of Lodge Alexius zur Bestandigkeit, at Bernburg, founded 1817 ; under Grand Lodge Three Globes. On a silver triangle are an A, seven stars, the name of the Lodge on a blue oblong ; and, behind this silver triangle, a gold inverted triangle, together forming a star. The ribbon is black, with gold edge.

 

No. 5 is the jewel of Lodge Zun den drei Seraphim, at Berlin ; founded 1744 under Grand Lodge Three Globes. It consists of a gold cross, enamelled in blue, with three seraphim, " 3," and " S " in silver, on the arms and centre of the cross respectively.

 

No. 6 is the jewel of Lodge Prinz von Preussen, zu den drei Schwertern, at Solingen ; founded 1840 ; under the National Grand Lodge of Germany. It consists of three golden swords, supporting a laurel wreath, within which, on a blue ground, is a crowned eagle on the one side, on the other (No. 6a) a crown and a W.

 

No. 7 is the jewel of Lodge Wittekind zur westfalisch Pforte, at Minden ; founded in 1780 ; under the Grand Lodge Three Globes. It consists of a silver triangle, on which is a W and a view of the sunrise over a mountain village. Around this is a gold irradiation ; the whole is mounted on a large black velvet star, with two ends of blue ribbon appearing below.

 

No. 8 is the jewel of Lodge Zum goldenen Apfel, at Dresden; founded 1776 ; under the Grand Lodge of Saxony. This Grand Lodge was founded September 28, 1811. It has 45 subordinate Lodges and a membership of 7,344 Brethren. The Craft Degrees only are worked.

 

No. g is the jewel of Lodge Wahrheit and Einigkeit zu den sieben vereinigten Brudern, at Jiilich ; founded 1815 ; under the Grand Lodge Three Globes. It consists of a golden crown, beneath which is a gold Maltese cross set with mother‑of‑pearl, on the arms of which are clasped hands, W, U and E, respectively In the centre is an irradiated triangle on a blue ground, surrounded by a snake.

 

No. io is the jewel of Lodge Zum schutzenden Thor, at Warendorf. It was founded in 1817, and became extinct in 1840. It consists of a golden cross, enamelled in blue, and bearing the name of the Lodge, whilst in the centre is a wall, with a gate partly open. Suspended from the bottom are the compasses, trowel and hammer.

 

No. 1 i is the jewel of Lodge Zum goldenen schwerdt, at Wesel ; founded 1775 ; under the Grand Lodge Three Globes. It consists of a golden crown, from which hangs a silver triangle with a blue centre and golden ornaments, whilst over all is the Golden Sword.

 

No. 12 is the jewel of Lodge Georg zur deutschen Eiche, at Uelzen ; founded 1860 ; under the Grand Lodge Three Globes. It consists of two silver triangles, the upper of which bears a tree with a golden G entwined around the stem ; the lower part of this triangle has a dark‑blue ground.

 

No. 13 is the jewel of Lodge Hermann zum Lande der Berge, at Elberfeld ; founded 1815 ; under the Grand Lodge Three Globes. It consists of a golden cross enamelled in black, bearing the name of the Lodge ; whilst in the centre is a group of three mountains, the centre one a volcano, properly coloured.

 

FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE log should be accompanied by the Crown Prince, that at table the conversation should turn to Freemasonry, that the King should speak of it disadvantageously, that Count Lippe should undertake its defence, that he should not be dazzled by the authority of majesty, but that, with a noble freedom, he should avow himself to be a Freemason ; that, in going out from the entertainment, the Crown Prince should express to him, in confidence, a desire of becoming a member of that Society and that he should wish his reception to be at Brunswick, where the King, his father, had resolved to go and where the concourse of strangers of every sort, during the approaching fair, would give less suspicion of the arrival of the Brother Masons, who were invited to come there to form a Lodge for that purpose, that Count Lippe should address himself to you to procure to our Order that glorious acquisition and that your friendship should induce you to remember me, that I might also be of the party. Behold, Worshipful Master, a series of remarkable incidents, which make me prophesy a favourable issue to this enterprise. You know that my present station is displeasing and my country irksome to me. I resemble one of those plants which are nothing worth if not transplanted. At Hamburg, I shall, at most, run up to seed and perish. Perhaps the Great Disposer of the Universe will give me a better fortune and will lay the foundations of it at Brunswick. I am preparing all things for my journey. For the rest, I know perfectly well how necessary it is to observe an approving silence with regard to the exhibition of so much delicacy.

 

The task of receiving the Prince into the Order was confided to von Oberg, Master of the then anonymous Lodge in Hamburg, who, with the secretary, Bielfeld and a Baron von Lowen, travelled to Brunswick and, on August i i, met by arrange ment the Count of Kielmansegge and F. C. Albedyll from Hanover, also Count Albert. Count Wartensleben joined the Prince as a second candidate. During the night August 14‑15, '173 8, the Prince and his friend came to the hotel where the Hamburg Brethren were staying and, after midnight, the two candidates were received in due form, no difference being made as regards the Prince, in compliance with his own special request.

 

The following letter, written from Brunswick, where the initiation of the Crown Prince took place, on August 24, '1738, to Herr von St. . . . at Hamburg (evidently a member of the Craft) contains a detailed account of the initiation of the Prince, together with some further particulars. Its interest and importance must be a set‑off to its length.

 

Your villainous fever, my very dear Brother, appears to me more insolent than that of the Princess Urania. It has not only attacked you in the flower of your days, but has laid this snare for you at a period that might have influenced all the remainder of your life. It has deprived you of the glory and the advantage of having assisted at the reception of the Crown Prince of Prussia and of there perform ing the office of Overseer, to which you were appointed. How unfortunate 1 Turn it out then, whatever may be said of your rich apartment, this villainous fever and be radically cured against our return. We do not expect to make any long stay at Brunswick, because there is here one crowned head too many, who might discover 1 io FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE that we have received the Prince, his son, into our Order and, in his ill‑humour, might be wanting in respect to the Worshipful Master.

 

In the meantime, my dear Brother, I shall acquit myself of my promise, and here employ the first moments of my leisure in giving you an exact account of our journey and success.

 

We left Hamburg, Baron O. . . . [Oberg], Baron L. . . . [Lowen], and myself the i oth of August and arrived the next evening at the gates of Brunswick. The officers of the custom began to examine our luggage. This authoritative ceremony put us into a great consternation. Judge of our embarrasment. We had with us a large trunk filled with the furniture, insignia and instruments necessary for holding a Lodge. All these might be deemed contraband, notwithstanding the privilege of the fair. We held a council instantly. If the officer should persist in opening the trunk, there was nothing to be done but to declare ourselves conjurers or mountebanks. But we were soon eased of our fears, for, by virtue of a ducat which I slipped into the officer's hand, he declared that we were persons of quality and incapable of defrauding the customs.

 

We took up our quarters at the Corn Hotel : it is the principal inn of the town; anywhere else it would be reckoned a tolerably good alehouse. Count L. . . ., Count K. . . . and Baron A. . . . of Hanover arrived there almost at the same instant and joined us the same night. Rabon, valet to M. O. . . ., and a good Mason, was appointed to the duties of Tyler and acquitted himself to a miracle. The next morning, the cannons of the rampart declared the arrival of the King of Prussia and his train. The presence of a crowned head and the affluence of all sorts of strangers, which the fair had brought to Brunswick, made the town appear hightly animated. We agreed that none of us should appear at Court, except Count L. . . ., whom we deputed to the Crown Prince to receive his orders relative to the day, the hour and the place of his reception.

 

H.R.H. appointed the night between the 14th and 15th and chose it should be in our apartment, which was, in fact, very spacious and quite convenient for the business.

 

There was only one inconvenience, which was the vicinity of M.W. . . ., who lived in the apartment adjoining to our antechamber and was separated from it by a thin partition. He might, therefore, have heard all and told all. This reflection alarmed us, but as our Hanoverian Brethren knew the hour at which he was sent to drown, as the song says, his sorrowful reason in wine, we seized his foible, we attacked him by turns after dinner and, being prepared to encounter with him at chinking of glasses, we left him towards night so fast, that he would have slept by the side of a battery and the thyrus of Bacchus served us on this occasion as effectually as could have done the finger of the god Harpocrates.

 

On the 14th the whole day was spent in preparation for the Lodge and, little after midnight, we saw arrive the Crown Prince accompanied by Count W. . . ., Captain in the King's Regiment at Potsdam.

 

The Prince presented this gentleman as a candidate whom he recommended and whose reception he wished immediately to follow his own. He defied us likewise to omit in his reception any rigorous ceremony that was used in similar cases, to grant him no indulgence whatever, but gave us leave on this occasion to treat him merely as a private person. In a word, he was received with all the usual and requisite formalities. I admired his intrepidity, the serenity of his countenance FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE III and his graceful deportment, even in the most critical moments. I had prepared a short address, of which he testified his approbation and, after the two receptions, we opened the Lodge and proceeded to our work. He appeared highly delighted and acquitted himself with as much dexterity as discernment.

 

I do assure you, my dear Brother, that I have conceived very great expectations from this Prince. He is not of a remarkable stature and would not have been chosen to have ruled in the place of Saul, but, when we consider the strength and beauty of his genius, we cannot but desire for the prosperity of the people, to see him fill the throne of Prussia. His features are highly pleasing, with a sprightly look and a noble air; and it depends altogether on himself to appear as perfectly engaging. A petit maitre of Paris would not, perhaps, admire his curls ; his hair, however, is of a bright brown, carelessly curled, but well adapted to his countenance. His large blue eyes have at once something severe, soft and gracious. I was surprised to find in him so youthful an air. [The Prince was, at this time, in his twenty‑seventh year.] His behaviour, in every respect, is that of a person of exalted rank and he is the most polite man in all that kingdom over which he is born to rule. He gave to the Worshipful Master, Baron von O. . . . the most delicate and flattering instance of regard. I say nothing of his moral qualities: it would be difficult to discern them at one interview, but I protest to you that there was no part of his conversation which did not mark great dignity of mind and the utmost benevolence of temper and, for the truth of this, I appeal to the public voice.

 

All was finished soon after four in the morning and the Prince returned to the Duke's palace, in all appearance as well satisfied with us as we were charmed with him. I hastened to bed completely fatigued with the business of the day.

 

The letter contains the following amusing postscript The Freemasons have certainly good reason to please themselves on having for their Brother one who is undoubtedly the greatest genius of any Prince in Europe, but if they think that this, or any other relation, will supply with that wise Prince the place of merit, they are greatly deceived. Some time since a Freemason, it is said, endeavoured to intrude himself on a King by virtue of this connexion, but the monarch, finding that the man had no other merit, took no notice of him. The man, therefore, determined to enforce his application by making a sign, which the King answered by turning his back on the man and waving the hind flap of his coat.

 

Baron Jacob Friedrich von Bielfeld, who was one of the earliest known members of the Craft in Germany, was initiated in 1738, when he was twenty‑one years of age. He became a well‑known German diplomat of the eighteenth century, among the high positions held by him being Secretary of Legation to the King of Prussia, Preceptor to Prince Ferdinand, Chancellor of the Universities in the Dominions of his Prussian Majesty, which duties took him in turn to the Netherlands, France and England. In 1748 he was raised to the peerage and he was also honoured with the appointment of Privy Councillor. He was the author of several works, which were translated into Italian, Russian and German, as he invariably wrote in the French language but, during the later years of his life, he 112 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE edited and published a German weekly, which was translated into French. Among his works are four volumes of Intimate Letters, in one of which is an interesting exposition of his reasons for seeking initiation. It is evidently addressed to his betrothed and it is dated from Hamburg, February 6, 173 8. As will be seen from the extracts given, it is of some importance.

 

So you are quite alarmed, Madame, very seriously angry! My reason tells me you are wrong, but my passion tells me you can never do wrong, for it makes me perceive that I love you more, if it be possible, since I have been a Freemason and since you have been angry with me for so being, than I ever did before. Permit me, therefore, by this opportunity, to employ all my rhetoric to dissipate your discontent, that you may approve the motives which have induced me to take this step, that you may restore me to your favour and that I may be enabled to reconcile my reason with my passion.

 

Nothing can be more unjust or ridiculous than to imagine that the secret assemblies of the Freemasons can tend to disturb the security or the tranquillity of a State, for, though our doors are shut against the profane vulgar, they are at all times open to sovereigns and magistrates and how many illustrious princes and statesmen do we count among our Brethren ? If ought passed in our Lodges that was dangerous or criminal, must they not have been long since abolished ? But the experience of many ages, during which the Order has never been known to perform any actions but those of morality and munificence, is a stronger argument in its favour than any I can produce. I shall, therefore, say no more upon this matter and I should not have said so much, if I did not know that you are capable of feeling the force of these arguments.

 

The postscript to the letter runs I herewith send you a pair of lady's gloves that were given me by the Lodge at my reception. The apple was decreed by Paris to the most beautiful, but these gloves are for the best beloved.

 

It is interesting to note the stress made by Baron Bielfeld on the antiquity of the Craft. This was within twenty‑one years of the formation of the Grand Lodge of England, while eight years previously, in England, Dr. Rawlinson, in the manu script collections which he left, which are in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, emphasized the same feature. Although neither produces any historical confirmation of the statement, it must be remembered that both were scholars and held no ordinary positions in the world of letters.

 

Von Oberg afterwards erected and presided over a Lodge in the Prince's castle of Rheinsberg and, when he left for Hamburg in 1739, Frederick himself assumed the chair. At his father's death‑May 31, 174o‑Frederick openly ac knowledged himself as a Mason; and‑June 2o, 174o‑presided over a Lodge in the Royal Palace of Charlottenburg, with Bielfeld and Jordan as his Wardens. On that occasion the following candidates were initiated by the King in person :‑his FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 113 two brothers, August Wilhelm and Heinrich Wilhelm ; his brother‑in‑law, Karl, 1`Iargrave of Brandenburg‑Onolzbach ; and the Duke of Holstein‑Beck. At a subsequent date he initiated the Margrave of Brandenburg‑Baireuth. This Lodge was called the " Royal Lodge," but ceased to work about 1744, when the outbreak of war diverted Frederick's attention to other matters.

 

Immediately after his accession Frederick empowered Jordan, the secretary of his Lodge, to erect a Lodge in Berlin for the convenience of the numerous Masons there resident. Its first meeting was held September 13, 1740 and it took the name of the Three Globes. This Lodge, which became the Grand Lodge of the same name, was, therefore, founded simply on the King's authority, who, from the very first, assumed all the privileges of a Grand Master in his own dominions. He continued to bear the title, even though, during the Seven Years' War and the heavy duties of his government, he was prevented from attending to his Masonic calls.

 

The names of some of the affiliates and initiates of the Lodge during its first year of existence are of interest in the history of Freemasonry in Germany. For instance, Baron Schmettau, already mentioned in connexion with Scots Masonry; Bielfeld, secretary to the Prussian Embassy at London, an honoured visitor of our Grand Lodge, March icy, 1741, who, July 21, 1741, was able to assure the Three Globes that England readily looked upon the King as the natural Grand Master in his dominions, which was, of course, equivalent to acknowledging the regularity of the Three Globes Constitution ; the Marquis de Gentils, who, June 27, 1742, styled himself English Senior Grand Warden pro tempore and helped to found the Union Lodge at Frankfort ; and Ch. Sarry, who, on December 6, 1737, had presided over the first Hamburg Lodge as Provincial Grand Master for Prussia and Brandenburg, where, at that time, no Lodge existed. Other notable members were Prince William, the Duke of Holstein‑Beck, the Margrave Karl of Brandenburg, Count Waldburg (also a visitor at the Grand Lodge of England, March icg, 1741) and Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick‑Bevern, subsequently known as Duke of Brunswick‑L6neburg‑Wolfenbuttel, initiated December 2i, 1740.

 

The first code of By‑laws was drawn up and accepted November 9, 1740. In October a Deputation from the Lodge initiated Karl Frederick, Duke of SaxeMeiningen and the Three Globes issued its first Warrant of Constitution to a Lodge, the Three Compasses, in that Prince's chief city.

 

Findel says (p. 244) that the Grand Lodge of the Three Globes imitated the example set by the Grand Lodge of England and organized a Steward Lodge, but, in Germany, the task of that Lodge was to manage the financial affairs of the juris diction. This caused great luxury to be displayed at their festivals, exhausted the treasury and became an inducement to members to join, but who did not prove a desirable acquisition. To prevent persons unlawfully constituted from sharing in the business of the Lodges, a new sign was adopted and communicated to the Lodges. Hamburg and Frankfort agreed to do the same and the latter, as an extra precautionary measure, gave to its members, by way of certificate, an impression of the seal of Grand Lodge, on the reverse of which were recorded the names of the F. Iv‑8 114 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE Master and Wardens. But neither this arrangement, nor another proposition made by von Heinitz in Brunswick in 1762, that all regularly constituted Lodges should enter correspondence, ever met with general approbation.

 

In 1742, Schmettau having made several Scots Masters, these formed themselves into a Scots Lodge, Union, November 30, 1742. Although the membership of this Lodge was restricted to Masons of the Three Globes, it never attempted, like the French Scots Master Lodges, to exercise any control over the Craft.

 

From 1742 to 1744 six Warrants of Constitution were granted, some of which were for localities beyond the confines of Prussia. It was, therefore, only natural that‑June 24, 1744‑the Lodge should assume the title of Grand Royal Mother Lodge of the Three Globes. It did not cease, however, on that account to continue working as a private Lodge. Frederick the Great was nominally Grand Master, though, as seen, he could not, for want of time, give much attention to Masonic matters and, in September 1747, the Duke of Holstein‑Beck, Governor of Berlin, was elected Vice or Deputy Grand Master‑a step designed to strengthen the Lodge, which had meanwhile somewhat deteriorated. These offices, however, were rather ornamental than useful, as the real power in the Lodge was still vested in the Master. The changes in that office need not be tabulated, but it may be mentioned that von Printzen‑initiated March 18, 1748‑who was elected Master of the Lodge, May 5, 1749, held the post until June 5, 17 and became the foremost figure in its early annals.

 

December 9, 1754, a second Lodge was constituted at Berlin, under the name of La Petite Concorde, but with very limited powers. It soon felt the inconvenience of this arrangement and took advantage of some irregularities in the election of the officers of the Mother Lodge‑May 28, 175 5‑to protest and declare itself independent. On the death of Holstein‑Beck, Sarry‑in May 1755‑made preparations for nominating von Rammelsberg as Vice Grand Master and he was duly elected. Von Rammelsberg proved to be a very efficient ruler, notwithstanding the protest and withdrawal of La Petite Concorde. Lord James Keith, who was then Governor of Berlin, and claimed to be Deputy Grand Master of all English Lodges in North Germany, interfered to prevent the Concord being closed by force, and promised it an English Constitution. Although the Mother‑Lodge had meanwhile warranted, in 1746, five and, in 1751, two Lodges, matters were far from satisfactory and, in May 1757, von Printzen was once more called to the direction of affairs. His first efforts to restore peace between the Three Globes and the Concord were, however, only partially successful. In 1758 the latter also erected for itself a Scots Lodge, under the name of Harmony.

 

In the same year Gabriel de Lernais, a French prisoner of war, appears upon the scene. The Three Globes granted him a Warrant for a French Lodge, without the right of initiating. This Lodge Fidelity died out after the exchange of prisoners. De Lernais also induced von Printzen to give his powerful support to the Clermont Degrees and, circa 1758, these two erected a Chapter‑Knights of Jerusalemwhich‑June (or July) 19, 176o‑assumed the title of Premier Grand Chapter of FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 115 Clermont in Germany, with von Printzen as Chief. This Chapter exercised no supremacy over the Lodges : it was and remained, until the advent of the Strict Observance, outside the real work of the Craft. Rosa, as already related, somewhat modified the ritual and established subordinate Chapters in many cities.

 

Besides four other Lodges, the Three Globes warranted‑August 10, 1760the Berlin Lodge of the Three Doves, afterwards the Grand Lodge Royal York. This Lodge consisted originally entirely of French Brethren, but, in 1761, it obtained permission to include Germans in its membership, when it changed its name to Friendship. On the motion of von Printzen they expressed their willingness to join in with the two other Lodges in Berlin to form an independent Grand Lodge. Ultimately, as will be seen, it became the Grand Lodge Royal York of Friendship.

 

In 1763, however, a member of the Lodge Friendship (the new name of the Three Doves) was excluded by the Tribunal for six months for a Masonic offence. This proceeding caused so much friction that the Grand Master and officers of the Tribunal resigned; and, as no fresh ones were elected, the Tribunal ceased to exist. Von Printzen, however, continued for years to be referred to as Grand Master, probably out of respect for his character. In 1762 and 1763 eight new Lodges were constituted‑the last sign of activity for some years, for the time was now fast approaching when the Three Globes and its daughters were to merge into the system of the Strict Observance.

 

It will be remembered that in 1763 Schubart was named Deputy Grand Master and, superseding Rosa in his missionary efforts, was appointed by von Hund his Delegate‑General in November of that year. In 1764 he returned to Berlin to convert the Fraternity there and, finally, so far succeeded that the new Statutes accepted by the Three Globes‑November 2o, 1764‑were fashioned on the lines of the Strict Observance. His success was all the easier because Rosa's Clermont Chapters had to a certain extent prepared the way. On January 13, 1765, von Hund granted a warrant to Kruger to open a Strict Observance Lodge in Berlin. In 1765, also, Lodge Friendship acquired an English patent and separated from the Three Globes, ultimately developing, as stated, into the Grand Lodge‑Royal York of Friendship.

 

At this period Zinnendorff appears upon the scene. He was already a member of von Printzen's Jerusalem Chapter and, in June 1765, was elected Master of the Three Globes. On August 24, 1764, he signed the Act of Strict Observance at Halle, was knighted by von Hund on October 3 and made Prefect of Templin (i.e. Berlin) on the 6th, with Kruger as second in command. The two together carried the Berlin Lodges with them and‑January 13,1766‑von Hund constituted the Three Globes a Scots or Directoral Lodge, with power to warrant Strict Observance Lodges. The daughter Lodges all naturally went over to the new system, with the exception of the Royal York, which had placed itself under the Grand Lodge of England. Zinnendorff, however, made himself enemies, acted in a very arbitrary manner, used the Lodge funds‑it is averred‑for his own purposes and 116 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE was, therefore, not re‑elected at the expiration of his year of office. He was succeeded in June 1766 by Kruger, who, in July, procured the acceptance of the Strict Observance Ritual and the formal renunciation by the Lodge‑August 9‑of the Clermont Degrees.

 

On November 16, 1766, Zinnendorff formally notified to von Hund his renunciation of the Strict Observance and, six months later‑May 6, 1767‑all things being in readiness for the foundation of his own Rite, he resigned member ship of the Three Globes. The members of that Lodge were by no means agreed as to their future proceedings for, in the same year (1767), another notable member, Koppen, also seceded and founded a Rite‑that of African Architectswhich only came to an end at his death in 1797.

 

In 1769 Kohler became Master of the Three Globes and Kruger, Head Scots Master (the Scots Lodges of the Strict Observance controlled those of the Craft) and, in accordance with the rules of the Templar system, both offices were declared permanent.

 

In the following year‑February z4‑the Mother‑Lodge constituted the Berlin Lodge of the Flaming Star, of which C. A. Marschall von Bieberstein was Master. One relative, C. G. Marschall‑von Hund's predecessor‑founded the Naumburg Lodge; another, H. W. von Marschall, was appointed by Lord Darnley, in 1737, Provincial Grand Master for Upper Saxony. Other members of this family were also prominent Masons. This Lodge, with the Three Globes and the Concord, now formed one body, as it were, under the Scots Lodge‑so much so, that, in 1787, the Berlin Masons did not know to which Lodge they belonged and steps had to be taken to remedy the confusion.

 

November 16, 1770, the Crown Prince‑afterwards Frederick William IIwrote to the Lodge of the Strict Observance‑i.e. the Three Globes‑assuring it of his protection.

 

In 177z Kruger and Wollner attended the Kohlo Convent, at which the Strict Observance system was reorganized. Each national division of the Order acquired a Grand Lodge to rule the Craft; the National Grand Master and the Head Master of the Scots Lodge acting together formed the Scots Directory, ruling all Degrees, including the 4th ; the Supreme Grand Master, i.e. Duke Ferdinand, presided over all the separate Directories ; the higher or knightly Degrees were subject to the Provincial Grand Master, von Hund. Prince Frederick Augustus of Brunswick (nephew of Ferdinand) was made National Grand Master of Prussia; and the Three Globes, in accordance with the new arrangements, took the title of Grand National Mother‑Lodge of the Prussian States, which it retained.

 

In 1773 the former Grand Master, von Printzen, died; and, in the following year, the Lodge Frederick of the Three Seraphim was constituted in Berlin. May z, 1775, Kruger resigned and the National Grand Master, Prince Frederick Augustus, appointed as Head Scots Master, Wollner, who was imbued with the alchemical and mystical mania of the day. In 1775 two new Lodges (one Silence, in Berlin) and, in 1776, two others, were constituted. This brings us to the date of von Hund's FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 117 death (November 18, 1776) and to a new period in the history of this Grand Lodge.

 

Many causes combined to produce dissatisfaction with the Rite of the Strict Observance about this time. Wollner himself had become allied with the New or Gold Rosicrucians and naturally influenced his entourage ; the idea of a Templar restoration had ceased to attract or to retain favour ; the object of the Duke of Sudermania in desiring to succeed von Hund was looked upon with suspicion; the position of the Mother‑Lodge was, after all, only a secondary one. The consequence was, that no Deputies were sent from Berlin to the Convent at Wolfenbiittel in 1777 and‑July 5, 1779‑it was resolved in Grand Lodge to cease working the High Degrees, but not formally to dissociate the Lodges of the jurisdiction from the Strict Observance. The Grand Master, Prince Frederick Augustus, informed the subordinate Lodges of this resolution by a circularApril 7, 178o‑which contained very palpable allusions to a Hermetic Society and j announced the formation of a 5th Degree, immediately succeeding the Scots Masters, the very existence of which was to be kept secret from all those not admitted to it. The four " at present " imperfect lower Degrees were to be retained till the Unknown Superiors should send them corrected rituals. Theden was to be the only one entitled to confer this 5th Degree, but Wollner, as Head Scots Master, was to direct the whole system, etc. From that moment, although it would be incorrect to describe the Three Globes system as a Rosicrucian one, inasmuch as the hermetic leaders at no time controlled whole Lodges, yet it may safely be averred that the Rosicrucian Degrees were extensively practised by a very large number of individual Masons selected from these Lodges and that the Grand Lodge of the Three Globes became the centre of the Rosicrucian Fraternity. From 1777 to 1781 five new Lodges were warranted, one each year.

 

In 178o‑June z6‑a first step towards a representative system was made by a resolution conferring honorary membership of Grand Lodge on all acting Masters of subordinate Lodges.

 

The meeting of the Wilhelmsbad Convent‑and with it the practical subversion of the Strict Observance‑took place in 1782. This furnished an opportunity for the Three Globes to avow its principles. In a circular of November 11, 1783, it declared its independence of all superior authority, but was willing to honour Duke Ferdinand, as before, in the capacity of Grand Master; it refused, however, to conform to the rectified Templar system, but offered to recognize as legitimate all Masons of every system as far as concerned the first three Degrees (always excepting the Illuminati) and counselled all Grand Lodges to follow its example. Not a word, however, did the circular contain of their own special vanity, the Hermetic Degrees.

 

The next few years present little of importance. In 1783 three Lodges were warranted ; in 1784 Theden became Master of the Three Globes ; and, in 1785, Bieberstein was elected Scots Head Master. In 1786, however, two important events occurred‑Frederick the Great died and the unknown Rosicrucian Fathers 118 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE ordered a general Silanum, so that the two prominent disciples of this folly, Wollner and his pupil, Frederick William II, had to content themselves with prosecuting their researches unaided ; and, for the next few years, the Lodges worked only the original three Degrees, with a Scots Degree superadded. In 1787 one new Lodge was warranted and, in 1788, the first list was published, showing 16 active subordinate Lodges, with 763 members. 1790 saw the end of the mutual interdiction between the Lodges under the Three Globes and the National (or Zinnendorff) Grand Lodge, which was succeeded by a pact of tolerance and amity. In 1791, in order to remedy the evil caused by the continual absence from Berlin of the Grand Master Prince Frederick Augustus of Brunswick, Wollner was elected his Deputy. Wollner, however, was now a Minister of State and his scanty leisure was devoted to alchemical studies, so that not much advantage accrued from this step. More to the purpose was the appointment of a Commission‑January 4, 1794‑to formulate a Grand Lodge Constitution and ordinances and a resolution to re‑elect all officers yearly, thus effacing the last reminiscence of the Strict Observance system. In 1796 Theden resigned on account of his advanced age and Wolner was elected Master of the Three Globes.

 

In the same year‑February 9‑Frederick William II granted the Grand Lodge his special protection, together with all the privileges of a corporate body. The greater part of the ensuing year was taken up in devising a scheme for a govern ing body and in formulating Constitutions for the entire system; but the work was, at length, concluded November 22, 1797. The Grand Master and Deputy Grand Master were deprived of all authority and became mere figureheads to whom a certain amount of outward honour and deference was shown, but who were not even required to sign Warrants, which were to be issued by the Grand National Mother‑Lodge. The Grand Lodge became the legislative body and was composed of 36 active members chosen from the Berlin Lodges. Seven of these formed a species of acting committee, with the style of a Scots Directory, the president taking the name of Head Scots Master. This Directory represented the Lodge before the law and was entrusted with the administration of affairs ; all resolutions of the Grand Lodge required its ratification and all its acts required the assent of the Grand Lodge. To a certain extent its president even took precedence of the corresponding dignitary of the Grand Lodge. Its members were to be Scots Masons. In matters of dogma it took the name of Inner Orient and was entrusted with the preservation of the purity of ritual, etc. As regards ritual, only three Degrees were acknowledged. Four higher steps were, indeed, instituted‑the first being derived from the old Scots Lodge‑‑and in these the history of the Craft, the dogmas of Freemasonry and the arcana of the High Degrees were unfolded. They were not, however, Degrees, although membership of each was preceded by a ceremony and they exercised no influence over the Lodges ; they more nearly approached close literary societies and were attached to individual Lodges provided the consent of the Master could be obtained and each particular Lodge of this class was considered as a branch of the Berlin Lodge. The arrangement in fact was not unlike the Hamburg Engbund. It FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 119 will be observed that the Provincial Lodges had no share in the government of the Craft.

 

In 1798‑October 2o‑there appeared a royal edict suppressing all secret societies. The three Grand Lodges in Berlin, however, with Lodges holding under them, were expressly exempted from its provisions ; but Lodges erected in Prussia by other Grand Lodges were declared illegitimate. The names of all members were to be handed to the police authorities yearly. The Grand Master and the Deputy Grand Master were asked whether their names should also be cited and whether they would accept the accompanying responsibility. They declined and resigned their posts in February 1799.

 

During the ten years 1788‑98 six Lodges were warranted and the number of active Lodges increased to 2o, with a total membership of 941.

 

In 1799‑March 7‑it was determined not to elect any special National Grand Master, but to consider the Master of the Three Globes as such pro tem. Zollner, therefore, thenceforth took the title of Grand Master. June z4‑New Statutes were agreed to : these must not be confounded with the Constitutions. All German Grand Lodges make a distinction between the two, although it is at times somewhat difficult to explain the difference. In i8oi‑February 1o‑the special Constitutions of the Inner Orient received final approbation ; and, November i, 1804, the Constitutions were revised ; the Grand Lodge to consist of 11 Grand Officers and 36 active members.

 

In 1804‑September i2‑Grand Master Zollner died and was succeeded by Guionneau. A Past Grand Master, Prince Frederick Augustus, Duke of Brunswick, died November 8, 1805.

 

In October 1 806 the French troops entered Berlin and the Lodges there under the Three Globes system were ordered to suspend work. The Committees of the Grand Lodge continued, however, to meet and transact all necessary business. It was even during this interregnum, that the first steps towards a closer union of the three Berlin Grand Lodges were taken, for, on December 12, 1807, a Committee was instituted consisting of four Deputies of each Grand Lodge, to consider and arrange matters of common interest and profit. This led to the Masonic Union of the Three Grand Lodges of Berlin‑January 6, 18io‑which was dissolved in 1823. Unfortunately one of the first acts of this Committee‑April z, 1808‑was to confirm the already existing ordinance that a Jew could not be initiated, nor could a Jew already made a Mason elsewhere be affiliated. His right to visit was left undecided. This Jewish question was now beginning to make its importance felt.

 

The Berlin Lodges resumed work December 16, 1808. During the preceding ten years 4o Lodges had been added to the roll but, owing to a few dropping out, the total of active Lodges had only risen from 20 to 5 5, with a membership of 3,694, or an average of 67 per Lodge as compared with 47 in 1798.

 

The formation of the Grand Lodge of Saxony, at Dresden, in 1811, withdrew the Lodge at Bautzen from the jurisdiction of Berlin. That Grand Lodge was, 120 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE however, liberal enough to permit former Lodges to retain their peculiar rituals, thus it came about that in 18 i z a pact was entered into between the Three Globes and Dresden, by virtue of which that Lodge remained under Berlin in all matters regarding ritual and work but, otherwise, passed under the jurisdiction of Dresden.

 

In 18 i z‑November z6‑the Constitutions underwent their septennial revision, the chief alterations being that the Provincial Lodges were granted a sham representation and allowed to appoint a Berlin member of the Grand Lodge as their proxy, which was an unsatisfactory concession to a demand for a seat in that body for every Master of a Lodge; that the number of members of Grand Lodge might be raised in consequence of this demand for representation as high as 7 by 7, i.e. 49 ; that the membership was never to be less than 5 by 5, or 25 ; and that 3 by 3, or 9, formed a quorum of the Grand Lodge.

 

1817 is the year given by O'Etzel for the initiation by a Deputation from the Three Globes of Prince Frederick, second son of the King of Holland and subsequent Grand Master of the Netherlands.

 

In the last ten years 39 Lodges had been added to the roll, but a great many must have become extinct, since from 5 5 active Lodges in i 808, the total had only risen to 74 in 1818, with 6,545 members, an average of 88‑9 per Lodge.

 

In 1821 the Czar's edict closing the Polish Lodges, caused a loss of several Lodges to Berlin ; and the revision of the Statutes, in 18 z5, once more enforced the regulation that a Jew could neither be initiated, affiliated, nor received as a visitor. It may also be observed, that in 1821, O'Etzel, the subsequent Grand Master, joined Lodge Concord and was elected a member of the Grand Lodge in 1822.

 

From 1818 to 1828 fifteen Lodges had been constituted and the total number of active Lodges amounted to 87, with a membership of 6,842, or an average of 78 per Lodge‑somewhat less than before.

 

In 18zg the National Grand Master, Guionneau, died and was succeeded by Rosenstiel, who also dying‑March 18, 1832‑was followed by Poselger.

 

In 1838 Grand Master Proselger resigned on account of ill‑health and O'Etzel, who had entered the Directory in 1836, was elected in his stead. Proselger died shortly afterwards, February 9, 183 8. The periodical revision of the Constitutions produced no change of more than passing interest. In this year the Grand Lodge acquired, for ten Frederichsd'or, the apron and gavel of Frederick the Great. Since 1828 six new Lodges had been added to the roll. The total number, as against the 87 of 1828, was only 88, with 7,225 members, an average of 8z per Lodge. In 1839‑December z8‑there was formed a Grand Masters' Union of the three Berlin Grand Lodges and one of its first acts‑May zz, 1840‑was to initiate Prince William of Prussia, afterwards German Emperor.

 

In 1840‑September 13‑the Grand Lodge held its centenary festival, on which occasion it was presented by the Master of the Lodge Horus‑on the roll of the Royal York‑with the sword used at the initiation of Frederick the Great at Brunswick in 173 8 ; whereupon it was resolved, that the Master of Lodge Horus, FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 121 although under another jurisdiction, be ex ofcio an honorary member of the Grand Lodge of the Three Globes.

 

The revision of the Constitutions in 1843, raised the possible number of members of the Grand Lodge to 7 by 9, or 63 ; and the revised Statutes of 1841 once more excluded the Jews even from visiting‑the Grand Masters' Union making this ordinance incumbent on all three of the Prussian Grand Lodges in 1842. As a last resort H.R.H. the Protector was appealed to and‑April 26, 1843‑‑delivered himself to the same effect. In 1848 a Cologne Lodge affiliated a Jewish Brother and appointed him to office: the Lodge was erased.

 

O'Etzel resigned office in 1848 and was succeeded as Grand Master by Messerschmidt. In the preceding ten years, i z new Lodges had been warranted or revived. The total of active Lodges was 96, with 8,589 members‑an average of 89‑go, showing a steady increase both of Lodges and members.

 

A revision of the Constitutions being due in 1849, the Lodges were requested to vote with regard to the admission of Jews as visitors. Out of 71 Lodges which replied, 56 voted for and 15 against their admission. After this expression of opinion the Grand Lodge, nevertheless, only approved the resolution by icg to 16 votes. It called upon the Directory to say whether this was one of those resolutions which required to be passed by a two‑thirds majority. The Directory answered that it was a dogmatic question, requiring to be submitted to them as the Inner Orient and sided with the majority. The result was that‑July ii, 1849‑all Masons subject to a Grand Lodge recognized by the Three Globes were declared admissible as visitors, thus the first step towards placing Jewish on a level with Christian Masons was at last conceded. The quorum of the Grand Lodge was raised from nine to one‑third of its active members.

 

On Christmas Day, 1850, O'Etzel‑or, rather, von Etzel, died, the latter prefix having been granted to him by Royal decree in 1846.

 

Since 1848 only four new Lodges had been warranted and some of the Lodges in Hanover had been forced to join the Grand Lodge of that country at King George's desire. The total number of active Lodges in 18 5 8 was 94, with 9,744 members‑an average of 104 members per Lodge.

 

In 1861 E. E. Wendt, English Grand Secretary for German Correspondence, succeeded in establishing a correspondence between the Three Globes and the English Grand Lodge and, at length, in 1867, some approach to a representative system was inaugurated. At the Annual Conference in May, at which proposed alterations of the Statutes were usually discussed, the Masters of Provincial Lodges were for the first time invited to attend and did so to the number of 20.

 

In 1868‑February 2o‑it was resolved to present every initiate with a copy of O'Etzel's History of the Three Globes, a liberal and praiseworthy arrangement.

 

In May‑7th and 8th‑the question, whether Jewish Masons were to be admitted, was again raised. Their affiliation or initiation was rejected by 54 votes to zo ; but it was resolved to receive them, if actual subscribing members of a 121 122 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE regular Lodge, as permanent visitors (a position much resembling honorary membership in England) by 54 votes to 24.

 

In this year the total number of active Lodges was io6, with a membership of 11,271, or an average of io6 per Lodge, the Warrants granted in the previous ten years being 14.

 

In 1869 representatives were for the first time exchanged with England and in the May Conference the Jewish question was adjourned as inopportune. In 1873 a Lodge was warranted at Shanghai. This was the only German Lodge in foreign parts, which was not under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Hamburg.

 

At the periodical revision of the Constitutions in 1873, the Provinces made a great effort to secure a better representation in Grand Lodge. They obtained not all they wanted‑but a great concession. It was resolved‑April i g‑that no law or statute should be made or amended except at the May Conferences, in which every Master was entitled to a vote. As, however, Grand Lodge was allowed to attend in full force, the Masters still found themselves, as a rule, much out‑numbered, whilst a majority of two‑thirds was requisite to carry a new law or an amendment to an old one. The Jewish question was again fought out, but left in statu quo.

 

In 1873, on the occasion of completing twenty‑five years as Grand Master, Messerschmidt resigned, on account of old age and was succeeded by von Etzel, the son of O'Etzel, Messerschmidt's immediate predecessor.

 

In 1874 the Lodges had voted on the Jewish question as a guide to the Grand Lodge‑66 Lodges for their admission, 44 against; but of the individual members actually voting there was a majority Of 7 against. At the May Conference there were present 47 Grand Lodge members and 28 Masters and the voting was 45 to 3o‑adversely to the Jews. In 1876 the majority was at‑last in their favour, but the necessary two‑thirds majority was not attained. The more enlightened Masons then tried to secure their ends by a reorganization of the legislative body, andMay 25, 1878‑it was resolved that thenceforth not all the members of Grand Lodge should take part in the May Conferences, but only 25‑that is, 5 from each Berlin Lodge‑the Provincial Masons thus standing a better chance of procuring a two‑thirds majority.

 

IV. THE NATIONAL GRAND LODGE OF ALL GERMAN FREEMASONS AT BERLIN The above title of this Grand Lodge was never justified. It is a barefaced usurpation. The Lodge was never national in the way claimed, as embracing all Germany, even at its birth was not so in the more restricted sense as applying to Prussia, where the National Grand Mother‑Lodge of the Three Globes already existed. That it assumed to be the only legal Grand Lodge in Germany, that it posed as infallible, the only true exponent of Freemasonry with the sole exception of Sweden, was, however, only in perfect keeping with the imperious temper of its founder. From its inception the Lodge was dictatorial and oppressive towards its own daughters ; scornful, even impertinent towards its equals ; boastful of its own FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 123 superior light, yet persistently shrouding itself in darkness ; founded by a violation of all Masonic legality, yet a stickler for legal forms when they suited its own convenience; revolutionary at its birth and rigidly conservative. Nevertheless this Grand Lodge was the second largest in Germany and produced Masons of the highest culture, whose very names must always remain an honour to the Fraternity. Zinnendorff and his immediate friends and successors knew their own minds at a time when their German Brethren were vacillating between Clermont Degrees, Strict Observance Rites, Rosicrucianism, et hoc genus omne and, so knowing, carried out their views astutely, ruthlessly and persistently‑with the success that usually attends all well‑directed efforts. No official history of this Grand Lodge has ever been published; its partisans spoke with awe of its ancient documents and hid them from the gaze of the student. Like holy relics they were only accessible to devout believers ; nay, even a complete.Book of Constitutions has never been placed within reach of the public ; and Masters, in order to govern their Lodges, were constrained to gather together the decisions pronounced at various times by the Grand Lodge, each thus forming for himself a species of digest of the common law as settled by decided cases. Such a collection has been made in Vol. XXVI of the Latomia but many gaps still remain to be filled up.

 

The early annals of this Grand Lodge are indissolubly connected with Zinnendorff, one of the most remarkable, perhaps, unscrupulous Masons of whom there is any record. Ellenberger was his patronymic and he was born August 11, 1731, at Halle ; but, being adopted by his mother's brother, took his uncle's name of Zinnendorff. He followed the medical profession and rose to be the chief of that department in the Prussian army, retiring in 1779. His initiation took place at Halle, March 13, 1757. When he joined a Berlin Lodge, or even which Lodge it was, are alike unknown; but he was one of the early members of the Berlin Chapter of Jerusalem. When Schubart, the Deputy Grand Master of the Three Globes, was, in November 1763, won over by von Hund, Schubart's first step was to despatch a letter in von Hund's interest to the Three Globes, which was to be opened in the presence of 24 Brethren, who were specified. On its arrival, Zinnendorff and three others being with von Printzen, the Grand Master Zinnendorff persuaded them to open the letter then and there ; and, to extenuate their fault as an excess of zeal, Schubart, being asked for more light, insisted upon the letter being shown to the others when, as a result, Zinnendorff and Kruger were selected to visit von Hund. Probably from selfish motives, the former of these emissaries appeared alone, saying that the latter was ill, but this was afterwards denied by Kruger, who ultimately arrived on the scene. Zinnendorff signed the act of Strict Observance (or Unquestioning Obedience), August z4, 1764, was knighted by von Hund October 30 and made Prefect of Templin, i.e. Berlin, on the 6th.

 

In June, 1765, Zinnendorff was elected Grand Master of the Three Globes. possibly because the Lodge was already tending towards the Strict Observance system, of which he was the resident chief in Berlin. Scarcely was he installed before complaints arose of his arbitrary proceedings and haughty independence, not 124 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE only from his Masonic, but also from his Templar subjects. Almost his first act was to despatch his friend Baumann to Stockholm in order to obtain information there respecting the Swedish Rite. The requisite funds were taken from the treasury of the Three Globes, though the Lodge was not consulted either with regard to the mission or the appropriation of its money‑and, worst of all, Zinnendorff kept for his own use the information so acquired, at a cost to the Lodge for travelling expenses of i,ioo thalers. Baumann obtained from Dr. Eckleff not only the Rituals of the Swedish High Degrees, but a Warrant of Constitution. ; and Findel states that the latter was z2o ducats in pocket by the transaction. (Findel, 4th ed., p. 419. For the particulars concerning Zinnendorff see Allegemeines Handbucb.) It is a somewhat important point to decide whether Eckleff was at this time Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Sweden, or merely, as the Swedish Grand Lodge subsequently affirmed, the Head‑Master of the Scots Chapter at Stockholm. As seen already, the Grand Lodge of Sweden was formed in 1759 and, on December 7, 1762, the King assumed the Protectorate, so that the probability is that he was virtually its Grand Master. But, even if Eckleff were at the time Grand Master, it is obvious that, if he acted in the matter without the knowledge of Grand Lodge, the step was equally ultra vines. Both these grounds were alleged when, in 1777, Sweden repudiated Zinnendorff ; but, on the other hand, it should be mentioned that, as late as 1776, the Swedish authorities were in close and fraternal correspondence with him and those intimate relations must be held to have condoned any irregularities in the initial stages.

 

In 1766 the Berlin Templars complained strongly of the impossibility of obtaining any financial statements from Zinnendorff, but Kruger, who was sent by them on a mission to von Hund, advised the Provincial Grand Master to treat him delicately, because he might become dangerous and create scandal‑another testimony to the character of the man.

 

In June 1766 Zinnendorff was not re‑elected Grand Master of the Three Globes but, of course, retained his office as Prefect of Templin (which was not elective) and, on August 9, the Three Globes formally joined von Hund's system. The financial dispute between Zinnendorffand the Three Globes now assumed a threatening aspect, so Schubart and Bode were deputed to arrange matters in July 1766. Zinnendorff, being called to account, made up a statement on the spur of the moment showing that, even admitting for argument's sake the debt of i,ioo thalers, there still remained 8oo thalers owing to him. In the interests of peace and quietness it was at length decided to let the matter drop on both sides. On November 16, 1766, Zinnendorff wrote a formal letter to von Hund renouncing the Strict Observance ; and, on May 6, 1767, he resigned the Three Globes. By the Three Globes, however, as well as by the Provincial Chapter of von Hund, a sentence of expulsion was passed upon him and, from that moment, he became the bitter and confirmed enemy of the Strict Observance system (von Etzel, Gescbicbte, p. 5 5).

 

In 1768, " by virtue of his inherent power," i.e. as a Scots Master, Zinnendorff erected his first Lodge on the Swedish system in Potsdam ; on August io, 1769, FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 125 his second, the Three Golden Keys, in Berlin‑of which he became Master andNovember 3, ‑1769‑he instituted the Scots or St. Andrew's Lodge Indissoluble in Berlin. His conversion of two clandestine Swedish Lodges at Hamburg, in 1770, to his own Rite has already been noticed; in fact, such was his energy and activity, that, before Midsummer, 1770, he had already 12 Lodges at work.

 

Then began a series of attempts to obtain a patent enabling him to erect a Grand Lodge. He first of all applied to the High Chapter at Stockholm, but his request was refused on the ground that Sweden never constituted Lodges abroad, a state ment tending to invalidate Eckleff's proceedings. Undaunted, Zinnendorff called his 12 Lodges together and proclaimed the National Grand Lodge for all German Freemasons (Acta Latomorum, p. 96). According to his view none but those of his own Rite were entitled to be called Freemasons and, least of all, the Brethren under the Strict Observance. Apparently all Masters (in office) were members. As the election of these Masters, however, was invalid unless approved by the Grand Lodge, the system of representation was defective and a sham, because the Grand Lodge practically became self‑elective. Now, although Zinnendorff always professed the greatest contempt for the Grand Lodge of England as being deficient in true knowledge‑and possessing the shell only, of which he and the Swedish Masons held the kernel‑yet his advances meeting with no encouragement from Sweden, he made application to London‑March 29, 1771‑requesting recognition as a Grand Lodge, partly on the ground of possessing superior Degrees and partly from the circumstance of his holding a Swedish patent. The petition, however, failed to elicit any response (Findel, p. 422).

 

Upon this followed the constitution of a second Berlin Lodge, The Golden Ship and the election of Martin Kronke as Grand Master with Zinnendorff as Deputy Grand Master.

 

On October 29, 1771, he renewed his request and, on this occasion, to De Vignolles as Provincial Grand Master for foreign Lodges. But De Vignolles, at least, understood the course affairs had taken and answered that he could not even acknowledge him as a Brother until he had proof that he was received in a legitimate Lodge. The only legitimate Lodge in Berlin was the Royal York; the Three Globes had never been warranted by England; was now a Strict Observance Lodge and all such were clandestine. That beyond this it would be most unseemly of England to subordinate such personages as the Duke of Brunswick (Grand Master of Brunswick in 1770, who had already joined the Strict Observance) and other Provincial Grand Masters to unknown men like Zinnendorff and Kronke (Findel, p. 422 and Allgemeines Handbucb, s.v. Zinnendorff). Zinnendorff's efforts were therefore turned to procuring a show of regularity‑and a prince as Grand Master. Accordingly, on January 8, 1772, he applied to the Royal York Lodge for permission to use their rooms for an initiation and invited that Lodge to be present on the loth. This was done, a sheet of paper was clandestinely inserted in the Minute‑book of Royal York, the proceedings taken down, signed by the Royal York members, the sheet secretly abstracted and forwarded to England, in order 126 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE to prove that Zinnendorff and his friends were acknowledged as regular Masons by a properly constituted English Lodge (Hauptmomente der Gescbicbte der Grossen Loge von Preussen Royal York fur Freundscbaft, p. icy).

 

On August i i following he further induced the Landgrave Louis of Hesse Darmstadt to accept the office of Grand Master and negotiations were resumed with England; this time with Grand Secretary Heseltine and, in spite of De Vignolles, who, writing to Du Bois (Grand Secretary, Netherlands) in Holland, stated that matters were arranged behind his back and accused Heseltine of receiving a ú5o bribe (Allgemeines Handbucb, loc. cit.). The following excerpt from the Minutes of the Grand Lodge of England‑April 23, 1773‑may possibly serve to explain De Vignolles's mistake and clear the Grand Secretary from an odious charge:" Bro. Charles Hanbury, of Hamburg, Esq., attended the Grand Lodge and, on behalf of the Grand Lodge of Germany, situated at Berlin, paid in the sum of ú50 towards the fund for building a Hall and received the thanks of the Grand Lodge thereupon."‑But although Heseltine personally could not have benefited by this, yet the transaction does bear the appearance of at least a propitiatory gift to the Grand Lodge. The donation was made in April and the contract with Zinnendorff in the following October and November at Berlin and London respectively. In the same year a third Berlin Lodge‑Pegasus‑was warranted and the total of subordinate Lodges had risen to 18.

 

Zinnendorff's great argument, of course, was that the Strict Observance had strangled pure Freemasonry in Germany and that it was necessary to erect a powerful Grand Lodge as a counterpoise. That his own system was as great an innovation as any of the others he naturally concealed, as he did the fact that all he wanted was England's name to conjure with. In its lamentable ignorance the Grand Lodge of England fell into the trap‑De Vignolles appears to have been the only one of its officers au courant of passing events‑and, in consequence, acted very unjustly towards its faithful daughter the Provincial Grand Lodge for Frankfort.

 

On November ig, 1773, " the Grand Secretary (Heseltine) informed the Grand Lodge of England of a proposal for establishing a friendly union and correspondence with the Grand Lodge of Germany, held at Berlin, under the patronage of H.S.H. the Prince of Hesse and Darmstadt, which met with general approbation " (Constitutions, 1784, p. 305).

 

The compact with Zinnendorff (for the text see Findel, pp. 8zz‑4) was signed (on behalf of the Grand Lodge of England) November 30, 1773. As it was executed in Berlin on October zo, it is evident that the terms had already been settled by Zinnendorff and Heseltine prior to the latter's motion in Grand Lodge. 5~i and z confirm in their offices Prince Ferdinand at Brunswick and Gogel at Frankfort for their respective lifetimes, protect their districts and leave them free‑in the futureto make terms with the Grand Lodge of Germany. ~3 deposes various other Provincial Grand Masters (who had gone over to the Strict Observance), among whom was Jaenisch of Hamburg. 14 reserves Hanover as common ground for England and Berlin. By 55 Berlin is to contribute to the Charity according to its FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 127 increase of power, but never less than C25 per annum. 16 recognizes the German Grand Lodge as the only constituent power in Germany, always excepting Brunswick and Frankfort, these only for the term of the then existing personal patents. 17 forbids the Grand Lodge at Berlin to exercise its powers outside Germany. In clause 9 both parties bind themselves to combat all innovations in Masonry, especially the Strict Observance.

 

Zinnendorff had thus, although under false pretences, obtained his point and was constituted the sole Masonic authority in Germany, by the Mother Grand Lodge of the Craft and, on July 16, 1774, his own Grand Lodge obtained the pro tection of Frederick the Great (O'Etzel, p. 61). Prince Louis having served the end for which he was elected, was evidently treated with scant courtesy, for on September zo, 1774, the Landgrave resigned, alleging as his reason for so doing, that he was ignored in his own Grand Lodge (Allgemeines Handbucb, loc. cit.). Zinnendorff was elected Grand Master, but in the following year‑June 30, 1775made way for Duke Ernest II of Saxe‑Gotha‑Altenburg. This high‑minded prince exerted all his efforts to heal the strife which raged between Zinnendorff's Lodges and the Strict Observance and, though he failed to accomplish a union, at least succeeded‑July 1776‑in effecting a pact of mutual recognition and tolerance. This, however, being at once broken by Zinnendorff, the Duke‑unable to endure the petty quarrels any longer‑resigned and was succeeded by Grand Master Golz (Findel, p. 4z5)‑December 21, 1776‑and by Dr. T. Mumssen in 1777 (Ibid., p. 429). Meanwhile the system had increased considerably; in Berlin alone Lodge Constancy was erected in 1775 ; Lodges Pilgrim, Golden Plough and Ram in 1776, making a total of no fewer than 7 Lodges in that city.

 

At this period began the negotiations between the Strict Observance and the Duke of Sudermania, threatening to end in the withdrawal of Sweden's tacit support of the National Grand Lodge. The Strict Observance Masons may at this time be said to have had only one formidable rival, viz. Zinnendorff, whose party enjoyed the great advantage of knowing their own minds, whereas Ferdinand and his friends did not. Such an opportunity of humiliating Zinnendorff could not be allowed to pass, but that able tactician, who probably saw the storm brewing, took measures to draw still closer the bonds between England and himself. In April 1777 he despatched his attached ally, Leonhardi, to London, who, in August 1779, obtained a Warrant to establish there the Pilgrim Lodge (Loge der Pilger), No. 516 (now No. z38), under a special dispensation to work in German and use their own ritual. Leonhardi was admitted to Grand Lodge‑February 7, 1781‑‑as the representative of the National Grand Lodge and took rank immediately after the Grand Officers. As seen already in 1782 Leonhardi frustrated the efforts made by the Frankfort Brethren through Pascha, subsequently to Gogel's death.

 

Meanwhile‑April z7, 1777‑the Swedish Grand Lodge, to Dlease the Strict Observance members, drew up a document signed by Karl of Sudermania and others, declaring that Eckleff's patent to Zinnendorff had been granted without the know ledge or consent of the Chapter and, therefore, being illegal, was thereby cancelled i 28 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE and annulled. (For the text see Paul, Annales des Eclectisben Freimaurerbundes, p. 225 .) In August the Swedish envoys, Oxenstierna and Plommenfeldt, arrived in Berlin, published this document and formally repudiated Zinnendorff and all his doings. Zinnendorff's circular to his Lodges announcing the foregoing proceedings is a masterpiece (Findel, pp. 426 et seq.) and, however one may disapprove of his conduct, it is quite impossible to withhold respect for his singular ability. He clearly places the Grand Lodge of Sweden in the wrong and demonstrates its inconsistency ; he also frankly avows, " moreover, we no longer require the help of the Swedish fraternity and can well spare their recognition." Nor was this an idle boast, for at that time (1778) eight years only after its birth, the National Grand Lodge ruled over 34 Lodges, with Provincial Grand Lodges in Austria, Silesia, Pomerania and Lower Saxony (Findel, p. 425).

 

In 178o‑June 24‑Zinnendorff replaced Mumssen as Grand Master and two years later‑June 6, 1782‑this eminently strong and masterful man was struck down by apoplexy, gavel in hand, at the very moment he was opening his Lodge of the Three Keys. His death produced no ill effect on his life's work. Able and resolute Brethren‑trained up in his school‑were ready to carry on the system where he left it. His immediate successor as Grand Master was Castillon ; and that the death of the founder had not destroyed the spirit implanted by him, may be gathered from the fact that, in 1783, the Three Globes having made advances by permitting the visits of Brethren of the Zinnendorff Rite, the National Grand Lodge replied by enacting‑October 30, 1783‑that only Lodges on the official list were to be considered legitimate and no communication was to be held with others (Latomia, vol. xxvi, 1868, p. 89).

 

One more heavy blow awaited the National Grand Lodge. That which De Vignolles had been unable to avert in 1773, Graefe was destined to undo in 1786. Count Graefe, a Brunswicker, was a captain in the English service in America. He had also been a Deputy Provincial Grand Master of Canada and returned to Brunswick in 1785, with an appointment as representative of the Grand Lodge of England at the National Grand Lodge, which, under the contract of November 30, 1773, was, of course, tantamount to representative for all Germany. On August 15, 1785, he wrote from Brunswick to the National Grand Lodge that, instead of harmony among the Fraternity in Germany, he found only discord and antipathy and called upon it to assist him in finding a remedy (Nettlebladt, p. 575). The National Grand Lodge‑October zo‑expressed a willingness to receive and aid him, but objected to the term Supreme Grand Lodge as applied to that at London and expected that he would only visit such German Lodges as were recognized by their own body. Graefe's eyes were soon opened to the state of affairs and, in the spring of 1786, he left for England. We find the results of his report in the Minutes of the Grand Lodge of England, April 12, 1786, when the Grand Treasurer announced that the intolerant spirit of the Berlin Grand Lodge had evoked quarrels and scandals in Germany and that many Lodges looked to London for redress. It was resolved that the proceedings of the Berlin Grand Lodge tended to divide the Fraternity, to limit its FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 129 progress, were in contravention of the treaty of 1773 and that steps should be taken to abrogate or alter that compact. As already seen, this was followed by the reinauguration of the Hamburg Provincial Grand Lodge under Graefe, by whom ‑August 17, 1786‑a. letter was despatched to Berlin inviting the presence of the National Grand Lodge at the ceremony. He added " that Berlin appeared to doubt the power of the Supreme Grand Lodge to make new arrangements, but he prayed them not to force him to take steps which old friendship had hitherto restrained " (Nettlebladt, p. 575). Castillon replied by excluding all Hamburg Lodges, even Graefe himself, upon which the latter issued a circular inveighing against the intolerance and injustice of the National Grand Lodge and declaring it to be his duty to pronounce that body and all its daughter Lodges illegitimate (Findel, p. 462). This action was approved in London, and Leonhardi, finding his presence no longer of any use, left that city‑April 9, 1787‑and betook himself to St. Petersburg (see Masonic News, London, October 26, 1929). In 1788‑April 23‑the Grand Lodge of England apprised the Berlin Lodge by letter of the abrogation of the treaty and‑November 26‑the Grand Master communicated to the Grand Lodge that he had acted on the resolution of April 12, 1786 and gave his reasons for so doing (O'Etzel, p. 91 and Grand Lodge Minutes, November 26, 1788). They are very cogent and show more knowledge than usual of Continental affairs, but are too long even for partial reproduction ; suffice it to say, that the Berlin Lodges, although deprived of all supremacy, continued to be recognized by the Grand Lodge of England as legitimate. But, in spite of all difficulties, the National Grand Lodge continued to prosper as before.

 

In 1789‑June 24‑the National Grand Lodge became wearied of its isolated position in Germany and passed a decree whereby the legality of all Lodges constituted by any recognized authority was acknowledged and mutual intercourse permitted, excepting, of course, in the case of Brethren of the Hebrew faith (Latomia, vol. xxvi, p. 91). This Grand Lodge has from the first been so intensely Christian that the Jewish question has never been even mooted and it is only recently that, yielding to outside pressure, Jews are allowed to be present in Lodges as occasional visitors.

 

Castillon resigned June 24, 179o and was succeeded as Grand Master by C. A. von Beulewitz. By the Royal Edict of October 2o, 1798, the National Grand Lodge was included as one of the three Grand Lodges of the Prussian States and, in 1799 ‑January i4‑Beulewitz died, whereupon Castillon was re‑elected Grand Master. From 1807‑9 the Grand Lodge was closed on account of the presence of the French Army of Occupation. In 1814‑January 27‑the Grand Master, Castillon, died; and, on December 27 ensuing, the previous Deputy Grand Master Joachim F. Neander von Petersheiden, was elected in his stead, who was followed in turn (1818) by J. H. O. von Schmidt.

 

Under Grand Master Schmidt the quarrel with Sweden was made up and a contract of mutual amity and support signed, April 6, 1819 (O'Etzel, p. 140). On this occasion the Grand Lodge of Sweden furnished complete copies of its F. IV‑‑9 130 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE Constitutions, Ritual, etc. ; and Nettlebladt, one of the foremost Mason's of Zinnendorff's Rite and an ardent defender of his master's probity, was at once set to work to revise the ritual of the National Grand Lodge (Findel, P. 516). Although Nettlebladt wrote a history of all the other Masonic systems and Rites (including the English)‑in which the ignorance and credulity of their votaries are pitilessly denounced‑unfortunately he has not favoured us with one of the National Grand Lodge. He always, however, maintains its infallibility in strong terms. A glance at the account of Freemasonry in Sweden will enable the reader to discern that at the time of the Eckleff transaction the Swedish Rite was still incomplete, as the cope‑stone of the highest Degrees had not been placed on the structure. In consequence the National Lodge had always been deficient of two Degrees and knew nothing of a Vicarius Salomonis. These defects were now remedied, the ceremonies throughout brought into unison and a Vicarius Salomonis, under the title of Master of the Order, elected. In i 8 z i we first hear of Palmie under that title and his election was probably in 1820. The Grand Master‑Schmidt‑took the title of First Assistant of the Master of the Order in 1821 and retained it so long as he remained Grand Master. A decree of October 2, 18zo (Latomia, vol. xxvi, p. 95), affirms that Masters of Lodges are elected for life, the triennial re‑election being a concession on the Master's part, not a right of the Lodge. The election of the Master, according to a decree of March 2, 1824 (Latomia, vol. xxvi, p. 95), was to take place by casting the names of all those eligible into an urn ; the youngest member drew a name, its owner had to leave the Lodge and his merits were canvassed. A ballot was then taken for him and required a two‑thirds' majority in his favour. If unfavourable, a second ticket was drawn and so on until the necessary majority was obtained. In 1825,‑December 5‑it was affirmed that the election must be approved by the Grand Lodge; in 183o‑December 2o‑that Lodges which became dormant ceded their property and funds to the Grand Lodge; and in 1837 ‑September i i‑that the " Master of the Order shall be eo ipso also Grand Master, but he may appoint his First Assistant to this office for life." In 1838 Count Henckel von Donnersmark was elected Grand Master in succession to Schmidt, but in 1841 the Master of the Order‑Palmie‑dying, he was elected in his room and, conformably with the above last‑quoted law, retained both offices until his death.

 

In 1843 Constitutions were printed, but were only issued to Masters of Lodgeswho were not allowed to show them, or even give extracts and they were kept under three keys held by different Officers of the Lodge. Keller, however, gives some excerpts (Geschichte der Freimaurerei in Deutschland, 18 5 9, pp. 14‑17) and Findel, PP. 423 et seq.), while the chief points are naturally more or less well known. The Inner Orient was composed of members of the highest Degrees only. It comprised, at its head, the Master of the Order, his two assistants, called Senior and Junior Architects and nine Officers. These twelve represented the twelve Apostles and, to a certain extent, the Master of the Order was the Vicar of Christ. Their functions were to supervise everything, but especially the ritual and dogma. The members FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 131 had the right to preside and vote in any Lodge and could even stop the proceedings. The Grand Lodge, with the Grand Master at its head, was divided into two bodies, the St. John's and the St. Andrew's Lodges, to rule respectively the Degrees of pure Freemasonry and the Scots Degrees. Grand Officers must at least be Scots Masters. The ritual is identical with that of Sweden and Denmark.

 

In 1849‑July 24‑Henekel von Donnersmark died and‑October 23‑K. F. von Selasinsky was elected Master of the Order.

 

On November 5, 1853, an event of great importance to Masons throughout Germany took place ; this was the initiation of Frederick William, Prince, afterwards Crown Prince, of Prussia. The ceremony took place in the palace of his father, the then heir to the throne, who presided in person, in the presence of the Grand Officers of the three Prussian Grand Lodges and in the name‑or under the banner‑of the National Grand Lodge, of which he became a member. The Master's gavel used on this occasion was that formerly belonging to Frederick the Great. The eighth and last of the Berlin Lodges under this system was constituted exactly two years afterwards‑November 5, 1855‑and named in his honour Frederick William of the Dawn.

 

In i 86o‑April 26‑Selasinsky died and Prince Frederick William of Prussia accepted the office of the Master of the Order on June 24 following.

 

Ten years later‑June 24, 187o‑the Grand Lodge celebrated its centenary, with the Prince in the chair. On this occasion a bombshell fell amongst the Brethren. The Grand Master alluded to the superior knowledge and greater purity of origin to which the National Grand Lodge had always laid claim‑also to its persistence in requiring that those statements should be taken as articles of faith, whilst the documents on which they rested were jealously preserved from the vulgar ken. He showed how impossible it was to resist libellous misrepresentations from outside, except by frankly producing proofs to the contrary and how the assumption of infallibility was not only untenable in the nineteenth century, but injurious to the best interests of the Grand Lodge; and concluded by calling upon all to aid him in ascertaining the historical truth of those supposed documents and traditions and freely to give up whatever should be found unsupported. An English translation of this address was read before the St. Mary's Lodge, No. 63, by Dr. E. E. Wendt, Grand Secretary for German Correspondence‑March 20, 1873‑and will be found in the Centennial History of that Lodge, 1883, by George Kelly and Wilmer Hollingworth. The excitement caused throughout the Lodges of the system was intense and two opposing parties‑of light and leading, of mystery and conservatism‑were at once formed. In 1873 twenty Brethren at Hanover were suspended for advocating reform, whilst in 1871 six Lodges attempted to found an historical and archxological union‑ a crime almost amounting to treason under this Grand Lodge. Schiffmann of Stettin received the prince's commission to undertake researches, but was denied access to the archives. Wearied by this persistent opposition, the Crown Prince at length‑March i, 1874‑resigned his office, he being the third Royal Grand Master of the National Grand Lodge who 132 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE resigned the chair in disgust. In his place von Dachroden was elected, with Schiffmann as Senior Architect. The danger then became obvious that Schiffmann might at the next election be appointed Master of the Order and have the archives at his disposal. The Statutes were, therefore, arbitrarily altered and the election placed in the hands of the highest Degree only. It was also laid down that the Grand Master should live in Berlin. As Schiffmann held an ecclesiastical appointment in Stettin, he was thus rendered ineligible for election, but he nevertheless proceeded with his researches and made damaging discoveries. For this the Grand Lodge suspended him‑May I, 1876‑but his part was warmly taken by several Lodges and many, especially of other systems, made him an honorary member. Two months later‑July 1‑Schiffmann was expelled and several Lodges who supported him were erased ; others transferred their allegiance (Allgemeines Handbucb, vol. iv, 1879, s.v. Schwedischer System, also Findel, p. 568).

 

In 1872 G. A. von Ziegler had been appointed Grand Master and succeeded the Master of the Order‑Dachroden‑on his retirement, in both capacities. He in turn was followed by F. R. A. Neuland.

 

V. THE GRAND LODGE OF PRUSSIA, CALLED ROYAL YORK OF FRIENDSHIP, AT BERLIN On May 5, 176o, the Lodge of the Three Globes was informed that several resident French Masons‑Frederick the Great had established a large colony of that nationality in Berlin‑had petitioned for a Warrant to enable them to meet as a Lodge‑Joy and Peace‑to initiate Frenchmen only, offering to pay all their income into the funds of the Mother‑Lodge. In fact it was to be merely a distinctly French branch of the Three Globes. The request was granted and, in the same yearAugust io‑von Printzen constituted the Lodge under the name of the Three Doves. No reason is assigned why the title originally chosen was not adhered to. In 1761‑March 13‑the Mother‑Lodge took into consideration a request to enlarge the powers of its daughter, as it was found impossible to recruit the Lodge solely from Frenchmen and to carry it on without funds. The petition was acceded to and a fresh Warrant granted‑April 12‑whereby the Lodge became an inde pendent sister Lodge of the Three Globes. Its title had at this time been altered to Friendship of the Three Doves. In the same year it joined with the Three Globes and Concord in forming the Masonic Tribunal of which von Printzen was elected Grand Master.

 

From the character and composition of the Lodge it was inevitable that Degrees beyond that of Master Mason would be A ht. These appear as early as 1763 to have included some or all of the following :‑Elect of 9, of 15 and of Perpignan ; Red Scots Degree and St. Andrew's Scot; Knight of the East; Knight of the Eagle or Prince Sovereign Rose Croix : the members of this last and 7th Degree forming a Sublime Council, which ruled all the others. To vest these FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 133 Degrees, it is possible, with an enhanced authority, the Lodge procured‑March 6, 1764‑a Scots patent from the Scots Lodge Puritas, at Brunswick.

 

The work was, of course, conducted in French, but not without exceptions. Thus in 1764 there is an instance of a Lodge transacting its business in German, but the Minutes record a resolve not to do so again. A curious Minute occurs in 1765, when a member proposed for initiation, " somebody "‑having forgotten the candidate's name ! July 27, 1765, was an important date for this Lodge. On that day it initiated into the Craft H.R.H. Edward Augustus, Duke of York, the brother of George III and his companion, Colonel Henry St. John. On August z the Prince signified his acceptance of the title of patron of the Lodge and authorized it to assume the name of Royal York of Friendship. The Lodge then applied to the Grand Lodge of England for a patent and entrusted the petition to St. John. To this circumstance may be due the fact that the Lodge never joined the Strict Observance system but, on the contrary, always strenuously opposed it.

 

The next few years furnish two events which may be recorded. On September 6, 1765, the Lodge warranted its first daughter, at Rheims ; and in 1767June 6‑it initiated a Jew. This is remarkable because, in 1779, it had so far modified its views as to refuse admission to two English Masons because they were of the Hebrew persuasion. The latter position it retained until the revision of the Statutes in 187z ; but the Jewish question does not appear to have evoked the same strife in this Lodge as in the Three Globes and in the Eclectic Union.

 

In 1767‑June 24‑it received a Warrant from England as No. 417, successively altered by the closing up of numbers to 330, z6o and 2icg (1770, 1781, 1792) after 1813 it disappears from the English Lists.

 

Its next step was to apply for a patent as a Grand Lodge, but‑February 14, 1769‑De Vignolles wrote refusing the request as beyond England's power to grant ‑a Grand Lodge being the result of several Lodges combining for the purpose. He, however, authorized the Lodge to grant a three months' dispensation to Brethren to act as a new Lodge, during which time they were expected to apply for a Con‑, stitution from England (Nettlebladt, p. 6z4).

 

The Royal York formally seceded from the Three Globes in 1768. In 177z it sent a cypher to London in which to conduct its correspondence and the same year forwarded by this means the Statutes and Rituals of its Scots Degrees for approval. In the same year also it warranted a Lodge at Besan5on. Of this and the former Lodge at Rheims no further notices appear. In 1773 the Lodge gradually ceased to work in French and‑August 13‑constituted its first legitimate daughter at Cassel. This Lodge was registered in London, November icy, 1773, as No. 459.

 

Meanwhile the treaty‑so often cited‑had been contracted between Zinnendorff and the older or legitimate Grand Lodge in London and, by it, the Lodge Royal York came under the jurisdiction of the National Grand Lodge. The Royal York succeeded in making terms by which it was to preserve its own Ritual 134 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE and, in a great measure, its former autonomy and concluded a Treaty of Union May i9, 1774. Quarrels, however, ensued with appeals to London and, in the end, the Royal York reasserted its independence in 1776, a course of action which was approved by England, April 11, 1778.

 

In 1778 the Royal York constituted its second Lodge‑at Mannheim‑and, in 1779, one each at Munich and Potsdam. A proposal for union with the Three Globes fell through in this year, but a treaty of friendship was entered into.

 

In 1779‑November 24‑Baron Heyking was commissioned by the Lodge to travel throughout Poland and, where he found Masons in sufficient numbers, to erect Lodges. This resulted in the formation (1780) of no fewer than eight Lodges and ultimately of an English Provincial Grand Lodge for Poland. From 1782 to 1795 nothing of importance demands record beyond the constitution of seven Lodges and the occasional use of the names Mother‑Lodge and Grand Lodge as applied to the Royal York, but without a specific assertion of either of these titles.

 

With 1796 there commenced a period of evolution and internal change in this Lodge, not unaccompanied by strife. The central figure of the movement was one of the most prominent Masons of that or any time, noteworthy not only as a Mason, but also as a theologian, politician and author‑Ignatius Aurelius Fessler.

 

Fessler was born in Lower Hungary in 1756, his father being a retired soldier, his mother a religious devotee. Educated by the Jesuits, but refused admission to their ranks, he took the Capuchin vows in 1773. In 1779 he was ordained priest and was, at that time, of a serious and earnest disposition, verging on bigotry. But above all things he was plain‑spoken and, in 1781, called the Emperor's attention to the state of conventual life. No longer safe in the monasteries from papal vengeance, he was placed in professional chairs at the universities and led, from that time to his death, an eventful and kaleidoscopic life, pursued by the unrelenting hate of the Jesuits. In 1789 he embraced the Lutheran faith and, in 1796, went to Berlin. He entered the Craft at Lemberg in 1783, a period coeval with the fall of the Strict Observance, the founding of the Eclectic Union and the commencement of the first serious attempts to study and appreciate Freemasonry. Throwing himself with his usual ardour into this new pursuit, he succeeded in a few years in making himself acquainted with the broad facts of Masonic history and the whole series of fantastic theories and Rites to which the original institution had nearly succumbed. Such a man could not fail to attract the attention of his Masonic fellows and, accordingly, having joined the Royal York, May 12, 1796, he was much against his wish forced by the Brethren‑November 2o‑to become a member of the Sublime Council. The Three Globes, Frankfort and Hamburg Grand Lodges having all reformed their Rites or were engaged in so doing, the Royal York felt it necessary to follow suit and in Fessler lay their best hope. One other matter also loomed large on the horizon. In consequence of the French Revolution an edict against secret societies might be expected, when, although the Lodges would probably be tolerated, yet it was to be feared that the Royal York would be called upon to submit to the jurisdiction of a Grand Lodge, unless its position as a FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 135 Grand Lodge in itself could satisfactorily be settled. De Vignolles's letters had indicated the only legal means of attaining this object and Fessler was not the man to neglect such a hint.

 

Scarcely was Fessler a member of the Sublime Council than he received a commission to draft a Constitution and to revise the Ritual and bring the various Degrees into accord. He threw himself with almost superhuman energy into the work. His first inclination, as was natural to an enlightened Masonic student, was to abolish all High Degrees and he made this proposal, April 12, 1797 (Findel, P‑485). His coadjutors were, however, not yet prepared for such a drastic remedy, so he contented himself with making each (so‑called) High Degree a separate course of philosophy and with remoulding the Sublime Council, which became the Innermost Orient. His new Ritual and Constitutions were rapturously approved and accepted, August 3, 1797. The Constitution was to be subject to revision in three, six and, afterwards, every nine years. In 1798‑June ii‑at Fessler's instance, the Lodge, Royal York of Berlin, was divided into four Lodges‑Frederick William of Justice, Victorious Truth, Urania of Immortality (with Fessler as Master) and Pythagoras of the Flaming Star. These four Lodges remained in many respects one. Membership was interchangeable. The Officers of one Lodge might be chosen from the members of another. They also possessed in common a general and a charity fund. These four Lodges then combined to erect from among themselves the Grand Lodge of Prussia, called Royal York of Friendship, with 14 daughters, viz. 4 in Berlin and io previously warranted elsewhere. The Grand Lodge was at once recognized by the Three Globes and by the King ; but the National Grand Lodge refused to do so, maintaining that a Grand Lodge could not be formed by a single Lodge divided ad hoc, nor could such a body be established in a kingdom where one already existed‑though when Zinnendorff established his Grand Lodge for Germany, the Three Globes and others were already in existence. ‑But, even in the Royal York itself, the measure met with bitter opposition from shortsighted and undiscerning Brethren. Fessler, a strong man, imperious, hasty, though wanting in conciliation, overbore all opposition, but his victory made him enemies.

 

De La Goannere was first Grand Master and Fessler Deputy Grand Master; but the Grand Master being called to Coruna as Consul, resigned, October 5, 1798 and was succeeded, October z8, by F. W. A. Von Sellentin.

 

In the same month‑October zo‑the Royal Edict appeared, wherein the Royal York was named as one of the three authorized Grand Lodges of Prussia.

 

On December Zo, 1798, the Berlin Lodge, Victorious Truth, initiated and admitted to active membership H.R.H. Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex, sixth son of George III, nephew of the Duke of York, initiated in 1765. From 1813 to 1843 the Duke of Sussex was Grand Master of England. Some idea of Fessler's Rite may be acquired from the following facts. The Duke of Sussex was passed to the Degree of Fellow Craft, January 1g, 1799 ; raised a Master Mason, February 4 ; received the Degree of Perfect Scots Architect, March 6 ; of Master 136 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE of Mount Heredom, March io ; of the Cross and Eagle, March 22 ; and became an Elect of the New Jerusalem, December z3. In '1839, being then Grand Master of England, he renewed his permission to continue his name on the books of the Lodge as an active member. Long previously‑April 5, 1799‑the Duke had agreed to accept the position of representative of Grand Lodge, Royal York, at the Grand Lodge of England.

 

In the same year (1799) three new Lodges were warranted and, in i 8oo, the period arrived for the first revision of the Constitutions. Fessler, meanwhile, had entered into very friendly relations with another reformer‑F. L. Schroederwhose influence now began to act through him on the Royal York.

 

In August 18oo Fessler once more proposed to abolish High Degrees, but the time for this salutary reform had not yet arrived. Something in the nature of an extrinsic Degree was still urgently in demand. A compromise was effected. In lieu of the High Degrees Fessler elaborated a history of Freemasonry, its origin, revival in 1717, early progress and subsequent obliquities. This was communicated to Master Masons in five Steps to Knowledge, Erkenntniss‑stufen and, to satisfy all parties, each step was preceded by a ceremonial, designed symbolically to illustrate various phases in man's life on earth. The ritual of the three Degrees was remodelled on the basis of that of Schroeder and the Constitutions altered in accordance therewith. The complete revision was accepted, December 31, 18oo (Nettlebladt, p. 636 and Findel, p. 487).

 

In that year (18oo) one new Lodge was warranted and the Sun Lodge at Bayreuth‑now the Grand Lodge of the Sun‑was affiliated and remained for a time a Provincial Grand Lodge under the Royal York.

 

In 18oi‑June 5‑the Grand Master Von Sellentin resigned on account of ill‑health and‑September 13‑Ern. Ferd. Klein was installed as Grand Master. The same year saw the birth of a Lodge at Charlottenburg and of the Lodge Socrates at Frankfort. The total of private Lodges had now risen to 16 (Findel, p. 490). In 1802 one Lodge was warranted and the closing scenes of Fessler's connexion with the Lodge were enacted. For some time angry feelings had been at work on both sides, want of appreciation on the one produced bitterness on the other and Fessler's own domineering temper added fuel to the flame. At length the Grand Master himself went over to Fessler's enemies. According to the Constitution the Deputy Grand Master was the all‑powerful prime minister‑the Grand Master, a very limited monarch. But Klein‑a man of character and determination ‑was little inclined to play the part of Roi Faineant to that of Fessler's Maire du Palais and the position became too strained to continue.

 

On April 30, 18oz, Fessler wrote that to facilitate a reconciliation he intended to lay down his offices pro tem. and requested all complaints against him to be preferred openly at once. On May 7 the Grand Lodge agreed to consider this as a formal resignation and Fessler, indignant, resigned his offices as Deputy Grand Master and Master of Urania on the 9th. His Lodge was then ordered to exclude him from membership and Fessler, hearing of this order‑August 15‑wrote‑ FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 137 September 6‑with haughty scorn, washing his hands once and for all of both Lodge and Grand Lodge (Nettlebladt, p. 641). After many troubles in private and public life, Fessler entered the service of the Czar Alexander in i 8ocg and died December I5, 1839, aged 83, being at the time President of the Russian Lutheran Consistory at Saratow.

 

In 1803 the Statutes underwent their periodical revision, the Innermost Orient was remodelled and, besides overlooking the dogma and ritual of the Fraternity, became the dispenser of the Steps to Knowledge, while its subordinate Inner Orients were charged with the same duties in the Provinces. But these steps were reduced to a single one under the name of Scots Master and the initiations were abolished, so that practically from henceforth we have a modification of the Hamburg Engbund and the Rite of the Royal York may be looked upon as in all essentials that of Schroeder. The irony of fate willed that Fessler's original plans should be adopted within a few months of his expulsion.

 

In 1806 the Grand Lodge was closed during the French occupation, but the presence of the enemy served to draw closer the rival German rites and the National Grand Lodge entered into a pact of amity with the Royal York. In 1808 the Grand Lodge resolved that the officers of private Lodges must be confirmed and approved by itself, thus somewhat, though possibly unintentionally, limiting its own representative character. And at the revision of the Statutes in 1872, the distinctively Christian requirements for initiation were modified, so that Jewish candidates were accepted.

 

In 1810‑March i 8‑Grand Master Klein died, and‑April 3o‑J. H. A. Hey was elected to the office. In 1832 Hey resigned from sickness and old age and died December 17, 183 8. He was succeeded by Prof. H. F. Link as Grand Master, who died in office‑January 1, 1851. On June 2 ensuing, Dr. C. von Kloeden was elected Grand Master and also died in office‑January 1o, 1856. A similar fate befel the next Grand Master‑Dr. C. W. F. Amelang‑who died December 3, 18 5 8 ; and, in the following year‑March 26‑Prince Louis William Augustus of Baden, a brother of the Grand Duke, was installed as Grand Master. The Grand Master's tenure of office being terminable with the periodical revisions of the Constitutions, the Prince declined re‑election at the revision of 1863, but was appointed Hon. Grand Master. In 1864 Dr. J. F. Schnakenburg was installed Grand Master (under whom the Statutes were altered to admit of Jews being initiated) and, in 1873, Professor Chr. Fr. L. Herrig, who was re‑elected in 1882.

 

VI. THE GRAND LODGE SUN AT BAYREUTH On January 21, 1741, the Margrave Frederick of Brandenburg‑Kulmbach erected in his own castle at Bayreuth, the capital of his dominions, a Lodge under the name of the Sun, of which he remained Master till his death in 1763. On December 5, 1741, this Castle Sun instituted in Bayreuth a City Sun with much pomp, the Margrave himself taking part in the procession. The Castle Sun soon 138 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE grafted on itself a Directory of Scots Masters, which, in some respects, discharged the functions of a non‑representative Grand Lodge.

 

In 1757‑October 24‑this Directory opened the Lodge Lebanon of the Three Cedars, in Erlangen ; and, in 175 8‑flay 17‑that of the Three Stars, in Anspach, the capital of the Onolzbach or cadet line of Brandenburg.

 

In 1763 the Margrave was succeeded by his uncle, the Margrave Frederick Christian, both in his civil and Masonic capacity.

 

In 1769, the elder line being extinct, the Margrave Frederick Carl Alexander of Brandenburg‑Onolzbach (the younger or Anspach line) united the two Principalities. The Anspach Lodge of 175 8 being also possessed of a Scots Directory, the new ruler caused it in 1772 to amalgamate with the (Castle) Sun Directory and removed the seat of this conjoint Directory to Anspach, granting it jurisdiction over the two Sun Lodges in Bayreuth, the Lebanon Lodge in Erlangen and the Three Stars Lodge in Anspach. From 1774 therefore the Sun ceased to work as a Mother‑Lodge. In 1776 the City Sun went over to the Strict Observance, which the Margrave himself had joined in the same year, being the first reigning Prince who ever signed the act of Implicit (or Unquestioning) Obedience. He himself was the son of the Margrave Carl who had espoused the sister of Frederick the Great and been initiated by that king in 1740 in Frederick's Royal Lodge. The Margrave Frederick dying childless in 1799, the Brandenburg Principalities reverted to Prussia.

 

By the Royal Edict of October 2o, 1798, all Prussian Lodges were required to hold from one of the three Berlin Grand Lodges. Accordingly, in 1799November ig‑the Anspach and Erlangen Lodges joined the Three Globes ; whilst the two Suns joined the Royal York in i 8oo, the Castle Sun being made a Provincial Grand Lodge. It naturally accepted the Fessler Rite and was granted an Inner Orient, April 1, 1802. The Lodge of Truth and Friendship at Furth, warranted by the Royal York‑March 4, 1803‑was placed under its rule, also the Morning Star at Hof, constituted June 9, 1799.

 

In 1806 Anspach fell to the new kingdom of Bavaria. It had meanwhile been raised to the rank of a Provincial Grand Lodge Anacharsis, under the Three Globes, with several daughter Lodges and, at the time of these all becoming Bavarian, Freemasonry was under an interdict in that country by virtue of decrees issued March 2 and August 16, 1785 ; renewed by the Elector‑afterwards King of Bavaria‑Maximilian Joseph, himself a Freemason, November 4, 1799 and March 5, 1804. In 1807, however‑May 8‑the King issued an edict of toleration, to which were attached very stringent conditions. A list of all members was to be forwarded to the authorities every three months, all changes of officers or by‑laws to be notified, correspondence with Berlin to cease, etc. A further edict was published January 17, 1808, forbidding all State servants to join the Craft. As this deprived the Lodges of all their best members, judges, notaries, professors, military officers, even schoolmasters and clergymen, the blow was a severe one; but many of the Lodges nevertheless continued to struggle on as independent communities, until in better times FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 139 they were able to join one of the Grand Lodges of Germany. By an English patent‑dated June 6, 18o6‑" Charles Alexander, Prince of Thurn and Taxis, Principal Commissary to His Imperial Majesty in Germany," was appointed Pro vincial Grand Master for Bavaria. This description, however, is vague and misleading, since with the exception of Ratisbon‑which was not permanently incorporated with the new kingdom until 181o‑Bavarian Masonry was extinct.

 

In 18io‑June 3o‑Bayreuth also was acquired by the kingdom of Bavaria and the Lodges had to conform to the same rules, the Sun losing not fewer than fifty of its best members.

 

The Provincial Grand Masters meanwhile, under the Royal York Grand Lodge, were Count von Giech, von Volderndorf and Schunter.

 

In 18 i i‑December 13‑the Provincial Grand Lodge of the Sun declared itself an independent Grand Lodge, with four daughters, viz. the City Sun under a new name‑Eleusis of Silence‑the Truth and Friendship at Furth, the Morning Star and the Golden Balance at Hof‑which was warranted February zo, 1804, by the National Grand Lodge of Berlin. By slow degrees and in spite of difficulties, it added to this number. The ritual was naturally the so‑called Fessler, that is, the Schroeder slightly modified, which does not differ materially from the English. The first Grand Master‑Schunter‑was followed by Munch, Birner and, in 1844 by S. Kolb‑under whom, in 1847, the Constitutions were amended so as to admit Jews to the full benefits of the Fraternity. In 1849‑August z5‑Chr. K. Kunzel was elected Grand Master and, in 1862, Friedrich Feustel. At this time the Grand Lodge Sun numbered ten daughters. New Constitutions were drawn up in 1868 and accepted in 1869. They were among the most liberal in Germany. The Grand Lodge was thoroughly representative of the English system; its seat as an executive body was at Bayreuth, but it held, in turn, an annual deliberative meeting and festival at the various towns where it possessed a Lodge.

 

In 1872 Bluntschli became Grand Master and, in 1878, Feustel once more.

 

VII. THE NATIONAL GRAND LODGE OF SAxoNY AT DRESDEN Many Provincial Grand Masters for the circle of Upper Saxony and for the Electorate of Saxony were appointed by England in the eighteenth century. For instance, in 1737, by Lord Darnley, H. W. von Marschall to the Circle of Upper Saxony ; in 1762, Major Aloys Peter D'Agdolo to the Electorate ; and, in 1766, Count von Werthern to Upper Saxony. There were possibly others, but it cannot be shown that they ever warranted a single Lodge or exercised their office in any way. Of Marschall it is known that he joined and accepted office in the Lodge Absalom at Hamburg and nothing more, whilst, at that very time, Rutowsky was active in his especial district ; and, of the two latter, they were expressly relieved of their duties in the 1773 contract with Zinnendorff (cf. Findel, p. 8zz). Werthern indeed went over to the Strict Observance immediately after his appointment.

 

140 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE Nevertheless a Grand Lodge of Saxony existed at a very early date. Count Rutowsky‑initiated at Warsaw in 1735‑who had been a brigadier in the French service, entered that of the Elector of Saxony in 1731, was a Field‑Marshal and Governor of Dresden in 1741. He died March 16, 1764. In 1738 he erected a Lodge of the Three Eagles at Dresden. It increased so rapidly that in 1739 a new Lodge of the Three Golden Swords was formed also at Dresden which, two years afterwards, numbered over fifty members. In 1741‑February 15‑a third Lodgeof the Three Swans‑was founded. These three met together, June z4, 1741, raised the Three Swords to the rank of a Grand Lodge and chose Rutowsky as Grand Master. It appears to have been taken for granted by German writers that Rutowsky held an English patent‑which may possibly be true, although, in the absence of anything like evidence to authenticate the belief, it must of necessity remain an open question.

 

The Three Swans amalgamated with the Three Swords, July z, 1741. Earlier in the same year‑March 2o‑a Lodge was formed at Leipzig, which subsequently became Minerva of the Compasses and, afterwards, the independent Lodge Minerva of the Three Palms. If not warranted by Rutowsky in the first instance, it certainly owned his sway circa 1747.

 

In 1742‑January 31‑this Lodge Minerva inaugurated the Lodge at Altenburg, afterwards Archimedes of the Three Tracing Boards, one of the five independent Lodges of Germany. This also joined the Union.

 

Rutowsky further warranted‑September z, 1743‑the Three Roses at Sachsenfels, which was one of the first to join the Strict Observance ; and in 1744 the Three Squares in Nossen, which soon afterwards died out. There are also traces of one or two other Lodges. The existence of this flourishing body at so early a date is very remarkable.

 

In 1755 the first efforts of won Hund's still undeveloped imaginings may be traced in a Lodge‑Of the Three Palms‑warranted by him in Dresden on September 5. ' In 176o the Three Globes also began to constitute a few Lodges in Saxony. But this part of Germany was the very centre of the Strict Observance‑won Hund possessed large estates in the neighbourhood, at Lausitz and elsewhere and naturally the first to be overrun by the new Rite. In 1762‑September 5‑the Three Swords accepted the Templar Ritual and system and every Lodge in the Electorate followed suit. The history of the Craft in Saxony for the ensuing half century is comprised in that of the Strict Observance, the three Grand Lodges at Berlin and the Grand Lodge of Hanover, all of which bodies constituted Lodges in the country at various times.

 

In 1805 some of the Dresden Lodges began to moot the question of establishing a National Grand Lodge. The idea met with general favour, four Lodges only those at Gorlitz and Bautzen and the two at Leipzig‑raising objections. But the project came to naught, the stern necessities of war occupying men's minds to the exclusion of other matters.

 

FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 141 In 1811, however, the subject was revived and a National Grand Lodge for Saxony erected. Twelve Lodges combined for the purpose. These had been constituted, in the years within brackets, as follows :‑By Rutowsky‑1, The Three Swords, Dresden, being the original Grand Lodge of 1742: By the Grand Lodge of the Three Globes‑2, Golden Wall, Bautzen (1802) ; 3, Leopard, in Liibben (1809) ; 4, Golden Cross, in Merseburg (1805) : By the National Grand Lodge of Prussia‑5, The Desert Well, at Kottbus (1797) ; 6, Golden Apple, Dresden (1776) ; 7, the Three Hills, Freiberg (1798) : By von Hund‑8, the Crowned Serpent, Gorlitz 0751): By the Three Roses of 1743 under the Strict Observance‑9, the Three Flames, Plauen (1788) : By the Grand Lodge Royal York‑io, Harmony, in Hohenstein (1799) : By the Provincial Grand Lodge of Hamburg‑1i, the Three Pillars, in Triebel (i 8o6) : By Lodge Archimedes of Altenburg‑12, Archimedes of the Saxon Union, Schneeberg (i 8o6). It will be remarked that Nos. 1, 9 and i z connect this new Grand Lodge historically with the extinct Grand Lodge of Rutowsky. From this date the Grand Lodge, in spite of a few losses, gradually, but continuously, increased the number of its Lodges. Some, however, of these were lost in 1815, because a part of Saxony then passed under Prussian rule.

 

The Constitutions were accepted September 28, 1811 and signed by the Lodges of the Union. They were the most liberal in Germany. The Union did not forbid High Degrees, but simply ignored them and dealt only with the Craft. It permitted any ritual in the three Degrees provided a copy was approved by Grand Lodge. The Grand Lodge consisted of two bodies. A legislative, composed of the Master, Deputy Master and Wardens of each Lodge, with a Dresden Brother specially appointed to represent each Lodge. These all had a deliberative voice, but each Lodge only had one vote. An executive, composed of the Grand Officers chosen from among the members of the legislative body. The ritual used by the Grand Lodge and recommended to its daughters was that of Schroeder.

 

Of the earlier Grand Masters of this body there is no list available. In 1866 G. H. Warnatz, M.D., was elected to the chair and, dying in 1872, was succeeded ‑October 27‑by Dr. Eckstein, who gave place to Albert Wengler in 1881. Under Dr. Eckstein the revision of the Statutes, begun in 1874, was completed October 18, 1876. The chief alteration was a declaration that Jews were eligible for initiation ‑they had already been admitted as visitors in 1837. The executive still remained at Dresden, but it was enacted that the annual meeting of Grand Lodge might be movable.

 

VIII. GRAND LODGE CONCORD AT DARMSTADT When Louis X, Landgrave of Hesse‑Darmstadt, commenced his reign in 1790, the only Lodge in his dominions was that at Giessen, of which he was a member, as well as its chief and patron. In 1785 it had joined the Eclectic Union. In 1793 the English Provincial Grand Lodge at Frankfort commenced to warrant a series of Lodges in this principality; which, in i 8o6, was made a Grand Duchy, Louis X 142 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE becoming the first Grand Duke Louis I. By the events of 1814 he acquired a considerable extension of territory and in the new Provinces of his state existed other Lodges. He died in 1830, protector of all these Lodges and his successor, Louis II, who took an active part in Lodge work, also assumed the title and duties of Protector. By 1839 all the still existing Hessian Lodges had joined the Eclectic Union.

 

In i8o8 the Grand Orient of France had constituted the Lodge Nascent Dawn in Frankfort, which contained a large Jewish element. After various quarrels this Lodge split into two factions : the Landgrave Karl of Hesse‑Cassel recon stituted the Christian members as Karl of the Dawning Light, according to the Rite of the rectified Strict Observance, whilst the Jewish Brethren received in 1817 a warrant from London as the Lodge of the Nascent Dawn (No. 684). In 1836 Prince Karl died; and in 184o‑September 27‑Karl of the Dawning Light joined the Eclectic Union. The Lodge, however, could not agree on all points with its new Grand Lodge, more especially in relation to the High Degrees and, after many quarrels and bickerings, was excluded on July 2, 1844. Its part was taken up warmly by the Friends of Concord at Mayence and St. John the Evangelist of Concord at Darmstadt, with the result that in 1845 these two Lodges retired from the Eclectic Union.

 

The three Lodges, which had thus recovered their independence, petitioned the Grand Duke and Protector, Louis II, to form a new Eclectic Union; their prayer was granted and nine prominent members were deputed to frame a Con stitution. This act of foundation (Grundvertrag) emphasized the purely representative system of Grand Lodge government, forbade all High Degrees (Karl of the Dawning Light voluntarily dissolved its Scots Lodge, which had been the origin of the whole quarrel!) and had but one fault. It refused even the right of visiting to Jews. It was signed by the three Lodges‑February 27, 1846 ; approved by the Grand Duke‑March 22‑and on the following day the three Lodges met, proclaimed the Grand Lodge Concord and elected J. H. Lotheissen, President of the Court of Appeal, as their first Grand Master.

 

Curiously enough the Lodge Karl, whose traditions were so purely Christian, was the first to protest against the intolerance of the new Grand Lodge and this it did within fifteen months. On December 14, 1847, a majority in the Lodge repealed the By‑law which debarred Jewish Masons from entering their doors and the minority, headed by Leykam (one of the nine mentioned above), resigned their membership. In 1849‑March 15‑nine of this minority petitioned the Grand Lodge for a Warrant for a new Lodge in Frankfort, to be called Karl of Lindenberg. The old Lodge desired to raise no objection, but as it felt that it could not meet the new one in perfect amity, sought permission‑November 18‑to leave the Darmstadt Grand Lodge. Both petitions were granted and Karl of the Dawning Light rejoined the Eclectic Union June 30, 185o. Karl of Lindenberg also seceded to the Eclectic Union in 1878.

 

The Grand Lodge Concord‑consisting of three Lodges in all‑elected Betz as Grand Master in 1851 and, in 1853, Lotheissen once more.

 

FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 143 Meanwhile, Louis II, who died in 1848, had been succeeded by Louis III, who was not a Mason, nor did he appear to interest himself at all in Masonic matters. Great therefore was the astonishment produced by a Grand Ducal decree of 1859, expressing a wish to see all Hessian Lodges united under the authority of the Grand Lodge Concord at Darmstadt. This affected four Eclectic Lodges, one each at Alzey, Giessen, Offenbach and Worms ; and a royal wish being equivalent to a command, non‑compliance probably meant dissolution. On the other hand, submission was difficult, because the Eclectic Union having admitted Jews to initiation in 1848, whereas the Darmstadt Union would not even allow them to visit, the Lodges ran the risk of losing their Jewish Brethren, who had become very dear to them; Giessen especially was largely recruited from members of the Hebrew race. Grand Lodge, however, passed a resolution to allow these four Lodges to violate the Constitutions, provided they would consent to certain disabilities, viz. deprivation of the right to vote on matters of Ritual and inability of their members to fill offices in Grand Lodge. The four Lodges then joined, making seven in all.

 

In 1859‑September ii‑Lotheissen died and Matthew Leykam, Doctor of Laws, was elected Grand Master. As the latter resided in Frankfort, the Grand Lodge was removed for nine years to that city.

 

A new Lodge (No. 8) was constituted at Friedberg on November io, 1862 and, in the same year, the Constitutions were revised. Intercourse with their Jewish Brethren having removed many prejudices, the right of visiting was conceded to all Masons of that faith.

 

The ninth and last Lodge was warranted at Bingen, July 7, 1867, and‑a further sign of progress‑its Constitutions permitted it to initiate Jews, but it had to submit to the same restrictions as the other four Lodges.

 

In 1868 the Christian Lodges, " out of their exceeding love," voluntarily conceded full rights to the five mixed Lodges, merely debarring them from furnishing a Grand Master from among their members. Leykam, who died on February 2o in this year, was succeeded as Grand Master by the Postmaster‑General, Pfaltz.

 

At the revision of the Statutes in 1872 the Jews were granted full rights ; so that in all Germany there are now only two Grand Lodges, the National and Three Globes, both at Berlin, which insist upon a candidate for Freemasonry being a Christian.

 

INDEPENDENT LODGES I. MINERVA OF THE THREE PALMS, LEIPZIG In 1736 seven Masons who had been made abroad were in the habit of meeting together in Leipsic and, on March 20, 1741, they formed themselves into a Lodge. This Lodge is usually accounted a member, from the commencement, of Rutowsky's Grand Lodge of Upper Saxony ; but it is also possible that it only entered into friendly relations with the Three Gold Swords. The Lodge had no special name, but it prospered exceedingly and, at the end of the year, already numbered 46 144 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE members. In 1742 its services were called into requisition to inaugurate the Lodge at Altenburg. In 1745 it split up and divided into a French Lodge of the Three Compasses and a German‑speaking Lodge, Minerva. These reunited on June 5, 1747, as Minerva of the Three Compasses, which was confirmed by the Grand Master Rutowsky. In 1747‑November 2o‑a Scots Lodge, Apollo, was grafted on the Lodge.

 

In 1766 a difference of opinion respecting the expediency of joining the Strict Observance caused a majority of the members to found a new Lodge, Minerva of the Three Palms, under von Hund and, in 1772, they finally severed themselves entirely from Minerva of the Three Compasses, which gradually died out. The Knightly Chapter was erected March 16, 1767.

 

In 1773 the Lodge constituted Minerva of the Three Lights at Querfurt and, in the following year, the Scots Lodge Apollo changed its name to Karl of the Three Palms, in honour of Prince Karl of Courland, a member of the Lodge.

 

The Lodge took an active part in all the affairs of the Strict Observance, but began to tire of the folly about 1776. It therefore sent no Deputies to the Wilhelmsbad Convent in 1782, nor did it adopt the rectified system. On the contrary, it ceased in 1776 to create fresh knights, so that the Chapter gradually died out, until at last the Count Hohenthal alone was left‑who, to keep the history of the Chapter alive, formed a so‑called Inner Union of a few chosen members of the 4th or Scots Grade. The exact scope of this institution has, however, eluded research.

 

In 1783 the Lodge for a time showed signs of an inclination to join the newly formed Eclectic Union, but it decided ultimately to remain isolated, or, rather, independent.

 

The last of the Knights, Hohenthal, died in 18i g and the Constitutions of the Lodge were remodelled, April 8, 182o. The old Scots Lodge Karl was formed into a Directoral Lodge, governing the affairs of the Lodge. It consisted of twenty seven Masters. Seven members of this Directoral Lodge combined to form an Inner Union, who also completed their number from time to time in a similar manner. The duty and privilege of the Inner Union was to discuss all matters of importance before they were submitted to the Directoral Lodge, etc.

 

Mahlmann, Master, 1813‑26, revised the Ritual which had suffered much during the Strict Observance times and this version was accepted in 1829, three years after his death.

 

The Statutes underwent revision in 1832 and 1867. On the latter occasion Jews were freed from all disabilities. In 1863 the Lodge had 359 members, which in 1878 had increased to 414, and in 1885 to 447ò II. BALDWIN OF THE LINDEN, LEIPZIG In 1776‑February 7‑several Masons, among them some of the Minerva members, founded a Lodge Baldwin under the Zinnendorff Rite. The Lodge was constituted on February 23 by Duke Ernest of Saxe‑Gotha‑Altenburg, Grand FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 145 Master of the National Grand Lodge of Berlin. It suspended work July z4, 1781, but resumed on March 13, 1783, under the title of the Linden (lime‑tree). In 1807‑November 7‑this Lodge threw off its allegiance and declared itself independent.

 

Beckmann, the English Provincial Grand Master for Hamburg, granted it a new Constitution‑January 14, i 8ocg‑as an independent Lodge under the title Baldwin of the Linden. The Lodge adopted the Schroeder Ritual and new Constitutions‑which were revised in 18 3 3 and 18 5 4.

 

The Lodge joined the Grand Lodge of Saxony in 1815, but retired once more in 18 z4, after which date it maintained its independence. Its members numbered in 1864, 3 Oz ; in 1878, 424 ; and in 1885, 509. The strength of the Leipzig Lodges was remarkable. There were but three in the city : Minerva, independent, with 447 members; Baldwin, independent, with 509; and Apollo‑under the Grand Lodge of Saxony‑with 3 84.

 

III. ARCHIMEDES OF THE THREE TRACING‑BOARDS IN ALTENBURG In 1741 several Altenburg Masons applied to H. W. von Marschall, Provincial Grand Master for Upper Saxony, for permission to erect a Lodge. Marschall granted the prayer and forwarded a copy of the English Ritual, but advised them to apply elsewhere for a Warrant. The Brethren turned to the Minerva Lodge at Leipsic and were constituted by a Deputation from that body, January 31, 1742. From the very first, Lodge Archimedes conducted its proceedings in the vernacular idiom and was probably the earliest German Lodge that ever did so ; in 1743 it published the first German Masonic song book. In 1751 Prince Louis Ernest of Saxe‑Gotha‑Altenburg was Master of the Lodge and he procured from the Three Globes a Warrant for a Scots Chapter, which, however, died out almost immediately afterwards. The Altenburg Fraternity, which always adopted innovations with reluctance, worked pure English Masonry until 1775. As seen already, on June 30 of that year, Duke Ernest II of Saxe‑Gotha‑Altenburg was elected Grand Master of Zinnendorff's Grand Lodge; and Archimedes naturally joined the National Grand Lodge and accepted the Swedish Rite. Although the Duke resigned in disgust the following year, the Lodge did not reassert its independence until 1785 and, subsequently to that date, continued to use the Ritual, to which it had become accustomed in the preceding ten years, even keeping up the practice after joining the Eclectic Union in 1788.

 

It seceded from the Eclectic Union, in anticipation of the threatening political troubles, in 1793 ; the same reasons induced it to suspend its meetings on January 9, 1795, after having declared its officers " permanent " during the interim. In 1796 it reopened. At the beginning of the nineteenth century it rejected the Zinnendorff Ritual and accepted as a temporary measure that of the Eclectic Union. Pierer received orders to compile a new one and, after carefully comparing the Rituals of England, Scotland, Ireland, the Royal York and Hamburg, his version F. IV‑I0 146 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE was accepted in 1803. In the same year Schneider published the Constitutions of the Lodge, a work even now much sought after for its valuable contributions to Masonic archxology, which show a wonderful power of just criticism considering the time at which they appeared. From this epoch may be dated the rise of the brilliant Altenburg school of Masonic historians and students, to whose labours all are much indebted. No fewer than three Masonic journals owe their birth to this school‑the Journal fur Freimaurer, the Zeitschrift fur Freiliaaurerei and the Ziegeldecker‑which in later years became the Bruderbldtter. The last‑named publication continued to appear until 1854. Fallou, whose work has been alluded to so often, was a member of the Lodge.

 

In 1803‑December 18‑the Lodge opened a branch at Gera, but this was afterwards constituted by it an independent Lodge, October 25, 1804. The Altenburg Lodge divided into two in 1803 and erected a Directoral Lodge to govern the Lodge at Gera and the two new divisions at Altenburg ; but the whole arrangement was abrogated in 1805, when the old position was resumed.

 

In I8og the Lodge established a branch in Schneeberg, but this joined the Grand Lodge of Saxony in 1812.

 

In the election of its officers, etc., this Lodge followed the English plan ; but it possessed a sort of permanent committee to sift matters before they came before the Lodge, consisting of the Master and Deputy Master, the Wardens, all Past Masters and Wardens. Its library contained over 700 valuable works. In 1823 it opened a savings' bank, largely used by the surrounding population. In 1861 its members numbered zio ; in 1878, over z5o ; and in 1885, z71.

 

IV. ARCHIMEDES OF ETERNAL UNION AT GERA On January 16, 1803, several resident Masons formed a Masonic club in Gera (the capital of the principality of Reuss the Younger, one of the pigmy independent states of Germany) and, at the close of the same year‑December 18‑this club was declared a branch establishment or Deputation Lodge of Archimedes at Altenburg, under the name Archimedes of Eternal Union. That is, it could only act under the directions of its parent and in its name, much as an agent acts for his principal. This state of tutelage proving inconvenient, the Lodge petitioned for independence and, in the result, was reconstituted by Lodge Archimedes (of Altenburg), October 25, 1804. The German Grand Lodges, however, refusing to acknowledge the right of one Lodge to constitute another and declaring the Lodge at Gera to be clandestine, the subject of this sketch at last petitioned Schroeder in Hamburg to grant it an English Charter. This was issued April 30, 18o6. It then accepted and worked the Schroeder or Hamburg Ritual. Gera was not in the jurisdiction of Hamburg; but Grand Master Beckmann granted the Warrant by virtue of his right to do so outside his district in states where no Grand Lodge existed. (G. W. Speth gave the Warrant at length in The Freemason of May 16, 1885.) At Gera and Hamburg the Lodge was considered as directly dependent a FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 147 on London, whilst by the English authorities it seems to have been regarded as subject to Hamburg. This may account for the fact, that it only received an English number (669) in 1815, five years after the Provincial Grand Lodge for Hamburg had ceased to exist. Virtually, however, Archimedes retained its independence. The princes of Reuss were members and patrons of this Lodge. Speth (in Royal Freemasons) gives as such Henry LIV of Reuss‑Lobenstein (i 81o), Henry LXXII of Reuss‑Ebersdorff and Lobenstein (1827), Henry LXXVI of Reuss‑Lobenstein F (1852) and Henry LXVII of Reuss‑Schleiz (1852). In 1862 the membership of this Lodge was 121 ; in 1885, 187.

 

V. KARL OF THE WREATH OF RUE, HILDBURGSHAUSEN Hildburgshausen is a town in the small Duchy of Saxe‑Meiningen. According to the Handbucb, a Lodge, Ernestus, was warranted here by England in 175 5, which only lived a few years. No trace of it is to be found in the English Lodge lists. In 1787 a second Lodge was warranted‑also from London, which was continued in the English Lists till the Union; this was the Lodge Charles of the Ruewreath, but the Lodge lists call it Lodge of St. Charles, No. 495. The Wreath of Rue is part of the armorial bearings of the Dukes of Mecklenburg. It worked independently under the immediate protection of its princes and the number of its members in 18 8 5 was 5 4.

 

k P In 1883‑October 14‑the five Independent Lodges entered into a Treaty of Alliance and Bond of Union.

 

y EXTINCT GRAND LODGES I. HANOVER Of all the extinct Grand Lodges of Germany this is, by far, the most important and, naturally, of most interest to English readers.

 

On July 26, 1743, Provincial Grand Master Luttmann, of Hamburg, deputed Simon as Provincial Grand Master for Hanover, but no sign exists that he ever displayed any activity in that office. There was, indeed, inanition, almost complete, between 1743 and 1746, explained by Findel as due to an inquiry instituted by the ecclesiastical court of Hanover against the theologian Kirchmann, who had been initiated in Harburg. The court forbade all clergymen to belong to any Fraternity whatever.

 

On January i g, 1744, Lieutenant, afterwards Captain, of Horse Grenadiers, Mehmet von Konigstreu was initiated in Lodge Absalom at Hamburg. His father, Mahomet, had been taken prisoner of war as a child in Candia during the Venetian Wars. Prince Maximilian of Hanover brought him home and had him baptized Louis Max. Mehmet. He was subsequently ennobled, appointed Gentleman of the Bedchamber to King George and died at Kensington Palace, 1726. In 1746‑ 148 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE January 2i‑he obtained a Warrant from Luttmann and, on the 29th, founded the Lodge Frederick in Hanover, so called in honour of Frederick, Prince of Wales. In 1753‑June 27‑Hinuber was elected Master and, in 175 5, in consequence of a slight difference of opinion with Hamburg and of discovering that the Lodge had not been registered in England, he made use of his business relations with England to ascertain if there was any chance of obtaining a Provincial Warrant for Hanover. Being assured that if the Lodge would indicate some special Brother, a patent would be forthcoming, the Lodge elected Hinuber as Provincial Grand Master‑June 25 ‑and‑November z8‑he was appointed Provincial Grand Master of all His Majesty's German dominions, " with a power [in the Province] to choose his successors " (Constitutions, 1756, p. 333). The Grand Lodge Frederick in Hanover was registered as No. zo8, became No. 122 in 1792, and was " dropped out " at the Union (1813).

 

There sprang up in Austria and Germany a system of Deputy Lodges, one of which‑The Three Hearts‑was formed in connexion with the Lodge Frederick at Hanover (see Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, v. 15). Deputy Lodges were of two kinds, viz. those meeting on single occasions for specified purposes away from the accustomed meeting‑places, held at The Hague and at Hamburg, for the initiation respectively of the Duke of Lorraine and of Frederick, Crown Prince of Prussia; and those of a more permanent character, where the Lodge empowered some of its members residing at a place distant from the regular meeting‑place to assemble, appointing, for that purpose, a Deputy Master, who was authorized to initiate candidates and, generally, to transact Masonic business. All expenses attendant upon such meetings were borne by the parent, who also received, without deduction, the fees paid by the candidates, together with any other revenue.

 

In 1754 John Frederick Raban de Sporcke, attached to the Danish Court and a member of Lodge Frederick, went on a short visit to Vienna, where he met some members of the Craft and others, who desired to be initiated. Knowing that, in 1747, permission had been granted for Deputy Lodges elsewhere‑one especially at G6ttingen (named Augusta), dissolved in 1753‑he sought and obtained permission to hold one at Vienna, on condition that the Lodge should be closed when he left the city. He was, of course, appointed Master. The furniture and all requisites were sent to Vienna from the Lodge Frederick. The patent was dated May 22, 1754 and the Lodge was bound to Anderson's New Book of Constitutions. This Deputy Lodge was opened on June zi following under the name of The Three Hearts. One of the candidates on June 28 is described as " Hobart, son of Lord Buckingham." From particulars given afterwards this was evidently George Hobart, eldest son of John, first Earl of Buckinghamshire, who succeeded as third Earl on August 3, 1793. He was M.P. for St. Ives in 1754 and for Beeralston in 1761, 1768 and 1774. He was for a time Opera Manager in London and, in 1762, was appointed Secretary to the Embassy in St. Petersburg (as it was then known), where his half brother, John, who became second Earl, was Ambassador. Hobart was raised to the dignity of a Master Mason on July i z of the same year. Overtures FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 149 were then made by the Lodge of The Three Cannons for an amalgamation, but this was not possible because of the condition that the Lodge must be under the control of de Sporcke. One interesting feature in connexion with this Lodge is that all the members adopted assumed names, such as Cleander, Liberty, Minerva, Galen, Nagel, Xerxes and the like. After the departure of de Sporcke for Hanover, notwithstanding the injunction, J. A. Hinuber became Master, rendering account of all transactions to Lodge Frederick at Hanover. This Deputy Lodge came to an end on July z1, ‑175 5.

 

On June z4, ‑1756, the Crand Lodge made a formal visitation to the Lodge Frederick and the next year‑January 3‑1‑Frederick accepted a Warrant of Confirmation from the new Grand Lodge of Hanover.

 

On the outbreak of war all Masonic meetings " with the enemies of their country " were avoided and this put a complete stop to Masonic work until 175 8. In 176o a Scots Lodge, Karl of the Purple Mantle and, in 1762, May 24, the Lodge George of Hanover, were founded.

 

In ‑1764 Hanover was formed by von Hund into the Prefectory Callenberg under the Strict Observance system, which, at first, was vigorously opposed by the Grand Lodge and its daughters, but gradually acquired preponderating influence. The last Craft meeting of the Lodge Frederick occurred January 1 z, ‑1765.

 

Schubart arrived in Hanover October 13, ‑1766 and commenced his propaganda on the 27th. Prince, afterwards Grand Duke, Karl of Mecklenberg‑Strelitz joined the Strict Observance in Celle and was appointed Protector of the district ; on November z 5 the Lodges George and Frederick dissolved in order to reconstitute themselves as the Strict Observance Lodge of the White Horse and thus the Grand Lodge of Hanover ceased to exist. As a consequence, in ‑1773 Hanover was made a neutral territory, open alike to the Grand Lodge of England and the National Grand Lodge of Prussia at Berlin.

 

Zinnendorff, who immediately invaded the district, met with remarkable success. In ‑1774 he established a Lodge of the Golden Compasses at Gottingen ; in the same year this Lodge warranted the Black Bear in Hanover and the Crocodile in Harburg, in ‑1775 a Lodge in Luneburg ; whilst, in ‑1777, the National Grand Lodge constituted the Cedar in Hanover, a Lodge in Stade and, in 1778, one in Hameln.

 

Meanwhile the Fraternity had found themselves disappointed in the Strict Observance and took no interest in Lodge matters, so much so that the White Horse did not meet between 1775 and 1778. The Protector, Grand Duke Karl, to remedy this state of affairs, ceased working the Strict Observance Rite, gradually altered the Ritual of the first three Degrees and, without formally renouncing the Templar connexion, practically revived the extinct Grand Lodge by converting the Scots Lodge Karl of the Purple Mantle into a Directoral Lodge over all Lodges of the Strict Observance in His Majesty's dominions in Brunswick, Luneberg and Hanover. After the Wilhelmsbad Convent of 1782 the Fraternity in these lands declined to accept the rectified system and calmly continued in their own 150 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE way. Some few of the Zinnendorff Lodges, more especially the Black Bear, at this time entered into more or less intimate relations with the Lodges under the Grand Duke, Governor of Hanover for George III.

 

In '1786 this Prince, being in England, procured, with Col. Graefe's assistance, the reinstatement of the Provincial Grand Lodge of the Electorate of Hanover and British Dominions in Germany (the patent granted to Prince Charles of Mecklen burg‑Strelitz bore date July 5,'1786‑Grand Lodge Records) together with a Warrant under the No. 486 for the former Zinnendorff Lodge of the Black Bear. The Lodge White Horse then prefixed its former name and became Frederick of the White Horse and, November z8, this Lodge and the Black Bear joined in re‑establishing the Provincial Grand Lodge. A Royal Arch Chapter was also added by Graefe, but was very short lived.

 

The district was, however, invaded in '1786 by the Eclectic Union at Hoya and, in 1792, by the National Grand Lodge of Germany at Osterode.

 

In 1796 new Statutes were enacted in consonance with the new arrangements, of which the chief fault was the non‑admission of Jewish candidates.

 

In 1791 the Provincial Grand Lodge constituted new Lodges in Munden and Einbeck. In '1799 Fessler visited Hanover and was enthusiastically received, as was Schroeder in '1 8oo. The immediate result of these visits was a closer bond of union between the Grand Lodge Royal York and the Provincial Grand Lodges for Hanover and Hamburg. But of still greater importance was the consequent adoption by Lodge Frederick‑August io, '18oi‑of the Schroeder Ritual, an example soon followed by the Provincial Grand Lodge and all its daughters. This opened the door to candidates of the Jewish persuasion.

 

A troublous time now awaited the Fraternity in Hanover : in 1803 the French troops entered into possession of the country and, in 18o6, were replaced by the Prussians. Meanwhile the Lodges only met when absolutely necessary, but it is worthy of note that they yet managed secretly to celebrate the birthday of King George. In 18o6 the Grand Lodge of the Three Globes constituted a Lodge at Osnabruck. In x807 the Lodges summoned courage to resume work; in i 8o8 new Statutes were promulgated; in '1 8og the Provincial Grand Lodge warranted a Lodge in Liineburg and that of the Three Globes another in Goslar ; and in 18 '1 o Hanover became an integral part of the short‑lived kingdom of Westphalia. The Grand Lodge of that kingdom was, however, so tolerant that the Lodges were not compelled to give in their adhesion and, although some few Hanoverian Lodges joined it, the Provincial Grand Lodge retained its separate existence, as did most of its daughters.

 

In 1813‑November 3 o‑Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, fifth son of George III, visited the Lodge Frederick of the White Horse and, at the ensuing banquet, prayed admission as an active member. It is needless to say that the request was joyfully granted. The events Of 1814‑15 raised the Electorate of Hanover to the rank of a kingdom, besides considerably enlarging its boundaries. In 1815 the Provincial Grand Lodge constituted a Lodge in Nienburg and affiliated FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 151 the one warranted in Celle by Hamburg in the previous year. It also received the adhesion of a Lodge in Gottingen which had been erected by the Grand Lodge of Westphalia and several of its daughters who had joined that body now returned to the national fold.

 

Karl, Grand Duke of Mecklenburg, died November 6, 18 16 and was succeeded as Provincial Grand Master by Count L. F. von Kilmansegge, whose appointment is first noticed in the Freemasons' Calendar for 1822. In the same publication Lodge Frederick of the White Horse reappears as No. 146* and eleven other German Lodges‑Nos. 734, Frankfort; 735, Nuremberg; 736‑44, Hanoverare added to the roll, all under the year 1821. Gradually, however, a feeling arose that the Grand Lodge should declare its independence. In consequenceNovember 1, 1828‑the Duke of Cumberland proclaimed the autonomy of the Grand Lodge of the Kingdom of Hanover and was himself elected its first Grand Master.

 

The year 1828 saw the accession of the Lodge at Hildesheim, Door to Virtue, No. 312, warranted by England, December 27, 176z; and new Lodges were constituted at Stade 1845, at Kassel 1849 and at Klauenthal 1851. New Statutes had been passed January 22, 1839.

 

At the death of William IV in 1837, Hanover became an independent kingdom and the Duke of Cumberland, Grand Master, succeeded to the vacant throne. He died in 1851 and was followed by his son, George V. In 1852‑March i9 although not a Mason, George V assumed the patronage of the Craft and, in 1857, caused himself to be initiated in the Black Bear, as the representative of all the other Lodges in the kingdom, becoming thereby an active member of each one of them.

 

Von Hattorf had been elected Grand Master in 1851 and, at his death, July z9, 18 5 4, was succeeded by Count Bentinck, February i, 18 5 5. In 18 5 7, however, the King expressed his intention of assuming the Grand Mastership upon the condition that the Hanoverian Lodges under foreign jurisdictions should join the i Grand Lodge of Hanover and that the Statutes should be so altered as to exclude Jews from initiation. The latter condition was sorrowfully complied with; the former was only opposed by the Zinnendorff Lodge erected at Stade in 1777, which preferred dissolution.

 

In the following years new Lodges were constituted‑‑i 8 5 7, at Verden ; 18 5 8, Harburg ; 1859, Leer ; 186o, Ulzen. In 1861 the number of Lodges was 22, with 2,187 members. The last Lodge was warranted in 1863 at Hameln.

 

In the Austro‑Prussian conflict of 1866 Hanover unfortunately espoused the losing side and suffered by annexation to Prussia. Now, inasmuch as the edict of 1798 only acknowledges three Grand Lodges in Prussia and no other Lodges but those dependent upon these three, extinction stared the Grand Lodge of Hanover in the face. Nevertheless had it at once applied for permission to rank as a fourth Grand Lodge and, had the Grand Master himself resigned, there is reason to believe that the prayer might have been granted. Hamburg and Frankfort are now Prussian, but the edict of 1798 was not enforced in their case in 1870. But resignation 152 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE formed no part of the late King's intentions ; there is every cause to conjecture that, on the contrary, the position of Grand Master entered into his political calculations.

 

The Deputy Grand Master Krtiger endeavoured to get Hanover constituted a fourth Grand Lodge. King George thereupon tried to impeach him in Grand Lodge‑by which body resolutions were passed‑December 8‑approving the step taken by the Deputy, but setting a limit to his future activity. Kruger resigned, as did his successor, Bodeker. The King then appointed Bokelberg. On April 17, 1867, the Grand Lodge resolved to petition the King to retire, upon which his agent, the Deputy Grand Master Bokelberg, resigned. The Grand Lodge then took matters into its own hands, and‑June 6‑17 Lodges elected Kruger Grand Master. But it was too late. On September 30 the Minister of Justice and of the Interior closed the Grand Lodge of Hanover by virtue of the edict Of 1798 and nothing remained for the subordinate Lodges but to choose their new superiors. Velzen, Goslar and Osnabruck joined the Three Globes; Btickeburg, the Grand Lodge of Hamburg; Walsrode dissolved; Cedar, in Hanover, joined the National Grand Lodge; the other 17 Lodges affiliated with the Grand Lodge Royal York and were of material weight in carrying the more liberal Constitutions of that Grand Lodge in 1872.

 

II. MOTHER‑LODGE OF SILESIA IN GLOGAU This was a Grand Lodge under the Strict Observance. On May 20, 1765, von Hund constituted a Mother‑Lodge at Nistiz, with the name of Celestial Sphere of Gold. It was removed in 1772 to Gross‑Osten and warranted in 1772 a Lodge at Glogau. In 1779 the Mother‑Lodge removed to Glogau as the Grand Lodge of Silesia. It constituted some other Lodges, but both the Grand Lodge and its daughters closed on June 24, 1794, after the downfall of the Strict Observance and the death of Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick.

 

III. MOTHER‑LODGE FOR THE PROVINCES OF EAST AND WEST PRUSSIA AND LITHUANIA AT KONIGSBERG This also was a Strict Observance Grand Lodge. The oldest Lodge in Konigsberg, the Three Anchors, was constituted September 1 z, 1746, dissolved in 176o and immediately reconstituted by the Three Globes, June io, 176o, as the Three Crowns. In 1769 it joined the Strict Observance and was raised to the rank of a Provincial Grand Lodge, as above, in which capacity it warranted several Lodges. In consequence of the Prussian Edict of 1798 recognizing only three Grand Lodges in that kingdom, it subsided into its former position of a daughter Lodge of the Three Globes in 1799. The Lodge is still active. In 1863 it numbered z6z ; in 1885, 312; and to‑day (1930), 459 members.

 

FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 153 IV. GRAND LODGE OF THE THREE KEYS AT RATISBON This was in its time an important Grand Lodge, remarkable for having successfully resisted the blandishments of the Strict Observance. Its influence extended over a very large circle. In 1765 a Prince of Thurn and Taxis founded in Ratisbon a Lodge St. Charles of Constancy, which he himself dissolved in 1774. But, during those nine years, it had given birth to a second Lodge, Crescent of the Three Keys, constituted May 1, 1767. The Master of that Lodge, Schkler, who had been initiated in Amsterdam, obtained‑July I, 1768‑from Grand Master Von Botzelaar of the Netherlands, a Warrant of Constitution and immediately assumed for the Lodge the prerogatives of a Grand Lodge. It worked the Degrees of the Craft, with those of a Scots Lodge superadded, in 1770 ; the latter were, however, suppressed in 1784, so that‑considering the times‑the Lodge kept itself remarkably pure. In 1771 it warranted its first daughter, Hope, in Vienna and, during the next twenty years, Lodges in Marktseft on the Main, Munich, Passau, Ulm, Baitsch, Neusohl in Hungary, Hermannstadt in Siebenburgen, (a second) in Vienna, Gorlitz, Dresden and Hanover‑in all twelve. Schkler was Grand Master from 1771 to 1777, when he resigned; and the second Grand Master, the Prince of Thurn and Taxis, was elected in 1799. It is probable that this long interregnum was due to the ravages committed in every direction by the Strict Observance. From 1793 to 1799 the Lodge was perfectly dormant, owing to the disturbing effects of the Revolution. But it resumed activity with the new Grand Master, who, June 6, 18o6, obtained a patent from England. In this he is styled " Provincial Grand Master for Bavaria," an excusable error, Ratisbon being one of the recent acquisitions of that State; and it is indeed surprising that the Grand Lodge did not take the place now occupied by the Sun of Bayreuth. The Lodge also changed its name to Karl of the Three Keys and constituted several Lodges, for instance, Leipzig and Heidelberg. In the first decade of last century the Grand Lodge had lost all her daughters through death or desertion, but was itself strong and much respected throughout the Continent; with Sweden especially it stood on the most intimate terms from 18oi to 1823. It gradually fell into decay, but once more, about i83o, flickered up under Von Stachelhausen. On his departure from Ratisbon the Lodge died out altogether, circa 1840. A detailed account of this Lodge will be found in Latomia, vol. xxii, 1863, pp. 322‑30 V. ENGLISH PROVINCIAL GRAND LODGE FOR BRUNSWICK AT BRUNSWICK This Grand Lodge can hardly be said to have existed, but its short history exemplifies the unsettled state of the Craft at this period. In 1744‑February 12the Lodge Jonathan was founded and opened by the Grand Lodge of Hamburg; and, on December 27, its founder, Kissleben, was appointed Permanent Deputy Grand Master. In 1762 the Lodge superadded the Rosa‑Clermont Chapter; and, in 1764, the blaster, Von Lestwitz, was appointed by England Provincial Grand Master for Brunswick (Constitutions, 1767, p. 365 ; Preston, 1812, p. 261). But 154 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE whilst the Warrant was on the road, Lestwitz and the Lodge had both deserted to the Strict Observance, so that the Provincial Grand Lodge was never erected. A minority of the Lodge, however, continued the old Lodge Jonathan; and, in the same year, Le Boeuf, in his quality of a Scots Master, established a French Lodge. These three quarrelled, so that the Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick closed them all and founded two new ones, one working in French as a Mother‑Lodge, St. Charles of Concord and a German Lodge Jonathan. This he did by virtue of a Provincial patent granted to him by England, July 5, ‑1768. The Lodges were constituted on October Io and I I, ‑1770. But before the end of the year Ferdinand had signed the Act of Strict Observance and that was the end of the second Provincial Grand Lodge of Brunswick. St. Charles of Concord was granted a place in the English registry as No. 400 in 1770 and continued on the roll until 1813 (as No. 259)‑one of many proofs that the Grand Lodge of England knew little and cared less concerning foreign affairs.

 

VI. BODE'S UNION OF GERMAN FREEMASONS In 1788‑March i‑the Directoral Lodge of the Eclectic Union at Frankfort resumed its former position as a Provincial Grand Lodge under England. This seems to have given umbrage to the Compass Lodge in Gotha, who feared or pretended to fear, that the perfect equality among the Eclectic Lodges would be violated. Their chief adviser was Bode. As he was a convert to the Illuminati and Frankfort had declared itself adverse to that sect, this circumstance may have also contributed to the ensuing events. Certain it is that the Gotha Lodge issued a circular to all German Lodges‑November 24, 1790‑signed by nine Masters " acting under the advice of a highly instructed Mason " (Bode) calling upon all Lodges to aid in forming a general Union of German Lodges on the real Eclectic principles. The Gotha Lodge was erased and that of the Three Arrows at Nurerr_berg took its part so warmly as to provoke a like result. These were the only two Eclectic Lodges that joined Bode's Union, which in all never numbered more than ten Lodges. Bode died in 1793 and, with him, the projected union and Grand Lodge after a precarious existence of three years. The movement is of interest, as the last effort of a man who was made a Hamburg Mason in 1761, dubbed a Templar Knight in 1764, who, in 1782, first took up the idea that the Jesuits were at the bottom of all the High Degrees and finished by joining the Illuminati.

 

VII. GRAND ORIENT OF BADEN AT MANNHEIM In 1778 Mannheim belonged to Bavaria and the Lodge Karl of Unity was constituted in that city‑November 28‑by the Grand Lodge Royal York. In 1783 it joined the Eclectic Union and, in 1785, was closed together with all other Bavarian Lodges. In 1803 Mannheim was made over to the Grand Duchy of Baden and, in 1805, the Lodge reopened under Karl von Dalberg. In 1806 it received a Warrant from the Grand Orient of France, accepted the modern French Rite and FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 155 changed its name to Charles of Concord. Its Chapter then declared itself a Grand Orient for the Duchy of Baden and was acknowledged as such by France on June 25, 1807.

 

In I 8o8 it was joined by the Lodge Karl of Good Hope, Heidelberg, warranted in 1807 by the Grand Lodge of Ratisbon‑which it deserted, but rejoined, in the same year. In 18ocg it constituted the Lodges Temple of Patriotic Light at Bruchsal and Karl and Stephanie at Mannheim; so that in all the Grand Orient extended its jurisdiction over three Lodges. Its Grand Master was Karl, Prince of Ysenburg. The Grand Duke, Karl Friedrich, being dead, his successor, Karl Ludwig Friedrich, issued‑February 16, 18 13 and March 7, 1814‑decrees suppressing secret societies and, with them, Freemasonry throughout his dominions. All Lodges in Baden then closed and the Craft was not allowed to reassert itself until 1845 ; but there is no longer a Grand Lodge for Baden.

 

VIII. GRAND NATIONAL UNION OF BADEN LODGES AT CARLSRUHE This Union was contemporary with the foregoing. The Karl of Unity at Carlsruhe was warranted by the Eclectic Union in 1786, closed during the Revolution from 1791 onwards and reopened in 1808. The Lodge Noble Prospect at Freiburg was warranted by the Provincial Grand Lodge for Austria at Vienna in 1784, joined the Eclectic Union in ‑1785 and was also dormant from 1793 to 1808. The Karl of Good Hope at Heidelberg was warranted by Ratisbon in 1807, joined the Grand Orient of Baden 1808 and rejoined Ratisbon the same year.

 

These three Lodges‑May 23, ‑18og‑erected the Grand National Union of Lodges, to be governed, not by a Grand, but by a Directoral Lodge, the Lodge exercising this function to change every three years. Lodges of each and every Ritual were eligible for the Union, except those working the French Modern Ritewhich was ceded to the Grand Orient of Baden. These two Grand Bodies subsisted side by side in perfect amity. The Heidelberg Lodge threw off a shoot in i 8og, which was constituted by the Eclectic Union and joined the Baden Union without apparently deserting Frankfort. In like manner the original Heidelberg Lodge appears to have belonged to the Ratisbon Grand Lodge and the Baden Union. In 18og the Bruchsal Lodge also joined it without deserting its Grand Orient and there is a further though somewhat undefined allusion to a Minerva Lodge at Mannheim. Its Grand Masters were successively K. F. Schilling von Canstadt and Hemeling. The Directory remained at Carlsruhe until July I, i8‑12, when it was removed to Freiburg, but in 1813‑14 the same fate of course overtook this Union, which crushed the Grand Orient of Baden.

 

IX. GRAND ORIENT OF WESTPHALIA IN CASSEL An English Provincial Grand Master; described in the Constitutions (1767, p. 365) as George Augustus, Baron of Hammerstein, was appointed by Earl Ferrers ‑1762‑4‑for Westphalia, but he does not appear to have exerted himself to any purpose, for nothing more is known of him.

 

156 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE In the electorate of Hesse‑Cassel the first Lodge was constituted at Marburg in 1743 and others soon followed. The Strict Observance in due course swamped the Craft and, on its subsidence, the preponderating influence was that of the Grand Lodge Royal York. In 1794, however, the Elector suppressed all the Lodges in his dominions. In 1807 the Electorate and the city of Cassel became the centre of Napoleon's kingdom of Westphalia, at the head of which he placed his brother Jerome.

 

The first Lodge to revive, Frederick of Friendship, took the name of Jerome Napoleon of Fidelity and, in order to avoid falling under a French jurisdiction, erected a Grand Orient of the Kingdom of Westphalia, February io, i8o8. This was done at the instigation of Count Simeon, Jerome's chief minister, himself an assistant Grand Master of the Grand Orient of France. The king was Grand Master and Simeon his Deputy; but all the other officers were Germans. The utmost toleration prevailed and Lodges under other jurisdictions were not compelled to affiliate; any Ritual was permitted and Lodges enjoyed complete freedom from interference in their private affairs. Three new Lodges appear to have been constituted in Cassel (18o8‑13), and the following joined :‑Miinden, Alfeld, Hildesheim, Einbeck, Goslar, Osterode, Heiligenstadt, Eschwege, Gottingen, Nordhausen, Celle, Marburg, Hanover (a new French one), Helmstedt, Magdeburg, etc. In 1813 the kingdom of Westphalia disappeared and with it the Grand Orient.

 

X. GRAND LODGE OF HESSE‑CASSEL INT CASSEL The Elector having been restored, the old edict Of 1794 suppressing the Craft was revived. Von Bardeleben succeeded in obtaining a repeal of this obnoxious decree, but only on the condition that the Lodges would submit to the Grand Lodge Royal York, under an intermediate Provincial Grand Lodge for the Electorate, with Bardeleben as the Provincial Grand Master. Accordingly two Lodges at Cassel and one at Eschwege constituted‑May z6, 18I4‑the Provincial Grand Lodge desired by the Elector and placed themselves under the Royal York of Berlin. In 1817, however, this Provincial Grand Lodge declared its independence under the title of Mother Grand Lodge of the Electorate of Hesse and the Elector William II on his accession, promised it his protection. Besides the three already mentioned, the following at Marburg, Rinteln, Hanau, Ziegenhain, Hersfeld, Neutershausen ; in all, nine Lodges formed part of this jurisdiction. But, on July icy, 18z4, an edict of the Elector once more suppressed and interdicted the Lodges and, in spite of all petitions to the contrary, they remained forbidden and closed until the events of 1866 caused the Electorate to be incorporated with Prussia.

 

OTHER MASONIC UNIONS NOT CLASSED AS GRAND LODGES I, GRAND UNION OF FREEMASONS (FESSLER'S) It will be remembered that in 1799 and 18oo both Fessler and Schroeder visited Hanover and, about the same time, these two ardent reformers made each other's acquaintance. Early in 18oi Fessler attempted to strengthen the hands of FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 157 the leading supporters of pure Freemasonry by drawing closer the bonds of union between the Provincial Grand Lodges for Hamburg and Hanover and the Grand Lodge Royal York of Berlin. On August 20, 18oi, a tripartite treaty was concluded between these bodies, entitled Magnum Foedus Latomorum, providing for mutual representation, communication of all Minutes and for a select circle in each Grand Lodge for the free imparting to one another of all ritualistic and historic knowledge. Resolutions were adopted against the use of any of the old‑fashioned High Degrees and provision was made for the admission to the Union of other Grand Lodges. Frankfort was invited to join the Union. But at this time the Provincial Grand Lodge was dormant and wished to refer the matter to England before deciding. Deceived by this condition of affairs, the Royal York warranted a Lodge‑Socrates‑in Frankfort, December 4, 18oi and to the friction to which this gave rise, the absence of a reply from London and the renewed dormancy of the Provincial Grand Lodge for Frankfort in 1803‑5, must be ascribed the failure on the latter's part to affiliate with the Union. Following this came the French occupation of Berlin and Hanover, thus the Union gradually lost its hold on the Lodges and is now confined to a mutual representation in Grand Lodge, which, however, has extended to all the other Grand Lodges of Germany.

 

II. THE CORRESPONDENCE BUREAU In most German Lodges two secretaries divide the work between them, one attending to the Minutes and records, the other conducting the correspondence, both with members and with the Lodges in fraternal alliance. It is usual for the latter to forward, in the summer, to every member and allied Lodge a so‑called St. John's letter, detailing the events of the past twelve months, giving a list of present members. In some cases allied Lodges undertake a regular exchange of their respective Minutes. As the parties to these arrangements increased in number, the work became more onerous and Dr. Lechner of the Baldwin Lodge, Leipzig, formed a plan to facilitate matters, which was communicated to the Lodges by circular in 1831. According to this scheme the Baldwin Lodge was to act as a central point under a special officer charged to receive proceedings from all quarters, and to distribute them to all corresponding members. Forty‑two Lodges joined the Association at the outset.

 

III. UNION OF THE THREE GRAND LODGES OF BERLIN A Union, composed of the Grand and Deputy Grand Masters of these three Grand Lodges, was founded in i 8 io to deliberate on matters of common interest. It had been preceded by a joint monthly committee meeting, established in 1807. Unfortunately in 1823 the Grand Lodge of Hamburg and the National Grand Lodge quarrelled about the Lodge at Rostock. Hamburg brought its case before the Union through the good offices of the Grand Lodge Royal York. This produced very strained relations and the Union‑by common consent‑quietly came to an end.

 

FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 159 VI. GERMAN GRAND LODGES' UNION This Union worked to great advantage for the Craft and, in the absence of an impossible General Grand Lodge, served to maintain a close bond between every system in the Fatherland and to preserve or inaugurate a common line of conduct in external affairs.

 

VII. UNION OF GERMAN FREEMASONS This was a purely deliberative and literary society, composed of individual Masons meeting yearly at various cities. It was founded in 1861 and at first met with strenuous opposition from some of the Grand Lodges, so that in .1867 it only numbered 309 members. It has, however, formed a valuable library and museum at Leipzig and its official organ is the Leipzig Bauhiitte. Its influence has grown yearly and, in .1878, it numbered I,5o9 active and 31 corresponding, members.

 

Although the exigencies of space forbid more than a passing allusion to many subjects of deep interest to our antiquaries, but lying on the extreme border line of history, there is one upon which‑at this stage of our inquiry‑some general observations will not be out of place.

 

Germany (including Austria and Switzerland) excels all other countries, both in the affluence of its Masonic literature and in the profundity of research which has characterized the labours of so many gifted historians of the Craft. The earliest efforts of German Masonic writers‑translations of the English Constitutions, orations and didactic pieces‑evince both diligence and accuracy. Thence, by a gradual transition‑the publication of the Constitutions of many other Grand (and private) Lodges, of songs and poems remarkable for beauty of thought and diction‑we are brought to a higher sphere of intellectual labour and find in the literature of the Craft, the noblest moral teaching, accompanied by very learned and ingenious reflections on both the origin and objects of our Society.

 

Lessing‑" the father of German criticism "‑known to Masonic readers by his Ernest and Falk, 1778 and Nathan the Wlise, 1779‑a noble plea for toleration and a rational religion‑was followed by Vogel, Letters on Freemasonry, 1783‑5 ; Albrecht, Materials for a Critical History, 1792 ; Schroeder, Materials for the En gbund, 18oz ; Schneider, Constitutions of Archimedes, etc., 1803 ; Fessler, Attempts at a Critical History, etc., I8oI‑7 ; Krause, The Three Oldest Masonic Documents, 18Io ; Mossdorf, Addresses to Thoughtful Masons, 1818 ; Heldmann, The Three Oldest Historical Documents of German Masonry, 1819 ; Nettlebladt, History of Masonic Systems, circa 1836 ; O'Etzel, History of the Three Globes, 1840 ; Kloss, Annals of the Eclectic Union, I 84z‑Freemasonry in its True Significance, 1846‑Freemasonry in Great Britain, 1848‑and in France, 185z ; Fallou, The Mysteries of Freemasonry, 1848 ; Winzer, The German Brotherhoods, 1859 ; Keller, History of the Eclectic Union, 1857Of Masonry in Germany, 1859; Findel, History of Freemasonry, I 861‑z ; and Paul, 16o FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE History of the Eclectic Union, 1883. The list might be extended and both Herder and Goethe are to be classed among " writers of the Craft." German periodical literature devoted to the Craft began in 1776‑9 with Bode's Almanach, subsequently there appeared (inter alia) the Freemasons' Library, 17781803 ; Vienna Journal for Masons, 1784‑6 ; Kothener Annual, 1798‑1805 ; Meissner's Pocket‑Book, 1801‑17 ; Altenburg Journal, 1804, continued as Fisher's Zeitschrift and Neueste Zeitschrift ; Nettlebladt's Calendars for the Provincial Grand Lodge of Mecklenburg," 1821‑46; but above all, the matchless Latomia, commenced by Meissner and Merzdorf in 1842, continued to 1873. The most prominent Masonic journal in Germany at the present date is the Bauhiitte, begun in 1858. Works of especial merit are Gidicke's Lexicon, 1818 but chiefly on account of its being the first of its kind; Kloss's Bibliography, 1844, a monument of research; and the Handbook 1863‑79‑or the second edition of Lenning's Encyclopadia, edited by Mossdorf in 1822‑8. No other Masonic work of a similar character can pretend to rival the Handbuch der Freimaurerei in the extent, variety and accuracy of its information.

 

In 1931 there were in Germany nine Grand Lodges : i. The Sun at Bayreuth, with 45 Lodges and 4,ooo Brethren, Hermann Kolbein, Grand Master. 2. The Grand National Mother‑Lodge at Berlin, 179 Lodges, 21,3oo Brethren, Dr. Karl Habicht, Grand Master. 3. The Grand Landesloge of Germany in Berlin, with 54 St. Andrew's and 177 St. John's Lodges, zi,oo5 Brethren, Dr. Eugen Miillendorff, Grand Master. 4. The Grand Lodge of Prussia in Berlin, io8 Lodges, 11,422 Brethren, Dr. Otto Zimmer, Grand Master. 5. The Grand Lodge Zur Eintracht in Darmstadt, io Lodges, 896 Brethren, Karl Kahlert, Grand Master. 6. Grand Lodge of Saxony in Dresden, 45 Lodges, 7,344 Brethren, Gotthold Anders, Grand Master. 7. Grand Mother‑Lodge of the Eclectic Union at Frankfort, 26 Lodges, 3,2oo Brethren, Ludwig Riess, Grand Master. 8. Grand Lodge of Hamburg, 54 Lodges, 5,ooo Brethren, Richard Brose, Grand Master. 9. Grand Lodge of German Brotherhood at Leipzig, io Lodges, 1,935 Brethren, Paul Mensdorf, Grand Master.

 

A further Grand Lodge‑the Symbolic Grand Lodge of Germany‑was founded at Hamburg, on July 27, 1930, by eight Lodges. This Grand Lodge was brought into being by the Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Rite. It claims to have been founded in accordance with the basic principles laid down by the Grand Lodge of England.

 

In 1932, the Hitler government suppressed all Masonic activity in Germany, and all Lodges and Grand Lodges either ceased to exist or else divested themselves of Masonic characteristics and activity.

 

CHAPTER IV FREEMASONRY IN AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY [The leading authority on the history of the Craft in these countries is Dr. L. Lewis's Geschichte der Freimaurerei in Oesterreich, etc., Vienna, 1861, supplemented by references to Beigel's Verfassung der Provincial and Gr. Loge von Oesterreich, 1784, Vienna, 1877 ; the various articles in the Allge meine.r Handbuch ; but, particularly, the detailed articles in vols. iv to ix of the Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, in " A Sketch of the Earlier History of Freemasonry in Austria and Hungary," by Ladislas de Malczovitch.] HE history of Freemasonry in Austria‑its traces in the Austrian Netherlands have already been referred to in connexion with Belgium‑may be said to commence with the initiation of the Duke of Lorraine.

 

Francis Stephen was born at Nancy, December 8, 1708 and succeeded his father, Leopold Joseph Charles, as Duke of Lorraine on March z7, I709‑ In 1731 a special Lodge was held at the Hague under Dr. J. T. Desaguliers, as Master; John Stanhope and John Holzendorff, as Wardens; the Earl of Chesterfield, with others, in order to initiate and pass the Duke, who was afterwards made a Master Mason in England in the same year. On that occasion the Grand Master of England, Lord Lovel, afterwards Earl of Leicester, summoned an Emergency Lodge to be held at Houghton Hall, Norfolk, the country seat of Robert Walpole, Earl of Oxford, where the Duke was raised to the Master's Degree, together with Thomas Pelham, Duke of Newcastle. From that time the Duke of Lorraine took a very keen interest in Masonic matters and was always mentioned with distinction in Grand and private Lodges, an official toast even being drunk in his honour in the Austrian Lodges. In the year following his initiation, 1732, a Lodge was founded in London bearing his name, but it was not, as has sometimes been claimed, established by him. In 173 S he renounced Lorraine by the Treaty of Vienna and, in 1736, he married Maria Theresa, daughter and heiress of Charles V of Austria and, on the death of Gaston de Medicis, in 1737, he succeeded to the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, when he proclaimed himself the protector of the persecuted Freemasons, who had been arrested at the instigation of the Inquisition, which had been established in Tuscany as the outcome of the prohibition against Freemasonry issued by Gaston de Medicis shortly before his death. Francis would not permit the promulgation of Pope Clement's Bull of April z8, 1738, within the kingdom of Austria and he ordered that all Freemasons who had been arrested at the command of the Inquisition were to be set at liberty and their trials to be suspended.

 

Francis Stephen was the first prince of any European country to join the Masonic Order, but his example was quickly followed by a number of august 161 F.

 

161 FREEMASONRY IN AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY personages, who also emulated him in the powerful protection he gave to the Order against Roman and, especially, Jesuit attacks and intrigues. " It was not long before an opportunity for doing so arose," says Lad. de Malczovitch, " for no sooner had the Roman Catholic Church obtained knowledge of the existence of the new cosmopolitan Order, whose progressive and enlightened tendencies were somewhat opposed to its own, than it proclaimed a war of extermination against the Craft. Pulpit and confessional were the chief strongholds from which the combat was fought, yet unsuccessfully. Nay, just these attacks were of eminent service to the Order. The young sect was but strengthened by the wild primeval storms. The Roman Church had long ago lost its absolute influence on the mass of the educated classes. Since the Reformation it had, instead of setting itself at the head of and marching with the progress of civilization, combated continually the spirit of the age and every new and liberal idea which made its appearance on the stage of political and social life." On the death of her father, in 1740, Maria Theresa succeeded to the imperial diadem of Austria and appointed her husband as Regent. The Empress, personally, was not favourably disposed towards the Craft and her consort was able to secure for it only a certain amount of tolerance in the long run, being powerless to prevent occasional outbursts of persecution. In those early days Freemasons existed in the Austrian dominions in considerable numbers, but, as yet, there was no Lodge, which may also account, in part, for the fact of the non‑publication of the Papal Bull in 1738.

 

In 1742, on September 17, the first Vienna Lodge of the Three Firing Glasses was constituted by the Lodge of the Three Skeletons of Breslau, its name afterwards being changed to the " Three Cannons." Its first Master was that curious char acter, Albrecht Josef Count de Hodiz, who, in the earlier part of the year, had ruled over the Lodge of the Three Skeletons, which he had joined in 1741 and permitted its meetings to be held in his palace. The Minutes of this first meeting, which are reproduced by Lad. de Malczovitch, are as follows Vienne ce 17 7‑bre, 174z.

 

La Tres‑Venerable Societe des Fr‑Masons.

 

De la Tres‑Respectable Gr. Loge s'est assemblee aujourdhuy 17‑me 7‑bre aupres du T. R. Gr. Maitre Frere Hodiz.

 

Sous la domination des freres cydessous nommes Hoditz = Cp. Maitre, Wallenstein, Gilgens = Surveillants. Colmann = Tresorier, Czernichew = Secre taire. Assistents‑Duni, Michna, Blair= Compagnons. Arnaud= Apprentif, z Portiers, 6 freres, Servant.

 

Recgus : Doria, Hamilton, Joerger, Gondola, Zinzendorf, Tinti, Camellern, Schram, Eagel, Benedetto Testa.

 

Et comme le T. R. et Ds. Ms. se sont unies d'etablir une Gr. Loge ici ; c'est aujourdhuy qu'on en a fait 1'ouverture, par la reception des freres cy‑dessous nommes, les quels ont ete recu avec toutes les formalites requises et qu'ils se sont soumis a toutes les Loix de la T. V. Societe avec la meilleure grace su Monde.

 

FREEMASONRY IN AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY 163 The proceedings of the Lodge, it should be mentioned, were conducted in French, which will account for the Minutes being written in that language.

 

It will be observed that, on its formation, the Lodge of the Three Firing Glasses assumed the title of Grand Lodge which de Malczovitch thinks was in anticipation that the Duke of Tuscany would consent to take office at the head of an Austrian Masonic Constitution as Grand Master. Finding that there was no hope of this, the prefix of "Grand" in connexion with the Lodge was dropped two months after the foundation, concurrent with the change of name from the Three Firing Glasses to the Three Cannons, but the prefix was still retained in the description of the Officers of the Lodge. The year 1743 was an important one in the history of the Lodge, for many candidates of distinction sought and obtained initiation. At the end of January, however, Count Charles Francis Sales de Grossa, who had succeeded Count Hodiz in the Chair (the period of the Master's office seems to have been a quarterly one), laid down the gavel, possibly because of his election to the Mastership of the Breslau Lodge.

 

On March 7, 1743, the Lodge was, without warning, closed by the military, at the command of the Empress and eighteen members, chiefly of the nobility, were taken prisoners. Tradition has it that Francis himself had considerable difficulty in escaping by the back stairs, but there is no evidence that he ever attended the meetings of this Lodge, certainly none that he was ever Master of it, as has sometimes been asserted. Nevertheless, after his death, he was referred to as the " Grand Master of the Old Lodge " and statements appeared in the journal der Freymaurer (Vienna, 1784) which seem to confirm the rumour then current that Masonic Lodges were held in the Imperial Palace. Lad. de Malczovitch says of him Although he did not do a great deal for the propagation of the Order, still he did not lack goodwill, but his position and the special conditions prevailing at the Vienna Court must account for his not entering much into the activity of Lodge working. Under such circumstances his chief services consisted in predisposing his august consort and her counsellors, who, for the most part, belonged to the clerical party, in favour of the Order, in protecting, if necessary, any threatened member of it. No doubt, however, the mere fact of the sovereign being generally known to be a member and protector of the Order, was of great advantage to the Craft. Nor did the Brethren throughout Germany omit any fit occasion for exhibiting their gratitude. Francis was elected Emperor of Germany in 1745. The Lodges at Hamburgh held, on motion of the Deputy Provincial Grand Master, von Bonigk, a festival meeting at the Town Hall, at which more than a hundred persons of both sexes were present, on which occasion a poem by Wordach, the Secretary and Orator of Lodge Absalom, in praise of the Emperor, was read. A copy printed on satin was sent to the Emperor and the poet was rewarded.

 

The Secretary of the Embassy, du Vigneau, who was present at the suppressed meeting as a visitor, made a report of the occurrence to his Lodge, Absalom, at Hamburgh, on August 5, 1743, but made no mention of the presence of Francis at that meeting, although, of course, it is not possible for any deduction to be made from that fact. His report, which is of interest, was as follows 164 FREEMASONRY IN AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY The Queen, having received certain intelligence of a Society of Freemasons, sent a detachment of soldiers in order to invade the Lodge. The Commanding Officer called upon those present in the name of the Queen, to deliver up their swords, which were delivered up by all her subjects to the Master, who gave them to the officer, so as to show their obedience to the Queen. The following things were found at the foot of the throne : a pair of compasses, a square, a cord, a gavel, a half rough stone (ashlar), a sword, a bag filled with sand, two bags filled with ivory marks, which were partly of globular and partly of triangular shape, as well as a number of aprons. On the approach of the watch a Brother, directed by the Master, carried away the Palladium of the Order. Persons of any quality were brought to the Rumorhaus [police building]. The princes and foreigners were set free at once and other persons of rank received private confinement. But on her son's birthday [March icg] the Queen forgave them all, but forbade them very severely to meet again. This persecution was occasioned by the clergy and most likely by the Jesuits, who had great influence with Maria Theresa.

 

Colour is lent to the suggestion that this raid was undertaken at the instigation of the clergy, by the fact that some of the arrested Brethren were imprisoned in the Archbishop's palace.

 

On March ig, 1743, the Freemasons who had been arrested twelve days previously were released, in honour of the festivities arranged for the birthday of the young Crown Prince and there is documentary evidence that the Lodge continued to hold its meetings in secret. The Minutes of the Lodge afterwards came into the possession of Lodge Frederick of the White Horse at Hanover. Membership of the Lodge of the Three Firing Glasses was not a necessary accompaniment of initiation within its walls, but a separate ceremony.

 

On December 9, 1743, a Lodge was opened at Halle by Samuel von Bruckenthal, who had been initiated in the Vienna Lodge on March 2 of that year. He obtained a Warrant from the Three Globes Lodge at Berlin and the Lodge conducted its proceedings in the French language, as the Vienna Lodge did. Von Bruckenthal was appointed Deputy Master of the new Lodge and, afterwards, Deputy Grand Master of the Mother Lodge, which, after 1744, became a Grand Lodge. The Halle Lodge, which was called The Three Golden Keys, made rapid progress, for, within a year of its formation, it numbered forty members and a medal was afterwards struck in honour of its founder.

 

The Bull of Benedict in 1751, issued, it is said, under pressure of the Jesuits, because of the opinion, even amongst Catholics, that the previous Bull had lost its validity by the death of Pope Clement XII, gave fresh courage to the clergy surround ing the Austrian throne and renewed efforts to suppress Freemasonry were made. The Empress, however, held her hand and, according to legend, visited the Lodge in company with one of her ladies, both disguised as men, in order to assure herself that none of her sex were admitted to the mysteries. Having satisfied herself on this point she retired. As this legend, however, derives no support from " inherent probability," not even can the Italian maxim, Se non e vero, e ben trovato, be applied to it.

 

FREEMASONRY IN AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY 165 Lad. de Malczovitch says that there was an opinion that this visit was the outcome of Jesuit insinuations of matrimonial unfaithfulness on the part of the Emperor. It may be said, in passing, that Benedict XIV was a great scholar and a devoted friend of science and art ; he is credited with being secretly in favour, or, at any rate, not opposed to Freemasonry and even to have become a member of the Order. In 1751‑‑May z2‑the Lodge Frederick of Hanover warranted a branch Lodge, Frederick, at Vienna ; in 1764 the Strict Observance began to constitute Lodges in the Austrian dominions ; and, in the same year, a decree was issued suppressing Freemasonry altogether in the hereditary countries, but it was never seriously carried into effect.

 

In 176o there was a Lodge working in Vienna which was known as Loge der Freigbigen, or Lodge of the Generous. It was also known as Loge Royale Militaire de Vienna and is believed to have worked under a French Warrant. It worked a system of High Degrees similar to the Clermont Rite, but they were different in number and denomination. The founder of the system is believed to have been Count John Ferdinand Kuffstein, a friend of Abbe Geloni, the magician. Kuffstein is said to have been created a Grand Master of the VIIIth Templar Province. The High Degrees were worked under the High Chapter of St. Polten (Hippolytus) and the Degrees worked included Scotch Master, Grand Scotch of the Vault of James VI, Rose Croix, Sublime Commander of the Temple, Knight of the Sun, Prince Elu and the Knight of the Orient.

 

Francis passed away suddenly, through a fit of apoplexy, at Innsbruck, on August 18, 1765, in his fifty‑seventh year. Much could be written concerning him, for he left behind him the reputation of being a wise, enlightened and beneficent prince. His wife, being jealous of her power as ruler, he was prevented from interfering in the affairs of government and he devoted himself to commerce and banking, amassing large sums of money, at his death he left twenty million florins in specie and paper in two chests. He was, however, no miser, for he distributed large sums in alleviation of distress. He was extremely fond of natural philosophy, occult science and alchemy, continually employing chemists to search for the philosopher's stone. He patronized men of letters and, to his care and foresight, the Austrian capital owes a cabinet as rich in collection of medals and exhibits in connexion with natural history and natural philosophy as any European city can display. He was more inclined to toleration than was his Consort and always recommended, in matters of religion, persuasion and argument rather than violence and persecution. His love of the occult induced him to join the Rosicrucian and other hermetic Orders and Degrees, particularly that of the Most Perfect Master, or Knight of the Eagle, which Degree had its original seat at Lyons, where it was worked by a Chapter, in which, it is said, " he worked with true zeal unto his very end." He introduced this Degree into Vienna and, amongst the members, was the State surgeon, Fischer, who afterwards joined the Lodge of the Crowned Hope.

 

Francis was succeeded as Emperor by his son, Joseph II, whom the Empress made Co‑Regent (with herself) of Austria. Although not a Freemason, he, on more 166 FREEMASONRY IN AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY than one occasion, expressed a favourable opinion of the Craft. Ernst Denis, in La Boheme depuis la Montagne Blanc, says that Joseph II was a philosophical monarch and reduced the clergy to the state of functionaries, secretly protected Freemasons and flattered himself that he had convinced his subjects that to be good Catholics they had no need to be Romans ; yet he circuitously reinstated the old demands of Rome, the blind submission of the subject, with the remarkable difference that the creed was changed and the discipline henceforth guided, not by the Church, but by the Catechism of the Encyclopxdists.

 

The ten years of the rule of Joseph II were very important and fertile for the growth of Freemasonry in Austrian and Hungarian lands. At this period the Jesuits were straining every nerve to avert their own extinction and the Fraternity of Masons therefore obtained a little breathing time. Lodges began to multiply. In 1771 the Strict Observance founded one‑The Three Eagles‑in Vienna ; and Zinnendorff followed the lead by erecting two others in the same city, 1771 and 1775. In 1776 Prague already possessed four Lodges and, in 1777, Zinnendorff's National Grand Lodge at Berlin established a Provincial Grand Lodge of Austria at Vienna.

 

By the death of Maria Theresa‑November icy, 178o‑the Emperor Joseph II became Emperor of Austria also and the Craft continued to prosper. The greater part of the new Lodges were constituted by Zinnendorff or by the Provincial Grand Lodge at Vienna of the same system; and in 1784 there were no fewer than 45 Lodges in the various Provinces of the Austrian Empire (8 being in Vienna alone) under the following Provincial Grand Lodges: Austria proper (Vienna), 17; Bohemia, 7 ; Hungary, i z ; Siebenburgen, 3 ; Galicia, 4 ; and Lombardy, z.

 

Freemasonry is generally believed to have been introduced into Hungary by the formation of Lodges at Nagy‑Szeben, or Hermannstadt, in 1767, or at Eperjes in 1769, but M. de Malczovitch, in Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, vol. vii, p. 184, is of opinion that it was introduced into the country by Albert Casimir, Prince of Poland and Duke of Saxony and Teschen, born 1743, who was initiated at Dresden in 1764 and who lived in Hungary from 1766 to 178o. He was a son of August III, King of Poland and Elector of Saxony and, in 1766, married the Archduchess Maria Christina, the favourite daughter of Maria Theresa, when he received as dowry considerable estates in Hungary and the Dukedom of Teschen. Maria Theresa appointed him a General in the army and Governor of Hungary. He took up his residence at Pressburg in 1766 and, very shortly after that date, there are evidences of the working there of a Lodge named Taciturnas, which de Malczovitch thinks not improbable was founded in 1764 by the migration of Freemasons when the decree was issued for the suppression of the Craft. In 1773 Prince Albert joined the Strict Observance, and quickly became acknowledged as the Protector of the Masonic Order throughout Austria and Hungary. He was no mere figure‑head, for he was a frequent visitor at Lodges, particularly those meeting FREEMASONRY IN AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY 167 at Prague and Pressburg and he took an active part in their proceedings. De Malczovitch says that a number of his original letters, lengthy and full of detail, which have been preserved, prove him to have been a very diligent correspondent and his advice to have been thoughtful, prudent, conciliatory and fraternal. There is evidence of the existence of the Lodge Taciturnas in 1774, when it was the only Lodge meeting at Pressburg and it is known that, among its members, were Michael Kiraly and Anthony Holzmann, both State officials; John von Kempel, MajorGeneral and Knight of the Order of Maria Theresa and Captain Alexander von Einsiedl, afterwards Commander at Eperjes.

 

In 1768 a number of Polish patriotic noblemen had fled to Hungary, when their party was beaten in the war with the Muscovites. Many of them were Freemasons and obtained from the Grand Lodge of Poland at Warsaw a Warrant for a Lodge at Eperjes, one of their places of settlement, to be known as the Lodge of the Virtuous Traveller. The first Master was Isaac Bernhardi and its membership was composed of Polish and Hungarian nobles, gentlemen and other reputable inhabitants of Eperjes and neighbourhood. De Malczovitch says Ars ‑uatuor Coronatorum, vol. vii, p. 187, that the Lodge meetings were held in the house of a Hungarian nobleman, named Gabriel Fejervary. Writing in 1894, he said This house is said to contain even now a subterranean vault with walls painted blue, with the quarters of heaven marked and having a mosaic pavement. Tradition says " secret meetings " were held in it. Most probably, the meetings of the Lodge were really held there. As early as 1771, the Lodge seems to have met alternately at Eperjes and at Kerckret and Giralt, two small villages in the neighbourhood, most likely some members of the Lodge, landed gentry, resided there.

 

The Polish element seems to have withdrawn early from the Lodge, as a few years later we find almost exclusively Hungarian names on the roll.

 

On April zzz, 1784, the Provincial Grand Lodges for Bohemia, Hungary, Siebenburgen and Austria met and formed a National Grand Lodge of the Austrian States, with Count Dietrichstein as Grand Master. Their intention was to declare themselves independent, but they met with such opposition from Berlin, that Dietrichstein was obliged to content himself with the position of a Provincial Grand Master under the National‑i.e. Zinnendorf Grand Lodge. In 1785, however, the Emperor ordered the latent Grand Lodge to assert its independence and Berlin was naturally obliged to give way. The other Provincial Grand Lodges appear to have joined the Union. Each Lodge had by its delegate one vote in the Provincial Lodges, which met every three months and each Provincial Grand Lodge had one vote at the half‑yearly meeting of the National Grand Lodge (of the Austrian States), thus forming a perfect representative system.

 

Unfortunately at this time the Emperor interfered in the internal arrangements of the Craft, apparently at the instigation of Dietrichstein, Grand Master. The desire to suppress the Asiatic Brothers‑at work in Austria since 1780‑was not unconnected with these proceedings. An edict appeared on December 1, 1785, 168 FREEMASONRY IN AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY restricting the number of Lodges in any city to three and ordering all those established in towns where there was no imperial court to close altogether. On the strength of this edict Dietrichstein caused the eight Vienna Lodges to reduce their number by amalgamation to two and greatly to curtail their membership. Each member had to submit to a fresh ballot and many were thereby prevented from taking any further part in the proceedings of the Craft. Several of the best Freemasons in Austria retired in disgust, numerous Lodges were closed by virtue of the edict, the spirit and independence of the Craft had flown and its best days vanished.

 

Joseph died in 1790 and Leopold II expressed himself as not unfriendly to the Fraternity ; but his successor in 1792, Francis II, tried at the Ratisbon Diet to induce the German Princes to suppress Freemasonry throughout the Empire. In this he failed, but the Vienna Lodges, taking the cue, voluntarily closed in 1794 " until better times " ; and, in 1795, an imperial edict suppressed the Craft and all secret societies throughout the States of Austria. A further edict of i 8oi required all State officials to sign a paper affirming that they did not belong to any such society. Stillson and Hughan, in their History of Freemasonry and Concordant Orders, state that Francis II, influenced by the members of an anti‑Masonic society, caused all the Lodges to be abolished and, to make his work complete, by a special enactment in 18oi, it was provided that every civil officer should bind himself not to belong to, neither to visit, any secret society.

 

Freemasonry thus died out in Austria and did not revive until very recently, as will later be seen. During the French occupation, 1805‑9, some ephemeral Lodges arose, even a short‑lived Grand Orient under French jurisdiction; again in 1848 a former Vienna Lodge reopened October 5, but was closed on the 6th. All subsequent attempts proved fruitless as far as Austria is concerned until within the last decade, but Hungary rejoices in a better fate.

 

In 1861 Dr. Lewis made an attempt to revive the Craft in Hungary and founded a Lodge in Pesth, but it was quickly closed by the police. The political division of 1867, however, by which Austria and Hungary became separate kingdoms under one crown, opened the door to Hungarian Freemasonry, no Hungarian law existing to the contrary. The Government approved in October 1868 the statutes of Lewis' Lodge Unity and, in 1869, two other Lodges arose in Temesvar and Oedenburg. The Unity threw off shoots in Baia, Pressburg and Buda‑Pesth, the Temesvar Lodge one in Arad. On January 30, 1870, these seven formed a Grand Lodge of Hungary and were strengthened in the same year by a new Lodge in Szegedin. These eight increased in 1871 to twelve. In 187z the members already mustered 8oo strong. The Grand Master was Franz Pulszky. But although prosperous in numbers, the organization, ritual and spirit of the new body left much to be desired and the Craft seemed destined to wreck on the lee‑shore of its own unworthiness, when a judicious change of personnel in 1875 enabled it to make a good offing. The new Constitutions were approved February 24, 1876, providing a representative system of government and the new ritual came into force on July i. The immediate consequence of this was the formation of four new Lodges before the end of the FREEMASONRY IN AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY 169 year, since which date the National Grand Lodge of Hungary has proceeded on its way without much of importance to relate, save for its later amalgamation and afterwards suspension during the Great War.

 

Returning to 1869, we find that in that year several Freemasons who had been initiated abroad opened a Lodge (the proceedings being conducted in the Hungarian tongue) according to the A. and A.R. 33░, under the auspices of the Grand Orient of France. This was soon followed by a second, working in German. As one of the prime movers in this matter, the celebrated Hungarian patriot Klapka should be mentioned. In 1870 these two Lodges made honourable overtures to the Grand Lodge for a fusion of government combined with freedom of ritual. Unfortunately, as already seen in the History of French Freemasonry, such a fusion is difficult and it failed on this as on so many previous occasions. Thrown upon their own resources, the two Lodges constituted‑on the part of the Grand Orient of France ‑further Rose Croix Lodges in Kaschau, Werschetz, Oravicza, Arad, Beregszasz and other towns ; and, having instituted the necessary High Chapters, these Lodges in 1872. formed a Grand Orient of Hungary for the A. and A.R. 33░, under Grand Master George Joannovics. In 1875 this Grand Orient exercised jurisdiction over some 2.o Lodges with i,ooo members. It has since lost much in importance. The two Grand bodies were on a perfectly friendly footing. The statistics of 18 8 5 were Grand Lodge in Buda‑Pesth, founded January 30, 1870, 2.6 Lodges and 1,2.68 members; Grand Orient of Buda‑Pesth, founded 1872, 12 Lodges and about 5o2members.

 

In 1886 the Symbolic Grand Lodge of Hungary was formed by the Union of the National Grand Lodge and of the Grand Orient, which latter also worked the Craft Degrees. It was agreed that the Council should consist of Grand Master, two Deputy Grand Masters, twelve Grand office‑bearers and twenty‑four elected members, this number afterwards being increased to thirty, whilst Honorary and Past Grand Masters ranked immediately after the Deputy Grand Masters. But in spite of the Act of Union, Lodges which formerly worked under the Symbolical Grand Lodge refused to acknowledge or recognize the Degrees of the Grand Orient, which its members were forbidden to take, though Lodges established after the Union were permitted to declare whether they would recognize or not the Degrees of the Ancient and Accepted Rite. It might, therefore, actually happen that the Grand Master was not a member of the Ancient and Accepted Rite and could not, in consequence, preside over the Supreme Council, in which case his place was taken by a subordinate officer possessing the requisite qualification.

 

In 1911 the Symbolic Grand Lodge of Hungary celebrated the twenty‑fifth anniversary of its foundation, when the various meetings were attended by several hundreds of Brethren. Nine years later, however, all the Hungarian Lodges and Masonic bodies were placed under a ban and a report issued by the Delegates of the British Labour Party, who, in igzo, paid a visit to Hungary, clearly verified the news about the existence of a " white terror " in that country. Freemasons, who had taken no part in the establishment of Bolshevism, became the victims 170 FREEMASONRY IN AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY of the reactionary reign. It became a crime to be a Freemason and the punishment consisted in the discharge of public servants, the internment and imprisonment of innocent individuals. Masonic Lodges were stigmatized as " immoral and unpatriotic secret societies." On April 25, 19zo‑more than a month before the official dissolution of the Masonic bodies, the " Awakening Hungarians," under the leadership of the President, Zsirkay Janos, entered by force the home of Lodge Arpad. They turned over the furniture, confiscated the documents and sealed up the library. This example soon found followers. Lodge Vilagossag in Ujpest was entered by force and the goods confiscated ; the same thing happened in Nagykanizsa. In Budapest, on May 15, 1920, the headquarters of the Symbolic Grand Lodge of Hungary, as well as the buildings of Lodges Galileo and Hajnal, were requisitioned by terrorist detachments, without any formal procedure. A fortnight later, the Hungarian Government gave its official sanction to these atrocities and dissolved all Masonic bodies.

 

This action was taken despite the fact that, during the war of I9I4‑19I8 the Hungarian Lodges organized hospitals at Budapest ; they rebuilt one of the villages which had been destroyed by the Russians ; they procured situations for demobilized officers ; they assisted soldiers who had returned from the front; and did all they could to obtain just and kindly treatment for their unhappy country. In addition Hungarian Masonry created a large number of social and beneficent societies, which occupied themselves with the protection and succour of men, women and children, of the sick, poor and abnormal, although such societies were not officially connected with the Craft, nor was its name advertised in connexion therewith. Thousands received free of charge supplies of milk and bread, grants of shoes and clothing, free medical treatment and were housed at a trivial cost. It was the love of neighbour as practised by the Freemason.

 

In Austria proper there sprang up many Masonic clubs, merely social clubs, composed exclusively of Freemasons, for, as Lodges, they were forbidden to meet. Vienna, however, being so near the Hungarian frontier, many of the clubs took a short railway trip in order to meet as Lodges. Thus, in Pressburg and Oedenburg, there were several Lodges whose members were all resident in Vienna. In other large towns of the Empire, not so fortunately situated, Freemasons had to remain content with meeting as a social club.

 

On December 8, 1918, the Grand Lodge of Vienna was founded on a Charter issued by the Symbolic Grand Lodge of Hungary. The Constitution and Ritual are based fundamentally on the Ancient Charges and Landmarks of the Order. A belief in the Supreme Being is demanded from candidates, the Volume of the Sacred Law is present on the altar, there are three Degrees and the Temple legend is the basis of the ritual. Candidates must be above the age of twenty‑four years ; there must be an interval of one year between the first and second Degrees and two years between the second and third. Secrecy is required and no discussion of religion or politics is permitted. According to the latest returns available the Grand Lodge of Vienna has jurisdiction over twenty‑five Lodges, with a FREEMASONRY IN AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY 171 membership of between i,6oo and 1,700 and there is a steady progression. The Vienna Lodges are securing gradually members prominent in both social and intellectual rank. Politicians, men of science, famous artists and others are now numbered among Austrian Freemasons. The meetings reveal a very interesting selection of instructive lectures and the solemn initiations, embellished by the famous art of Vienna musicians, are festivals of memorable impression. Built up, since its beginnings, on the basis of impartial humanity, without any prejudices of theological or national character, Austrian Freemasonry has seen already its first and highest aim in moderating and reconciling all opposites of any kind among individuals, parties and nations. In consequence of these convictions, the Grand Lodge of Vienna, in igzz, declared " the promotion of inward and outward peace " to be its chief programme.

 

In May igzo it addressed the following communication to several Grand Lodges, with the object of seeking recognition The Grand Lodge of Vienna, which has been founded on December 8, 1918, hereby applies to you with the fraternal request of recognition as a rightfully constituted Masonic Grand Lodge ; at the same time expressing the earnest desire of taking up the Brotherly relations with you, eventually the mutual appointment of representatives.

 

The Grand Lodge of Vienna comprises at present fourteen Lodges and, approximately, i,1oo members. In the former Austrian Empire, Masonry was prohibited and the work had to be performed on Hungarian territory, under the protection of the Symbolic Grand Lodge of Hungary, while the official release and the formal recognition had to be postponed owing to the revolutionary occurrences in Hungary. They have now been carried through, in proof of which we enclose a copy of our Charter for your kind perusal.

 

The Grand Lodge of Vienna has been constituted on the basis of the Symbolic Grand Lodge of Hungary, with but few modifications, occasioned by the circumstances. We are working at the completion of our definite Constitution.

 

The Grand Lodge of Vienna is already in fraternal correspondence with several Grand Lodges in Germany, with the Swiss Grand Lodge Alpina, with the Grand Orient of the Netherlands, with the Grand Lodges of Italy, Denmark and Portugal, as also with a considerable number of various Lodges in the countries named. A great many of these have given high‑minded proof of their fraternal sentiments by the transmission of copious gifts for our suffering population.

 

During igzg the revision of the Constitutions was completed as well as the ritual of the First Degree. A voluntary group of competent and interested Brethren worked out a 111erkblatt fur Sucbende ("Notes for Seekers "), giving the necessary instructions concerning the objects and aims of the Craft and the laws and constitutions of the Grand Lodge of Vienna. The same group arranged three evenings of instruction for the neophytes of all Lodges, when competent and experienced speakers imparted useful information concerning the ritual, the symbolism and history of the Craft and Masonic law. The adolescent sons of Masons have formed 172 FREEMASONRY IN AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY an association, called Die Kette (" The Chain ") for the promotion of social union, study and the cultivation of the spirit of Brotherhood. The Lodges continue to give financial support to humanitarian, benevolent and educational organizations, and have united in supplying a substantial subvention to the local Committee for the erection of a Lessing monument in Vienna. One zealous Brother, who has repeatedly given money for humanitarian purposes, has placed at the disposal of the Grand Lodge a considerable sum to be devoted to the promotion of peace within the Republic of Austria, whose existence was threatened in 1929.

 

The Grand Lodge of Vienna was recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England at its Quarterly Communication in December, icg3o.

 

FREEMASONRY IN RUSSIA ACCORDING to Russian tradition, Freemasonry in that country even precedes the era of the Grand Lodge of England (1717), for it is gravely asserted that Peter the Great was initiated by Sir Christopher Wren and that, before the close of the seventeenth century, there existed a Lodge in Petersburg, with General Lefort as Master, General Patrick Gordon and Peter himself as Senior and Junior Wardens respectively, Lefort and Gordon being intimate friends and counsellors of Peter the Great. This claim need only be recorded and not discussed seriously. In 1731, on January 24, Captain John Phillips was, according to the Archives of the Grand Lodge of England, appointed Provincial Grand Master for Russia and Germany, but there is no record that he ever exercised any Masonic functions and his appointment does not necessarily imply that there were any Lodges then existing in Russia. On the other hand, according to Latomia, there appears some reason to believe that in 1732 or 1734, General James Keith, who had entered the Russian service in 1728, was Master of a Lodge at Leningrad, then, of course, Petersburg. According to p. 333 of the 1756 edition of the Constitutions, Keith was appointed Provincial Grand Master for Russia in 174o by his kinsman, John Keith, Earl of Kintore, Grand Master of England in that year. He appears to have met with greater success than Phillips, for the writer in Latomia (vol. xxi, p. 115) confirms on fresh documentary evidence Nettlebladt's previous assertions that, in 1750, the Lodge of Silence was at work in Petersburg and a second Lodge, named North Star, in Riga. These were followed by others, the traces of which are lost. A subsequent Grand Master, Bober, however, informs us, that all operations were conducted in the greatest secrecy, 11 in the‑loft of some out‑of‑the‑way, retired house," which may account for the curious fact that the existence of these Lodges was never transmitted to the Grand Lodge of England. It must also be borne in mind that, with very rare exceptions, English Provincial Grand Masters on the Continent and in foreign lands seldom kept their superiors fully informed with regard to the state of Freemasonry in the districts under their charge, often granting Warrants for Lodges without reference to the chief authority.

 

Keith is often referred to as " Lord " James Keith and the Earl of Kintore as his brother. Both are errors. James Keith was the brother of John Keith, tenth Earl Marischal of Scotland, cousin of the John Keith, Earl of Kintore, who was Grand Master of Scotland in 1738 and Grand Master of England in 1740, in which year he was appointed Provincial Grand Master for Russia. He was the 173 174 FREEMASONRY IN RUSSIA son of William, ninth Earl Marischal and his wife, Lady Mary Drummond, daughter of the fourth Earl of Perth, Lord Chancellor of Scotland. A great affection existed between James and his brother, the tenth Earl; both had been forced to flee from Britain, because of their participation in the Rebellion, for which their estates were attainted. On September zo, 1715, they, at the Cross of Aberdeen, had proclaimed James VIII as king, but, although they served through the Rebellion, they were, apparently, only half‑hearted adherents of the Pretender's cause. Unfortunately the Memoirs of Field‑Marshal James Keith, written by himself, extend only from 1714 to 1734, when they are brought to a sudden and unfinished conclusion and they contain no allusions or references to Freemasonry. Carlyle's Frederick the Great has many references to James Keith. When he fled from Britain he entered the service of the Spanish king, but had eventually to quit that service because he (Keith) was a staunch Protestant and his religion was an invincible obstacle. The King of Spain, who greatly appreciated his services, recommended him to Peter II of Russia and presented him with a thousand crowns when he left Spain. He also begged him to return to Spain should he find it possible to conform to the Roman Catholic faith. In February 174o Keith revisited London, when, according to Buchan's Account of the Keith Family, he was presented to George II, whom he acknowledged as his lawful sovereign, a proof that he was no longer an advocate of the claims of the Pretender and his followers ; Buchan says that he was received " as a great general and the minister of a great power." He was present at the Communication of the Grand Lodge of England held on March 28, 1740, when the Earl of Kintore, who had been granted the estates of the Earl Marischal, was elected as Grand Master of England. The name is recorded in the Minutes as " James Keith, Esq. ; Lieutenant‑General in the Service of Russia " (quoted from Entick's Constitutions, 5757‑1757). The exact date when Keith left London for Russia is not known, but it was certainly not before May 1740. Under his rule as Provincial Grand Master, Russian Freemasonry seems at once to have acquired fame. Before his time it was almost entirely confined to foreign merchants. In 1756, says Boris Telepneff, in his pamphlet on Russian Masons, a report was made to the Empress Elizabeth concerning a Lodge in Petersburg, which consisted of about thirty‑five members, among whom were some of . the most talented representatives of the newer generation of Petersburg society. The names included A. P. Sumarokov, a noted writer; Prince Scherbatov and Boltin, future historians of considerable ability; F. Mamonov, of literary fame; and others, in addition to prominent men, such as Roman Voronzov, Prince Golitzine, Prince Troubetzkoy.

 

In the same year, states Puipin, in Russian Masonry in the Eighteenth Century, the Secret Chancellery of the Empire made an inquiry into the " Masonic Sect " which did not reveal anything dangerous, and Masonry was allowed to continue, but under police supervision. The register of Freemasons which is appended to the report contains the names of some very renowned Russians in social life, in addition to prominent musicians and merchants.

 

FREEMASONRY IN RUSSIA 175 Dr. Ernest Friedrichs, in Freemasonry in Russia and Poland, states that John Eugene Schwarz is commonly regarded as being the " Father " of Russian Freemasonry, but there is no evidence that he was ever a member of the Masonic Order, although he appears to have belonged to a society which claimed to be Rosicrucian. If it was really Rosicrucian then he must have been a Freemason, since only Masons were admitted to the Rosicrucian Order. Petroff, in his History of Russian Literature, refers to him as follows Russian Masonry trained many enlightened and noble men who proved themselves in the highest degree to be useful collaborators in the various branches of the Russian administration ; it declared war against the philosophy of the Encyclo pxdists and that corruption of morals which that philosophy had provoked in Russian society. At the time of the mighty spreading and the prosperous position of Masonry in Russia Schwarz was at its head. At first he taught German and, later, Philosophy at the University of Moscow. In so doing he imbued the young students with the thought that knowledge has no meaning if it leads to atheism and immorality. All his lectures were directed against the scepticism and the materialism of the Encyclopxdists. In order to infuse into the young people a real love of knowledge, he founded learned societies, which helped him in his endeavour to spread scientific enlightenment. He won the great sympathy and the profound gratefulness of both the higher and the lower classes in Moscow. The foundation of schools, the publication of manuals and of books of a moral and religious tendency, the opening of printing‑offices and bookshops, the training of teachers, the sending of them abroad with the view of completing their education, the founding of hospitals and chemists' shops‑these are the characteristics of Schwarz's enlightened activity and of the blessings it produced.

 

This philanthropic work was also undertaken by Nikolai Ivanovitch Novikov (1744‑1818), upon whom the mantle of Schwarz is said to have fallen, but who seems to have hovered between Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism. He was the founder of the Utrenni Szvet, the first Russian monthly periodical and the editor of the Moscow Gazette, by means of which, as well as in independent publications, he worked indefatigably and undauntedly for the enlightenment and the moral betterment of the people. He founded a number of schools and established printing offices in which the manuals for these schools were printed. He also erected hospitals and established chemists' shops, where medicines were dispensed gratuitously to the needy. Novikov was initiated in 1775 in Petersburg at a time when he was on the cross roads of scepticism and faith and he joined the Craft on the understanding that he would leave it immediately should he find in it anything against his conscience. Later, although he says he " obtained four English Degrees " (Telepneff, op. cit., p. 15), he pursued his investigations and joined other Rites, including the Swedish, eventually becoming a really convinced Rosicrucian. Freemasonry was always regarded in Russia as a preparatory school for Rosicrucianism. Freemasons, not satisfied with the usual Masonic tenets, endeavoured to penetrate the mysteries of nature and science in the higher Rosicrucian Degrees in which they studied the various so‑called secret sciences. Of Novikov Petroff wrote 176 FREEMASONRY IN RUSSIA The secret character of the Masonic society to which Novikov belonged, its secret rites, its enormous wealth in material possessions and its widespread charities, aroused the discontentedness of outsiders with him and his companions. With them even many well‑educated persons became discontented because the Masons, in their endeavours to penetrate all the secrets of Nature, would not study Nature per se by means of scientific experiments ; they declined to accept the results obtained by the natural sciences, believed in various so‑called secret sciences, e.g. alchemy, magic and the Cabala. Although the philanthropic activity of the Masons ought to have attracted the sympathy of the Church, the latter was dissatisfied with them on account of their arbitrary interpretation of the Holy Scriptures and on account of their mingling pure Christian teaching with ancient heathenism and with modern Judaism. Novikov had also taken the field in earnest against the Jesuits who just at that time enjoyed to the full the protection and sympathy of the empress.

 

Fisher, also, in his work Alasonry in the Orient of Russia during the reign of Catherine II, referring to the establishment of one of Novikov's printing‑offices, says When this establishment was as yet scarcely half‑finished, it was unexpectedly destroyed along with its founders. It is well known that from the earliest times a strong antipathy had prevailed between the rich Moscovite nobles, who were fond of living in independence; and the court nobles of Petersburg ; the sovereigns had also found it more politic to attract the Moscovite magnates to their persons and weaken and leave desolate the ancient capital of the empire. This alliance of well‑to‑do men could not fail to create a sensation at court. In particular, its members were suspected of being Freemasons and, before long, a considerable number of heavy charges were brought against them. It was declared that they promoted an enlightenment which was contrary to all the principles of a monarchical state ; that they endeavoured to secure the favour of the people by the distribution of victuals and medicines and that they had an arsenal hidden away in their cellars for the equipment of an army. And now the die was cast. The prefect of police received orders to set a watch all round the Institute, to seal everything and to search for arms. They found neither cannon nor a large provision of gunpowder, but a considerable number of pistols and rifles, not hidden away, but quite conspicuous in the houses of several rich officials who were enthusiastic sportsmen.

 

The charge was, of course, a false one; and Lopukhin, a prominent Freemason, was the author of a work in support of monarchy. The real accusation, however, was that of being in league with Paul I, who was opposed to Catherine.

 

In 1792, according to Dr. A. S. Rappaport, Novikov was arrested at the instigation of Catherine II and confined at Schlusselburg, his printing houses closed and all his enterprises ruined. He was not released until November 1796.

 

This is anticipating the chronological order of events, but it must be pointed out that Freemasonry, as practised in Russia, was in opposition to the French system, in that it demanded from its candidates a belief in the existence of a Supreme Being and, while inculcating brotherly love, forbade participation in any revolutionary movements and enjoined a faithful recognition of the supremacy of the State, FREEMASONRY IN RUSSIA 177 making its ideals the fostering of the arts and sciences, the improvement of health and the education of the people.

 

In point of fact, Catherine II, at the commencement of her long reign in 1767, was not opposed to Freemasonry and, the necessity for secrecy no longer existing, the position of the Craft improved. It may be presumed that the Society hitherto had been more or less under English influence, but about this time great innovations forced themselves into favour. The earliest of all appears to have been of purely Russian origin. Count Melesino, although a Russian officer, was a Greek by birth and Master of the Lodge of Silence in Petersburg. He was a LieutenantGeneral in the Imperial army and is said to have been a man of talent, able to conduct the affairs of a Lodge in four different languages with equal fluency. The Rite named after him consisted of seven Degrees, the first three of which were the three Degrees of Craft Masonry and the remainder were: 4, The Dark Vault; 5, The Scotch Master and Knight's Degrees ; 6, The Philosopher's Degree; and 7, the Grand Priest of the Temple or the Spiritual Knighthood. In Lodge Silence this Rite‑which spread throughout the empire, even beyond its borders‑was perfected, probably by the talented Master himself. It superimposed four Degrees on the Craft and it is not improbable that in the 7░, Magnus Sacerdos Templariorum, Starck found the inspiration for his Clerical Rite. In April 1787 Melesino retired from Masonry and to Moscow, alleging political motives as his reason; whilst, on the other hand, Nettlebladt thinks he acted from prudence, fearing that the Grand Lodge would ultimately overshadow and destroy his Rite and preferring to suppress it himself. In either case, it ceased with his absence from the scene. Melesino, says Telepneff, used to combine the Templar Rituals and Starck's semi‑Catholic Church ceremonies with mystical teachings which, in later days, developed under the auspices of the Rosy Cross, and met with conspicuous success in Russia. Meetings of the members of the Seventh Degree could only take place in a church or a specially dedicated chapel. A mass was usually said first and a solemn rite of benediction of rose‑oil celebrated. Their meetings were described as " Assemblies of true disciples of ancient wise teachers of the world now called Brethren of the Rosy Cross and Clerics," but they did not identify themselves with the German Rosicrucians, although they were also studying subjects connected with occult chemistry, the Cabala, etc. Their belief of the real aim of Freemasonry was " to attain true Wisdom." In 1765 the Strict Observance made its entry into Russia. The first Lodge under this system was founded by the Lodge at Wismar (Starck's) and soon after a Chapter was erected at Petersburg, with Luder as Grand Master. Members, whose names will occur hereafter, were Professor Bober, Count Bruce, Prince Dolgoruky, Prince Gagarin, Prince Kurakin, etc. In Courland and Riga there were other Chapters. The gorgeous ceremonies and high sounding Degrees in this system attracted Russian noblemen, but the Rite of Strict Observance never played any really important part in Russian Freemasonry.

 

In 1768 Starck, accompanied by Von Prangen, came to Petersburg for the F. IV‑I7 178 FREEMASONRY IN RUSSIA second time ; and on June 23 formed a secular Chapter there, Phcenix, of the Strict Observance, adding thereto‑September zo, 1768‑a Clerical Chapter, possibly based on the Melesino Rite, with which Starck may have become acquainted during his former residence in 1763‑65. Disputes, however, arose‑October 22‑and, on November 17, Starck was excluded. In the following year‑November 16, 1769‑the Lax Observance Lodge, Constancy, went over to the Strict Observance Rite, uniting with the Phoenix and no more is heard of the Clerical Chapter after December 12, 1769. Starck shortly after left Russia and the Clerics were retransferred to Wismar. But the Strict Observance still remained strongly represented among the Russian Rites.

 

The Emperor Peter III (1762) is said to have presented Lodge Constancy with a house and himself to have conducted the Masonic work at Oranienbum.

 

In 1771 the Zinnendorff system obtained a footing in Russia. Zinnendorff had procured‑by somewhat irregular means‑a part of the Swedish Ritual and, seceding from the Strict Observance, had established anew rite in Germany. George von Reichel and George Rosenberg were the introducers of the rite into Petersburg. Reichel came first and established the Lodges Apollo in Petersburg, March 27, 1771 ; Isis at Revel; Harpocrates, of which Prince Nikolai Troubetzkoy became the Master, at Petersburg, 1772 ; and a military Lodge in 1773. Reichel was head of the scientific section of the National Military School for the sons of nobles. He had been a member of the Lodge of the Three Golden Keys in Berlin, on which system he founded the Apollo Lodge. Rosenberg, a former Prussian captain of horse, joined him in 1774, bringing, without Zinnendorff's knowledge, the complete Rituals, etc. ; revived the Apollo, which had become dormant; founded another, Horus and, in 1776, Latona and Nemesis. In addition a Lodge Apollo was founded at Riga and a Lodge Isis at Revel. In these proceedings they were assisted by their brothers Charles Reichel and William Rosenberg (see Latornia, vol. xxi, pp. 117‑19). Friedrichs says that George Reichel had a strong supporter in Count Panin, one of Catherine's ministers, who stood high in her favour and who, as ambassador in Sweden, had become very much attached to the Swedish system.

 

Reichel, who had been attached to the house of the Prince of Braunschweig, had received personal instructions from Zinnendorff before leaving Berlin to do everything possible for the glory ‑and increase of the Zinnendorff Rite in Russia. Telepneff (Russian Masons, p. 9) quotes the following letter, dated October 15, 1771, addressed by Zinnendorff to Yelaguin With the purpose of strengthening as much as possible friendship and accord among your Brethren, I considered it my duty to inform you thereof [of the fact of the foundation of the Apollo Lodge] and to recommend Bro. Reichel as well as Lodges [i.e. those established in Russia according to the Zinnendorff Rite] to your protection, confidence and benevolence.

 

It was about this time that there came about an intimate connexion between Russia and the Knights of Malta. Waliszewski tells the story in his life of Paul the First of Russia (pp. 238‑40) in the following words FREEMASONRY IN RUSSIA 179 The relations of Russia with the Knights of Malta began about the end of the seventeenth century, when the Field‑Marshal Boris Cheremetief, while on a mission from Peter the Great to the Levant, visited the island and received a welcome which inaugurated a period of continuous friendship. Catherine's enterprising policy tended to strengthen these bonds. Bailiffs and commanders of the Order took service in the Russian navy ; Russian officers went to Malta to finish their nautical education. Diplomatic representations were exchanged and Cavalcho, Catherine's clever agent, strove not unsuccessfully to create a Russian party in the island. In 1770 the Empress went so far as to treat with Ximenes, who was then Grand Master, with a view to common action against the Turks. It was only the opposition of France which prevented these engagements from being carried out. Catherine also favoured the Order in the matter of the Volhynian estate of Ostrog, which the Order was ultimately to inherit and, in 1775, a Grand Priory was established in Poland under the guarantee of the three courts of Petersburg, Vienna and Berlin, with an assured annuity of i 2o,ooo florins.

 

Meanwhile the Craft had also been at work under the tutelage of the Grand Lodge of England. Of this period there is fortunately an almost contemporary account in the Freemasons' Calendars of 1777 and 1778. In June 1771 some English merchants in Petersburg erected the Lodge of Perfect Unity, which was numbered 414 and dated June 1, 1771, in the Engraved Lists.

 

This Lodge is referred to in the Freemasons' Calendar for 1777 in the following words The first regular Lodge which was established in the vast empire of Russia was the Lodge of Perfect Unity, constituted June 1771, in Petersburg. The chairman and most of the members were English merchants residing there, who con ducted this new institution with great regularity and activity. As many Russian nobles were Masons at the period of the establishment of this Lodge, at their request they received from the Grand Lodge of England in 1772 a Warrant for his Excellency John Yelaguin (Senator) to become Provincial Grand Master in the Russian Empire. This gentleman exercised his office with such success that many excellent Lodges were erected in Petersburg and other places.

 

An official copy of its Minute‑book from June 13, 1771, to May 30, 1772, made for the perusal of the Grand Master of England, is preserved in the archives of that Grand Lodge and plainly shows that the Lodge was at work before receiving its Warrant ; that although composed largely of English Masons it recognized and granted the following additional degrees : Scots Master, Elu and Philosopher ; and that, although a warranted Lodge, it admitted visitors of unchartered Lodges under certain restrictions. It contains also the copy of a letter from Grand Secretary Heseltine, February 29, 1772, presented by Louquin, announcing the appointment of Yelaguin as Provincial Grand Master and resolutions to honour him as Grand Master of all future Lodges, but to refuse him any authority over themselves. In the midst of the quarrel which ensued, this interesting book breaks off. But the 18o FREEMASONRY IN RUSSIA Minutes of the Committee of Charity, October 2‑8,1772, inform us that the Lodge was directed to submit. The Freemasons' Calendar terms this the first regular Lodge, and speaks of the number of Russian nobles who were at that time Masons. One of them, Senator John Yelaguin, had made fruitless efforts to procure a patent of Grand Master in Berlin and Hamburg and, in 1772, sent Louquin to England on a similar mission, as stated above (Latomia, vol. xxi, p. 307). Friedrichs spells the name Elagin and describes him as a " Privy Councillor, Senator and member of the Imperial Cabinet." The Duke of Beaufort, Grand Master, had granted him a patent as Provincial Grand Master for all the Russias and this resulted in the formation of the following Lodges :‑No. 466, Nine Muses ; No. 467, Urania ; No. 468, Bellona‑all in Petersburg; Mars, No. 469, Clio (of which the Empress Catherine is said to have been the patroness), No. 47o, at Jassy and Moscow respectively, all in the year 1774. The Patent to Yelaguin was granted by the Grand Lodge of England on February 28, 1772, but the Minutes of the Atholl Grand Lodge (Ancients) for June 30, 1773, contains the following entry " Heard a letter from G. Sec. M'Dougall, setting forth that an application had been made to the G. Lodge of Scotland for them to confer a Masonical mark of distinction on his Excellency the Senator Yellegan (sic), Grand Master of Russia, requesting the opinion of this Grand Lodge to be transmitted, with any Forms they may have made use of on the like occasions." Resolved, that the Grand Lodge of Scotland had power to confer such distinction.

 

Yelaguin‑whose full name in Russian was Ivan Perfilievich Yelaguin‑belonged to an ancient family of Russian noblemen and, for many years, enjoyed the friendship and confidence of the Empress Catherine. He was the founder of the Russian theatre and an author of no little renown. He states in his Memoirs (Russian Archives, 1864, vol. i, p. 591) that he was led to join Freemasonry from curiosity and vanity, being attracted by the mystery of Masonic proceedings and by the possibility of association with men much higher in rank, character and decorations than himself. Telepneff (Russian Masons, p. 8) claims that the principal part in the healthy development of Russian Masonry was played by Yelaguin. After a period of Masonic doubt, through steady work, discussions with experienced Masons and the study of works on Masonry, ‑he devoted his energies " to the discovery of Masonic wisdom," which, generally speaking, was the sole or principal object of those Russians who entered the Higher Degrees. He became one of its greatest lovers and his labours placed him as an acknowledged authority at the head of his Russian Brethren. He was content with the three Symbolic Degrees, which he held were sufficient and affirmed that he had " not given to anybody even the Fourth Degree," but what he meant by that expression is not known, since Symbolic Masonry consisted of but three Degrees. Yelaguin spent a considerable sum of money in the purchase of Masonic manuscripts, plans and Rituals, for FREEMASONRY IN RUSSIA he considered that, in his position as Provincial Grand Master, he should know all there was to be known. His system followed the English rule, but admitted none but Christians, hence the exclusion of the Jews from Russian Freemasonry.

 

Lodge Mars, as befits its name, was a military Lodge, composed exclusively of soldiers serving in the field, where it carried out its operations during the TurcoRussian War.

 

Friedrichs says that the Grand Lodge of England sent to the Grand Lodge in Berlin a protest against the establishment of Lodges by that body, declaring that " the London Grand Lodge has the exclusive right of constituting other Lodges in the whole world," but added that it did not intend to found any Lodges within the German empire if the full right was allowed it to do so in Russia. Putting on one side the Strict Observance and Melesino's Lodges, we thus find two distinct Rites in use at the same time‑Zinnendorff's and the English. Yelaguin, however, wanted a Ritual and, as England had never furnished copies of its ceremonies, he applied to Reichel and Rosenberg. Now, although these Masons hailed from the Grand National Lodge at Berlin, they must have been desirous of closer relations with Sweden, the original fount, for they advised Yelaguin to apply to Stockholm. It is probable that Yelaguin's high position impressed the Grand Lodge of Sweden with the idea that the only chance for its system to survive was under his protection ; at any rate, in 1775, it counselled Reichel and Rosenberg to effect a fusion and to acknowledge the Senator as Provincial Grand Master. The result was that Yelaguin abandoned the English system, accepted the Swedish Ritual and Reichel called upon his Lodges to join with those of the Senator. Harpocrates, Horus, Latona and Nemesis (1776) agreed and, on September 3, 1776 (Polick, in his History of Russian Freemasonry, erroneously gives the year as 1783 and Findel follows him), a National Grand Lodge of Russia, under Yelaguin, was erected. Melesino took office in this Grand, Lodge, which, as well as Yelaguin's original Lodge, Nine Muses, met in the Senator's own house on the island Yelaguin. But differences soon arose. George Rosenberg and his Lodge Apollo never joined the Grand Lodge; Reichel, who had quarrelled with Rosenberg, withdrew from Freemasonry altogether; Prince Trubezkoy, who had previously applied in vain to the Grand National (or Zinnendorff) Lodge for a Grand Master's patent, jealous of Yelaguin's preferment, retired to Moscow with the Lodges Osiris (composed, in the main, of Russian princes), Isis and Latona. Among the notabilities who here gathered round him may be mentioned, as of future interest, the Princes Dolgoruky and Gagarin (Latomia, vol. xxi, p. 310). We thus see that Yelaguin's governing body had little chance of permanent success ; nevertheless, in the following years, two more Russian Lodges were added to the English roll‑those of Liebau, Courland, No. 524, 178o ; and Astrea at Riga, No. 504, 1787, constituted by Yelaguin, January 4, 1785, confirmed by the Grand Lodge of England, August 21, 1787.

 

Telepneff (Russian Masons, p. ii) says that there were eighteen Lodges which formed the National Grand Lodge of Russia, which he specifies as follows 182 FREEMASONRY IN RUSSIA i. Harpocrates, Petersburg 2. Isis, Revel 3. Horus, Petersburg }founded according to the Zinnendorff system. 4. Oatona, Petersburg 5. Nemesis, Petersburg 6. Perfect Unity, Petersburg 7. Nine Muses, Petersburg 8. Urania, Petersburg }Yelaguin's Lodges. 9. Bellona, Petersburg io. Clio, Moscow.

 

ii. Silence (Discretion), Petersburg; successively under the Strict Observance, Melesino and Zinnendorff systems.

 

12. St. Catherine of the Three Pillars, Archangel; system unknown.

 

13. Perseverance, Moscow; first under Strict Observance, then under Zinnendorff systems.

 

14. Minerva, Military Lodge in Sagondy, Moldavia; a Yelaguin Lodge. 15. Thalia, Polotzk; a Yelaguin system Lodge.

 

16. Equality, Petersburg.

 

17. Candour, Moscow; Strict Observance. 18. Charity, Petersburg.

 

This want of consistency gave rise to fresh complications. Sweden, at that time, was still ambitious of retrieving its place as a great power, which it had lost on the death of Charles XII. In 1777 Gustavus III of Sweden, himself a Mason, visited Petersburg in the company of the Duke of Sudermania and a Grand festival was held in Rosenberg's independent Lodge (Apollo) on June z6 and 27, on which occasions the Masonic supremacy of Sweden was announced as desirable (Latomia, vol. xxi, p. 31 i). The Russian ambassador at Stockholm, Prince Kurakin, in alliance with George Rosenberg strove for the same object. William Rosenberg was Secretary to the Russian Embassy and in communication with his brother and Prince Gagarin. Kurakin was admitted to the highest Degrees of the Swedish Rite and promised by Karl of Sudermania a patent for a national Grand Lodge, Swedish Rite, provided he could induce a sufficiency of Lodges to concur in the project.

 

In 1777, says Friedrichs, there were eighteen Lodges working under the Provincial Lodge of Petersburg, according to the Swedo‑Berlin system, among which were ten in Petersburg alone, three at Moscow, one at Revel, one at Archangel, one at Polots in the Government of Witebsk, one Field Lodge at Kagodury in Moldavia. Members, as well as the highest officials, among whom, besides Yelaguin, were Count Panin and Prince Gabriel Gagarin, together with Melesino, who, as soon as Masonic Lodges had been established, had given up his own system, which was an imitation of the Strict Observance, all worked with ardour and devotedness at the task which now fell to their lot, and the single or private Lodges, as well as the Provincial Grand Lodge, showed signs of power and prosperity. Above all, adds Friedrichs, they considered it to be their duty to appear FREEMASONRY IN RUSSIA 183 before the world as the backbone of the nation and, therefore, kept everyone most carefully at a distance whose course of life and position did not bear looking at with a magnifying glass.

 

In 1777 also Kurakin returned, raised Gagarin, Melesino and others to the highest Swedish Degrees and seduced many of Yelaguin's Lodges towards the end of 1778. Bober also, as a deputy of Rosenberg, founded a new Lodge in Revel. The consent of Karl of Sudermania having been obtained, these steps were followed ‑May z5, 1779‑by the erection of a Swedish Provincial Grand Lodge for Russia, with Prince Gagarin as Grand Master; also of a Grand Chapter‑December z4, 1779. The new Lodge also assumed the same title as Yelaguin's, i.e. National Grand Lodge. The Swedish system was favoured because it was a Christian system and Freemasonry in Russia has always been Christian.

 

The following is a copy of the Patent granted on May 7, 1779, by the Grand Lodge of Sweden to Prince G. P. Gagarin, taken, with permission, from a copy in the possession of Boris Telepneff To the Glory of the Most High, in Holy Trinity One Great Architect of the Universe.

 

We, Karl, by the Grace of God Hereditary Prince of Sweden, of Goths and Vandals, Duke of Sudermania, Heir‑Apparent to Norway, Duke of SchleswigHolstein and Stormar, Count of Oldenburg and Delmenhorst, Illuminated Magister and the Wisest Vicar of Solomon for the Northern Province, formed of Swedish and Gothic Kingdoms, of the Grand Dukedom of Finland and of the Russian Empire, Prefect and Supreme Chief of all Lodges of St. Andrew and St. John, legally constituted and regularly working in these districts.

 

Do hereby wish to all Most Illuminated and Illuminated, Most Enlightened and Enlightened, Most Worshipful, Worshipful, Diligent and Zealous Brethren, Knight‑Freemasons, to all Grand Provincial Masters, Members of the Supreme Council of the Order, Grand Officers, Commanders, Knights of Temple Ribbon, Knights, Favourites of Solomon and Knights Stewards, Masters in the Chair of lower Lodges, Deputy Masters, Wardens and other Lodge Officers, Scottish Masters, Brethren Elect, St. John's Masters, Fellow Craftsmen and Apprentices‑Peace, Unity, Salvation'and Blessings in the Sacred Numbers of 3, 7, and 9 in all Mercies bestowed on us by God, One in Trinity, the Most High Builder of the Universe and Preserver of Our Order.

 

Inasmuch as our Brother the Most Illuminated Mason and Knight of Purple Ribbon, Prince Gavril Gagarin, was dutifully and obediently performing Our commands, decreed by Us to the glory, sustenance and blossoming of the Order and inasmuch as We had always recognized him to be zealous, persevering, honest, faithful and obedient, on the examination of his work, We found the abovementioned Prince perfectly acquainted with the Royal Art of Freemasons, in consideration of this and, in order to signify Our most sincere friendship towards him, We entrust this luminous Prince with the Supreme Government under Our Direction over all Lodges of Russia, acknowledged by Us and appoint him Grand Master.

 

Therefore, We command all Our Brethren and Knight‑Freemasons belonging 184 FREEMASONRY IN RUSSIA to the Union of the Provincial Lodge of Russia, Ruling Masters and their Deputies, Wardens and Officers, also Scottish Masters and all Masters‑elect, St. John's Masters, Fellow‑Craftsmen and Apprentices, to obey the above‑mentioned Prince, otherwise they will break the Knight‑Mason's oath given by them of their own free will and accord and will expose themselves to accusation and punishment according to that oath.

 

This is given in witness of Our decision to all Brethren, Knight‑Freemasons, present or absent, wherever dispersed over the surface of the Earth and We recommend them all jointly with the said Prince to the protection and mercy of the Most High Builder, the great Lord God.

 

To confirm the above, this patent is signed with Our Own Hand and Our Seal is affixed thereto.

 

Given in the East of Stockholm, in the seat of Our Government, at the place where the splendour of Light illumines the work and banishes darkness, on the 7th day of the 5th Month in the Year of Grace 1779.

 

The patent is signed by Karl, Supreme Chief and the Wisest Vicarius Salomonis and the other signatories include Count Horn, Deputy Provincial Grand Master; Count Nils Bjelke, High Chancellor; V. Stenhagen, Grand Orator; Baron Paul Pfeif, Grand Inquisitor; Count E. v. Stockenet, First Grand Inspector ; Count S. Levenhaupt, Second Grand Inspector; Baron S. v. Leionholm, Third Grand Inspector; Baron S. A. Vachtmeister, First Grand Warden; Count A. N. Stenbock, Second Grand Warden; S. v. Blumenfeldt, Grand Treasurer; Baron Fr. Spappe, Grand Almoner; Baron S. G. Osensterna, Grand Director of Ceremonies; and Karl Fredenheim, for Grand Secretary.

 

On May 9, 1780, says Telepneff (History of Swedish Freemasonry in Russia), a detailed instruction was issued by Karl, Duke of Sudermania, which began as follows We, Karl, by the Grace of God, Hereditary Prince of Sweden, of Goths and Vandals, Duke of Sudermania, Heir‑Apparent to Norway, Duke of SchleswigHolstein, Stormar, Ditmar, Count of Oldenburg and Delmenhorst, Grand Admiral of Sweden, Perpetual Inspector of General and Master of Heraldry of the Holy Order of the Temple at Jerusalem, Grand Provincial Master of VII and IX Provinces i.e. Sweden and Russia known in this Order as Knight and Brother of the lifegiving Sun, do hereby declare Taking into consideration the laudable and most especial attachment and real towards the good of Our Holy Order shown by Brethren of the Most Worshipful Chapter founded by Us in Petersburg at the time of Our decision to kindle Light therein, taking also into consideration the extent of the Russian Empire requiring a special vigilance over orderliness of proceedings and strict maintenance of the laws of Our Holy Order, to prevent and to correct promptly any misdeeds and disorders which might occur in Masonic Lodges and Chapters, which are or may be formed in this Empire at any future date, we find it necessary to establish according to the second clause of the Covenant of the loth of April, 1778, a Directory in Petersburg which shall not only watch over the execution of laws, statutes and Rituals of the Holy Order, but also judge and decide all disagreements which may arise among FREEMASONRY IN RUSSIA 185 Brethren both Masons and Templars, who are working with the purpose of disseminating and preserving Light and, therefore, should not be controlled by profane judges, the latter not being qualified to judge all these.

 

For such purpose We desire to give to those Most Worshipful Brethren who will form the said Directory an Instruction which, being founded on ancient laws and customs, from olden times accepted and established in Our Holy Order, will serve them as a Constitution; following the latter they shall in future rule over all business relating to the Holy Order of the Temple of Jerusalem in all parts of the Russian Empire.

 

We trust that the said worthy Brethren through their obedience and strictness in the fulfilment of the classes of the Instruction will entirely justify Our expectations, and the tender confidence We feel towards their zeal.

 

According to Telepneff (History of Swedish Freemasonry in Russia), the Swedish system affirmed that it owed its origin to the Order of Knights Templar, the mysteries of which it professed to possess. The organization of this System was characterized by a strictly defined hierarchy of grades and rank. Autocratic in its direction, with unchangeable high officials, the System insisted on a complete obedience of Brethren of lower Degrees to their superiors of higher rank. Telepneff states that it consisted of the following ten Degrees i. Apprentice 2. Fellow‑Craft . } first class, St. John's Lodges.

 

3. Master . _ 4. Scottish Apprentice‑Fellow second class (St. Andrew's Degrees). St.

 

5. Scottish Master . Andrew's or Scottish Lodges. 6. Steward Brethren or Knights of East and Jerusalem 7. Brethren Elect of King Solomon or Knights of the Temple, also called Knights of the West or of the Key third class (Knightly Degrees Chapters). 8. Confidants of St. John or Brethren of White Ribbon 9. Confidants of St. Andrew or Brethren of Purple Ribbon i o. Brethren of the Rosy Cross Adepts of the tenth Degree were subdivided into three further classes i. Members of the Ruling Chapter not occupying any office therein; 2. Grand Officers of the Chapter; 3. The Grand Ruling Master, who was the King of Sweden.

 

For the establishment of a Chapter in some districts it was deemed necessary to have three working or St. John's Lodges and one Scottish Lodge. The Chapter 186 FREEMASONRY IN RUSSIA was "legal" if twenty‑seven Knights were present; "ordinary" if forty‑nine Knights were present; and " perfect " if, without counting the President and Chaplains, eighty‑one Knights were assembled. Thus, possessors of the honours of the tenth Degree formed the Illuminated Chapter, offices in which could be accepted only by members of the high nobility, who were required to prove not fewer than four ancestors belonging to that rank.

 

At the head of the Russian Strict Observance at this time was Count Alexander Moussin‑Pouschkin‑Bruce.

 

In 1781, says Telepneff (Freemasonry in Russia, p. 14), some zealous Freemasons, remembering Reichel's advice: " If you want to study true Masonry, you must have a concealed Lodge of a very small number of members, but discreet and constant and practise in secret," founded a Lodge which they named Harmony. It had for its object the investigation of science and the study of Masonry. Apparently no Masonic Degrees were conferred, but the meetings were devoted to lectures and debates. It consisted of eight members only, viz. Prince Troubetzkoy (one of the leaders of the Swedish system), Heraskov, Prince Cherkussky, Prince Engalychev, T. P. Turgenev, A. M. Kutusov (followers of Reichel), Schwarz and Novikov.

 

The erection of Gagarin's Grand Lodge was followed by a circular from Grand Secretary Bober‑June 26, 1779‑directed to all Lodges except Melesino's, threatening to place them under a ban unless they joined within six weeks. The real object of the circular was the extinction of the former Zinnendorff Lodges. It must be remembered that at this time Sweden had disclaimed all knowledge of Zinnendorff. The result was not as complete as was desired. With the exception of Bober's own Lodge, all the German‑speaking Lodges of the eastern seaboard remained true to Yelaguin, whilst those of the Strict Observance refrained from joining the new power. It consisted of 11 Lodges‑6 in St. Petersburg, 3 in Moscow, 1 in Revel and 1 (military) in Kinburn. The Grand National Lodge of Gagarin might, however, have ultimately obtained complete success, but for two reasons. Rosenberg and Gagarin quarrelled and, on March 15, 178o, Karl of Sudermania was created Vicarius Salomonis of the IXth Templar Province, which, according to Swedish pretensions, included Denmark and Russia. This attempt at political supremacy, through the instrumentality of the Craft, which had already alarmed the Lodges of Denmark and Germany, produced the same effect in Russia. The bodies acting under Yelaguin and Gagarin respectively, were alike unanimous in protesting ; and the latter, thoroughly discouraged, betook himself to Moscow November io, 1781. This caused the downfall of the Gagarin Grand Lodge, which then dissolved and disappeared from the scene.

 

In 1781 Novikov and Schwarz founded the Friendly Learned Society for the purpose of spreading instruction and sound knowledge among the ignorant masses of Russian people. From this grew three printing establishments, two of which were devoted to the production of books of general instruction, one to the production of Rosicrucian literature.

 

FREEMASONRY IN RUSSIA 187 In 178z, writes Telepneff (Russian Masons, p. ig), the Wilhelmsbad Masonic Convention was held. The Rite of Strict Observance was radically changed and its close connexion with the Templar Order discarded, to the great joy of Novikov (who disliked the gorgeous ceremonies and extravagant claims of the Strict Observance and viewed all Templar Degrees with great misgivings) and his followers. Altogether nine Provinces were established: Lower Germany, Overnia, Oxitania, Italy, Burgundy, Higher Germany, Austria, Russia, with one vacancy, in the event of Sweden joining the Order. A Provincial Chapter and a Directory were established in Moscow for the purpose of governing ordinary or Symbolic Masonic Lodges. Four Lodges, viz. Three Banners (A. Tatischev) ; Osiris (Prince N. N. Troubetzkoy) ; Latona (Novikov) ; and Sphinx (Prince Gagarin), became Mother Lodges and received the right of warranting new Lodges. Novikov became Chairman of the Executive Board for Russia. The ensuing history is best related in Telepneff's own words The number of Moscow Lodges ruled in this manner rapidly increased. The new organization spread also in Petersburg and even in remote Provinces.

 

As already mentioned, the influence of the Rosy Cross was paramount, though the Order worked in " peace and concealment." Gradually, not only Knights' Chapters were abolished, but all Templar Degrees fell into disuse : in the end the connexion with the Duke of Braunschweig was severed ; leaders of Russian Masonry left the Order of Templars and Beneficent Knights and, instead, openly chose the Order of the Rosy Cross under Woellner. At that time Woellner himself was in disagreement with the circle of the Duke of Braunschweig.

 

Moscow Masons worked with zeal and animation. Besides ordinary Masonic Lodges, the membership of which was considered by Rosicrucians in Russia as the first indispensable qualification for the admission to their Order, the Rosicrucian centre itself was now properly organized. Rosicrucians looked upon Masonic Lodges as their " outer circle " where necessary moral precepts were imparted to those who later would aspire to Rosicrucian mysteries. Schwarz, assisted by Novikov and other Masonic leaders, was the main inspirer of the whole movement.

 

In February 1784 Schwarz died. His death dismayed all Rosicrucians and was undoubtedly a great loss to them. His successor, Baron Schroeder, appointed by Teden, did not possess any of the high qualities of the deceased Brother ; prob ably he belonged to the type of Masonic and occult adventurers already referred to. In 1784 " silanum " was proclaimed by the Rosicrucian Order, that is to say, such a period when no new members were admitted into the Order and the usual work was suspended. In spite of silanum, Russian Rosicrucians continued their studies and enlarged their influence by opening new Masonic Lodges.

 

In 1785 full Rosicrucian activities were apparently resumed. But alreadv, in 1786, the Empress Catherine began to view these activities with suspicion ;. the unfortunate dependence of Moscow Rosicrucians upon their Prussian chiefs was disagreeable to the Empress, an arch‑enemy of Prussia, and their association with the heir‑apparent, Grand Duke Paul, an open adversary of Catherine's government, seemed to her highly suspicious ; criticisms of the loose morals of the Imperial Court irritated her; their strict adherence to Russian traditions and the Orthodox 188 FREEMASONRY IN RUSSIA Church were against her temporary, but strong, leanings towards French customs and jesuitism. Hence the Empress's animosity.

 

Investigations were carried on through the police, but nothing could be proved against the Rosicrucians. Nevertheless some of their leaders were ordered to leave Moscow; in 1792 Novikov was thrown into the dreary dungeons of the Schlusselburg fortress. His relations with the Grand Duke Paul seem to have been the only reason for this harsh measure.

 

When Schwarz died a Board for the direction of Masonic business was constituted, which at first consisted (Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, vol. xxxv, p. 276) of Tatischev, Novikov and Prince N. N. Troubetskoy, with Lopukhin and Baron Schroeder as Wardens. The last named was described by Lopukhin (famous Masonic mystic) as " an emigrant and vagabond quite recently unknown to anybody in Moscow." The arrest of Novikov was preceded by the suppression of the Printing Company at the instigation of General Prosorovsky, who undertook to suppress entirely all Masonic activities.

 

In April 1782 secret societies were forbidden throughout Russia ; the Freemasons were not included, but Melesino, foreseeing the probable victory of Yelaguin's Grand Lodge, now left almost supreme, took advantage of the edict grace fully to withdraw from the contest and retired to Moscow, directing his Lodges to close their doors, in obedience to the law.

 

As a curiosity, the following two versions of an occurrence in 1784 are extracted without comment, the first from Lawrie's History (edit. 1804, p. 235) and the second from Thory (Acta Lat., vol. i, p. 159): A petition was received from several Scottish Masons who had been commissioned by the Empress of all the Russias to settle in her capital, requesting a charter of erection for a Lodge at St. Petersburg, under the name of the Imperial Scottish Lodge of St. Petersburg, which was unanimously granted.

 

The Empress of all the Russias invites the Grand Lodge of Scotland to send deputies to St. Petersburg in order to establish there a Scotch Lodge under the name of Imperial Lodge. Grand Lodge hastens to defer to the wishes of this sovereign. Constitutions are accorded.

 

In 1786 Freemasons were deprived of the control of the schools and hospitals which they had founded and Masonic books were declared to be more dangerous than the productions of the French Encyclopxdists. This, in spite of the fact that 461 books seized in a raid made by the police on Novikov's book‑shop had been declared by the highest dignitary of the Russian Church to be faithful in every respect to Orthodox teachings. Yet when, in 1787, a terrible famine broke out in Russia, the Freemasons organized the most effectual help for the stricken population and Novikov was the prime mover in the formation of the society which accomplished this beneficent aim.

 

FREEMASONRY IN RUSSIA 18q Telepnef points out (Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, vol. xxxv, p. 275) that, in spite of the many changes of system, Russian Freemasonry, in regard to politics, still retained Yelaguin's doctrine. Russian Freemasons, as well as the whole of Orthodox Freemasons, were unconditionally against the French revolutionary teachings. In Russia emphasis was laid on the teaching and practice of loyalty to the Sovereign and morality and belief in God.

 

This opinion will also explain Rembeck's statement in his Bemerkungen, published in 1805, when he says that Freemasonry in Russia rose to a fullness of splendour, only attained in England and Sweden. There was a building erected entirely according to Masonic views ; the existence of the Lodges was generally known; institutions in their name were everywhere established; indeed, one Brother was buried with Masonic honours. When King Gustavus III of Sweden was present, something very nearly resembling public festivals was arranged, which the King and several of his suite attended. That Catherine did not distrust this society is apparent from all this occurring in her immediate neighbourhood without her seeming to take any particular notice of it.

 

What then was the reason for the change of front on the part of the Empress ? Findel states that the many adverse controversial writings published at this time upon Freemasonry attracted the attention of the Empress and she considered it advisable to make known to those around her that she did not approve of Masonic meetings. Upon this, although no express prohibition emanated from her, the Lodges were closed but, with the privity of the police, an administrative power was appointed, as it was hoped all the time that the ill‑will manifested would not be of long duration. The Apollo Lodge in Petersburg worked on in silence until 1797 and afterwards united her members twice a year‑at the feast of St. John and at the anniversary of their erection. The Lodge of Charity, afterwards called the Crowned Pelican, likewise arranged meetings among its members, without working regularly.

 

This statement is in opposition to Friedrichs, who says All Lodges were closed. At the beginning of the year 1794 went forth Catherine's " wish " for a dissolution and, in the course of a few months, even in the remotest corners of Russia, no more Lodges were to be found.

 

Bergmann, attorney‑general at Riga, gave the following explanation of the edict .

 

In Russia, especially at St. Petersburg, affairs were in a most wretched state. It was a strange medley of men from all parts of the world‑men who knew nothing of either Order or Obedience, in fact, so‑called Masons, who had not the slightest idea what they were to understand by Masonry ; for England and France had sent their wares to market ; ignorant travellers had brought them to St. Petersburg ; and what had escaped their memory was supplied by their impudence. England and France endeavoured to populate the imperial capital and, at last, the Freemasons became so numerous that coachmen and lackeys erected Lodges and made Igo FREEMASONRY IN RUSSIA proselytes. No one in my time troubled himself about the object in view; the secrets were always represented in pictures and were, at length, in the highest Melesino Degree, left to the reflection of those new members who could rack their brains in counsel with their Master. In my time at St. Petersburg the worst was that, with the strange systems and developments, morality with all social virtues was neglected.

 

This must not be accepted as an accurate description of Russian Freemasonry in general. The statement applies only to one or two Lodges, which Yelaguin himself had referred to with contempt.

 

Another explanation given by Telepneff (Russian Masons, p. 14) is that the ban was caused through the introduction of the Swedish System. The implicit obedience demanded by this system from Brethren to their superiors meant a complete dependence of Russian Freemasons upon their Stockholm chiefs This naturally caused anxiety and doubts in the Russian government circles. Catherine commanded Yelaguin to take measures to have Gagarin's Lodges closed. Gagarin left Petersburg and went to Moscow, where he continued to work in secret, but the role of Swedish Masonry was practically terminated and the role of Petersburg Masonry also. The predominance in the direction of Russian Masonry was now in the hands of Moscow Brethren, where most of the earnest and zealous Masonic leaders gathered at that time.

 

This explanation is supplemented by Friedrichs, which, though lengthy, is necessary for a complete understanding of the situation These disagreeable circumstances were crowned by a special scandal, the swindle affair of Cagliostro. It is scarcely credible that this man was able to gain a following out of the most fashionable and best educated classes and that not in Russia alone. What did he tell about himself ? He said that for life he was indebted to the love of an angel for an earthly woman and that he was the direct messenger of the prophet Elijah, called to lead the faithful to a higher perfection through a physical and moral new birth. He, the anointed of God, was able, he said, to perform all kinds of miracles and knew all secrets which were revealed only to the most intimate of the celestial glory. Through him the inner soul of the finite creature could unite with the omnipotence of the infinite. And what did the police report of his native town Palermo say of him ? That he had been punished for brawling, pimping and forgery.

 

At Mitau a temple was erected by Count Cagliostro, or, as his real, less euphonious, name was : Joseph Balsamo. There he carried on " Egyptian Masonry " and everything that took place there was obscure, fantastic and mysterious. Quite new for Russia was the fact that he admitted ladies to the work, at the head of whom stood his wife, the beautiful Lorenza. It is true that she played an even greater role in the gentlemen's Lodges, where she conjured up spirits for large sums of money and sold tinctures of life and universal panaceas and, when this failed to draw, she was not ashamed to call into requisition the charms of her FREEMASONRY IN RUSSIA 191 own person. And what did her Joseph do ? He kept up a strange intercourse with the ladies with a view to the improvement of the human race.

 

This then was a serious matter‑so serious that Catherine herself was aroused. We have already stated that Catherine's enthusiasm for Masonry had died down; in a word she had become indifferent to it. How was it possible that this woman of a strong will and a quick eye and conscious of the aim she had in view should continue to take pleasure in this society which was divided against itself, was rent by feuds and constantly changed from one system to another ? What could she do with a retinue of Masonic " coachmen and valets " ? Such people were ignored by her. But now affairs had come to a pretty pass and the lioness suddenly roused herself from her sleep. For a time, however, she played with her victim and then she destroyed him.

 

She played with her victim, i.e. she poured out the cup of her irony and her sarcasm over Cagliostro's victims. In her three satirical comedies‑The Siberian Conjurer, The Deceiver and The Infatuated One, she lashed the " Deceiver " and his " Infatuated Ones" most unmercifully. Unfortunately, whether intentionally or not, she confused " Egyptian Masonry " and Freemasonry in general. That she thereby was unjust to Freemasonry in general and that, in spite of its very many imperfections and weak points, all the good in it had not been destroyed, may be proved by quoting the testimony of Petroff " Several plays were written by Catherine against Freemasonry. In these plays she represents the Freemasons as deceivers or as deceived, as people who made gold and sold the elixir of life, as alchemists and as ghost‑seers. When developing the fundamental idea of the Comedy The Siberian Conjurer, she wrote to Baron Grimm : The Siberian Cos jurer is that Theosophist who produces all the charlatanry of Paracelsus. In the comedy The Deceiver we have that notorious Cagliostro, who transforms small diamonds into large ones, who knows remedies for all diseases, who has the power in himself to conjure up spirits and to whom, but a short time before, Alexander of Macedonia had appeared." Thereby, however, she only presents to the world the bad side of Freemasonry, basing her narration on stories which were current in society at the time ; but its humanitarian and moral side she passes over altogether.

 

Those were heavy blows for Masonry and worse ones were still to come. The French Revolution broke out, which, if dangerous for Freemasonry in Germany, was mortal for Russian Masonry. " The Freemasons have made the Revolution ! " This cry was heard in both France and Germany and was heard louder and more vehemently in Russia ; loudest of all, of course, where its source has always been sought for, viz. in old Polots, the headquarters of the Jesuits, who felt themselves so much at home in that country. Catherine was a shrewd and cautious woman and, whether there was any truth in this cry or not, she obviated the danger. She had already raised her hand, as we know, in consequence of other disagreeable incidents and now she struck a blow which, of course, was a mortal one.

 

The performances of The Deceiver and The Infatuated One, says Waliszewski, in The Romance of an Empress, had a prodigious success, the most amusing part being that at the first performance there were cries of " Author ! " who, however, kept completely incognito, despite the huge success. Each of the pieces, he adds, brought ten thousand roubles to the management at Moscow.

 

192 FREEMASONRY IN RUSSIA Catherine died in 1796 and was followed by Paul I, said by some writers to have been a Mason ; indeed, it is even asserted that Catherine herself witnessed his initiation. The hopes which the Craft had placed in his presumed goodwill to Freemasonry were destined to be overthrown. Through the Marshal von Medem he had intimated his approbation of the Lodges in Courland.

 

Waliszewski says definitely (Paul the First of Russia, p. 3 8) that Paul had become directly connected with the Masonic Order.

 

The Grand Master of the Masonic centre at Moscow, Prince Gabriel Galitzine, was among his warmest partizans and correspondence seized by Catherine showed that he was in close relations with Novikov and the other Masons in the Second Capital of the Empire and even in a fair way to be elected Grand Master of the Order. Already portraits of him had been circulated representing him wearing Masonic emblems.

 

As usual, the police reports exaggerated and distorted the facts. Novikov and his friends were no regicides, but they were attached on the one hand to the critics of the Catherine regime and, on the other, they were entangled in certain foreign relationships which were not entirely non‑political. There was reason for some anxiety on Catherine's part ; for too many Russian princes, in correspondence with the sectaries. of Schwarz and Saint‑Martin in Russia, were showing a suspicious eagerness to put Paul at their head.

 

She cut the matter short by the prosecution which sent Novikov to the fortress of Schhisselburg in 179z and which does her no credit. Paul, however, was screened by some of his friends and did not hesitate to disavow the others and he was untouched by the storm. He was left free even to continue in the tendencies and the practices which had provoked the Empress's severity.

 

He kept about him Vassili Ivanovitch Bajenof, the celebrated Moscovite architect, who had been his intermediary in dealing with the Lodges. He continued to correspond with Lavater and even with Saint‑Martin, who had been a habitue of Montbeliard and, in later days, when he had abandoned Freemasonry so entirely as to insult and scoff at it, he retained its impress ; there was always a tendency to exaltation in the sincerely religious sentiments which he professed.

 

This information and opinion receive confirmation from Telepnef, who, in Russian Masons, says, pp. z4‑S Most of Paul's adherents during his difficult life before ascending the Russian throne were Freemasons. His teacher and intimate friend, Count Nikita Panin, a prominent statesman, was an earnest Mason. Prince Nicholas Repnin, one of the greatest generals of his time, was another friend and also a zealous Mason. Prince G. P. Gagarin and Prince A. B. Kurakin, a playmate and bosom friend of Paul, were both well‑known Masonic names. During his journey abroad as Grand Duke, Paul met Frederick the Great and other prominent Prussian Masons. His reception by them is said to have been extraordinarily friendly, and great honours were accorded to him at the Prussian Court. Prince Kurakin was chiefly instrumental in the introduction of the then Russian heir‑apparent to Masonic mysteries.

 

FREEMASONRY IN RUSSIA 193 A document preserved in the Imperial archives of the Ministry of Police states quite unequivocally that Grand Duke Paul was secretly initiated by I. P. Yelaguin himself (Minouvshie gods, 1807, vol. ii, p. 71).

 

Unfortunately, Paul's abnormal and humiliating position during his mother's life was gradually spoiling his character. He grew suspicious and irritable, even somewhat unbalanced.

 

As soon as he ascended the throne, Paul showed marks of high favour to Masons, especially to those who had suffered during the previous reign. Soon, however, the now capricious ruler of Russia cooled considerably towards his Masonic friends who bravely considered it their duty to tell the Monarch perfect truth and give him honest advice. He decided to postpone the opening of Masonic Lodges, but visited an assembly of their leaders and, while all agreed to defer awhile the opening of Lodges, the Emperor shook hands with everyone and said: " If you want anything, write to me plainly as a Brother without any compliments." The Russkaia Starina, 1874, also states The Grand Duke Paul Petrovich belonged to Novikov's Society. When this nobleman‑bookseller was arrested and brought with all his papers to Petersburg, a committee was formed to make an inquiry into his case. Prince Gregory Alexcevich Dolgorouky, a civil servant of small rank, was appointed one of the clerks of the committee; he either belonged to Novikov's Society or, in any case, shared his views and loved the Grand Duke. When looking through Novikov's papers, Prince Dologorouky found a list of members of Novikov's Society: there was a page on which the Grand Duke himself had signed his name. Dologorouky took the book aside, tore out the incriminating page, chewed and swallowed it.

 

Rembeck, who travelled in Russia and published his Bemerkungen in 1805, gives the following account. Paul called a meeting of well‑known Brothers to decide whether the Lodges should be reopened or not. The project was opposed by some few influential members and statesmen (including W. von Ungern Sternberg, the Deputy Provincial Grand Master) and it was decided to wait awhile. Then appeared on the scene the Maltese Knight Count Litta and persuaded the Emperor to favour the Maltese Order at the expense of the Craft. The result was, that an edict appeared in 1797 forbidding secret meetings and, although Freemasonry was not specifically mentioned, Paul caused all the Masters of Lodges known to him to give their hand and word that they would open no Lodges. These were in return made Knights of Malta and, on December 16, 1798, Paul declared himself Grand Master of that Order. It must be remembered that as the Zinnendorff, Swedish and Strict Observance Systems each professed to be a continuation of the Order of the Temple, the Maltese Knights were in some degree justified in looking upon the Craft as being in organized rivalry with their own Order.

 

Under Rastoptchine's influence, says Waliszewski, in Paul the First of Russia, Paul soon repudiated his former sympathies with Freemasonry and Martinism. He dismissed Novikov from Petersburg and placed him again under police supervision. Year by year he became more uncompromising. In January I8oI F. IV‑13 FREEMASONRY IN RUSSIA Schirmer, a Prussian merchant, was arrested, kept on bread and water for a month and, finally, sent back to his own country for projecting the organization of a literary and artistic club. Anyone who was opposed to Paul was considered an enemy of the State.

 

At the accession of Paul, says Waliszewski also (Paul the First of Russia, p. z39), the Order, having lost most of its property owing to the Revolution, was working for compensation in Russia.

 

It was this that brought the Bailiff Giulio Litta to St. Petersburg, where the presence of his brother, the Nuncio Lorenzo, afterwards Cardinal, assured him of a strong backing. His mission was merely to press the claims of the Order to their inheritance of Ostrog, which had been appropriated by collaterals, but he succeeded beyond his hopes. In January 1797 Paul signed a convention whereby the Volyhnian estate was exchanged for an assured [increased] annual revenue of 300,000 florins for the maintenance of a Russian Grand Priory. The agreement was ratified in August by Ferdinand de Hompesch, the Grand Master, who had just succeeded Emmanuel de Rohan and the first Grand Prior was the Prince de Conde.

 

There was nothing in this which could offend anybody, and Cobenzl and SerraCapriola, the Neapolitan envoy, expressed their approval. But, after spending a few months at Malta, Litta returned to Russia and presented Paul with the cross which had been worn by La Valette, the most illustrious of the Grand Masters, offering him at the same time the protectorate of the Order. At a solemn audience, at which the Court and many dignitaries of the Orthodox Church were present, the Czar accepted both the gift and the functions proposed to him.

 

In i8oi the liberal‑minded Alexander ascended the throne, but here again the expectations of the Craft were disappointed, for he renewed the decree against secret societies. Thory's romantic account of his conversion and initiation by Bober in 1803 (Acta Lat., vol. i, p. z18) need not be accepted, as it would be unwise to depend upon theory in the absence of corroboration ; but it is evident that some time before 1804 Alexander had let it be understood that he would not interfere with the meetings of the Craft ; for in that year, according to the Freiburgel░ Taschenbuch of 18 I6‑I7, the members of the former Pelican, in i8o8, reconstituted their Lodge under the title of Alexander of the Crowned Pelican ; and many other Lodges followed their example. It was in that Lodge that Count MoussinPouschkin was initiated. The Pelican increased to such an extent that, in i 8ocg, it was divided into three Lodges, known as Crown Pelican ; Elisabeth, the Patroness of Virtue ; and Peter, the Patron of Truth, working respectively in Russian, German and French, according to the Swedish Rite. These three then formed a Grand Directoral Lodge, known as the Wladimir or Order, were joined in Ail and 181 z by two French Lodges in Petersburg and, in 1813, by the Lodges in Revel and Cronstadt. This Grand Directory was composed in part of the holders of the superior Degrees, partly of the Lodge representatives. Bober was its Grand Master from 1811 to 1814 and was followed, in 1815, by Count Basil MoussinPouschkin‑Bruce‑not to be confounded with Count Alexander of the same name FREEMASONRY IN RUSSIA 195 the former head of the Russian Strict Observance. From the composition of this Grand Lodge, it might have been foreseen that the simple Masters would soon fall out with the High Degree Masons. About this time Fessler, who had already so powerfully contributed to lead back German Freemasonry to its English origin and simplicity, arrived in Petersburg and many Lodges reverted to the ceremonies of the Craft.

 

It must be pointed out that Melgunov and Sidorov in Masonry; the Russkaia Starina, 1874; and Tira Sokolovskaia, in Russian Masonry, all affirm that Alexander was initiated into Freemasonry, but do not give the date or the name of the Lodge in which the ceremony took place. The Handbuch for 1865 states that Alexander was initiated along with his younger brother, Konstantin Pavlovich, but gives no particulars.

 

Fessler, who is mentioned above, was a remarkable character, and the following particulars of his interesting career are given by Telepnefú in Some Aspects of Russian Freemasonry during the reign of the Emperor Alexander I, based upon information in the Handbuch, pp. 3z9‑39; Mackey's Encyclop&dia, vol. i, pp. 26z‑4; Melgunov and Sidorov, Masonry, vol. i, pp. io8‑9 ; vol. ii, pp. 174‑5 ; Puipin, Social Movement, 1'pò 303, 307‑8 ; and Sokolovskaia, Russian Masonry, p. 391 Ignaz Aurelius Fessler was born at Czyrendorf, in Hungary, in 1756. The beginning of his career was somewhat stormy. He was educated in a Jesuit School and, in 1773, joined the Capuchin Order. Monastic abuses soon disgusted him, so that he deemed it his duty to expose them to the Emperor Joseph II ; as a result, he incurred the persecutions of the Superiors of the Roman Church. A fanatical monk, Sergius, tried to stab him, but Fessler luckily escaped the knife of Father Sergius and was taken by the Emperor under his own protection. The Emperor appointed Fessler an ex‑professor of Oriental languages in the University of Lemberg. His mind, tinged with mysticism in his early youth, now became sceptical and he decided to leave the Capuchin Order. Fessler's changed views aroused against him such a storm of hatred from the Roman clergy that he was obliged once again to run for his life and arrived in Breslau in 1788. He was appointed the tutor of the son of the Prince of Schcenaich‑Carolath and subsequently left Breslau for Wallisfurth. To this period of Fessler's life belongs the establishment of a secret Order called the Evergreen, which had a certain similarity to Masonry in its organization and had for its purpose general moral reforms : it was dissolved in 1793. In 1791 he embraced the Lutheran faith; in 179z he married, but his married life was as stormy as his public activities and was dissolved in 18oz. From Carolath he moved to Berlin, where he remained until 18o6 as a Superintendent of Schools. As with religious beliefs, so with his family lifeFessler seemed always to be in search of new vistas: he soon married again. In Berlin he took part in Masonic activities, but became rapidly disappointed in the behaviour of Masons whom he met and nearly left the Order. But his undoubted, though somewhat erratic, zeal and sincerity procured him a place on the Supreme Masonic Council and he began to work for the reformation of Masonry, trying to liberate Lodges from " deceptive High Degrees, false secretiveness and superfluous mysteries." This work created again a number of enemies and bitter attacks.

 

196 FREEMASONRY IN RUSSIA Still he strove to continue his task of Masonic reformer and writer. Fessler's pecuniary position was precarious till, in January, 18ocg, he was invited to Petersburg by the Emperor's Liberal Counsellor, M. Speransky. Here he obtained the position of a professor of Hebrew and, later, of Philosophy in the Petersburg Ecclesiastical Academy. His Liberal views caused his removal from the Academy. He was appointed Superintendent of the Evangelical community in nine districts of Russia and resided in Saratov. He came back to Petersburg in 18z7, became Ecclesiastical Counsellor and there died in 1839.

 

In 1811, writes de Sanglen, in his Memoirs, published at Stuttgart, under the title Aus Jacob Iovanozvitsch de San glens Dekivurdigkeiten, he (de Sanglen) had an interview with the Emperor, who, after a long interrogative conversation (Ars Ouatuor Coronatorum, vol. x, p. 73), handed him the following letter to pass on to Beber (Bober) I presume that the object of the Lodge is a noble one and tends to virtue, that the means to this end are founded on morality and that every political tendency is strictly forbidden. If this be the case, then the Lodge will enjoy the goodwill which, in accordance with the dictates of my heart, I extend to all true and trusty subjects who are faithful to God, the State and myself. But, in order to ascertain whether the Society of Masons follows the objects which I have assumed, I ordain that the business and minutes of every Lodge are to be submitted to me, in order that I may obtain the necessary light respecting their legislation, the maintenance of good order and the conduct of their business. In case of anything wrong, I must know with whom I have to account.

 

As the outcome of this official recognition and permission, a great impetus was given to the Order, not only in Petersburg and Moscow, but also in the Provinces as far away as the Crimea. During the Napoleonic wars many military Lodges were formed. Telepneff says (Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, vol. xxxv, p. z8o) that the most prominent men of the period were members of the Order and he instances Michael Speransky, one of the ablest of Russian legislators ; Benkendorf, the Emperor's personal friend; Rasumovsky and Balashov, Cabinet ministers; Prince Lobanov ; Prince Alexander Ipslanti ; and Prince Hohenloe.

 

According also to Telepneff (Russian Masons, pp. z7‑8) the organization of Freemasonry was on the following lines The autocratic Emperor of Russia; the Ministry of Police, responsible to the Emperor ; an autocratic ruler of Masonry under the title of " The Wisest of the Wise "‑this place was filled by I. Bober, who seems to have convinced Alexander I of the high ideals and usefulness of Freemasonry‑irresponsible to Brethren but responsible to the Ministry of Police; two Councils of Adepts of Higher Degrees (those Superiors who were very often unknown to ordinary Brethren) ; an open Grand Lodge, called the Grand Directorial Lodge Wladimir, entirely denominated by the Grand Master (which rank was bestowed upon The Wisest of the Wise) ; and by Adepts of Higher Degrees (mostly members of the two aforesaid Councils) ; and ordinary Lodges.

 

FREEMASONRY IN RUSSIA 197 This peculiarly constituted Masonry, controlled by the Ministry of Police and used largely for a very laudable object of supporting the existing government, but a political object all the same, was hardly Masonry as understood in England. However, the movement became quite fashionable and large numbers of new members began to swell its ranks. Apparently, no great discrimination was made among candidates and many unworthy initiates were enjoying Masonic privileges.

 

In March 1815 the Directory unanimously resolved to acknowledge all Rites which were recognized anywhere by a regular Grand Lodge‑a tremendous blow for the partisans of the Swedish Rite ; but when in June it proceeded with a revision of its Statutes, the impossibility of reconciling opposite views of Craft government became apparent. The result was the dissolution of the Directory and that, on August 30, 1815, four Lodges erected the Grand Lodge Astrea. Its organization was similar to the English Grand Lodge and needs no description: it will only be necessary to remark that‑confining its attention exclusively to the Craft‑it agreed to leave every Lodge free to adopt such Degrees beyond the Master's as it might prefer. Count Moussin‑Pouschkin‑Bruce was elected Grand Master. It almost immediately afterwards warranted a new Lodge and, in October, was joined by the most important Lodge of all, the Pelican. By 1817 Astrea numbered twelve daughter Lodges and, by 18ig, twenty‑three Lodges. Under the Grand Lodge Astrea all systems were tolerated and, so far as working was concerned, each Lodge was a law unto itself, the only condition being that the government must not disapprove of any new system introduced into Russian Masonry, for which the Grand Master was held responsible to the government. The Lodges, however, agreed not to follow the rules of the so‑called Illuminati and Mystics, or the Alchemists, nor to attempt to revise the ancient Orders of Knighthood and to avoid all purposes not in correspondence with natural and positive laws.

 

According to a certificate reproduced in Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, vol. viii, p. 231, Moussin‑Pouschkin‑Bruce was Master of La Loge Les Amis Reunis in 1813, a Lodge which worked in the French language, although the majority of the signa tories to the document were undoubtedly Russian. This certificate was granted to Louis Regnaud Carcas, a native of Malta.

 

In ArsQuatuor Coronatorum, vol. xv, p. 161, there was also reproduced a Patent granted by Lodge Astrea in 1818, creating Bober an Honorary Member of that Lodge, in virtue of his forty years' zeal for Masonry and his four years' service as Grand Master of the Ancient Grand Lodge Wladimir. This Patent was signed by Basil Comte Moussin‑Pouschkin‑Bruce as Grand Master, Alexander Labanoff de Rostoff, Deputy Grand Master; F. F. Schubert, Frederic de Scholer and Aug. de Lerche, Grand Wardens ; Frederic Wolborth, Grand Orator; C. G. Ritter, Grand Treasurer; Chs. de Valz, Grand Almoner; Comte Theodor Tolstoy, Master of Ceremonies ; and E. Collins, Grand Secretary for Correspondence.

 

From the remains of the Directory, two dissenting Lodges erected in 1815 a Swedish Provincial Grand Lodge of Russia, but in 18i g this body could only count 6 subordinate Lodges, whereas at the same date the Grand Lodge Astrea 198 FREEMASONRY IN RUSSIA ruled over 24. Of these 24, however, 7 worked according to Schroeder's Ritual (the Hamburg modification of the English ceremonial), 2 according to Yelaguin's (Zinnendorfl), 6 by the rectified Strict Observance, 8 by the Swedish Ritual, and i according to Fessler's modified English rite. In 1818 a Grand Chapter was established, to control the working of the entire set of Degrees of all these Rites, beyond that of Master Mason. The Swedish Rite, however, again became the predominant Rite, to which, in 1822, the Grand Lodge Astrea reverted, the reason being that the Swedish Rite was essentially Christian.

 

In 182o Kuschelev was elected Deputy Grand Master, to whose subsequent course of action the ingratitude of the viper in the fable‑towards the countryman who had nurtured it in his bosom‑has been quoted as the fittest parallel. He was, however, only opposed to political Masonry and he addressed a paper to the Emperor showing the danger to the State, of the Craft as then constituted and maintaining the necessity either of its suppression or of such modifications as would have entirely deprived it of its chief characteristics. The Czar Alexander chose the former alternative and issued a ukase‑August i, 1822‑closing all Lodges and forbidding them at any future time to reopen. The Fraternity obeyed without a murmur, the decree was renewed by his successor, Nicholas I, on April 21, 1826. The Kusskaia Starina of 1907 states that there are documents in existence proving that secret Masonic gatherings continued until 1830.

 

Egor Andrevich Kushelev, Lieutenant‑General and Senator, was, says Telepneff, in Some Aspects of Kussian Freemasonry A Mason of a very old School and in politics an extreme Conservative; also he was a very religious man. His Masonic ideal was the Swedish system, as originally introduced into Russia in the eighteenth century and then restored to its former splendour by the Grand Directorial Lodge Wladimir. But not only did Kushelev disapprove of Masonic innovations as destroying true Masonic doctrines ; he also saw the danger of the Lodges becoming nests of the Illuminati with revolutionary political views. He was set against all division of Masonic authority and deplored the lack of unity among the Masons of later days. When elected in 182o Deputy Grand Master of Astrea, Kushelev decided to restore the old rules and doctrines as he understood them, but his intentions were opposed by members holding Masonic and political views widely different from his own creed; he then decided to bring the matter before the Emperor; he considered this his duty towards the Government and Freemasonry itself. Accordingly he wrote a report in which he related the past of Russian Masonry, shewed that, in his view, its position was a very dangerous one and offered his advice upon the measures necessary to improve its condition. The high social position of Kushelev and his close relations to Freemasonry must have given some weight to his opinions in the mind of the Emperor (who was then surrounded by extreme reactionaries, headed by Prince Metternich), swinging from indecisive Liberal ideas to the reaction which characterized the latter period of his reign. The Emperor must have been in a receptive mood for such a communication, for he was deeply impressed by the dangerous unrest in Europe, due, apparently, to activities of secret societies with political aims.

 

i Disorders and scandals caused in other countries by the existence of different secret societies, of which some under the name of Masonic Lodges had at first Charity as their object, but later applied themselves to political aims and destruction of the tranquillity of States, made it imperative in several countries to prohibit such secret societies.

 

Our Emperor, ever watchful to guard against all that may injure his Empire, especially at the present juncture when mental speculations bring forth such sad occurrences as have been witnessed in other countries, has deemed it good to decree (i) All secret societies under whatever denomination, Masonic Lodges or others, shall be closed and in future not allowed to be established ; (2) This to be communicated to all members of the said societies and such members to give a written undertaking that they will not in future constitute under any disguise, Masonic or secret societies, either in the Empire or abroad.

 

I inform you of the above Imperial decision and humbly request your Highness (Excellency) to co‑operate in its execution and as Grand Master of the Grand Lodge Astrea (Provincial) to instruct all subordinate Lodges to cease their work, to close their meetings and to obtain written undertakings from all Brethren belonging thereto not to establish any such in future.

 

Your Highness (Excellency) will greatly oblige me if you will inform me in due time regarding the success of your dispositions in respect of the said objects and, also, deliver at the same time, all written undertakings given on this occasion by Brother‑Masons.

 

FREEMASONRY IN RUSSIA 199 The rescript issued by the Minister of the Interior ordered the closing of all secret Societies, Masonic and otherwise and prohibited their future establishment. Existing members were called upon to pledge themselves that they would conform to the edict, a declaration was required from all ranks of the army and from the civil service, that the members would not henceforth belong to any such organizations and, ran the edict, " If any person refuses to make such a pledge, he shall no longer remain in the service." The letter issued by the Minister of the Interior was, says Russkaia Starina, 1877, worded as follows Both the Grand Lodge Astrea and the Provincial Grand Lodge ceased to exist and a report was sent to the Emperor by the Military Governor of Petersburg, Miloradovich, in the following words On August i i I was informed by Count Pouschkin that the Grand Lodge Astrea and eight subordinate Lodges were closed. State Councillor Sergei Stepanovich Lanskoy, Deputy Grand Master of the Provincial Lodge, showed great grief and discontent. However, everything proceeded peacefully. Those assembled parted with mutual assurances of eternal friendship.

 

Danilevski, commenting on the order, said As far as I know Masonry had no other object in Russia beyond benevolence and providing an agreeable way of passing time. The closing of the Lodges Zoo FREEMASONRY IN RUSSIA deprived us of the only places where we assembled for anything else besides cardplaying, for we have no society where cards do not constitute the principal or, rather, the only occupation. We are as yet so unversed in political matters that it is absurd for the government to fear that such subjects would furnish conversation at the Masonic Lodges. With us, notable persons have rarely been Masons; at least, none such have visited our Lodge, which is usually full of people of middle class, officers, civil service employees, artists, a very few merchants and a large percentage of literary men.

 

Danilevski, however, had but a limited knowledge and knew nothing of Russian Freemasonry as a whole.

 

In the opinion of Telepneff, the blow was to a certain degree provoked by members who deplored its lamentable condition and this was the only real cause of its disappearance from Russia. He asserts that the three great dangers which brought the downfall of Russian Freemasonry were i. The introduction into Masonry of political aims or objects; 2. The admittance into Masonic mysteries of persons unworthy to appreciate true Masonic aims and ideals; and 3. An attempt to combine various systems, all Masonic in name, but widely divergent in ideals, bringing discord and not unity.

 

CHAPTER VI FREEMASONRY IN DENMARK AND HOLLAND DENMARK HERE are available four accounts of the progress of the Craft in Denmark, which all agree very remarkably ; but in truth there is very little to narrate. These four accounts are to be found in the Handbuch under Danemark ; Findel's History; Latomia, vol. xxiii, Leipzig, 1864; and Heldmann, Die 3 ~Eltesten Gesch. Denkmak, etc., I 8 I g.

 

The first Lodge in Copenhagen was erected by Baron G. O. von Munnich, November 11, 1743, which, January 13, 1745, took the name of St. Martin. Munnich was a member of the Three Globes at Berlin, but does not seem to have possessed any authority for his acts. Unless, indeed, the following passage from the Laws and Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of Scotland, 1836 (Introduction, pp. iv, v), refers to this Lodge. " The Lodge was raised to the dignity of G. Lodge of Denmark, having been erected in 1743 under the auspices of the G. L. of Scotland." But if Munnich's Lodge was warranted by Scotland, why did it apply to England in 1749 ? The supposition‑an echo of Lawrie, who probably derived it from Smith (The Use and Abuse of Freemasonry, p. 19q)‑would also conflict with the former's statement respecting " le petit nombre." Findel says that he claimed to have received a Warrant from a Lodge in Berlin (presumably the Three Globes), that he assumed the office of Chairman, that his first work was the initiation of T. A. Korf, afterwards to be mentioned, in whose house the work of the Lodge was for a long time carried on.

 

The Lodge applied for, and was granted, a Warrant by the Grand Lodge of England, October 9, 1749, as No. zoo and first appears in the Engraved List for 1750. In 1756 it is shown as St. Martin's Lodge, No. 139, but was not brought forward at the next change of numbers in 1770.

 

Hardly was it established when three members resigned and erected a second Lodge, Zerobabel, on May 26, 1744. One of the three was G. Nielsen, ecclesiastical counsellor, who was, at that time, governor of the pages to the Crown Prince. They forthwith applied to England for a Warrant, but impatient of delay, betook themselves to Luttmann in Hamburg, the English Provincial Grand Master for Lower Saxony. As he also was too dilatory for them, they once more applied to England. Soon afterwards Luttmann forwarded a dispensation and, on October 25, 1745, Lord Cranstoun signed their Warrant. This was the New Lodge, Copenhagen, No. 197, in the Engraved List for 175o, No. 130 in 1756, which also drops out in 1770 201 2o2 FREEMASONRY IN DENMARK AND HOLLAND On October 2, 1747, a Danish brother, von Dall, received a Patent from the Scots Lodge, founded on the Three Globes, to open a Scots Lodge in Copenhagen. This is probably the Lodge Le Petit Nombre, which, in 175 3, applied to the Grand Lodge of Scotland for a Charter as a Grand Lodge, with the privilege of electing their own Grand Master. A Provincial commission was granted, the holder of which and all Lodges erected by him, were required to acknowledge the Grand Lodge of Scotland as their paramount superior. The Lodge then acted as a Grand Lodge for some time, but died out. On February 10, 175o, Lord Byron granted a patent to Count Christian Conrad Danneskiold Laurvig, an Admiral in the Danish Navy, as Provincial Grand Master for Denmark and Norway, when a Provincial Grand Lodge was erected, the Deputy Grand Master being the Russian Ambassador, Baron Korff. One or two other Lodges were probably instituted throughout the country and we hear of a new one in Copenhagen in 1753, the Three Ardent Hearts, constituted by the Three Globes of Berlin. That the Degrees of the Clermont Chapter made some little way in the following years, is to be gathered from the fact that at Johnston's first Strict Observance Convent at Altenberg in 1764, von Prangen appeared as a deputy from a Kiel Lodge. In 1765 the Strict Observance missionary, Schubart, appeared in Copenhagen and managed to obtain Danish signatures to the act of Unquestioning Obedience. The Provincial Lodge of Denmark at Copenhagen then took the rank and title of Prefectory Binin, under the immediate jurisdiction of Duke Ferdinand and the special protection of the Landgrave Karl of Hesse. From that date the History of Freemasonry in Denmark is practically that of the Strict Observance; but some few details may be cited. In 1767 the first two Lodges, St. Martin and Zerubbabel, through the influence of Tullman, united to form one‑Zerobabel of the North Star‑working alternately in Danish and German; but on November 18, 1778, a purely German Lodge was opened, Frederick of the Crowned Hope and Zerobabel confined itself to the Danish language. Both Lodges performed their work in the same room and, at first, worked the English ritual. In 1785 the modified Strict Observance, or the Rite of the Beneficent Knights of the Holy City, was introduced in accordance with the resolutions of the Wilhelmsbad Convent; the first three Degrees becoming once more almost purely English. The highest Degrees, those of the Scots Directory, were not, however, established until 18ig and created so much opposition that the Altona Lodge erected a private Directory of its own. The Lodges at that time appear to have been practically independent of any real governing body. In 1792 Duke Ferdinand died and the Landgrave Karl became the sole head of the Danish Lodges. This event was succeeded on November 2, 1792, by a Cabinet decree of King Christian VII, officially recognizing Freemasonry in his dominions on the sole condition that every Lodge should acknowledge Prince Karl as the Grand Master of the Craft.

 

Curiously enough, in the following year‑February 6, 1793‑a Patent was signed by the Prince of Wales, appointing the same personage " Provincial Grand Master for Denmark and Norway; his Danish Majesty's German Dominions; FREEMASONRY IN DENMARK AND HOLLAND 203 also of such Lodges as had been under the immediate direction of Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick." On Karl's death in 1836 the Crown Prince, subsequently Christian VIII, assumed the Protectorate and under his rule the Craft prospered exceedingly. In 1841 the Crown Prince, afterwards Frederick VII, was initiated in the Odensee Lodge, Mary of the Three Hearts and, on his father's death in 1848, became Grand Master of the Danish Craft.

 

In 1853 the Brethren at Helsing6r and Altona introduced the Swedish Rite into their Lodges and, in 185 5‑January 6‑a decree of the Royal Grand Master made this Rite incumbent on all Danish Lodges. In the same year the two Copen hagen Lodges were fused into one, called Zerobabel and Frederick of the Crowned Hope. In 1857 the second grade, or the St. Andrew Lodge, was instituted, first at Helsingbr, then at Copenhagen; and in 1859 the organization was crowned by the constitution of the High Chapter at the castle of Frederiksborg, conferring only the seventh and two following Degrees. This completed the formation of the Grand Lodge of the VIIIth Province of the Temple, i.e. Denmark.

 

In 1866, by the surrender of the Duchies of Schleswig‑Holstein to Prussia, Denmark lost the Lodge at Altona ; in like manner it had in 1814 lost the Norwegian Lodges; but it has since warranted three new Lodges, one at Aarhuus and two in Copenhagen.

 

At the head of the Craft is H.M. King Christian X as Grand Master; H.R.H. Prince Harold of Denmark is Stadtholder. Abroad the Grand Lodge of Denmark has no daughters ; the Lodges in the Danish colonies of St. Thomas and St. Croix being under the English, French and Scottish jurisdictions.

 

In 1932 there was organised " The Grand Lodge of Denmark of Ancient, Free and Accepted Masons." The origins are not stated, but it is supposed that this was organised for the purpose of making possible the admission of numbers of men who would not be eligible to admission to Lodges under the Strict Observance system, which, under royal patronage, is the accepted system of the older Freemasonry in Denmark.

 

HOLLAND The first appearance of the Craft in Holland was of a momentous nature, being no less than the admission into the Fraternity of Francis, Duke of Lorraine, subsequently Grand Duke of Tuscany and Francis I, Co‑Emperor of Austria and Em peror of Germany. Lord Lovell, Grand Master of England, deputed, in 1731, Dr. Desaguliers as Master, John Stanhope and John Holtzendorff, Esqs., as Wardens; the Earl of Chesterfield, Ambassador at the Hague; and three other Brethren to hold a special Lodge at the Hague, in order to confer the first two Degrees on the Royal candidate. It is noteworthy that among these there is only one Dutch Mason, which will tend to disprove certain random statements, that several French and English Lodges already existed at that date in Holland.

 

zoo FREEMASONRY IN DENMARK AND HOLLAND The first authentic record of a Dutch Lodge is the meeting on September 30, 1734, of the Loge du Grand Maitre des Provinces reunis et du ressort de la generalite, with Count Vincent de la Chapelle as Master, at the Hague. This title, Lodge of the Grand Master, is remarkable, for it is difficult to understand whence any Grand Master of that date derived his authority. The mystery is increased by the next notice, a paragraph in the Amsterdam Saturdagsche Courant of November 3, 1735, announcing that a second Lodge had been held at the Hague on October z4, 1735, in the Hotel Nieuiven Doelen, in the presence of the Grand Master Rademacher and of the Deputy Grand Master Kuenen. It was apparently called Le Veritable Zele. Maarschalk, in his History of the Order of Freemasons in the Netherlands (p. 16), says that the first Lodge was opened at the Hague on November 8, 1734, after which Fran~ois Liegois went to London and received at his request a Charter from the English Grand Lodge on behalf of the Dutch Freemasons. Mention is made in the Lists 1736‑9 of a Charter for a Lodge in Holland as No. 131, which became 116 in 1740, 71 in 1756 and disappeared in the List of 1770.

 

One can only suppose that the titles of Grand Master and Deputy were selfassumed. Rademacher‑Treasurer to the Prince of Orange‑was cited before the courts on December 9‑i z, 173 5 and constrained to promise never more to frequent Masonic assemblies. Kuenen translated Anderson's Constitutions into French (published at the Hague, 1736 and 1741) and German (published at Frankfort and Leipzig, 1741, 1743 and 1744). The Handbuch asserts that these two were Provincial and Deputy Provincial Grand Masters of the English Lodges in Holland. If so, both the Constitutions and Preston fail to notice the appointments and it would be difficult to name many English Lodges as existing in Holland at that time, as the only one on our roll, previous to 1749, appears in the List of 1736, as constituted in 1735 under the No. 131. This may be the latter of the two cited above and, perhaps, its Warrant was granted to Rademacher. The two Lodges, however, soon closed and did not reopen till 1744. On October 16, 1735, a Lodge, composed chiefly of Englishmen, held at Amsterdam, was pillaged by a mob, which occasioned a riot. This Lodge is also absent from the English Lodge lists, but the occurrence, together with the newspaper paragraph above referred to, caused the Government to issue a commission to inquire into the whole matter of Freemasonry. Their study of the Book of Constitutions appears to have been most minute, but their report, published November 30, 1735, was unfavourable and a magisterial order was promulgated December z, 1735, forbidding assemblies of the Craft. Lawrie (History of Freemasonry, 18 5 9, p. 61) says that the States General were alarmed at the rapid increase of Freemasons, who held their meetings in every town under their government; and as they could not believe that architecture and brotherly love were their only objects, they resolved to discountenance their proceedings. In consequence of this determination, an edict was issued by Government, stating that, though they had discovered nothing in the practices of the Fraternity either injurious to the interests of the Republic or contrary to the character of good citizens, yet, in order to prevent any bad consequences which might ensue from such associations, they deemed it prudent to abolish their assemblies.

 

FREEMASONRY IN DENMARK AND HOLLAND 205 In spite of this order a Lodge meeting was held at Rotterdam on December io and the members were promptly brought to book. Lawrie gives a very touching account of the noble refusal of the Brethren to unveil their secrets, also of their counter‑proposal to initiate one of the magistrates, which being effected, the whole bench joined the Fraternity and became zealous members. The facts apparently are, that out of respect for one of the chief members, himself a magistrate and from the well‑known integrity of the other members, together with the weighty consideration that the Emperor was himself a Freemason, the matter was quietly hushed up.

 

Lawrie, using almost the same words as Findel, however, says (ibid., p. 62) that the meeting was held at Amsterdam, not at Rotterdam and that all the members were arrested and brought to the Court of Justice. Before this tribunal, in the presence of all the magistrates of the city, the Master and Wardens ably defended themselves, and declared upon oath that they were loyal subjects, faithful to their religion and zealous for the interests of their country ; that Freemasonry was an institution venerable in itself and useful to society ; that though they could not reveal its secrets and ceremonies, they would assure them that they were contrary neither to the laws of God nor man; that they would willingly admit into the Order any one of their number, from whom they might receive such information as would satisfy any reasonable mind. In consequence of these statements, the Brethren. were dismissed and the Town Secretary requested to become a member of the Fraternity. After initiation he returned to the Court of justice and gave such a favourable account of the principles and practices of the Order, that all the magistrates became Brethren and patrons of the Fraternity. This story, in slightly varied forms, has done duty on so many occasions that little, if any credence, can be placed in it. The theory of F. J. W. Crowe (Ars Ouatuor Coronatorum, vol. iii, p. 84) and Findel (History, p. 313) that the States General did not at first favour the Order because the staunchest friends of the Prince of Orange were amongst its members and rulers is undoubtedly the correct one. However this may be, the prohibition of the Craft was soon withdrawn, for, in 1740, the magistrates took its part against the intolerance of the clergy, who had long persecuted the Order and in that year (Findel, p. 314) refused absolution to those who had joined the Society. The State then signified to the priests that they were not to reject any Freemason if in other respects an honest man.

 

In 1744 the Hague Lodges reopened and, in 1749, the Loge du Grand Maitre changed its title to the Union Mother‑Lodge. In the same year (1749) we find from the Engraved List for 175o‑those for 1746‑9 are unfortunately missingthat a Lodge was warranted at Rotterdam, the Lodge of Orange, No. zo2.

 

In Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, vol. ii, p. 96, J. P. Vaillant, then Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of the Netherlands, reproduced a letter, dated December 16, 1768, from L. E. Hake, Worshipful Master, pro tem., of the Lodge La Victoire, in which he says that the Lodge of Orange had ceased to exist for a dozen years or more and that the first cause of its decadence was national jealousy, " for after the zo6 FREEMASONRY IN DENMARK AND HOLLAND departure of its chief and founder, Brother Schomberg, no agreement could be come to as to his successor, the said Lodge being then very strong and composed of Englishmen, Scots, Hollanders, French and German. The greater number of the Scots were the first to secede and establish themselves without a Constitution, but it was not for long. At the same time the Lodge declined more and more, and on my return home from a journey which I had undertaken, I learnt its complete dissolution. Brother Van der Velde was its last Master: as far as I have heard, he retained in his possession all the effects of the said Lodge and its reassembly was never mooted." The next Lodges of English origin were constituted at the Hague (probably the Royal), No. zz3, in 1752 ; at Amsterdam, No. 234, November 30, 175 3, probably La Bien Aimee, which, however, claims to date from 173 5 and is possibly the Lodge connected with Lawrie's romance ; and at the same place the Lodge of Charity, No. 265, June z4, 1755 ; and the Lodge of Peace, No. 215, September z3, 1756. In Amsterdam there also existed a fourth Lodge, founded by the Grand Lodge of Scotland, Concordia Vincit Animos, July 13, 175 5, the only Lodge of Scottish origin ever warranted in Holland. This accounts for at most eight Lodges‑three at the Hague, one at Rotterdam, four in Amsterdam.

 

On November 8, 1756, the Deputy Grand Master, Lewis Dagran, of the Union Mother‑Lodge at the Hague, issued invitations to thirteen other Lodges to constitute a Grand Lodge of Holland. We are therefore forced to conclude that the Union had warranted at least five Lodges and that its designation of Mother was no empty title.

 

The fourteen Lodges met December z5, 1756, under the presidency of Dagran and on the 27th constituted the Grand Lodge of the Netherlands, electing Baron Aerssen‑Beyeren as Grand Master and Baron von Boetzelaar of Hogerheide as Deputy Grand Master, but this National Grand Lodge was not acknowledged by England until 1770, though Crowe says (Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, vol. iii, p. 84) that it was considered as an English Provincial Grand Lodge and its Grand Master as a Provincial Deputy Grand Master of England.

 

In 1757 the former Mother‑Lodge and the Royal Lodge at the Hague amalgamated under the title Royal Union, which is still the foremost Lodge in Holland. The same year witnessed an unsuccessful attempt to erect a Scots Lodge at the Hague and the constitution by England of the Lodge of Regularity, No. zz8, at Amsterdam on November 21.

 

On December 18, 1757, the Grand Master issued a Declaration that no other Degrees were acknowledged or admitted other than the three Symbolic Craft Degrees. This Declaration was repeated on March ig, 178o. Yet it is beyond all doubt that, as early as 175 o, a Rose Croix Chapter was held at the Hague and that, at an even earlier period, the Degrees of Elu and Ecossais were practised by several Brethren.

 

In 1758‑August 6‑Count Christian F. von Bentinck was elected the second Grand Master and under his rule the English Constitutions were reprinted. He FREEMASONRY IN DENMARK AND HOLLAND 207 was succeeded‑June z4, 1759‑by the third Grand Master, Baron Carl von Boetzelaar, who held the office for thirty‑nine years. Up to this date the regulations of the Grand Lodge were probably the English Book of Constitutions; but on July 27, 176o, new Statutes were approved and published in 1762, in which year also the Atholl Grand Lodge constituted a Lodge in Amsterdam. Findel says that a French translation of the English Book of Constitutions appeared in Holland in 1736 and that the new Book o f Constitutions published during von Boetzelaar's administration materially assisted in consolidating Freemasonry in the Netherlands.

 

Resuming the examination of the English Lists, we find that in 1762 the following Lodges were warranted :‑Royal Frederick, No. 271, Rotterdam, January z5 ; United Brothers, No. 284, Amsterdam, June 16 ; Virtutis et Artis Amici, Amsterdam, No. z88, September 16. Also in 1765, Perseverance, No. 359, Amsterdam; 1767, British Union, No. 400, Rotterdam, August 1 ; Three Pillars No. 4oz, Rotterdam, August zi ; 1768, Victory, No. 419, Rotterdam, March 17; and, in 1769, the Sun Lodge, No. 436, Flushing, February 3. From the date last given, no English Lodge has been constituted in Holland. A lengthy inquiry on the spot would probably be necessary to determine whether these Lodges were constituted in the first instance by the Grand Lodge of Holland and merely joined, i.e. were absorbed and legitimated by that of England; or whether they were totally independent of Baron Boetzelaar. Being in seaports only, one inclines towards the latter alternative and is strengthened in that conclusion by the following evidence. In the letter from J. E. Hake, already cited, he says F. Bruyer took measures to revise the Order in the city and succeeded in establishing the Lodge Royal Frederick. His first plan was to admit only Frenchmen to membership.

 

This plan recalled to my mind the fall of the Lodge d'Orange and appeared to me to owe its inspiration to a lively recollection of the same circumstances. After talking the matter with some Germans we conceived the idea of founding a German Lodge under a Constitution from one of the Provincial Grand Lodges of that country. The resolution being taken, I wrote to that effect to Berlin, but not being known there as a Mason, Lodge Royal Frederick granted me a certificate on the strength of which a Constitution was forwarded to me under date February 6, 1764, by which I was authorized to establish a Lodge with the name Concorde Prussienne, giving it as distinctive colours celestial blue. On May z6, 1764, my said Lodge was solemnly inaugurated by the Lodge Royal Frederick at the express request of the Grand Lodge of the Three Globes at Berlin.

 

With regard to the formation of three of the other Lodges, i.e. British Union, Three Pillars, and Victory, Hake contributes the following information A man of easy means and debauched, called Van Dijek, was a frequenter of a tavern, of which the proprietor, George Alsop, gives himself out for a Mason and, as a matter of fact, does own a certificate from the Grand Lodge of London. This George Alsop, desirous of profiting by the circumstances, proposed that the said Van Dijek that he would allow himself to be made a Mason in his house and Zo8 FREEMASONRY IN DENMARK AND HOLLAND invited several Brethren, novices or uninstructed in the Order to be present and assist. As soon as I heard of it I warned them on no account to do so and even warned Van Dijek of the irregularity of the proposed proceedings and of the con sequences. But George Alsop, reluctant to lose so good a bit, contrived to gather a few people, almost unknown, calling themselves Superior Brother Masters or Masons, of whom one is called . . . Mitault and one . . . Cooper and the job was done as decided upon. Nevertheless, the said Van Dijek, having heard speak of Constitutions, ordered one to be procured at his expense, which was done, and there you have the origin of the Lodge L'Union Britannique, 400, 1767.

 

Hake then adds The said Mitault and Cooper are members of the Lodge: they prefer carrying on their particular traffic by imposing on the credulity and pocketing the ducats. Cooper has even had the impudence to procure from London a batch of certificates in order to sell them here to who will buy, for which purpose the names are left blank, to be inserted by him. The facilities with which these certificates were granted at London would be most astonishing if said Cooper had not pretended that they were required for the members of the British Union Lodge, but the consequences of this distribution are none the less great.

 

Even so, but as G. W. Speth has commented: " If this is to be credited it reveals a most unusual proceeding on the part of the London authorities and it is the only hint of such that has come under our notice." With regard to the Three Pillars Lodge, No. 402, Rotterdam, 1767, Hake says A wig‑maker having been initiated under the condition that he is not to seek to join the Lodge as a member, foregathered with others and the resolve was taken to form a Lodge of artisans. A Warrant was petitioned for and granted, and there you have the Lodge of the Three Pillars.

 

As to Victory Lodge, No. 419, 1768, he says Millaut continuing his practice of making Masons and having initiated a certain number, they demanded of him a Warrant to constitute themselves into a Lodge, which he promised them, but took no further steps in the matter. Tired at length of waiting, some of them resolved to proceed and chose a certain Duchan for their Master. They procured a Constitution in which Duchan is termed Master and there you have the Lodge Victory.

 

This Lodge met on the first and third Sundays of each month, between six and seven o'clock in the evening.

 

On April 25, 1770 (Constitutions, 1784, p. 297) the Provincial Master for foreign Lodges acquainted the Grand Lodge of England that he had lately received a letter from Charles Baron de Boetzelaar, Grand Master of the National Grand Lodge of the United Provinces of Holland, requesting to be FREEMASONRY IN DENMARK AND HOLLAND Zoo acknowledged as such by the Grand Lodge of England, whose superiority he acknowledged; and promising, that on condition the Grand Lodge of England did not in future constitute any new Lodge within its jurisdiction, the Grand Lodge of Holland should observe the same restriction with respect to all parts of the world where Lodges were established under the patronage of England; and concluding by requesting a firm alliance and annual correspondence. The request was acceded to. This certainly looks as if the numerous Lodges so lately warranted by England had somewhat alarmed our Dutch Brethren and will account for the sudden cessation of England's activity in the Low Countries. Many of those English Lodges were not renumbered in the 177o List and we may presume that they immediately joined the Grand Lodge at the Hague; but, on the other hand, five Lodges in Holland at Rotterdam and Flushing were retained on our roll until 1813, from which we may conclude that they preferred working under their English Charters and that at this early date England initiated the policy in these matters‑ever since maintained by her‑which was the cause of querulous complaint on the part of the Grand Lodge of Quebec.

 

The Act defining the jurisdictions of the Grand Lodges of England and Holland and undertaking mutual respect provided that the Lodges under English Warrants " shall have full and perfect liberty to remain under the jurisdiction to our Pro vincial Grand Master for foreign Lodges or to join the National Grand Lodge of Holland." They chose the latter course, possibly, Vaillant thinks, because they disliked de Vignoles, the Provincial Grand Master in question, to whom they ascribed a great predilection for introducing innovations. The Lodges referred to were the Royal Frederick, British Union, Three Pillars, Victory and Sun, all meeting at Rotterdam. These Lodges, says Vaillant (Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, vol. ii, p. 98) had, circa 1769, directed a letter to the Grand Master of England, as follows We, underwritten Masters, officers and members of Lodges established in the United Provinces under the Constitution of the respectable Grand Lodge of Great Britain very desirous to establish a National Grand Lodge in this country, to keep the old Constitutions and Statutes of our royal Order in their original purity against the grave innovations introduced in these Provinces. For these reasons we beg our Right Worshipful Grand Master to constitute a National Grand Lodge with all the privileges and prerogatives annexed to the same. . . .

 

We have unanimously elected for our National Grand Master the Worshipful Brother Arnout Leers, lord of the manor of Ameyde, Alderman of the city of Rotterdam. . . .

 

We shall always acknowledge the respectable Grand Lodge of Great Britain to be the first and original Grand Lodge and we shall take good care to contribute yearly to the general fund of charity, according to our funds and to the number of Constitutions we shall give.

 

Vaillant says he cannot find that any reply was sent to this communication.

 

210 FREEMASONRY IN DENMARK AND HOLLAND German authorities maintain that the compact with England was ratified May 16, 1770, by the English Provincial Grand Master. This, however, seems to be incorrect, as we do not know of any such individual, unless, indeed, Rademacher had really been appointed to the office in 1735 and was still living. In all probability the ratification emanated from the Provincial Grand Master for foreign Lodges, a functionary under the Grand Lodge of England, first appointed about this time.

 

In 1778 Prince George Karl of Hesse‑Darmstadt pointed out to Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick the advisability of gaining over Holland to the Strict Observance. That country was still remarkably free from all perversions of Freemasonry, although, of course, individual members had been admitted to the various Rites during their foreign travels. Many were also members of the Knightly degrees of the Strict Observance, which had made its appearance in Holland about 1770, into which the Grand Master and some of the Grand Officers had been admitted. In 1776, also, the Grand Lodge of Elu and Ecossais Degrees had been created by van Boetzelaar, who, four years previously, had declared that true Freemasonry consisted only of the Symbolic Degrees. (See Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, vol. iv, p. 15 7.) In 1888 W. D. J. Bromver, a member of the Historical Committee of the Grand Chapter of the High Degrees, published a pamphlet entitled Beknopt Historiceb Over:,,icht der Hooge Graden in Nederland‑" A Compendious Historical View of the High Degrees in the Netherlands." The salient points of this pamphlet were translated in 18gz by J. D. Oortman‑Gerlings, then Grand Master of the High Degrees in the Netherlands and published by him in the Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, vol. v, p. 158, from which translation the following extract has been made The High Degrees of the Netherlands, also called Red Masonry, acquired their name in 1803 and were constituted from out the Grand Scots Lodge working at the Hague in the Degrees of Elu and Ecossais and a Chapter at Amsterdam of the Sovereign Princes Rose Croix called Credentes Vivent Ab Illo. The Grand Scots Lodge was erected April z7, 1760, with fourteen Lodges represented and Baron von Boetzelaar was elected Grand Master National. The second Grand Scots Lodge was held on May i g, 1777, when seventeen Lodges were represented. At the Grand Communication held on May 18, 1778, protests were received f rom several Lodges, stating that they had worked the Scots Degrees for years previously and, therefore, objected to making payment for a new Warrant under the new rules. It was then resolved that seven Lodges, viz. Le Profond Silence, Les Cceurs Unis, La Vertu, L'Indissoluble, L'Amore, De Edelmcedigheid and La Concorda, should receive Letters of Constitution without payment.

 

In a very short time overtures were made from Germany with the result that the Grand Scots Lodge established fraternal relations with the Provincial Grand Master Termin of Stuttgart, with the Brethren in Hamburg and, in 1779, with the Grand Easts of Germany, Sweden and Denmark, with Prince Frederick of Hesse‑Cassel.

 

No Grand Lodge was held from 1779 until June 5, 1786, when a committee was elected to consider (i) what means should be taken to increase the stability FREEMASONRY IN DENMARK AND HOLLAND 211 of the Scots Grand‑ Lodge and (z) to procure more uniformity in working. The next meeting was held on April io, i 8oi, summoned by the Scots Lodge Frederick Royal of Rotterdam, at which a committee was formed which presented its report in due course. On June 7, 18oz, all the Brethren working in the High Degrees were summoned by Is. van Teylinghen, Grand Master National, when the govern ment was elected and a committee appointed to organize the Rite. This committee reported in the following May, and advised the following scheme First Degree Second Degree Third Degree . Fourth Degree Elu or Elected Master. The three Scots Grades. Knight of the Sword or of the East. Sovereign Prince Rose Croix.

 

The first three Degrees were to be worked, but the last one was to be communicated. This report was accepted in a general Grand Lodge of the High Degrees held on October 15, 1803, when new Statutes were submitted and adopted and rituals agreed upon. The dates of the erection of the following Chapters are known 175 5, La Bien Aimee, Concordia Vincit Animos and La Charite at Amsterdam; 1768, La Paix, Amsterdam; 1777, L'Amore, Brielle ; La Vertur, Leyden ; La Philanthrope and La Companie Durable, Middelburg ; La Profonde Silence, Kampen ; and L'Union Provinciale, Groningen ; 1779, L'Union Royale, The Hague; 1785, De Eendracht, Rotterdam; 1789, Les Vrais Bataves, The Hague; 1791, La Parfaite Union, Dordrecht and 18oo, L'Astre de 1'Orient, Flushing.

 

The constitution of the first Lodge was obtained from Dublin on December z6, 175 5 and was signed by C. Walgrave, S.M. ; James Pitt Lithelier and W. Caxton Williams. It is worded as follows Our Grand Master, Substitute of the very illustrious and very worshipful Grand Master of Great Britain, do hereby declare and attest that by letters dated loth December, 1755, it has been given to us to know that several of our Brethren (who, for the greater spread of our effulgent lustre, had travelled abroad) had, in the month of December at the Hague in Holland, received Peter Bucherius Bunel, calling himself Grand Master of a certain Lodge in Amsterdam, La Bien Aimee, with full ceremonial into the true secrets of Ecossais and Elus [it has already been pointed out that the title " Grand Master " was the usual title in many continental countries for the W.M. of a Lodge and does not represent, except when specially applied, the ruler of a jurisdiction].

 

Therefore we do so acknowledge him and, moreover, as he is highly recommended by our very excellent Brethren in the letter above named, we do empower him, as Grand Master, to work in the Scots and Select Lodge and to instruct other Brethren in the mysteries of Ecossais and Elus and even, in urgent cases, without full ceremonial : nevertheless, not otherwise than is set out in his secret instructions. Further, we do confer upon him the special privilege that he may appoint Brethren belonging to our assemblies to be Grand Masters of other Lodges now existing, or to be erected hereafter, throughout the cities and lands under the jurisdiction of the honourable States General of the United Netherlands. Nevertheless, he shall be careful not to appoint himself or others to the dignity of Grand Master in foreign lands, unless he be himself resident there.

 

z1Z FREEMASONRY IN DENMARK AND HOLLAND Given in Dublin in our Lodge the 26th day of December, 1755, under our hand and seal.

 

The foregoing letter was written in Latin on parchment.

 

The Lodge La Bien Aimee was constituted on Sunday, February 8, 1756, by Bunel and the Minutes run from that date to Tuesday, December 23, 18oo.

 

It is also evident from other sources that the Higher Degrees had been known in Holland for at least twenty years. In 1756 or 1757 a letter was sent to Dr. Thomas Manningham, the Deputy Grand Master of England from 1752 to 1756, the original of which is not available, but the following reply, found in the archives of the Grand Lodge of the Netherlands in 1868, was published in the Vr~metselaars Yaarbookje, and afterwards in Findel's History of Freemasonry. The reply is dated July 12, 1757ò SIR AND BROTHER, I am quite ashamed that your obliging letter should lay by me so long unanswered, but I hope you will excuse me. I assure you it was not owing to neglect or disrespect, but of opportunity to satisfy myself on some points relating to the variety of Masonry and you mention the name of Scotch Masonry.

 

I was determined to consult our Brethren in Scotland, particularly our Brother, Lord Aberdour, who is son and heir of the Earl of Morton and an exceeding good Mason, as such he has filled the chair in Scotland, and his lordship is now elected Grand Master in England, on the Marquess of Carnarvon's resignation.

 

Lord Aberdour and all the Scotch Masons (or, rather, the Scotch gentlemen that are Masons) that I have conversed with‑and I have made it my business to consult many‑are entirely unacquainted with the form and titles you mention, and which you justly call the charlatanery of Masonry. Amongst some of our least Brethren I have met with and frequently heard of such irregularities‑irregularities I justly call them, because they deviate so much from our usual ceremonies and are so full of innovations, that in process of time the ancient landmarks will be destroyed by the fertile genius of Brethren who will improve or alter, if only to give specimen of their abilities and imaginary consequence, so that in a few years it will be as difficult to understand Masonry as to distinguish the points or the accents of the Hebrew or Greek language, now almost obscured by the industry of critics and commentators.

 

Three foreign gentlemen and Masons lately visited the Lodge I belong to and were introduced by me to the Grand Lodge and the Grand East: by discoursing with these gentlemen, I find that in Germany, Holland, Switzerland and in some other places, they have orders of Masons unknown to us, viz. Knights oú the Sword, Knights of the Eagle, Knights of the Holy Land, with a long train of et ceteras. Surely these points of Masonry must be wonderful, I am certain they are very new; besides these dignified and distinguished Orders, I find, have signs, tokens, etc., peculiar to their respective dignities, and adorn themselves with different coloured ribbons.

 

I should be glad, with your assistance and the assistance of the Brethren in Holland, to settle these intricate and confused points and wish to know (especially from the Brethren who distinguish themselves by the denomination of Scotch FREEMASONRY IN DENMARK AND HOLLAND z13 Masons), from whence they derive their constitution; the Grand Master of Scotland, whom, I presume, they acknowledge head of their society, being entirely unacquainted with their Order. To Lord Aberdour and several other Scotch noblemen and gentlemen that are good Masons, I have to communicate your letter, likewise the opinion I received from those foreign Brethren, one of whom was an officer in the Dutch service; but from the strictest enquiries I can make, can only say they have racked their genius and endeavours to make Masonry unintelligible and useless.

 

These innovations are of very late years, and I believe the Brethren will find a difficulty to produce a Mason acquainted with any such forms, twenty, nay, ten years. My own father has been a Mason these fifty years and had been at Lodges in Holland, France, and England. He knows none of these ceremonies. Grand Master Payne, who succeeded Sir Christopher Wren, is a stranger to them, as is likewise one old Brother of ninety, who I conversed with lately. This Brother assures me he was made a Mason in his youth and has constantly frequented Lodges till rendered incapable by his advanced age and never heard, or knew, any other ceremonies or words than those used in general amongst us ; such forms were delivered to him and those he has retained. As to Knights of the Sword, Knights of the Eagle, etc., the knowledge of them never reached his ears till I informed him of them. The only orders that were known are three‑Masters, Fellow‑crafts, and Apprentices‑and none of them ever arrive at the honour of knighthood by Masonry ; and I believe you can scarcely imagine that in ancient time the dignity of knighthood flourished amongst Freemasons, whose Lodges heretofore consisted of Operative, not Speculative Masons. Knights of the Eagle, Knights of the Sword, I have read in romance; the great Don Quixote himself was Knight of the Brazen Helmet, when he had vanquished the barber. Knights of the Holy Land, Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, Knights Templars, etc., have existed and I believe now exist in the Knights of Malta, but what is that to Masonry? I never heard if these Orders or honours were obtained by skill in Masonry, or that they belonged to the Fraternity of Freemasons, wherewith members of their Order and honour, but imagine that they did not think such titles obtained by Masonry alone.

 

As universal benevolence, brotherly love, friendship and truth, acting by the square and living within compass, are, or ought to be, the tenets of Masonry, a rule and guide to our actions. Let us be good Masons ; we may look with scorn on other honours or titles. It is at all times in our power to be good Masons and I think we ought to be contented and not search the xrial field of romance for addi tional titles. Use your utmost endeavour, dear Brother, to prevent a really valuable society from degenerating and becoming lost in obscurity, by aiming at titles, to which the very end of our society cannot give us a claim.

 

The only distinction of ribbons or jewels that we make in our Lodges you will find in our Book of Constitutions, viz. Grand Officers wear their jewels gilt, pendant on blue ribbons and their aprons lined with blue ; those Brethren that have served the office of Steward at our grand feast (from which number all Grand Officers except the Grand Master must be elected) wear their jewels of silver on red ribbons and line their aprons with red; all other Brethren wear white aprons and their jewels pendant on white ribbons, neither are they suffered to wear other jewels than the square, level and plumb, the compass belonging only to the Grand Master.

 

FREEMASONRY IN DENMARK AND HOLLAND You mention your design of electing a noble Grand Master amongst yourselves. I have communicated that part of your letter to our Grand Lodge; they have no objection to such election, but seem pleased with your intention; neither will they claim more than brotherly love and friendly correspondence from your Grand Master and will use their utmost endeavour to settle everything on a proper basis and be cautious how they interfere or grant constitutions for Holland. The constitution already granted. by us, I presume, your Grand Master will not disapprove: their titles and places of meeting our Constitution Book will inform you. Our Grand Master commands me to inform you that he is desirous of a correspondence with your Grand Master when elected and we will use our endeavours that it be properly maintained by the respective deputies or grand secretaries, as we cannot expect Grand Masters, either in England or Holland, to give themselves such trouble at all times ; and I hope you will find future Deputies more alert in their correspondence than I have been to you, for which I sincerely ask your pardon and forgiveness.

 

The Marquess of Carnarvon has resigned the chair to Lord Aberdour, who is now Grand Master and our worthy Brother Revis, Deputy Grand Master, but I have promised to sign this letter as Deputy Grand Master and, if you favour us with a line, take the same method, as before by Mr. Hopp's secretary, who will convey your commands to me and I will take great care they are properly honoured.

 

One point in this letter merits special attention, that is the studied omission of the name of Anthony Sayer, concerning whose Grand Mastership there is no dispute and the pointed reference to the Grand Mastership of Sir Christopher Wren, which is in dispute to the present day.

 

The result of the negotiations between Prince George Karl of Hesse‑Darmstadt and Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick was, that in 1779 a pact of unity was concluded between the Directory in Brunswick and one formed at the Hague, that on March 18, 178o, a National Chapter of the Strict Observance oú Holland was constituted with Prince Frederick of Hesse‑Cassel and Grand Master von Boetzelaar as Protector. and Superior respectively.

 

The Dutch Craft was not, however, overridden as in other countries ; the Grand Lodge at the Hague still retained its full power; the National Chapter was merely an accessory. What the consequences might have been it is difficult to say ; but the Strict Observance was already on the wane. It will be remembered that on September ig, 178o, Ferdinand had issued a circular seriously questioning the very grounds of the whole movement. As a result, although Schwarz represented this Chapter at the Wilhelmsbad Convent, the system never made much progress in the Netherlands and soon died out. Pure English Freemasonry thus once more assumed an undisputed supremacy.

 

On November 15, 1784, Grand Master von Boetzelaar celebrated the twentyfifth year of his Grand Mastership and, in 1798‑May z8‑his rearrangement of the Statutes was approved and accepted. He died a few weeks afterwards and in the same year‑June z4‑was succeeded by Baron Teylingen as fourth Grand Master, who in turn was followed by Bijleveld, the fifth holder of that office, May 29, 1805.

 

FREEMASONRY IN DENMARK AND HOLLAND 215 At last, in 1807, the High Degrees obtained a firm footing in Holland and a code of laws was issued for their governance. The Rite chosen was the French or modern Rite of four extra Degrees, of the Grand Orient of France. This is not to be wondered at, when we consider that Holland had submitted to France in 1795, when the Batavian Republic was established and that, in i 8o6, the bonds were drawn still closer by the appointment of Louis Bonaparte to the throne of Holland. Rather should we marvel that an oasis of good sense had so long resisted the Saharan sands of the fanciful High Degrees, which had encroached on the Craft elsewhere in Europe. The French aberration‑Ladies' Lodges‑had also found an entrance in i8oi, but was peremptorily prohibited on June io, 1810.

 

In the year last named‑June z4‑Bousquet was elected sixth Grand Master. Louis abdicated the throne and Holland became an integral portion of the French empire. This led to complications. The Grand Orient of France always main tained that only one supreme Masonic body could exist in each state and some Lodges established by it in Amsterdam conceived themselves justified in refusing to acknowledge the Dutch Lodges until they were rectified by the Grand Orient. Meanwhile‑June 24, 1812‑W. P. Barnaart was elected seventh Grand Master and the dispute was brought to a climax by a circular of the Grand OrderFebruary 17, 1813‑ordering the Grand Lodge of the Netherlands to submit and dissolve. This being met by a flat refusal‑March zi, 1813‑the Grand Orient immediately retaliated by warranting a number of Lodges in various cities of Holland, the membership of which consisted chiefly of French officials. The strain was, however, suddenly eased by the French reverses of 1814 : Holland reacquired independence, the French Lodges were weakened by the withdrawal of the French officials and on May 29, 1814, the Grand Lodge of the Netherlands called upon these Lodges to come in and accept Dutch Warrants. Some complied, the others died out. The same year is marked by the commencement of troubles of which the High Degrees were the cause. The Chapter was independent of the Grand Lodge, though composed chiefly of the same members and had a Grand Master of its own. It occupied much the same position as the English Royal Arch Chapter does towards the Grand Lodge and its meetings were always held on the days succeeding Grand Lodge Communications. In 1814 Bijleveld, who had presided over the Grand Lodge, 1805‑10, was Master of the Grand Chapter. On May 30 violent disputes arose over some contemplated changes in these Degrees, into the details of which we need not enter.

 

On March 30, 1815, the Austrian (French) Netherlands, or Belgium, became an integral portion of the kingdom of Holland; and‑May 3o‑Reepmacher was elected eighth Grand Master. In the previous March the king had expressed a wish that the Lodges in both divisions of his territory should be gathered under a one Grand Lodge and this question was discussed at the meeting of May 3o, but delayed and postponed for many months.

 

Prince Fredrik Wilhelm Karl, of the Netherlands, Duke of Ursel, second son of William I, was initiated at Berlin in June zo, 1816, by a Deputation from the z16 FREEMASONRY IN DENMARK AND HOLLAND Grand Lodge of the Three Globes, with de Guionneau, Grand Master, at its head. A Lodge, Union Frederic, was then formed at the Hague, with the prince as a member, which applied to the Grand Lodge‑June z, 18i6‑for a Warrant of Constitution. This was not only granted, but the prince was unanimously elected ninth Grand Master, on the proposition of Bijleveld. On June 3, 1816, the Grand Chapter for the Higher Degrees, of which Bijleveld was also Grand Master, also elected Prince Fredrik as Grand Master, and the letter offering him the Mastership of both sections was addressed to him by the Grand Lodge, with the assent of the Grand Chapter for the Higher Degrees. He accepted the high positions offered him and was installed on October 13, 18 16, as Grand Master of the Symbolic or Craft Degrees and, on the following day, as Grand Master of the Higher Degrees. These dates are given on the authority of the usually accurate Handbucb which, as it repeats the leading ones in a further article devoted to the Prince, forbids the idea of their being simply a printer's error. O'Etzel, in Gescb. der Grossen Nat‑Mutter Loge, Berlin, 1875, p. 138, says he was " made " in June 1817 and passed and raised there in the course of the next few months, which would of course render the above occurrences impossible. The main facts appear to be correct, but the dates require investigation. The Cosmopolitan Calendar for x871 states he was installed October 18 (?), 18 17. If this be accurate, then we may arrive at a conclusion which is quite possible, viz. that the prince was elected in 1816 (being at that time a nonMason), procured initiation at Berlin in A17, passed through all the Degrees there during the same summer and was finally installed at the Hague in the ensuing autumn, viz. October 18 17. In the same year he was elected Grand Master of the Chapter; but events close at hand show how little of profit he was able to perceive in the High Degrees.

 

Scarcely was the Grand Master installed before he received the mysterious packet containing the so‑called Cologne Charter. As this subject has already been fully treated, any further reference to it here will be unnecessary. Attempts were also made in this year to incorporate the Belgian Lodges with those of Holland, but the former were desirous of obtaining a separate Grand Lodge; and, after the Prince of Orange, Frederick's elder brother, had been initiated in 1817 in the Hope Lodge, Brussels, they proposed to him to become their Grand Master, an offer which he declined on May 7. Two days before‑May 5‑the Grand Master, seeing the difficulty of a complete fusion, proposed in a circular the formation of two administrative (Grand) bodies‑one for the northern, the other for the southern, Provinces, with a single legislative (Grand) body‑composed of an equal number from each side‑for both. A newly formed Grand Lodge of Belgium met for the first time‑June 24, 1817‑and elected Prince Frederick as their Grand Master. On August 30 a commission was appointed, at the prince's request, to arrange a modus vivendi between the two Grand Lodges, of each of which he was Grand Master.

 

It executed its mandate after four sittings and reported September zo. The project was approved almost unanimously in Belgium, but only passed by 77 to zo votes in Holland. The arrangements were finally concluded on December 11.

 

FREEMASONRY IN DENMARK AND HOLLAND 217 Considering the extreme importance and difficulties of the matter, this promptitude speaks well for the business‑like habits of our Dutch Brethren. The common supreme body was by these statutes entitled " Grand Orient " and was composed of the officers of each Grand Lodge, which were to assume the titles of Grand Administrative Lodges; of z8 Lodge Masters, 14 from the northern, 14 from the southern, Provinces. It was to be summoned when necessary by the Grand Master and to meet alternately at Brussels and the Hague‑but, as a matter of fact, it never met at all. The Belgian Grand Administration was formally inaugurated in the Lodge of Hope, Brussels, April i 1, 18 18 ; that of Holland, at the Hague, May io following.

 

In 18ig the prince's action‑however well intentioned‑gave rise to an acrimonious strife in the Craft, which disturbed its peace for several years. Thoroughly imbued with the uselessness of the High Degrees, he proposed‑April 25 ‑to abrogate them entirely and to substitute two steps or courses of instruction beyond the degree of Master Mason. These were not to be Degrees, they were to entail no distinction beyond a small silver medal and were to be denominated Select Master and Super‑Select Master (uitverkoren and opper‑uitverkoren). This would have created a third constituent, which was to have its supreme ruler, who was to be called Chairman. It was also to have its separate government, laws and administration. The proposition was received with avidity by the Grand Lodge, but rejected indignantly by the Grand Chapter. At the meeting of the latterMay 3 i‑Frederick provisionally resigned his office and declared his intention of abstaining in future from any participation in the High Degrees. He then asked for a commission to examine his project and, when it reported unfavourably upon his proposed Divisions of the Master's Degree, but favourably as to the High Degrees, sent in his final resignation. The Chapter‑May 22, 182o‑placed the Mastership in commission ad interim and, at the next meeting, the commission proposed a revision of the Degrees. A committee appointed for this purpose handed in a report on July 11, 1821, counselling great modifications, in order to bring the Chapter more into conformity with the principles of the Lodge. But the passions of the High Degree members were by this time so aroused, that the report was not acted upon until eight years afterwards. The Grand Mastership was offered by the Chapter‑May icy, 1823‑to the Prince of Orange and, on his refusal, Joachim Nuhout van der Veen was elected and filled the office from July i, 18 z4 to 1834, during which long period a ceaseless strife and bitterness of spirit reigned in the Fraternity.

 

The Grand Lodge meanwhile sanctioned the proposed additional steps to the Master's Degree and added a governing body to administer them. The object of their foundation was the instruction of Master Masons in the history and arcana of the superior Degrees of every Rite, so as to place them on a footing of equality with ALL Masons, without, however, according to such Degrees either approbation or support. The two steps were called Divisions (or Sections) of the Master's Degree ‑although the third Degree remained intact‑and a better title would have been additions or supplements.

 

218 FREEMASONRY IN DENMARK AND HOLLAND In 183o Belgium obtained its independence, but the Grand Lodge of Holland did not at once resume its former position and still continued to style itself the Grand Administration for the Northern Provinces. In 1833 signals of peace were held out by Frederick, who proposed in Grand Lodge to appoint a committee to deliberate upon the means of reuniting the Brotherhood. The committee reported on May 18, 1834, that, since 18ig, the unanimity was disturbed and that the best remedy would be to restrict the working of the Order to the three Craft Degrees, but, as the time had not yet arrived to bring the Order back to the three Symbolic Degrees, the Commission proposed to confer the Grand Mastership of the whole Order on Prince Frederick and to give the different heads an independent and lawful sphere of action. For this purpose it had drafted nine articles, which were submitted for the prince's judgment and further action. After the report had been submitted to the three different Grand bodies, a fresh committee was appointed consisting of three members from each Grand body, which issued its report in favour of the scheme on February 17, 18 The report was accepted by Grand Lodge on May io and by the two other bodies shortly afterwards. According to the treaty, the prince once more became Grand Master of all three bodies, who were to work side by side in amity. No Rite was to be admitted into Holland, except the Symbolic Degrees, working under their Statutes of 1798 ; the Modern Rite or High Degrees (Statutes of 1807) and the Divisions of the Master's Degree as settled in 18 i g. The Grand Master was to appoint a Deputy in each body, but as he did not himself attend High Degree meetings, he was to appoint one of two candidates proposed by the Chapter.

 

In 1837 a certain feeling of soreness existing between Belgium and Holland was allayed and, as a sign that Holland disclaimed any further supremacy over the Belgian Lodges, the Grand Administration for the Northern Provinces resumed its title of Grand Lodge of the Netherlands. Since that time Freemasonry in Holland has enjoyed quiet and prosperity ; no changes of organization have been introduced and few facts of first moment remain to be recorded.

 

On June 6, 1841, Grand Lodge celebrated the completion of the Grand Master's twenty‑fifth year of office. Prince Frederick on this occasion paid into the hands of the Grand Treasurer 9,ooo florins for charitable purposes.

 

In 1847 several Amsterdam Brethren petitioned for a Warrant to constitute a Lodge called Post Nubila Lux. They declared their adhesion to ten fundamental axioms, of which only a few have been made known. In these one cannot perceive anything dangerous or un‑Masonic, but the Grand Lodge thought otherwise, and refused the Warrant. Their reasons are unknown‑the sixth axiom, " futility of all High Degrees," could hardly have influenced them, because no Lodge is bound to work these‑but the petitioners having waited patiently, for three years, at last established the Lodge‑May z6, 185o‑" by virtue of their inherent power." It is still working and even flourishing, but never having been recognized by the Grand Lodge, is of course outside the pale of the Craft and irregular.

 

FREEMASONRY IN DENMARK AND HOLLAND 219 The year 18 51 witnessed the birth of Alexander, Prince of the Netherlands, the second son of King William III, grandson of that Prince of Orange to whom reference has already been made, who had meanwhile reigned as William II from 1840 to 1849. He was initiated‑July 26, 1876‑in the Lodge Royal Union, at the Hague and became Prince of Orange on the death of his elder brother in 1879.

 

In 1836 an Amsterdam Lodge protested in a very dignified manner, on account of a refusal to admit some of its members as visitors, by reason of their Jewish faith. The Lodge disclaimed any intention of dictating to the Grand Lodge respecting its choice of members, but insisted that a man, once made a Mason, should be treated as a Brother and that the Grand Lodge was incompetent to go behind his certificate and inquire into his religious belief. The protest, however, produced no immediate effect.

 

On May i g, 1856, the Grand Lodge celebrated its centenary of constitution and, in 1866, the jubilee of Frederick's Grand Mastership. On this occasion the munificent prince presented, for the use of the Brethren, the superb Masonic library of the late Dr. Kloss, which‑at a cost of ú3,ooo‑he had purchased entire. This was a truly royal gift ! The Brethren marked their sense of the event by founding an orphanage‑their Blind Asylum at Amsterdam, established in i806, would be of itself creditable to the Craft in any country‑for Freemasons' children. It was opened in 1869 and the prince presented them for the purpose with a house and appurtenances of his own at the Hague. In 1876 his sixtieth year of office was celebrated and he died in 1881 at the age of eighty‑four. He was succeeded as Grand Master by his grand‑nephew Alexander, Prince of Orange‑June 188zwho unfortunately died in June 1884, at the early age of thirty‑three.

 

As Prince Alexander, however, was in possession of neither the Rose Croix nor the Elected Master's Degree, he was unable to become a ruler of Masonry beyond the three Degrees, unless he allowed himself to be further initiated, which he declined. The result was the selection of a Grand Master for each and, since 1882, the Higher Degrees have been entirely separated from the Grand Orient. The most striking feature in the history of Dutch Freemasonry is thus its stability and simplicity. Until 1807 it was comparatively free from (so‑called) High Degrees ; in that year it accepted the simplest and least pretentious of all supplementary Rites and even this is largely replaced by the still simpler additions to the Master's Degree (18ig). But these innovations have never been allowed to assert or exercise any superiority over or in the Craft; English Masonry has ever been considered the essence of the organization. We find no rival Grand Lodges springing up, no conflicts of jurisdiction, very few Lodges dying out, but a gradual and steady increase of numbers and in 130 years only ten Grand Masters.

 

Article 4 of the General Law of the Order of Freemasons under the Grand East of the Netherlands reads : " No Masonic Rites are acknowledged, except those which are now accepted and in vogue in the Order, namely, the Symbolic Degrees, the Higher Degrees and the Division of the Master's Degree." Dr. H. W. Dipereink, 220 FREEMASONRY IN DENMARK AND HOLLAND writing in Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, vol. iv, p. 24, says that the three Craft Degrees are worked under the administration of the Grand East of the Netherlands ; the Degrees of Elu Ecossais, Knight of the East, Knight of the Sword and Supreme Prince Rose Croix under the Grand Chapter of the Higher Degrees ; while the Degrees of Elected Master and Sublime Elected Master, now combined in one Degree, are worked under the Chamber of Administration for the Division of the Master's Degree." When Prince Frederick of the Netherlands was Grand Master National from 1816 to 1881, he was at the head of all three systems. Since his death, however, different Brethren have been placed at the heads of the three different systems of Dutch Freemasonry, two being styled Grand Masters and the third " President of the Chamber of Administration of Sublime Elected Master Masons." The present constitution of the Grand Orient of the Netherlands consists of Grand Master, Deputy Grand Master for the Symbolic Degrees ; District or Deputy Grand Masters for the East and West Divisions of the Dutch East Indies, Surinam, Curacao and the islands adjacent thereto ; and for South Africa and adjoining country; two Grand Overseers; Grand Orator; Grand Secretary; Grand Treasurer and Almoner; Grand Librarian; Grand Master of the Ceremonies; Grand Examiner; Grand Steward; and Assistant Grand Secretary, the seat of government being at the Hague. The clothing of the Grand Officers consists of apron and collar only. The apron is of white silk, bordered with blue and fringed with gold, having the square and compasses embroidered upon it in gold. The collar is of bright light blue silk ribbon, with an acacia branch embroidered in gold, to which the jewels are suspended. Every private Lodge has its own colour, which is expressly laid down in its Warrant of Constitution and this colour is used in the ribbon of its seal, the borders of its members' aprons and the furniture of the Lodge. The aprons are of white leather, edged with the proper colour, but every member is at liberty to ornament his apron as much as he likes and considerable use is made of this permission. Candidates are admitted at the age of twentythree (the Dutch age of majority) or earlier if married as, according to Dutch law, a man obtains his majority on marriage. One month must elapse between the first and second Degrees, twelve months between the second and third Degrees. A Fellow Craft cannot apply for the Degree of Master Mason. This can only be given after a resolution of the Master Masons of his Lodge, when they consider him worthy to receive it. No fees are taken for the Degree. Paper certificates are granted for the first and second Degrees, but the Master's certificate is issued by the Grand Secretary and is countersigned by the officers of the Lodge, who attach to it the seal and ribbon of the Lodge. A member may be elected to the Master's chair without having previously served any office and there is no limit to the time he may occupy the chair.

 

 220 CHAPTER VII FREEMASONRY IN SWEDEN, NORWAY AND FINLAND SWEDEN AND NORWAY THE history of Freemasonry in Sweden possesses an interest peculiar to itself. The Swedes appear to have fallen away from the simple teachings of the Craft as easily and early as the other nationalities of Europe, but with this difference, that instead of flitting from one Rite to another, constantly seeking variety, they have remained steadfast to their first heresy and still work the same ceremonies that originally riveted their attention about 1760. These ceremonies are in great part their own invention, although based‑not improbably ‑upon the Degrees of the Clermont Chapter ; and, as they have only been adopted by one Grand Body in Prussia and by Denmark, Sweden has ever since been practically outside the circle of Freemasonry‑a distant connexion only of the great Masonic family. This want of intimate Masonic intercourse, combined with a marked absence of indigenous Masonic literature, is the reason that any history of Swedish Freemasonry can be no more than a sketch. The two best attempts at a history hitherto published (viz. Allgemeines Handbucb, s.v. Schweden ; and Findel's History of Freemasonry) are merely reproductions, as regards early facts, of Thory's Acta Latomorum and agree so closely with respect to later occurrences, as to warrant the conviction that they are either based on the same original, or copied one from the other. This account will, therefore, present little or no novelty. Considering the peculiar position of the Craft in Scandinavia, this paucity of material is somewhat vexatious.

 

Among the many Swedes who were admitted to the Fraternity in England and France may be mentioned Count Axel Eric Wrede Sparre, who was initiated at Paris May 4, 1731, afterwards visiting Lodges in Italy and, on his return to Sweden, is asserted to have founded a Lodge at Stockholm. Of this Lodge nothing further definitely is known and it is presumed that it disappeared in consequence of a royal edict of October 21, 1738, forbidding Freemasonry in Sweden on pain of death. The Sparre family, it may be mentioned, had, for five centuries, been accounted one of the most illustrious in Scandinavia.

 

The Handbucb informs us, quoting from Noorthouck's Constitutions, but a reference which has defied detection, that, in 1736, Count Carl Fredrik Scheffer was appointed Provincial Grand Master for Sweden, but little is known of this worthy, until later and it can only be inferred that the decree of 1738 may possibly have put a stop to his activity. The edict, however, was withdrawn in the same year and in 1740‑S we become aware of further traces of Freemasonry. In 1746 a Lodge existed at Stockholm, called St. Jean Auxiliare, which C. Kupferschmidt 221 zzz FREEMASONRY IN SWEDEN, NORWAY AND FINLAND (Ars _Ouatuor Coronatorum, vol. i, p. zoz) claims to be the Lodge founded by Count Axel Eric Wrede Sparre, in which year, on the birth of Gustavus III and, again in 1753, on that of the Princess Sophie, it struck commemorative medals. From that date we may look upon the Craft as firmly established in the country, although the Lodge in question‑generally considered the Mother‑Lodge of Sweden‑was not regularly constituted until January z, 1752, under Count Karl Knutson Porse. Even at this early period the Fraternity was strong enough to found an orphanage (1753), in Stockholm, which, without any assistance from the State, was built by the voluntary contributions of the Brethren, has since grown to a prosperous institution, the just pride of the Swedish Craft and has always been the principal channel into which Swedish Masonic beneficence flows. In addition, a vaccination hospital was shortly afterwards built by Lodge Salomon at Gothenburg.

 

In 1753, also, King Adolf Fredrik himself founded and presided over a second Lodge in Stockholm, which bore his own name. Other Lodges were also constituted‑Lodge Salomon, just mentioned, at Gothenburg, on November 30, 1754; Lodge St. Augustin, at Helsingfors, founded on June 24, 1756, by John Jennings, who had been initiated on June 30, 1753, in Lodge St. Jean Auxiliare ; Lodge St. Erick, founded November 30, 1756, at Stockholm by Israel Torpadius ; Lodge St. Edvard, constituted at Stockholm on June 15, 1757, by Edvard Corleson Lodge St. Andrew L'Innocente, which, though founded at Stockholm on November 30, 1756, did not begin its regular meetings until 1758 ; and Lodge L'Union, founded at Stockholm on June 15, 1759, by General Count Fredrik Horn. The Swedish metropolis was next invaded by a Scots Lodge‑175 8‑and, in the following year, there was a further addition to its roll‑the Lodge Union which conducted its proceedings in the French language. So that at this important date (1759) there were at least eight Lodges at work in the country. According to Lawrie, " the first Lodge in Sweden was erected at Stockholm 1754, under a patent from Scotland." Here, however, he apparently only follows Smith (The Use and Abuse of Freemasonry, 1783, p. 199), from whose pages he copied very freely. Smith, it may be observed, goes a step further and states that the Lodge of 1754 was, in 1783, the Grand Lodge of Sweden. But as in the same work he observes, with regard to some Lodges at Prague in Bohemia, that " they are all under the Constitution of Scotland, or at least, they call themselves Scotch Masons" (ibid., p. z z1), the light thus shed upon his method of research will justify our believing, that in the Scots Lodge of 175 8 we have the foes et orioo of the alleged Scottish Lodge of 1754. To this it may be added, that the first foreign Lodge on the roll of the Grand Lodge of Scotland, was the " St. Andrew's," chartered at Boston (U.S.A.) in 1756.

 

In 1759 a Grand Lodge of Sweden was formed, of which Count Karl Fredrik Eckleff who had travelled far and wide‑appears to have been the chief instigator and first Grand Master. He was supported by Fredrik de Stenhagen, Patrick Alstromer, Anders Lidberg, Israel Torpadius and fifteen other Brethren who were in possession of the Higher Degrees. Eckleff, says Kupferschmidt, had FREEMASONRY IN SWEDEN, NORWAY AND FINLAND 223 travelled very much in Europe and had thus acquired a thorough knowledge of the then existing systems of Freemasonry in various countries. With the aid of the materials thus collected he set to work on his return to Sweden in 1750 and, within the following nine years, seems to have compiled a Ritual founded principally on the French Higher Degrees, which ultimately became the basis of the present Swedish system. This Grand Lodge was formally inaugurated on December 25, 1759. As regards the presidency of Count Eckleff, the facts are somewhat in dispute, it being variously maintained that he only gave way in 1773 to the Duke of Sudermania ; that he merely exercised the office for a few years; and even that he was never Grand Master of the Craft at all, but simply " Head Master " of the Scots Lodge. One must regret the inability to reconcile, or decide between, these discrepant statements, which, as we shall presently see, are of great importance in relation to Zinnendorff's proceedings in Germany. It is further asserted, with much probability, that Eckleff was a member of the Chapter of Clermont ; that he modified the Degrees of that body ; and that he gradually introduced them into Sweden‑thus forming the Swedish Rite. At that date, however, there is no indication of High Degrees beyond one Scots Lodge and the High Chapter was not erected until subsequently. Meanwhile we find traces of a very few Lodges in Norway, erected by the English Provincial Grand Lodge of Denmark. At the formal union of the two kingdoms, such of these as survived, came under the rule of the Swedish Grand Lodge.</