![](images/animated_phoenix.gif)
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 June 2007.
THE COLLECTED "PRESTONIAN
LECTURES"
1961-1974
(Volume Two)
![](prestonian_lectures_volume_2_files/image002.jpg)
THE COLLECTED PRESTONIAN LECTURES
1961-1974
(Volume Two)
Edited by Harry Carr
LONDON
LEWIS Masonic
Quatuor Coronati Lodge
First published in collected form in England in
1965
by
Quatuor Coronati Lodge No 2076
This edition published in 1984 by
LEWIS MASONIC, Terminal House, Shepperton,
Middlesex members of the
IAN ALLAN GROUP
Published by kind permission of
The Board of General Purposes of the United
Grand Lodge of England
1. Freemasons. Quatuor Coronati Lodge 366'.1
HS395
ISBN 0-85318-132-2
Made and printed in Great Britain by The Garden
City Press Limited Letchworth, Hertfordshire SG6 US
CONTENTS
List
of Lecturers 1961-74 vi
List
of Abbreviated References used in the text vi
Introduction by Cyril Batham vii
Year The Prestonian Lectures
1961
King Solomon in the Middle Ages Prof. G. Brett
1
1962
The Grand Mastership of
HRH the Duke of Sussex P. R. James
11
1963
Folklore into Masonry VRev H. G. Michael
Clarke
25
1964
The Genesis of Operative Masonry Rev A. J. Arkell
32
1965
Brethren who made Masonic
History E. Newton
46
1966
The Evolution of the English
Provincial Grand Lodge Hon W. R. S. Bathurst
58
1967
The Grand Lodge of England
- A History of the First
Hundred Years A. R. Hewitt
74
1968
The Five Noble Orders of
Architecture H. Kent Atkins
94
1969
External Influences on the
Evolution of English Masonry J. R. Clarke
106
1970
In the Beginning was the
Word ... Lt Col Eric Ward
117
1971
Masters and Master Masons Rev Canon R. Tydeman
133
1972
`It is not in the Power of any man:
A Study in change' T. O. Haunch
149
1973
In Search of Ritual Uniformity C. F. W. Dyer
168
1974
Drama and Craft N. Barker Cryer
196
Bibliography
242
vi
`THE
PRESTONIAN LECTURES'
List of Illustrations
William Preston as PM of the Lodge of Antiquity Frontispiece
HRH
Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex as MW Grand
Master
of the United Grand Lodge of England, 1813-43
13
The
Step Pyramid enclosure at Sakkara
35
Comparative Proportions of the Orders of Architecture
95
Solomon's Temple as visualised by Lt Col Eric Ward from available
evidence 127
Solomon's Temple as imagined by the seventeenth-century artist,
Romain
de Hooghe
128
The
Battle of Rephidim as imagined by the sixteenth-century artist,
Philip
Galle
131
The Lecturers
1961-74
W Bro
Prof Gerard Brett, PM Felix Lodge No 1494.
W Bro
P. R. James, MA, AKC, PAGDC.
RW Bro
V Rev H. G. Michael Clarke, Prov GM Warwickshire. 1953-65.
W Bro
Rev A. J. Arkell, MBE, MC, PM Old Bradford Lodge No 3549.
W Bro
Edward Newton, PGStwd.
RW Bro
Hon William R. S. Bathurst, TD, Prov GM Gloucestershire, 1950-70.
RW Bro
A. R. Hewitt, FLA, PJGD.
W Bro
H. K. Atkins, PAGSupt Wks.
W Bro
J. R. Clarke, PJGD.
W Bro
Lt Col Eric Ward, TD, PAGDC.
VW Bro
Rev Canon R. Tydeman, PG Chaplain.
W Bro
T. O. Haunch, MA, PAGSupt Wks.
W Bro
C. F. W. Dyer, ERD, PJGD, AProv GM (West Kent).
W Bro
Rev Neville Barker Cryer, PDepG Chaplain, A Prov GM (Surrey).
Abbreviated References used in the Text
AQC ‑
Ars Quatuor Coronatorum. Transactions of the Quatuor Coronati Lodge.
B of
C‑ Book of Constitutions.
FQR ‑
Freemasons' Quarterly Review.
QCA ‑
Quatuor Coronatorum Antigrapha. Masonic Reprints of the Quatuor Coronati
Lodge.
INTRODUCTION
EXTRACT FROM THE GRAND LODGE PROCEEDINGS FOR 5 DECEMBER 1923.
In the
year 1818, Bro William Preston, a very active Freemason at the end of the
eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth centuries, bequeathed ú300 3 per
cent. Consolidated Bank Annuities, the interest of which was to be applied `to
some well‑informed Mason to deliver annually a Lecture on the First, Second,
or Third Degree of the Order of Masonry according to the system practised in
the Lodge of Antiquity' during his Mastership. For a number of years the terms
of this bequest were acted upon, but for a long period no such Lecture has
been delivered, and the Fund has gradually accumulated, and is now vested in
the MW the Pro Grand Master, the Rt Hon Lord Ampthill, and W Bro Sir Kynaston
Studd, PGD, as trustees. The Board has had under consideration for some period
the desirability of framing a scheme which would enable the Fund to be used to
the best advantage; and, in consultation with the Trustees who have given
their assent, has now adopted such a scheme, which is given in full in
Appendix A [See below], and will be put into operation when the sanction of
Grand Lodge has been received.
The
Grand Lodge sanction was duly given and the `scheme for the administration of
the Prestonian fund' appeared in the Proceedings as follows:
APPENDIX
A
SCHEME FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE PRESTONIAN FUND
1. The
Board of General Purposes shall be invited each year to nominate two Brethren
of learning and responsibility from whom the Trustees shall appoint the
Prestonian Lecturer for the year with power for the Board to subdelegate their
power of nomination to the Library, Art, and Publications Committee of the
Board, or such other Committee as they think fit.
2. The
remuneration of the Lecturer so appointed shall be ú5 5s Od for each Lecture
delivered by him together with travelling expenses, if any, not exceeding ú1
Ss Od, the number of Lectures delivered each year being determined by the
income of the fund and the expenses incurred in the way of Lectures and
administration.
3. The
Lectures shall be delivered in accordance with the terms of the Trust.
One at
least of the Lectures each year shall be delivered in London under the
auspices of one or more London Lodges. The nomination of Lodges under whose
auspices the Prestonian Lecture shall be delivered shall rest with the
Trustees, but with power for one or more Lodges to prefer requests through the
Grand Secretary for the Prestonian Lecture to vii viii `THE PRESTONIAN
LECTURES' be delivered at a meeting of such Lodge or combined meeting of such
Lodges.
4.
Having regard to the fact that Bro William Preston was a member of the Lodge
of Antiquity and the original Lectures were delivered under the aegis of that
Lodge, it is suggested that the first nomination of a Lodge to arrange for the
delivery of the Lecture shall be in favour of the Lodge of Antiquity should
that Lodge so desire.
5.
Lodges under whose auspices the Prestonian Lecture may be delivered shall be
responsible for all the expenses attending the delivery of such Lecture except
the Lecturer's Fee.
6.
Requests for the delivery of the Prestonian Lecture in Provincial Lodges will
be considered by the Trustee who may consult the Board as to the granting or
refusal of such consent.
7.
Requests from Provincial Lodges shall be made through Provincial Grand
Secretaries to the Grand Secretary, and such requests, if granted, will be
granted subject to the requesting Provinces making themselves responsible for
the provision of a suitable hall in which the Lecture can be delivered, and
for the Lecturer's travelling expenses beyond the sum of ú1 5s Od, and if the
Lecturer cannot reasonably get back to his place of abode on the same day, the
requesting Province must pay his Hotel expenses or make other proper provision
for his accommodation.
8.
Provincial Grand Secretaries, in the case of Lectures delivered in the
Province, and Secretaries of Lodges under whose auspices the Lecture may be
delivered in London, shall report to the Trustees through the Grand Secretary
the number in attendance at the Lecture, the manner in which the Lecture was
received, and generally as to the proceedings thereat.
9.
Master Masons, subscribing members of Lodges, may attend the Lectures, and a
fee not exceeding 2s may be charged for their admission for the purpose of
covering expenses.
Thus
after a lapse of some sixty years the Prestonian Lectures were revived in
their new form and, with the exception of the War period (1940‑46), a
Prestonian Lecturer has been appointed by the Grand Lodge regularly each year.
It is
interesting to see that neither of those two extracts announcing the revival
of the Prestonian Lectures made any mention of the principal change that had
been effected under the revival, a change that is here referred to as their
new form. The importance of the new form is that the Lecturer is now permitted
to choose his own subject and, apart from certain limitations inherent in the
work, he really has a free choice.
Nowadays the official announcement of the appointment of the Prestonian
Lecturer usually carries an additional paragraph which lends great weight to
the appointment: The Board desires to emphasize the importance of these the
only Lectures held under the authority of the Grand Lodge. It is, therefore,
hoped that applications for the privilege of having one of these official
Lectures will be made only by Lodges which are prepared to afford facilities
INTRODUCTION for all Freemasons in their area, as well as their own members,
to participate and thus ensure an attendance worthy of the occasion.
The
Prestonian Lecturer has to deliver three `official' lectures to lodges
applying for that honour. The `official' deliveries are usually allocated to
one selected lodge in London and two in the provinces. In addition to these
three the lecturer generally delivers the same lecture, unofficially, to other
lodges all over the country, and, on occasions, to lodges abroad. It is
customary for printed copies of the lecture to be sold‑in vast numbers‑for the
benefit of one or more of the masonic charities selected by the author.
The
Prestonian Lectures have the unique distinction, as noted above, that they are
the only lectures given `with the authority of the Grand Lodge.' There are
also two unusual financial aspects attaching to them. Firstly, that the
lecturer is paid for his services, though the modest fee is not nearly as
important as the honour of the appointment.
Secondly the lodges that are honoured with the official deliveries of the
lectures are expected to take special measures for assembling a large audience
and for that reason they are permitted ‑ on that occasion only ‑ to make a
small nominal charge for admission.
In
1965 a collection of twenty‑seven Prestonian Lectures was published by Quatuor
Coronati Lodge entitled The Collected Prestonian Lectures 1925‑60 and was
edited by Harry Carr. Unfortunately this has long been out of print. It
covered the period from the time of the revival of the lectures until 1960
with the exception of the following three lectures that were omitted because
of their esoteric content: 1924 W Bro Capt C. W. Firebrace, The First Degree
PGD 1932 W Bro J. Heron Lepper, The Evolution of Masonic PGD Ritual in
England in the Eighteenth Century 1951 W Bro H. W. Chetwin, Variations in
Masonic PAGDC Ceremonial Editorial versions of these three lectures were
published by Quatuor Coronati Lodge in volume 94 of Ars Quatuor Coronatorum.
The
present book contains the lectures from 1961 to 1974 and fortunately it has
been possible to print all of them in full. They cover a wide range of masonic
subjects and as all have been out of print for some considerable time, masonic
students will certainly welcome this opportunity of obtaining a collected
edition of them. Not only are they a valuable aid to masonic study but they
are an excellent means of making `a daily advancement in masonic knowledge'.
There
are only fourteen lectures in this collection, virtually one‑half of the
number printed in the former volume but present‑day costs of book production
have imposed this limit. It is hoped that in due course it will be possible to
produce a third volume.
In
some cases the lectures have been expanded or augmented in some way but in
every such case this has been done by the individual lecturers. Further it
must X `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' be emphasized that they and they alone are
responsible for the opinions expressed and for the accuracy of the statements
made. Most of those honoured by the United Grand Lodge of England in being
appointed as Prestonian Lecturers had previously distinguished themselves, not
only as masonic scholars, but in other aspects of masonic life and of the
fourteen, no less than ten are or were members of Quatuor Coronati Lodge.
Finally it must be pointed out that not only this collection but also the
individual lectures are copyright. In every case permission to publish these
lectures has been obtained from the authors, their heirs or assigns and their
help and co‑operation so freely given is gratefully acknowledged.
London, 1983. CYRIL N. BATHAM.
KING
SOLOMON IN THE MIDDLE AGES THE PRESTONIAN LECTURE FOR 1961 GERARD BRETT THE
PROBLEMS of continuity are among the most baffling of those which beset the
historian. This is particularly the case in the history of Western Europe in
the last 2,000 odd years. We are accustomed to think that of history within
the framework invented for it by the German nineteenth‑century philosopher
Friedrich Hegel as falling into three periods, the ancient, the medieval and
the modern. A continuity between the ancient and the first part of the
medieval period can often be traced, and so can one between the second half of
the medieval and the modern. Continuity from the first period to the last,
however, is extremely rare. Two outstanding examples of it will strike
everyone at once ‑ the Christian church and the Latin language. Neither exists
today in anything like the original form. As Miss Prism remarked to Canon
Chasuble in Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest, `the primitive
church has not survived in its original form'. In the same way, no one, with
classical Latin in mind, has tried to master either of its chief modern
derivatives, church Latin and Italian, will maintain that it has done so
either. That there is continuity in each case, however, is quite clear.
Apart
from these two, such examples as there are of this continuity are mainly to be
found in the field of folklore, tradition and popular beliefs. It is with one
of these that I want to deal today: the legend of King Solomon.
I
cannot do better than to begin this lecture at the point where the research it
incorporates began, that is, with a quotation from a sentence from a
contribution to A QC, xxvii by Bro Chetwode Crawley: `Between the third and
the thirteenth centuries,' he wrote, `there are not in the whole range of
Western Literature a score of references to Solomon or to his Temple, and such
as are known to exist are neither complimentary to the Wisdom of the King nor
laudatory of the splendour of the edifice.' To my mind this contains two
serious mistakes ‑ a misstatement of fact, in that medieval Western literature
abounds with complimentary references to Solomon and his Temple, and a
mistaken implication that none of the Temple legends existed in written form
earlier than AD 1300. All the literature goes to show that Solomon was a great
figure in the Middle Ages. In all this material there is, of course, the gap
between the first and second Craft degrees on the one side and the third on
the other. The origin of the Hiramic legend proper, as Bro Covey‑Crump has
demonstrated, is unknown and possibly unknowable; there are no traces of it in
medieval literature, and its absence where so much else is present is highly
significant. The material in the first and second degrees, on the other hand,
is mainly from the Old Testament, 1 2 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' and, even when
it is not, its origin is, I think, in every case traceable. But medieval
literature, in revealing the transmission of this material, reveals also the
recurring traditions about Solomon himself, his Temple, and his chief
Architect; and I do not think anyone can study these traditions without
beginning to wonder how old the legends may be in something at least nearly
approaching the form in which we have them. The many legends about him fall
under three headings: Solomon the magician, Solomon the wise man, Solomon the
builder. Of these the third one seems to have been the main one from the
start, and I propose to pass over the magician and the wise man stories rather
rapidly here and concentrate my attention on Solomon the builder.
To
begin then, with Solomon the magician. An implication that he was a magician
is found in two passages in the Old Testament, while the latest writer on the
subject points out that the evidence of Solomon's life, with its dark and
disastrous end, were exactly of a kind to encourage such a legend. The legend
had grown extensively by the time of Josephus in the first century AD. Here we
find the legend's two commonest features ‑ Solomon's power over birds and
animals, and the books he had written. It is made quite plain that the books
referred to here were books of magic; and thus almost at the start we are
introduced to the magical rituals which were to be a constant theme.
The
aim of all magic is to acquire human control over non‑human agencies. Magic
takes three great forms ‑ astrology, alchemy and ritual. Ritual magic, that
is, the repetition of special words and formulae, is incidental to one if not
both the other forms as well as to many types of organised religion. Its most
important medieval use, and that in which it shows most clearly the aim of all
magic, lies in demonology, the study and knowledge of demons with a view to
their control for human purposes. It is in the Roman period, especially in the
first four or five centuries AD, that we become aware of the full importance
of demonology, principally for use in exorcism, that is the casting out of
demons; a series of literary sources from the New Testament onwards shows the
importance for the Christian as well as for the Jew of exorcism as a means of
healing the sick.
Magical books ascribed to Solomon were widespread; Origen in the third century
refers to the exorcistic formulae contained in them, and now for the first
time we hear of the Seal of Solomon, which cast out demons because it
contained the Holy Name of God ‑ an idea which appears in two passages in the
Book of Revelation. Amulets of this period invoke Solomon's aid against a
variety of ills: as the magician who knew all the demons by their names, and
what ailments were caused by which, he was the obvious person to call on.
It is
in the Testament of Solomon that the King's power and position appear most
clearly; and the Testament, a Jewish work probably of the, fourth century AD,
was to colour all European magical rituals for twelve hundred years. The
Testament is hung on the thread of an autobiographical story of Solomon's life
and reign, with stress on the building of the Temple. It is actually little
more than a hand‑list of demons, giving their names, the mischief they cause,
and how they are to be exorcised. The demonology is far more developed than
any other feature of the work, and shows signs of various foreign influences,
notably Egyptian and KING SOLOMON IN THE MIDDLE AGES Iranian, acting on its
Jewish foundation. There are Christian influences, too; indeed, its importance
partly lies in showing how close to each other Christianity and demonology
were.
But
the Testament has a wider importance. The first stage of demonology ‑
paramount in the Testament ‑ was a matter of exorcism and medicine. The next,
which parts of the work foreshadow, was a change to demonology as a means of
obtaining special benefits. To this end there was produced the series of
manuals of demonology, which goes on into the sixteenth century, if not later.
The most famous of these are the two Keys of Solomon; nearly all are
attributed to him as a matter of course. It is here, perhaps, that it becomes
most clear how great a figure Solomon the Magician was in the Middle Ages, and
apart from the Manuals he reappears constantly in medieval literature. Most of
the legends in the vast Solomon‑Magician corpus probably date from this time,
and in any estimate of the mental atmosphere of the later Middle Ages he is a
figure to reckon with. It was only with a further change in the character of
demonology, and the rise of the new type of magician embodied in Faust, that
Solomon lost ground.
The
second strand in the tradition is that of Solomon the Wise Man. To a great
extent, of course, the `Magician' element presupposes this, and in the earlier
centuries the two are very hard to distinguish. In the earliest evidence,
other than the Old Testament itself, Josephus mentions three points referable
strictly to this idea‑ `books' Solomon had written (apart, that is, from the
purely magical books already mentioned) ‑ a development from the generalised
`Wisdom' which alone is attributed to him by the Old Testament; the riddles he
exchanged with Hiram of Tyre, or his servant Abdemonus, which are the occasion
for a disquisition on the wisdom of Solomon itself; and the Queen of Sheba's
visit to test and hear his wisdom.
In the
Christian centuries the idea of Solomon's wisdom seems to have gradually
separated itself from that of his magic, and stress is increasingly laid on
the idea of him as the receptory of the Divine Wisdom‑the Hagia Sophia itself;
he appears in this light in at least one fresco with Biblical figures, a
twelfth‑century example in S. Demetrius at Vladimir. There are glimpses of the
idea of wisdom in general, both in the Testament and in other sources, in the
ascription to him of all medical knowledge, indeed of the whole art of
healing, without the implication of exorcism. The books appear again in the
sixth century in Cosmas' `Solomon again wrote his own works, Proverbs, the
Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. For though he had received the gift of wisdom
from God . . . he did not receive the gift of prophecy'; the riddling with
Hiram and his servant, who here appears as Abdimus, in Jacques de Vitry's
History of Jerusalem (thirteenth century). The Anglo‑Saxon Dialogue of Solomon
and Saturn is a separate manifestation of this general idea; another, entirely
separate and showing how widely prolific the idea was, is the Arab legend that
the original strain of all Arab horses derives from the stallion Zad‑er‑Rakib,
given by Solomon to an embassy of Azdites.
It is
in the encyclopaedic age of the thirteenth century that the specific idea of
Solomon as the repository of all Wisdom comes to its full flowering. The
medieval notion of the Old and New Testament as complementary parts of one
whole, the Old a prefiguration of the New, derives in its later form mainly
from the THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' `Allegoriae quaedam Scripturae' of Isidore
of Seville, though it is by no means original to him. It was not worked out in
detail for some hundreds of years after Isidore, but when it was, we find
Solomon as the symbol of Divine Wisdom, and as such the direct prefiguration
of Christ Himself. This appears most clearly in the thirteenth century MSS of
the Bible Moralises, where miniatures of the various events in the history of
Solomon are accompanied by both the Old Testament text and a statement of the
precise event in the life and ministry of Christ which is prefigured.
The
same idea inspires the late medieval version of the story of the Queen of
Sheba. The story is Biblical in origin, and appears in Josephus; but with the
passage of time its character changes. In the earlier Middle Ages, as well as
in Byzantine tradition throughout, the Queen speaks in dark language, and most
resembles one of the Roman Sibyls, whereas Jewish and Aramaic writers see her
essentially as the riddle giver. In twelfth‑century Europe, she was, so to
speak, Christianised, and accepted into Western Christian legend, where she
has remained ever since. Solomon is the Divine Wisdom; the Queen of Sheba is
the Church coming from the ends of the earth to hear the words of Christ, as
she appears in the twelfth‑century stained glass at Canterbury. Alternatively
Solomon on the throne represents the Divine Wisdom on the knees of Mary, and
the Queen of Sheba's visit, the Adoration of the Magi. The latter version is
shown above the Central West Porch of Strasbourg Cathedral, in a relief
carving of Solomon on the throne with the Virgin and Child above. The former
is illustrated in the Bible Moralises, and in the series of pairs of
sculptured figures at Amiens, Chartres, Reims and elsewhere, which were the
subject of a fierce argument in AQCxix. The older Sibyl‑Prophetess idea did
not die out completely: it reappears in the Nuremberg Liber Cronicarum of
1493; and on a German `Old Testament' Gothic tapestry of about 1500, are two
figures with the names `Salaman' and `Sibilla'.
The
other favourite scene of the wisdom of Solomon ‑ the Judgment ‑ has a longer
specifically Christian history. What may be a caricature of it is on a
Pompeian fresco (ie before the eruption of Vesuvius in AD 79) in the Naples
Museum; what is probably the earliest Christian representation is on the lid
of a silver casket in the Church of San Nazaro in Milan, attributed to the
late fourth century. There are other early medieval examples; and the judgment
story, too, is drawn into the encyclopaedic explanation of the Bible. The
Bible Moralises makes the living child prefigure the Church, the dead ‑ the
Synagogue.
The
first, or Magician element in the tradition seems to fade about the time of
the Renaissance. Not, indeed, that the belief in magic itself fades then; it
was, in fact, the great age of Alchemy, and the Philosopher's Stone was often
taken to be identical with the Seal of Solomon. But Solomon as a Magician was
dying with the Magician conceived as a heroic figure. Solomon as a Wise Man
was by no means dead, and with the beginning of serious Old Testament study he
takes on a new lease of life. The idea reaches its height, perhaps, in a story
told by Bayle in his Dictionary; that Joshua Barnes, Cambridge Professor
Greek, in 1710 wrote an epic poem of 10,000 lines to prove that Solomon was
the author of the Iliad and Odyssey, attributed to Homer. It is only fair to
add that Bayle admits a doubt KING SOLOMON IN THE MIDDLE AGES S whether this
feat was not performed to please the Professor's wife, and so induce her to
pay for his edition of Homer.
These
two first strands in the Solomon tradition may at first sight appear to have
little to do with the masonic legends, but I suggest that they are important,
both as disposing of the suggestion that Solomon was an unknown figure in the
Middle Ages and as giving a background to the Temple story. They provide
evidence of those general ideas on Solomon which the Middle Ages had, and
which the Temple legends do, in fact, presuppose.
For
the Temple is the centre of the Solomon tradition from the start. In the Old
Testament books it is already the main event; and as Solomon himself and the
personalities of his reign passed first into memory and then into legend ‑ and
especially after the first destruction of Jerusalem, as witness Psalm 137 ‑
the Temple became to an ever‑increasing degree the symbol of past ‑ and lost ‑
greatness. Josephus tells the whole story at great length, and comparison of
his account with those of the Old Testament reveals the accretion of legendary
and marvellous details to the original. In all later sources the influence of
Josephus can be traced, occasionally with acknowledgement, more often not;
`almost every person,' writes William of Malmesbury in the twelfth century,
`is acquainted with what Josephus, Eucherius and Bede have said' (sc, about
the Temple), and in the late medieval romance of 'Titus and Vespasian',
Josephus is not only a main authority for the events, but appears as one of
the chief actors in the drama.
Early
Christian writers are, in the main, content to report the story much as
Josephus tells it. Clement of Alexandria, in the Stromateis (second century),
gives the story of Solomon's reign in some detail, opening with the statements
that he reigned for forty years, and that Nathan the Prophet lived in his time
and inspired the building of the Temple, of which Sadok was the first High
Priest, being the eighth in the line from Aaron. Later come the marriage of
Solomon to the daughter of Hiram of Tyre, at the time when Menelaus came to
Phoenicia from Troy ‑ a good example of Clement's historical method of
synthesising classical and Jewish history ‑ and the `Letters' of Solomon ‑
cited here from a lost work, Alexander on the Jews, and not from Josephus ‑
which brought him 80,000 workmen for the Temple from 'Hophra', King of Egypt,
and another 80,000 from Hiram of Tyre, together with an architect named
Hyperon, of a Jewish mother of the family of David; Eusebius, in the
Praeparatio Evangelica (fourth century), tells much the same story, quoting
the lost author Eupolemos, and adding a long description of the building, with
particular reference to the two brass pillars gilded with pure gold. John
Chrysostom devotes part of a sermon to an argument on whether its plan and
design derived from Egypt, concluding in the negative. The Testament is
contemporary with these, and, as its latest editor has pointed out, the Temple
is the Leitmotif of the whole work ‑a good example of the essential unity of
the three strands in the Solomon tradition: it is in order to build the Temple
that Solomon seeks and acquires the power over demons which forms the real
subject of the book.
With
Gregory of Tours (sixth century) we are approaching the Middle Ages. Gregory
mentions the Temple twice. In his History it is the subject of the sole
reference to Solomon, and is described as of such magnificence and splendour 6
that the world has never seen its equal; in the de cursa Stellarum it is cited
as one of the Seven Wonders of the World. In the lengthy de templo Solomonis
of Bede (625‑735), we first meet the allegorical interpretation of the Temple
story which has been a feature of the Western approach to it ever since; Bede,
like Josephus, is a source on which many later writers draw. Bede states the
basis of the allegorical approach in his first chapter: `THE PRESTONIAN
LECTURES' His method is to start each section with the quotation of a sentence
from the Old Testament describing some feature of the Temple, and to give a
long allegorical explanation of it. Considerations of time and space make it
impossible to cite examples; besides, much of it is intensely dull. Bede
quotes some half‑adozen times from Josephus, and twice from Cassiodorus'
Commentary on the Pslams; his own influence is clear to see in the three other
most important medieval works on this class, Rhabanus Maurus' Commentary on
the Books of Samuel and Kings (ninth century) ‑ a great deal of which is taken
word for word from Bede‑Richard of Saint Victor's de Tavernaculo Tractatus
Secundus (twelfth century), and the Historica Scholastica of Petrus Comestor
(twelfth century). Of these, the first two give full importance to the
allegorical approach of Bede; in the third it is much less to the fore.
Comestor, whose work is an abridged and simplified Bible, is in general
satisfied to tell a plain, but very detailed, story of the building and
magnificence of the Temple; he relies mainly on the Old Testament and
Josephus. Besides these writers, who are essentially ecclesiastical in
approach, there are a number of others. Alcuin, for instance, refers to
Charlemagne in the ninth century both as David and as Solomon, and, in
reference to the new building, speaks of `that Temple of Aachen which is being
constructed by the art of the most wise Solomon'. Both the Golden Legend
(twelfth century) and Ranulf Higden's Polychronicon (fourteenth century) trace
the whole history of Solomon, incorporating many of the later legendary
additions, and Higden describes the Temple in considerable detail. From a far
distant source‑Palestine itself ‑ comes a legend of unknown age, though it is
medieval, to the effect that Solomon himself was a stonemason.
This
mention of Palestine leads on to the third class of medieval sources on the
Temple ‑ the tales brought back by the Pilgrims. The building they saw was, in
fact, the Mosque of Omar, but by no means all of them appear to have realised
that ‑ though as early as about AD 700 Bishop Arculf says firmly, `On the spot
where the Temple once stood, near the Eastern gate, the Saracens have erected
a house of prayer' ‑ and even some who do realise it write of the whole area
as though the Temple were still standing. William of Malmesbury writes, `Here
is the Church of Our Lord and the Temple which they call Solomon's, by whom
built is unknown, but religiously reverenced by the Turks', and in the middle
of the fifteenth century the Spanish traveller, Pero Tafur, `bargained with a
renegade . . . and offered him two ducats if he would get me into the Temple
of Solomon'.
The
House of God, which King Solomon built in Jerusalem, was made in the model of
the universal church, which from the first of the elect to the last who shall
be born at the end of the world, is built daily by the grace of the peaceful
King, her Redeamer.
KING
SOLOMON IN THE MIDDLE AGES 7 The esteem in which the Temple was held is clear
in all the pilgrim accounts. 'It exceeded all the mountains around in height,'
writes Saewulf (AD 1102), 'and all walls and buildings in brilliancy and
glory,' and 60 years later Benjamin of Tudela reported seeing the two great
pillars, each with the name 'Solomon, son of David' engraved upon it, in the
Church of S. Giovanni a Porta Latina in Rome. It is in line with these
conceptions that in the rebuilding of Jerusalem after its capture by the
Crusaders there was a 'Templum Domini', a 'Templum Salomonis' and a 'Domus
Regia', and Jacques de Vitry writes: There is also at Jerusalem another temple
of vast size and extent, after which the militant friars of the temple are
called Templars. This is called Solomon's Temple, perhaps to distinguish it
from the other, which is called the Lord's Temple.
The
later period of the Temple literature was covered in Professor Swift Johnson's
paper in A QC, xii; the facts he brings forward substantiate the theory of the
permanence of western Temple traditions at this late period, and it would
serve no purpose to cite them in detail here. It is interesting, however, to
note the persistence of the tradition in Palestine, as shown, for instance, in
the diary of Henry Maundrell, who went from Aleppo to Jerusalem and back in
1697, and refers to local legends of Solomon at Tyre (connected with the
building of the Temple), Bethlehem and Jerusalem. The important point about
almost all the later literature is the influence on it of the study of
Ezekiel. This appears in both Richard of Saint‑Victor, who wrote a Commentary
on Ezekiel's Temple, with accompanying plans, and Comestor; it led directly to
the conclusion that the Temple of Solomon and the Temple described by Ezekiel
were one and the same building. This is stated most explicitly late in the
seventeenth century by the brothers Villalpandus; it is obviously present to
the minds of many of the later writers, and to the makers of Temple models.
Many of our own ideas of the magnificence of the building are probably to be
traced back to it.
The
Temple building appears more than any other feature of the Solomon tradition
in works of art. It is, indeed, altogether absent during the first 12
Christian centuries in the West, but this absence is in line with the general
dearth of Old Testament subjects at that time. Early in the thirteenth
century, Solomon is shown kneeling and facing a Gothic building, with a
pillared porch, in one of the quatrefoil panels by the south‑western door of
Amiens Cathedral; he appears again, seated and watching the building of the
Temple, in a Hamburg Bible of 1255 in the Royal Library at Copenhagen. It
cannot be accidental that these earliest representations date from the
didactic age of the Bible Moralisee, of Richard of Saint‑Victor, and of
Comestor. The fourteenth century, so far as my researches have gone, is almost
a blank period for Temple pictures, but with the fifteenth, and the
generations following the first wave of vernacular translations of, and
commentaries on, the Bible, figures of Solomon become ever more common, and we
are able to see the importance attached to the Temple in the Solomon story of
the time. The famous manuscript, Les Tres Riches Heures de Jean Duc de Berry,
now in the Musee Conde at Chantilly, devotes a page to a scene similar to that
in the Copenhagen Bible ‑ the Figure of Solomon facing a partially completed
Temple. About the middle of the century this is again repe‑ 8 ated in the
Josephus manuscript illustrated by the French miniaturist, Jean Foucquet, and
now in the Bibliotheque Nationale; the Temple is here an exceedingly elaborate
French Gothic building. The earlier English representations are figures in
Tree of Jesse designs, with one exception ‑ the fourteenth‑century Queen
Mary's Psalter. This has a series of illustrations of the history of Solomon,
including the Temple building, a scene similar to that in the Copenhagen
Bible. The development of the Tree of Jesse in medieval art is a very large
subject, and it must be enough to say that the choice of figures in the
earliest representations varies considerably. Solomon is by no means always
one of them, and when he is present, he carries a plain sceptre. In later
years he appears regularly as one of the ,standard' Ancestors of Christ, and
at this time, too, the emblems carried by the figures come to be adapted more
closely to the individual. David carries a harp, and Solomon either a sword of
justice or a model Temple. Of the examples of the latter known to me, two are
English and one Welsh, and the date of the earliest is also significant. This
is the Jesse Window in Margaretting Church, in Essex, dated to about 1460; the
others, also in glass, are at Thornhill, Yorkshire, dated 1499, and
Llanrhaiadr, Denbighshire, dated 1533. The Margaretting temple is a Gothic
building with a spire; of the other two, both taken from the artist Jean
Pigonchet's illustrations to a French Book of Hours dated 1498, that at
Thornhill is hexagonal, and that at Llanrhaiadr cruciform, with a tower and
apparently a minaret. Another figure of Solomon is contemporary with
Margaretting. It is a roof boss in the nave of Norwich Cathedral, carved under
Bishop Lyhart, 1446‑72, and shows Solomon with a small Temple in the right
hand and a sword in the left.
Another tradition is represented by Raphael's Fresco in the Vatican Stanza ‑
afterwards engraved and copied very widely ‑ a building scene with nothing in
particular to distinguish the Temple, but with Solomon and othevfigures
standing in the foreground. Going from the sublime to the ridiculous, a
similar, but not certainly the same, scene is shown in a stained‑glass window
of Flemish early sixteenth‑century origin, brought to this country from Rouen
at the time of the French Revolution and erected in Prittlewell Church, Essex.
It is one of a set of twelve, some of them copies from Durer, and shows masons
at work on a building, watched by two overseers in the background; an angel
carrying a square flies above them. The Temple itself, together with the
Pillars, the sea of brass and the chariot with the urn, appears among a great
variety of other scenes from the history of Solomon in the series of small
books of Bible illustrations produced in many European countries during the
sixteenth century, with designs by contemporary engravers. The general
character of these illustrations is shown in that reproduced in A QC, lxi, 1,
(opp p 132) from the Geneva Bible. With reference to the late Bro Poole's
remarks, it may be mentioned that the idea of Bible illustrations of this kind
and in this form appears first (to my knowledge) in a book published at
Antwerp in 1528. The pillars, with their `bowls', appear in a separate
illustration there, and in many others of the series, most of which seem to be
contemporary with, or somewhat later than, the Geneva Bible. In the series as
a whole we see the results of the earlier vernacular Bible versions. Later in
the sixteenth and during the following century, a Temple building scene was
commonly included in tapestry sets of the History of Solomon. The finest of
these is `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' KING SOLOMON IN THE MIDDLE AGES 9 the
Brussels tapestry in the Imperial Collections at Vienna; at least one English
example is existant, an eighteenth‑century piece belonging to Lord Newton
(Grand Lodge also possesses an example of the seventeenth century; it formerly
belonged to Lord Charnwood and was acquired in c. 1952). It may be said of all
these later Temple pictures that they bear out the substantial truth of Bro J.
H. Rylands' dictum, that with the passage of time the Temple bears an
everincreasing resemblance to a railway station hotel.
So
much on the Temple generally; but before I conclude there are one or two
points of special interest. The first concerns the two pillars. In the Greek
translation of the Biblical manuscript known as the Septuagint, the two Hebrew
names are transliterated as we know them today in Kings, but in Chronicles are
rendered by the Greek words meaning 'strength' and 'right'. Josephus gives the
Hebrew words only, and the early Christian writers, where they mention them at
all, do so without translation. The Vulgate does the same, and it is only in
comparatively modern editions of it ‑ the earliest I have been able to trace
is the Paris edition of 1552 ‑ that a Glossary translates the words as 'In
fortitudine aut in Hirco' ('in strength or' with a second meaningless word)
and 'Praeparans sive praeparatio, vel firmitas' (preparing or preparation, or
firmness).
The
same Glossary, it is interesting to note, refers to a priest named J, of
uncertain date, mentioned in I Chronicles ix, 10, and to a tribe of J.ites in
Numbers xxvi, 12; the first of these appears to be the only ground for the
legend attached to the name. Long before this, however, the significations
almost as we have them had been attached to the pillars. Bede refers to them
as 'J., that is, firmness', and 'B., that is, in strength', being followed
word for word in this by both Rhabanus Maurus and Comestor. Medieval Jewish
traditions about the pillars appear in Benjamin of Tudela, whose account of
seeing them in Rome in 1160 has already been mentioned; and in the porch added
to Wurzburg Cathedral by Bishop Hermann of Lobdeburg, between 1222 and 1254,
the two main pillars at the entrance are carved respectively with the letters
B. and J., to which the full names, both rather curiously spelled, have been
added. That any of this carving is of the same date as the porch itself, is, I
fear, unproven and unprovable. The Authorised Version of 1611 has 'In it is
strength' and 'He shall establish', and the discrepancy between this and the
older traditional signification of J. is interesting, considering the date.
Medieval sources have much to say about Hiram, though on the legend proper
they are completely silent. The existence of two Hirams, implied in Kings and
stated definitely in Chronicles, is accepted from the start, but there is some
discrepancy between the accounts of Hiram the commoner's parentage, and even
of his name; Clement calls him Hyperon. As to the name 'Abif', the
introduction of which in Europe is generally attributed to Luther's Bible in
the early sixteenth century, it is worthy of note that it is mentioned in
Rhabanus Maurus' twelfthcentury Commentary of the Books of Chronicles. Hiram
is mentioned as an architect rather than a bronzecaster by both Clement and
Eusebius, both writing in the fourth century, but not by any of the later
authors. The allegorical interpretation is stated most clearly by Bede, and in
view of Bro Covey‑Crump's suggestion of a confusion between Hiram (sometimes
spelled 'Iram') and Adonir‑ 10 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' am, it may be said
that the former is allegorised as the Teacher of the Church (the widow of the
tribe of Israel) to the Gentiles, the latter, mentioned constantly as an
overseer, as the Saviour Himself.
The
medieval sources mention other points connected with Solomon and the Temple
which there is no time to mention. One of them, after considering the legend
that no metal tools were used to build the Temple, gives up the difficulty
involved with the comment `it is no cause for wonder that in works of Solomon
we find what can rather be marvelled at than usefully examined'. With this
sentence we return to the basic conception of Solomon as a Wonder worker from
which we started. I am aware that far from all the ground I have covered can
be described as being immediately masonic research, if by that term is
necessarily meant something connected with the Order we know today. My aim,
within the restricted field I have tried to cover, has been to suggest a
background of tradition and legend. I do not want to imply that all or much of
this tradition ‑ if it was a tradition ‑ was, so to speak, masonic; but if, as
the late Bro Knoop and his colleague stress in The Genesis, masonic tenets and
principles are slow to grow, legends are even slower. Unlike tenets and
principles, they are liable to change in their application; but even where
this change may be suspected (and in no relevant case can it be proved), a
useful purpose may be served by showing their age and development. Our
knowledge of the extent of Old Testament learning at any given time before,
say, the late fifteenth century is very incomplete. I believe myself that even
the scanty material presented here justifies the phrase 'background of
tradition' behind the particular form of many of our legends; and furthermore
that though the gaps in time between the appearances of the various factors
are sometimes long, it is more convincing to assume a tradition than an
indefinite number of written sources, all repeating the same story and almost
all now lost.
The
vernacular translations of the Bible which begin in the later fourteenth
century (in England with Wyclif), make the general tradition of Solomon, as
then known, likely to be more popular than before. Their effect is to be
traced in what may fairly be called the `Old Testament Revival', which has
greatly affected the character of all the Reformed Churches, and in the growth
of the iconography of Solomon. The medieval repertoire ‑ the Judgment, the
visit of the Queen of Sheba, the various figures of the King, generally part
of a Tree of Jesse ‑ is extended to include the Temple, the Idolatry, views of
the Palace, Throne and details of buildings, and many small and fanciful
scenes. But by the same token the effect of the vernacular Bible must have
been to make the formation of entirely new legends, not directly dependent on
the Old Testament, increasingly unlikely with the passage of time. The problem
of the masonic legends is not how early their origin can be, but how late.
THE
GRAND‑MASTERSHIP OF H.R.H. THE DUKE OF SUSSEX, 1813‑43 THE PRESTONIAN LECTURE
FOR 1962 P. R. JAMES HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF SUSSEX was MW Grand Master
of the United Grand Lodge of England from 1813 to 1843, during which period he
exerted considerable influence upon the fortunes of the Craft. It is the
purpose of this lecture to set forth the nature and extent of that influence.
It is not intended as a biography,' but it is necessary first to know
something of the man himself.
Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex, sixth son and ninth child of George III
and Queen Charlotte, was born in 1773. From early childhood he suffered from
severe asthma, which sometimes incapacitated him for weeks at a time. It
necessitated his living abroad until he was over thirty years of age and
prevented him from adopting the customary military career. Educated in
Hanover, his days were spent in travel and study whereby he acquired a
well‑stocked mind and a famous library. A youthful and indiscreet marriage 2
cut him off from his father and the Court, while the Whig principles to which
he steadfastly adhered alienated him from the Tory Governments of the day.
Hence he never obtained any of those lucrative appointments which usually fell
to members of the Royal Family and always suffered from pecuniary
embarrassment. A good speaker and a good trencherman, his wide interests and
liberal ideas made him a welcome chairman at many functions. For nine years he
was President of the Royal Society and was also, at times, the head of several
other learned bodies. 3 The Duke of Sussex's religious convictions have been
the subject of much speculation. Undoubtedly he was very devout, spending
upwards of two hours daily in the study of Holy Writ. In a letter published in
The Christian Observer, May 1843, the Duke wrote that he was convinced of the
divine origin of the Scriptures, `which contain matters beyond human
understanding', and that he did not `concern himself with dogmas, which are of
human origin. I am making this honest declaration,' he said, `not to be
thought a Freethinker, which imputation I would indignantly repel; nor to pass
for a person indifferent about religion.'4 His marginal comments in some of
the theological works in his library show that his Christianity was unorthodox
in that he opposed Creeds and held that the Scriptures must be reconciled to
reasons He was a Modernist before his time. Among See Royal Dukes, Fulford,
R.; AQC, Iii, pp 184‑224.
2
Royal Archives, Windsor Castle, Box File 'Augustus, D. of Sussex, 1786‑1842,
No 48019'. 3 Gentleman's Magazine. N.S., vol six, pp 645‑652.
Some
of the opinions of his late R. H. The Duke of Sussex on the subject of
Religious Doctrine, by Richard Cogan, Esq; BT Mus, 4014 dd 6.
eg,
The State in its Relation with the Church, W. E. Gladstone, 1838; Brit Mus,
1413 e 10; see also Cogan, loc cit.
12
`THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' the Royal Archives at Windsor is a small manuscript
book of prayers which formerly belonged to His Royal Highness. If he used it,
and internal evidence goes to show that he did, it proves that he was a
sincere and contrite believer in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. His
membership of Christian Orders whose obligations required such a belief
confirms this. His religious opinions were, however, tolerant and, so far as
Craft Masonry was concerned, `it was part of his masonic creed that, provided
a man believe in the existence of the GAOTU and in futurity, and extends that
belief likewise to a system of rewards and punishments hereafter, such a
person is fully competent to be received as a brother'.' Masonically, he was a
universalist.
The
Duke of Sussex was initiated, 1798, in the Lodge Victorious Truth, Berlin, a
constituent of the Royal York of Friendship, the Grand Lodge of Prussia, which
then only accepted Christians. He passed through the several offices to the
chair. On his return to England he was given the customary rank of Past GM,
subsequently becoming DGM of the `Moderns', or Prince of Wales's, as they were
then called. The Duke succeeded his brother, the Prince Regent, as Grand
Master, 12 May 1813. He also joined, and for many years presided over, several
other lodges, and he had a special fondness for the Pilgrim Lodge, No 238,
which, like his Mother Lodge, worked its own ritual in the German language .2
`When I first determined,' he said, `to link myself with this noble
Institution, it was a matter of very serious consideration with me; and I can
assure the Brethren that it was at a period when, at least, I had the power of
well considering the matter, for it was not in the boyish days of my youth,
but at the more mature age of 25 or 26 years. I did not take it up as a light
and trivial matter, but as a grave and serious concern of my life.'3 The
immediate purpose of HRH becoming Grand Master of the `Moderns' was to bring
about the long‑desired Union of the two Fraternities in England, upon which
`his whole heart was bent'. For the same purpose his elder brother, the Duke
of Kent, became Grand Master of the Atholl Masons, or `Ancients', and
expressed similar sentiments .4 As a step towards the Union, the Lodge of
Promulgation (1809‑11) was established to restore the Ancient Landmarks, to
help `the Lodges of the Moderns fall into line with those of the Antients'.5
The Duke of Sussex, as RWM of the Lodge of Antiquity, No 1, was a member and
made a useful contribution to the deliberations `by a luminous exposition of
the Practices adhered to by our Masonic Brethren at Berlin'. 6 The ceremonies
agreed upon, including that of a Board of Installed Masters, almost
non‑existent among the Moderns, were rehearsed before the Duke, and
arrangements made for their promulgation. The way was thus cleared for the
Union, which was celebrated on 27 December 1813, the Duke of Sussex, on the
proposition of the Duke of Kent, becoming MW Grand Master of the United Grand
Lodge of the United Grand Lodge of England. `This,' he said, `is the happiest
event of my life' .7 Though t Loage of Research, Leicester. No 2429,
Transactions. 1919‑20, p 97.
2 A
Short History of the Pilgrim Lodge, No 238, F Bernhart, AQC. Ixvi. s
Freemason's Quarterly Review. 1839, p 505.
Gould,
History of Freemasonry, ed Poole, iii, p 81; A QC. Ixviii, p 49. 5 AQC, xxiii,
p 215.
6
Lodge of Promulgation, Minutes, 29 December 1809; AQC. xxiii, p 38. 7 History
of the Royal Alpha Lodge, No 16, Col Shadwell H. Clerke, p 5.
THE
GRAND‑MASTERSHIP OF H.R.H. THE DUKE OF SUSSEX, 1813‑43 13 HRH Price Augustus
Frederick, Duke of Sussex,.&c., &c., &c. MW Grand Master A print published in
1833. Now reproduced by kind permission of the Board of General Purposes,
United Grand Lodge of England. The throne illustrated here is in the Grand
Lodge Museum, and is used nowadays only at the Installation of a new Grand
Master.
14
`THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' others played notable parts, there is no doubt that
the influence of the two Royal Grand Masters was paramount in bringing about
the successful result.
To
harmonise the ritual and ceremonies, the Lodge of Reconciliation was set up
(1813‑16), the Grand Master sometimes attending its meetings. The chief
obstacle was the Obligation in the First Degree.' Attention was drawn to it
from the Chair and, having himself been obligated as an `Ancient' at his
brother's Installation ,2 and possibly influenced by the judgment of the
Swedish Ambassador to Spain at his own installation, 3 the Duke agreed to this
Obligation being made more severe to meet the wishes of the Atholl Brethren.
It having been settled, `the Ancient OBgn of the 1st and 2nd degrees were then
repeated, the former from the Throne', both being approved by the Grand Lodge
as `the only pure and genuine Obs. of these Degrees, and which all Lodges
dependent on the Grand Lodge shall practice'. Notwithstanding this, and though
the decisions of the Lodge of Reconciliation were finally approved by the
Grand Lodge on 5 June 1816, they were not prescribed. Nor did the lodge
consider the ceremony of a Board of Installed Masters. For this purpose the
Duke of Sussex warranted a special lodge in 1827. With some exceptions the
extended ceremony of Installation has fallen out of use: indeed, the Grand
Secretary characterised it in 1889 as 'irregular'. 5 The Lectures, put into
shape by William Preston, to whose beneficence we owe these Prestonian
Lectures, were in those days almost as important as the ritual. Opinions
differ as to what happened to them at the time of the Union. The Grand Master
is said to have ordered that no alteration should be made in the Lectures, 6
and there is no mention of them in the records of the Lodges of Promulgation
and Reconciliation. Yet some important changes were made in them about that
time and the majority view is in favour of attributing these to Dr S. Hemmings,
WM of the Lodge of Reconciliation, with other influences in the background.
The most important change, and that which caused the greatest disturbance, was
the substitution of Moses and Solomon for the two Saints John as the Two Great
Parallels of Masonry. 7 In 1819 a complaint, endorsed by Peter Gilkes, was
made to the Board of General Purposes that Bro Philip Broadfoot and the Lodge
of Stability were working Lectures contrary to the stipulations of the Act of
Union, they never having been in use in either branch of the Fraternity
previous to the Union, and not having received any sanction from Grand Lodge.
The complaint was rejected, but the Board decreed that no new Lecture could be
used without the consent of the Grand Master or the Grand Lodge. The former
laid it down that so long as the Master of any Lodge observed exactly the
Land‑Marks of the Craft, he was at liberty to give the Lectures in the
language best suited to the character of the Lodge over which he presided . .
. that any Master of a Lodge, on visiting another Lodge, and approving of the
Lectures delivered therein, is at Liberty to promulgate them from the Chair in
his own Lodge, provided he has previously perfected himself in the
Instructions of the Master of the aforesaid Lodge. The Grand Lodge concurring
in the opinion thus ' A QC. xxiii, p 261.
Z
Memorials of the Masonic Union, W. J. Hughan, ed J. T. Thorp, p 19. 3 A QC,
Ivi, p 308.
GL
Quarterly Communication, Minutes, 23 August 1815.
5
Dorset Masters Lodge, No 3366, Transactions, 1928‑29, pp 19‑23; Misc. Lat.,
NS, ii, pp 123‑6. 6 FQR, 1843, p 46.
'
Gould, ed Poole, iii, 108; AQC, xxiii, pp 260, 274; xli, pp 191, 197‑201;
Misc. Lat., NS, vi, pp 114‑16, 129‑132.
THE
GRAND‑MASTERSHIP OF H.R.H. THE DUKE OF SUSSEX, 1813‑43 15 delivered by the MW
the Grand Master, requested His Royal Highness to permit the same to stand
recorded in the minutes of the day's proceedings, to which HRH acceded.' The
process of de‑Christianising the Craft ritual and ceremonies, gradual since
1717,2 was now completed. In place of the two Festivals kept by the Ancients
on the two St John's Days, there was to be, under Article XIV of the Union, `A
Masonic Festival, annually, on the Anniversary of the Feast of St John the
Baptist, or of St George, or such other day as the Grand Master shall
appoint'. The General Regulations then adopted and the Book of Constitutions
settled for `the Wednesday following the great national festival of St
George'. 3 The structure remains Christian, but nearly every Christian
allusion has been eliminated in favour of universality. Whose was the
influence remains a moot point; in any case, the responsibility was that of
the Grand Master. 4 The `new method' was not received with unanimous approval.
Both sides felt that they had surrendered something vital, and there was
bitter rivalry among lodges and individual brethren. The Union was carried
through in the last stages of the Napoleonic War and was worked out during its
aftermath of distress and discontent, complicated by the upheaval of the
Industrial Revolution. For a generation the country was torn by numerous more
or less violent agitations which provoked the Government into repressive
legislation or reluctant concessions. Such conditions were not conducive to
masonic progress and the number of lodges declined. When the Duke of Sussex
ascended the throne there were some 650 of them; when he died there were fewer
than 500. In 1828 fifty‑nine lodges were erased for not having made returns
for a considerable time; no new lodges were warranted in London between 1813
and 1839.5 The new Grand Master, who was resolved, unlike his predecessors, to
rule as well as to reign, realised that a firm hand was necessary. `I
recommend to you,' he said, `order, regularity and the observance of masonic
duties.'6 Not unnaturally, there was some opposition.
From
his own Lodge of Antiquity there came, in 1814, an Address to him as its RW
Master, drawn up by Charles Bonnor, who had been the Acting Master and had
done much useful work in the Lodge of Promulgation. It complained, in
,exceedingly objectionable, offensive and slanderous terms', that the Duke had
not done his duty by the lodge in allowing it to lose some of its privileges
at the Union, especially that of being No 1 on the roll. His Royal Highness
referred the complaint to the lodge, when the opposition to Bonnor, led by
William Meyrick, Grand Registrar, presented a counter Address expressing
complete confidence in their RW Master, and expelled Bonnor from the lodge.
For printing his Address, Bonnor was charged before the Board of General
Purposes and expelled from Grand Lodge, though he was soon reinstated. Two
years later he fell into disgrace again and was deprived of his Grand Rank. At
the same time, in Grand Lodge, Bro Robert Leslie, jun, RWM of Lodge No 9, used
some disrespectful remarks to I' GL Quarterly Communication, Minutes, 1
September, 1 December 1819; History of the Emulation Lodge of mprovement, H.
Sadler, pp 109‑12.
Lodge
of Research, Leicester, No 2429, Transactions, 1906‑7, pp 39‑40. 3 Memorials
of the Masonic Union, W. J. Hughan, ed J. T. Thorp, p 76.
The
Symbol of Glory, Dr G. Oliver (1850), pp xvii, 20, 51, 78; FQR, 1844,0 36,
1845, pp 409‑11; A Commentary on the Frrmasonic Ritual, E. H. Cartwright, pp
10, 14, 92; AQC, xlv, p 93.
AQC,
Ixviii, pp 129‑31; Dorset Masters Lodge, No 3366, Transactions, 1918, p 112;
Illustrations of Masonry, W. Prgston, 14th Edn, p 418.
FQR
Supplementary No 1843, p 193.
16
`THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' the Grand Master in the Chair, `a proceeding of
unexampled outrage tending to create discord and dissentions in the Grand
Lodge, to undermine the principles on which the late happy Union of the two
Grand Lodges of Masons in England was established and insulting to the Grand
Lodge in the person of the MW the Grand Master'. The Board decided that his
offence merited expulsion, but owing to his youth and inexperience, and the
apology he had offered, he was let off with a year's suspension.' Also in this
same year, 1814, a group of Ancient Lodges in London formed an influential
committee, led by Bro J. H. Goldsworthy, which circulated resolutions against
the `Innovations', saying that the Lodge of Reconciliation had ,altered all
the ceremonies and language of masonry and had not left one sentence
standing'. 2 They were particularly opposed to the Obligations. The Lodge of
Reconciliation expelled Goldsworthy from its membership and, calling the
dissenters before it, made some slight variations to meet their wishes. They
were not satisfied, refused to hold intercourse with the United Grand Lodge
and proposed the formation of a new Lodge of Reconciliation. Gradually their
resistance broke down, and by 1816 they had more or less grudgingly adopted
the system of working officially set forth.
There
was no harmony in Bath, either. There, the three Modern lodges, Royal
Cumberland, No 55 (now 41), Virtue, No 311, and Royal York of Perfect
Friendship, No 243, combined to build a new Masonic Hall, opened by HRH the
Duke of Sussex with full ceremony in 1819. The project soon failed, partly
from lack of co‑operation from the one Ancient lodge in the city, the Royal
Sussex, No 61 (now 53), the first to be named after the Duke, by his special
permission .4 Rivalry developed into bitterness, the Moderns refusing visits
from the Royal Sussex Lodge. Internal disputes shook all four and the Board of
General Purposes was called in to adjudicate. As a result, the Royal York
Lodge was erased in 1824 and the Lodge of Virtue in 1839, the remaining two
continuing their hostilities for many years. On one occasion a member of the
Royal Sussex ran off with the warrant of the Knight Templar Encampment
attached to the Royal Cumberland Lodge, thus bringing its activities to a
temporary close. 5 From Sussex to Lancashire, from Ipswich to Bristol, came
reports of unrest. Brethren resigned or were expelled, lodges were suspended
or erased through opposition to the new order. It must not be thought,
however, that the revolt, though widespread, was general. More ink has been
spilled over a few sinners than over the 'ninety‑and‑nine' which needed no
repentance. The great majority either loyally accepted the new working or,
unheading, quietly continued their old ways. Uniformity in the ceremonies is
neither practicable nor desirable.
The
best‑known and possibly the most resistance led to the foundation of a rival
Grand Lodge at Wigan. 6 In Lancashire, Ancients and Moderns had long worked t
GL Quarterly Communication, Minutes, 1 June 1814, to 4 December 1816; Records
of the Lodge of Antiquity, No 2, vol it, Capt C. W. Firebrace, 26 January to
20 February 1814.
2
Statement by the WM. Phoenix Lodge, No 289, to the L of Reconciliation. 3 AQC,
xxiii, pp 233‑51.
Autograph letter, dated December 1813, in GL Library.
s From
the records of Lodges 41 and 53; Somerset Masters Lodge. No 3746,
Transactions, 1925. pp 400‑61; 1958, pp 29Tb311.
History of the Wigan Grand Lodge, E. B. Beesley, 1920; The Grand Lodge in
Wigan, N. Rogers, A QC, lxi, pp 170‑210.
THE
GRAND‑MASTERSHIP OF H.R.H. THE DUKE OF SUSSEX, 1813‑43 17 in harmony and
continued to do so after the Union, but there was discontent caused by the
introduction of a Provincial Grand Master and the innovations of the Lodge of
Reconciliation. The revolt began in 1818 with a threat to close a lodge
because of its few members. Then a Memorial was sent from the Provincial Grand
Lodge to the Grand Master, who pigeon‑holed it because it contained matter
concerning the Royal Arch and was therefore outside the scope of the Board of
General Purposes. The Brethren of Lodge No 31, Liverpool, thereupon charged
the Board, who knew nothing about it, with suppressing the Memorial, `a
dangerous innovation', and circulated the document to all lodges. For this, 68
(later reduced to 26) brethren were expelled from the Craft and the lodge
erased. Others who supported Lodge No 31 soon suffered the same fate. The PG
Master was suspended `with a view to remove prejudice and suspicion', William
Meyrick, Grand Registrar, being placed in charge of the Province. When the PGM
died in 1825, the Grand Master divided it into two Provinces. The penalties
imposed were severe but necessary; they compare favourably with those of the
Government in dealing with the contemporary affair at `Peterloo'. The erased
lodges and their supporters continued to meet and, at a meeting in Liverpool,
27 December 1823, resolved to restore the Ancient Grand Lodge on the grounds
that the new (1815) Book of Constitutions established a dangerous and despotic
authority, that the Landmarks of the Order had not been maintained, and that,
as many lodges and individual masons had seceded from it, the United Grand
Lodge had ceased to exist. Seven lodges joined the new body, whose
headquarters were in the Lodge of Sincerity, which became No 1. The Wigan
Grand Lodge functioned formally for many years, only ceasing to exist when the
Lodge of Sincerity rejoined the fold in 1913.
Cases
such as these were generally referred by the Grand Master to the Board of
General Purposes, but his influence was usually, though not always,
predominant. The process was probably much the same as had been used in the
Moderns Grand Lodge before the Union, described by the Swedish Ambassador to
Spain: `The Duke was seated on an elevated throne in the East, in front of a
great table around which thirty‑five persons were seated. Here all cases
concerning Freemasonry were decided . . . The laws were read, and then the
Secretary read out a number of cases. At each of them the Chairman said: "A
motion is made and seconded. Who approves will raise his right hand." In most
cases all present shouted "All", but one question took a long time: it
concerned a Master who had been drunk several times in Lodge and behaved in a
disorderly way, and whom the Duke wished removed. But there were persons who
defended him and also others of opinin not only that he ought to be removed,
but also deprived of the dignity of a Brother. There was an awful row. They
spoke with a certain amount of heat, but many quite well, and the Duke had to
put the proposition eleven times before it was accepted by the majority."
Considerable authority was vested in the MW Grand Master by the new Book of
Constitutions. His own annual election, proposed from the floor of Grand Lodge
from 1836,2 was purely formal. He appointed all the Grand Officers, the ' 1
December 1813; AQC, Ivi, pp 129‑30. 2 FQR, 1836, p 399.
18
`THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' Grand Chaplain, Sword Bearer and, for a time, the
Grand Treasurer, being selected from three brethren nominated by the Grand
Lodge.' He also chose nearly half the members of the Boards through which that
body exercised its administrative functions. The Duke's appointments to Grand
Rank have met with some criticism. He said: `Merit is the sole means of
promotion',2 and that he had `never given any Brother office who was not in
other respects eligible to enter Grand Lodge'. 3 The appointments for 1837
were said to have honestly represented the various interests of the Craft and
to `prove that the "Eye" of the Grand Master is observant of merit, and that
it does not limit its range of vision to this or that Lodge' .4 Yet three
years earlier, when the Grand Master's sight was failing, it was alleged that
there had been `a kindly yielding to the solicitations of private friendship',
and therefore the appointments were `not altogether gratifying to the
expectations of the Craft'.5 Three days after the Union the Duke offered the
Deputy Grand‑Mastership to the dissolute and unwashed Duke of Norfolk, who had
once been PGM for Herefordshire. 6 The SGW of 1838, Lord Worsley, had been
raised only a few days before his appointment, 7 and the Grand Registrar,
appointed to that very important office at a critical time in 1840, was
seventy years of age and had only four years' experience as a Freemason. 8
Gould wrote that `The Duke of Sussex was, in his way, a despot . . . his
patronage was not confined to the right (from 1819) of nominating all the
Grand Officers, except the Treasurer. He altered at pleasure the status of any
Grand Officer, created new offices, and freely appointed Brethren to rank in
Grand Lodge'.9 He may have asked a Brother at a Quarterly Communication to
fill a casual vacancy through absence, but an analysis of his appointments
from 1813 to 1843 shows that Gould's assertion is not true. The Wardens and
Deacons were changed annually, the Sword Bearer almost so; the other officers
continued for several years and there was no abnormal creation of new offices.
During the whole period there were less than a dozen promotions and, although
he was at loggerheads with him at the time, he made Dr R. T. Crucefix Junior
Grand Deacon in 1836.
The
Duke of Sussex was prone to act on his initiative and to interfere personally
in proceedings, though he denied any intention of dictation.'░
He conferred privileges upon those lodges in which he was specially
interested." He decided that a Serving Brother could only become a subscribing
member in a lodge other than that in which he was initiated under
dispensation, but he was not disposed to do anything further in the case of a
lodge which has initiated two serving brethren and an excessive number of
candidates after being refused a dispensation, because he thought they had
acted under a misapprehension. 12 The disputes in Bristol and in the Silent
Temple Lodge, No 126, Burnley, 13 were GL Quarterly Communications, Minutes. 7
September 1814, 6 March 1816, etc. Z FQR, 1836, p 319, note.
3 FQR,
1840, p 498. FQR, 1837, pp 293‑4. 5 FQR, 1834, pp 240‑1.
6 AQC,
Iii, p 208, 214, 216; Complete Peerage (Doubleday). 7 FQR, 1840, p 285.
s
Lodge of Research, Leicester, No 2429, Transactions, 1919‑20, p 96. 9 Gould,
ed Poole, iii, 110.
░AQC.
Iii, p 112 I eg, 'itch race, op c1L p 155.
~z GL
Quarterly Communications, Minutes, 5 March 1834. ~3 Communicated by W Bro N.
Rogers.
THE
GRAND‑MASTERSHIP OF H.R.H. THE DUKE OF SUSSEX, 1813‑43 19 both smoothed over
by the Grand Master's personal intervention. On the other hand, whilst the
case of the PGM for Somerset against Thomas Whitney, of the Royal York Lodge
of Bath, was sub judice, the Duke wrote that the latter's statements were `as
distant from truth as the East is from the West', and he told the Board of
General Purposes that they were not to receive any affidavits during the
course of their investigation. `As Masons,' he said, `we rule and judge by the
laws of Conscience and Honour. Public Opinion and the strict observance of a
Mason's Word are our only means of Control . . . we cannot punish legally for
perjury'.' In 1834 the Duke ordered that there should be no professional
singers in the Glee Room with the ladies at the Boys' Festival because of an
unpleasant incident three years before. This had a bad effect on contributions
to the Institution, so he withdrew the restriction in 1836.2 The Grand Master
of England worked in cordial co‑operation with the Duke of Leinster, head of
the Order in Ireland, but on one occasion he over‑reached himself and was
severely snubbed. Freemasonry in Ireland was made illegal in 1823, and the PGM
for Upper Canada attempted to compel an Irish lodge there to accept an English
warrant. In 1826 the papers were laid before the Duke of Sussex, who suggested
to the Grand Master of Ireland that Irish lodges overseas should be placed
under the Grand Lodge of England for better control. The Irish Grand Lodge
would thus abandon its rights under the International Compact of 1814. They
reacted strongly, characterising the Duke of Sussex's conduct as unmasonic,
and issued a new warrant to their lodge in Canada. 3 It was said by the DG
Master, Lord Durham, himself in 1835 that `until lately the proceedings at the
Quarterly Communications were mere promulgations and registrations of the
edicts of the Grand Master; but, Brethren, there has arisen of late a spirit
of enquiry worthy of our glorious profession, that has found its way into our
legislative assembly, that has brought about discussions upon most important
subjects and this has been happily marked by an especial propriety of conduct,
and the exercise of great intellectual powers. I have sincere pleasure in
stating my conviction that the Grand Master, so far from viewing these
proceedings with either distrust or jealousy, is gratified to know that they
have taken place. '4 Bro Philipe, a member of the Board of General Purposes,
added that the Grand Master `during the past year had, in a most especial
manner, endeared himself to the Craft by the ready and kind manner in which he
had met their wishes upon some important changes'. 5 At this period, however,
the Duke was absent from Grand Lodge owing to his blindness. When he
recovered, after an operation, there was a change for the worse.
The
Duke was a `persevering and unwearied patron of every charitable institution,
the most charming beggar in Europe'. 6 In 1829 he approved the design of a
jewel to be worn by brethren who had served as stewards to both the Masonic
Charities, the Boys' and the Girls' Institutions. It was his concern for these
that involved him in the worst dispute of his reign. Dr R. T. Crucefix, in
1834, ' Autograph letter dated 24 October 1824, in GL Library. 2 FQR, 1834, pp
49‑51. 159‑61, 240, 419; 1836, p 169.
3
History of the Grand Lodge of F. and A. Masons of Ireland, R. E. Parkinson
(1957), pp 60‑67. 4 FQR, 1835, p 176.
5
Ibid, p 432.
6 FQR,
1843, p 141; A QC, Ixvi, p 71.
20
`THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' suggested the erection of an Asylum for Aged and
Decayed Freemasons, inviting the Duke to become its president. But the Grand
Master opposed the scheme on the grounds that the proceedings of Dr Crucefix
and his supporters were irregular, that it would induce improper persons to
enter the Fraternity, and that it would adversely affect the two existing
Charities ‑ the Girls' School being at that time in financial difficulties.
Interviews between the Duke and Crucefix were variously interpreted, the
latter saying that the Grand Master was 'not opposed' to the Asylum, whilst
the former said he was,' though he changed his grounds. `Finding that
opposition but aided the Asylum, [he] adopted the plan of competition and
hoisted the standard of a Masonic Benevolent Annuity Fund. The Duke of Sussex
for a long time denied his patronage, but Walton2 sought an interview with him
and, meeting with a repulse on his favourite theme, he fairly told the Grand
Master, on taking leave, that there remained no other means of preventing the
Asylum being built and endowed. This decided the matter; the Grand Master
relaxed, adopted Walton's scheme and thus proved the fallacy of all opposition
to the Asylum principle; which, so far from being uncalled for and
unnecessary, became the parent of a second Masonic Charity." Crucefix,
fortified by a Grand Lodge resolution unanimously in favour of the Asylum,
went on with his scheme and managed it as though it was an official business
with governors, collections, festivals, and so on. A dispute at a meeting held
3 November 1839, led to Crucefix and his lieutenant, J. Lee Stevens, being
temporarily suspended from their masonic duties. Crucefix's appeal against the
sentence being disallowed, he wrote a highly improper letter to the Duke of
Sussex, accusing him of disregarding the Ancient Charges, and recalling a
memorable scene in the Grand Secretary's office on 29 April 1840, when the
Grand Master `threatened me with the enforcement of a power beyond the Masonic
Law and expressed that threat in language so unusual and unexpected from a
Brother of your exalted Rank and Station, as was calculated to lower the
respect due to the person of Your Royal Highness, and above all the dignified
Office of Grand Master'. 5 This the Duke ignored until it was published in
Crucefix's periodical, The Freemason's Quarterly Review. Now, publication of
masonic proceedings was anathema to the Grand Master. Charles Bonnor, of the
Lodge of Antiquity, No 2, and the brethren of Lodge No 31, Liverpool, had been
penalised for such an offence. Also, Laurence Thompson, a Prestonian Lecturer
and one of Crucefix's opponents, fell under the Grand Master's displeasure for
publishing a form of ceremonial promoted by the Lodge of Reconciliation, of
which he was a member. 6 Earlier in this same year, 1840, the Duke had
circularised all lodges warning them against printing masonic information. The
appearance of Crucefix's letter in the Review, therefore, caused the Grand
Master to lay it before the Board of General Purposes, `leaving to their
Discretion the Proceed AQC, Iii, p 199‑200: FQR, 1837, pp 484‑5.
2
Isaac Walton, PM of the Moira Lodge, No 92. 3 Gould, ed Poole, iii, 109‑10.
FQR,
1838, flyleaf.
5 GL
Quarterly Communication. Minutes, 2 September 1840. The letter over the
pseudonym 'Pythagoras' in FQR, 1840, p 149‑52, differs from that officially
recorded.
6 A
QC, xxiii, p 86.
THE
GRAND‑MASTERSHIP OF H.R.H. THE DUKE OF SUSSEX, 1813‑43 21 ings necessary to be
adopted for the preservation of Order in the Craft, and for the Maintenance of
that Subordination which is so essential to be observed in all regular
communities which are governed by Laws, and by no one more particularly than
by the great Body of Masons'. The Board found it proved that the Grand Master
had taken no part in the original proceedings against Crucefix, which had been
initiated by four brethren unknown to him. (Yet Laurence Thompson was one of
them!) The letter was denounced as'a false, scandalous and unwarrantable
attack on the character and conduct of the MW Grand Master', and it was
recommended to the Grand Lodge that Crucefix should be expelled from the
Craft. At a subsequent Especial Grand Lodge the motion for his expulsion was
put, but, an apology being tendered on his behalf, an amendment was made that
this should be received. The amendment was carried by a small majority, one of
its principal opponents being RW Bro C. T. D'Eyncourt, an equerry to and
friend of the Duke of Sussex and PGM for Lincolnshire.' The Asylum and the
Annuity Fund both came into being and were amalgamated in 1850 to form the
RMBI.
It was
the publication of Crucefix's letter in the Freemason's Quarterly Review that
brought the Asylum controversy to a head. The Review itself was another cause
of the Duke's rancour against the Doctor. Founded by him in 1834, he was its
editor for the next six years. The periodical supplied a much‑felt want in
masonic literature, but the Grand Master disapproved of it. In the course of
the interview in the Grand Secretary's office, already alluded to, he said
that Dr Crucefix `had sown the seeds of discontent where all was peace and
good order, and by his vile paper he had caused considerable mischief, the
effects of which it would take all the care and consideration of the Grand
Master, assisted by the Grand Lodge, to correct'. 2 A little later in this
same year, when addressing the Grand Lodge on the death of the DGM, Lord
Durham, the Duke noticed two brethren, one of whom was Lee Stevens, taking
notes, doubtless for the use of the editor of the Review, and told them it was
illegal. When they demurred he exclaimed: `It is the law. I have so laid it
down and I will enforce it.'3 Yet the Board of General Purposes shortly before
this had rejected a memorial against RW Bro J. Easthope, PGW, who, as
proprietor of The Morning Chronicle, had printed an account of a public speech
by the Grand Master, in which he had associated the Fraternity with his
denunciation of the connection between the Established Church and the State as
disastrous to both and a grievous hindrance to the dissemination of the true
religion .4 In 1841 the Freemason's Quarterly Review was denounced as 'a
traitorous violation of the obligation of secrecy'. 5 Two months after Dr
Crucefix's narrow escape from expulsion, Lee Stevens opposed, in the Grand
Lodge, the re‑nomination of the Duke of Sussex as Grand Master, suggesting
instead the Marquis of Salisbury, DGM. The Duke allowed him to make a long
speech, which he described as `able, candid and straightforward', and then
'expressed himself very warmly, not to say intemperately',, on the subject.
'I'll let the Brother see,' he said, 'and I'll let the Grand Lodge see, too,
that I do know all about him', going on to accuse Stevens of attacking him in
the ' GL Quarterly Communications, Minutes, 2 September, 30 October 1840. 2
FQR, 1840, pp 192‑3.
s
Manchester Association for Masonic Research, Transactions, 1934. pp 95‑6. FQR,
1840, pp 209‑10.
5 FQR,
1841. pp 1‑10.
22
`THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' newspapers, and the Asylum supporters of improper
practices. The Duke 'declared his desire to resign his office; and it is
understood he consents to hold it only until his royal nephew (the Prince
Consort) shall be qualified to fill the distinguished and, let me add, not
uninfluential station'. Resignation was much in HRH's mind at the time. He had
threatened it at Crucefix's appeal: that `he had been many years the Grand
Master, and was willing to continue so, but that if Grand Lodge thought a
younger and more active person was necessary, he was ready to retire; that
personally it was of no consequence to him; that it had rather detracted from
than added to his popularity; that it gave considerable trouble, bul~ that he
was ready to undergo while he held the office'. On this occasion the Marquis
of Salisbury declined the nomination, Stevens withdrew it and the Duke of
Sussex was re‑elected.1 Next year Stevens was the moving spirit in the
organisation of a testimonial from the Craft to Dr Crucefix. At the
presentation and banquet, 24 November 1841, the Chair was taken by Dr George
Oliver, the well‑known masonic author and a frequent contributor to the
Review. The consequence was that RW Bro C. T. D'Eyncourt dismissed Dr Oliver
from his position as DGM for Lincolnshire, which caused another outcry. 2
There is no doubt that the influence behind the PGM's decision was that of the
MW Grand Master. The real reason for the attack on these two distinguished
brethren was that they were both active propagators of the Higher Degrees.
The
Duke of Sussex was head of several of these, and on one occasion spoke of `his
attachment to the principles and determination to maintain the privileges and
to provide the well‑being of the Order'. 3 The Duke, however, did not pursue
an active policy for their advancement and they did not flourish under his
rule. It may well be that his inactivity was, in the circumstances, more
effective in preserving the Higher Degrees than the uninhibited behaviour of
Bros Crucefix and Oliver.
With
the approach of the Union of the two Grand Lodges, the Duke of Sussex was
exalted into the Royal Arch, April 1810, and in the next‑month was installed
as MEZ of the Supreme Grand Chapter of the Moderns, The Earl of Moira
gracefully making way for him. 4 At the Duke's instigation, the SGC, in 1813,
`Resolved unanimously that as the Grand Lodge of.England (Moderns) through the
MW Grand Master has communicated its Determination to acknowledge the Royal
Arch', the MEZ be entrusted with full powers to conclude a union of the SG
Chapter with the two Grand Lodges.5 For the Ancients, full recognition of the
Royal Arch Degree was a sine qua non of the negotiations, but the
universalists, who disliked the Royal Arch as they did the Christian Orders,
were able to secure the compromise in the well‑known Article II of the Union.
There was to be no fourth degree as the Duke had anticipated ,6 nor was any
provision made for the government of the Royal Arch in the new Book of
Constitutions. Only after slow progress did the Duke's influence bring about
the Union of the two Supreme ' FQR, 1840. pp 496‑9. 202‑3; 1841, pp 457‑8. Z
AQC, Ixxiv, pp 53‑70.
3 The
Origin and Progress of the Preceptory of St George, No 6, C. Fitzgerald Matier,
pp 42‑46. Supreme Grand Chapter, Minutes, 17 April, 10 May 1810.
5
Origin of the English Rite, W. J. Hughan. ed J. T. Thorp, p 171. 6 Freemasons'
Book of the Royal Arch, B. E. Jones, p 111.
THE
GRAND‑MASTERSHIP OF H.R.H. THE DUKE OF SUSSEX, 1813‑43 23 Grand Chapters, 18
March 1817. Formal recognition was granted by the United Grand Lodge.
Obviously some alterations in the ritual were necessitated by the
establishment of a united SGC to weld the two systems into one uniform
ceremony. But so little interest was taken in the Supreme Order and so chaotic
were conditions at headquarters that it was not until 1834 that the Duke of
Sussex, as MEZ, set up a committee to revise the ritual.' The work appears to
have fallen mainly on his friend and former chaplain, the Rev G. A. Browne, PG
Superintendent for Cambridgeshire, the result being approved by the MEZ and
SGC in November of the same year. Many alterations were made, new ceremonies
for the installation of the Principals were introduced, and an attempt made to
remove all Christian allusions from the ritual. The SGC made it `the duty of
every Chapter to adopt and obey' the new method, the Grand Principals
suggesting that any Chapter which failed to teach its members the `Sussex
Ritual' should be suspended .2 A Chapter of Promulgation was warranted on 4
February 1835, for six months, but in spite of the improved means of
communication, little was done to spread the new ways beyond the Metropolis.
Provincial Companions found it difficult to make the journey for instruction
and were hard put to it to learn about and practise the new ritual, especially
the installation ceremonies. 3 Even when they did get the information they did
not always conform entirely. 4 Though there are several versions existing
today claiming to be copies of the `Sussex Ritual' of the Royal Arch Degree, 5
they are no more correct than those of the Craft ritual which purport to be
derived from the decisions of the Lodge of Reconciliation. In the Supreme
Order uniformity is as non‑existent and as undesirable as it is in the Craft.
Many
eulogies and criticisms, contemporary and later, have been made of the
Grand‑Mastership of the Duke of Sussex. The former may largely be discounted
as laudatores temporis acti, having been given on special occasions which
demanded them, or as deriving from the deference then customarily paid to
Royalty. The critics, though some of their remarks are not without foundation,
have, in general, paid too much attention to the last five years of the Duke's
reign and too little to the first twenty‑five, at the conclusion of which he
was presented with that magnificent testimonial now in Freemasons' Hall. The
year 1838 was the turning point. Up till then the Grand Master's rule was
successful and popular. In spite of his many other interests, the Duke took
great pains to equip himself for his position, was remarkably assiduous in his
duties and enjoyed the advantages of very able advisers. Their purpose was to
enforce the settlement made at the Union and to resist further change. If his
influence sometimes degenerated into interference it was used in what he
considered to be the best interests of the Craft. His rule was personal and
firm, but not autocratic. His Whig principles, so staunchly held, and his
fondness for the British Constitution, so often expressed, can hardly have
been lost sight of when he ascended the Masonic Throne. Whether in the Grand
Lodge or presiding at the festive board, his burly figure, 1 Ibid, p 170. '
'Ibid, p 171.
FQR,
1837, p 59; 1839, p 78.
Freemasonry in Bristol, A. C. Powell, and J. Littlejohn, pp 667‑9. 5 Somerset
Masters Lodge, No 3746, Transactions, 1924, p 289.
24
`THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' clothed in a blue coat, light waistcoat, knee
breeches and black skull‑cap, his `jolly' countenance and his genial
affability made him ever welcome.
After
twenty‑five years came a sad deterioration. The Duke was getting old, his
illnesses were prolonged and painful, for two years he was completely blind
and thereafter only partially recovered, his veteran advisers had all passed
away. The organised conspiracy ‑ for it was such ‑ of Drs Crucefix and Oliver
threatened to bring crashing into ruins the work of the Duke's lifetime. No
wonder he became ill‑tempered. The Grand Master was a changed man; he was
hectoring, unjust, despotic; it was not a pleasant sight. Though many fine
things were said of him at his passing, his demise brought relief to the
Fraternity. He was not a great Grand Master, but he was a good one. Of his
contemporaries he was by far the best fitted for the office. `If' is a
dangerous word in history, but it is a safe assumption that if we had had one
of his brothers in his place ‑ and it might easily have happened' ‑ the Craft
would not have been so well served. The memorial of his labours is not the
statue, the portraits or the other paraphernalia of departed merit: it is one
of which any man, of any rank, could be justly proud‑the United Grand Lodge of
England. The existence and present prosperity of this great Fraternity are due
in no small measure to the Grand‑Mastership of HRH the Duke of Sussex.
'
Letters of King George IV, 1812‑1830, ed A. A. Aspinall, i, p 60, No 55.
FOLKLORE INTO MASONRY THE PRESTONIAN LECTURE FOR 1963 THE VERY REV H. G.
MICHAEL CLARKE, MA.
THE
PASSING OF THE OPERATIVE GILDS SINCE t FIRST began to find in masonry more
than the performance of rites and ceremonies, I have wanted to know how it
originated. That is to say, I was curious why men took up speculative masonry;
for there is no mystery about the old lodges of the operative masons, nor
about their practice of admitting honorary members. There is secure evidence
of such admissions taking place early in the seventeenth century in England,
and in the minute book of the Lodge of Edinburgh the presence of James
Boswell, Laird of Auchinleck, is recorded under the date 8 June 1600.
The
brethren of that time belonged to the Livery Company of Masons of London and
to the Gilds of Masons up and down the country, and had plied their craft
during the Middle Ages in association with the Cathedral Chapters and the
Monastic Orders in building and maintaining the great Gothic Churches. Alone
of all trades they had preserved the cohesion of the `fabric lodge'; since by
the nature of things they had to keep together as a band, their work could
only be done `on the site'. At York the masons employed at the Minster in 1532
were: To begin work immediately after sunrise until the ringing of the bell of
the Virgin Mary; then to breakfast in the logium fabricw; then one of the
masters is to knock upon the door of the lodge and forthwith all are to return
to work till noon. Between April and August, after dinner they shall sleep in
the lodge; then work until the first bell for vespers; then sit to drink until
the end of the third bell, and return to work so long as they can see by
daylight.' The economic changes and the new eagerness to free the individual
from restriction had caused the gild system to decay and collapse, and masons
lost employment as the new classical styles became popular, which called for
less intricate work. Brick, too, was more extensively used.
THE
SINGULARITY OF THE MASONS There was, however, one feature of the masonic
fraternity which made it unique. Unlike other associations of craftsmen,
lodges were not permanent. When a building was completed, the workmen might
pass to employment in another locality. The secrecy, fidelity and obedience
they owed were not to a group in a particular place, but to the Craft as a
whole. To ensure that strangers claiming the privileges of masons should not
deceive, signs, tokens and words of recognition were communicated under vows
of concealment that the mysteries of their art might be guarded and preserved.
A
special character distinguishes bodies of men who rove the world in the Quoted
in Hastings' Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics.
25 26
`THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' pursuit of their livelihood, whether they be
sailors, commercial travellers, barristers on circuit ‑ or operative masons.
Lacking stable homes, they learn to settle anywhere, they have the
cosmopolitan's gift of getting on terms with strangers when they meet them,
some fellow‑feeling with the foreigner and understanding of the working of his
mind, and, above all, a broader, more tolerant view of the universe and human
kind than is held by the types which stay at home. Yet, while all these things
are true of the wandering worker, he does not lack ordinary social instincts,
and the want of any normal experience of settled community life makes him
attach a high, perhaps exaggerated, value to the closed circle of his
professional fellowship.
I
think freemasonry, at the death of Queen Elizabeth in 1603, must have been
much as I have described, a survival shorn of much of its importance and
authority, held together by its traditional connection with building, in which
more and more men of the middle ranks of the nation were interesting
themselves, and governed as to the constitution of lodges and the conduct of
brethren by Ancient Charges and Regulations. Of emblematic or speculative
masonry at the beginning of the seventeenth century there is no evidence.
Jump a
hundred and fourteen years, and in February 1717, four London lodges meet
together for the purpose of consolidating their structure and co‑ordinating
their activities by the creation of a Grand Lodge. As to how much ritual they
possess and in what ways they differ from us, their successors, it would be
reckless to speak in definite terms. Certainly all traces of operative masonry
have disappeared from these four, though not by any means from all lodges in
England. Certainly, too, there is some esoteric teaching contained in the
ceremonies connected with the admission of candidates, and possibly on feast
days. Prominent practitioners of the art of speculative masonry have given
lectures. Thus, material is provided for the Masonic Order to work upon during
the eighteenth century and to develop into the standard forms of virtual which
we inherit. We have a problem of embryology which is completely insoluble. We
simply cannot tell what stage had been reached in 1717, and I have no judgment
to offer. I make but two suggestions. The first is that though, no doubt,
ritual was then in primitive shape, with possibly only parts exactly phrased
and neither so Systematic nor so elaborate as today, there was a basic
uniformity running through freemasonry. The second is that whatever may have
been the growth of freemasonry we can at least identify the seeds. The former
of these suggestions will not take our attention for long, and I shall not
argue it further than to offer an historical parallel, but I think a
satisfactory one. Indeed, I hope that you will agree that freemasons were, as
I have described it, basically uniform in 1717, for it will assist me, if you
do, to demonstrate the seeds from which it sprang, similar growth implying
similar seeds.
UNIFORMITY OF MASONIC RITES, 1717 The assimilation of the content of
freemasonry in different lodges depended on the probability of brethren in
them mixing, and this in turn upon the facilities for travel and their use by
seventeenth‑century Englishmen. It is a commonplace that communications in our
country had to wait till nearly 1800 before they were FOLKLORE INTO MASONRY 27
substantially improved. But for three hundred years before then there had been
slow but steady advance. The Englishman of the Stuart period was a traveller.
If he were a gentleman, that is, one who owned land and lived on the income
from it, he regarded travel as a source of information; if he were a merchant,
Germany or the Low Countries drew him as profitable markets; if he were a
Cavalier, he may have visited or stayed in France while young Charles Stuart
took refuge there; if he were a Roundhead, he might well have brothers or
cousins in America. These were the sort of men who were entering the Craft as
Free and Accepted Masons. If their predecessors, the operative masons,
scattered over England, could in the Middle Ages preserve some sort of
national association, surely it is not crediting them with too much ingenuity
of organisation to say that they were roughly uniform in their precepts and
their practice. What they handed on was what they held in common. Except in a
few instances the general pattern has prevailed; the anomalous has
disappeared.
This
is what we should expect in a widely scattered fraternity maintaining itself
in an indifferent society. On another scale and against another background,
the Christian Church was driven underground by persecution in the Roman Empire
at the end of the first century of our era and reappeared when toleration was
proclaimed in the last quarter of the second. During the intervening period,
when it took care as far as it was able to be unknown and unheard of, it
succeeded in developing an Organisation and a ritual which were practically
uniform from Antioch to York. Is it too much to claim in the same way that the
springs of speculative masonry had risen to approximately the same height
during the seventeenth century in all the various centres in England? WHAT
STARTED SPECULATION? One suggestion has been made that, alone among the craft
gilds, masons continued to cherish and transmit their special religious
practices. Each medieval association was religious in character, venerated one
patron saint and kept its festival in a way which might be peculiar to itself.
The Reformers looked askance at such carryings on, which they condemned as
superstitious and put ruthlessly down. It is not easy to imagine a group or
groups of men taking the trouble and risk to continue to perform them in
secret. Nor are the types I have men, tioned as belonging to lodges those whom
we should expect to court official disfavour.
Elias
Ashmole is the most famous of them. He records in his diary that he was made a
freemason at Warrington in 1646. His second wife was a wealthy widow, and at
the Restoration he was created Windsor Herald. He makes no other reference
till 1682, when he again attended a lodge and notes composedly that he was the
senior fellow. He was typical of his age, a natural student, now critical, now
credulous, Fellow of the newly‑chartered Royal Society, collector of
curiosities of art and nature, which Sir Christopher Wren built a famous
museum in Oxford to house. His credulity appears in his friendship with the
contemporary astrologers and his dabbling in the cult of Rosicrucianism.
Michael Maier's book about this system of theosophy had been recently
translated from German to English. As Michael Maier was an alchemist, Ashmole
seems to focus in his 28 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' person all the novel,
unusual and curious ideas that were drifting through the seventeenth century.
There
are those who believe that Elias Ashmole imported tenets of Rosicrucianism ‑
with its Legend of the Tomb and its implicit principles of brotherly love,
relief and truth ‑ into freemasonry. There is not the smallest evidence that
he was more than superficially interested in either, and it was to concrete
rather than abstract matters that he devoted himself, a history of heraldry
and the collection of rarities absorbing him to the exclusion of theology and
metaphysics.
Robert
Plot and John Aubrey have links with Ashmole, for they were both antiquarians
and Plot was‑Secretary of tfle Royal Society as well. Neither were freemasons,
but both mention the Craft (in 1686 and 1691 respectively) as widespread
through England, practising charity and patronised by monarchs themselves.
Shadowy as the picture is, it is difficult to conceive that lurking in the
shade is a hand bent upon transforming it. Bro Bernard Jones closes his
discussion of the subject by quoting Lewis Edwards: Few, if any, institutions
are invented offhand. They are all creatures of growth. If we find one of them
organised and in working order at a certain date, it is highly probable that,
whether or not we find traces of it, it has existed for many years in a
rudimentary and unorganised form, and this is obviously the case with
speculative freemasonry.' MEDIEVAL IDEAS OF THE UNIVERSE And so it is a
question of what, when at dusk the gates of the town were closed and the
bellman began his nightly rounds, our seventeenth‑century brethren talked at
their secret meetings in private rooms of taverns under the presidency of an
expert in the matters under discussion. These were the serious gentry and
burgesses of the place; the lighter fry were dancing at the assembly rooms or
foregathering in each other's houses for music, cards and supper. Let us think
of them for the moment not as masons, but as fairly educated Englishmen fully
awake to an endless debate that was going on around them: the debate
particularly about the nature of God's creation and the laws by which it was
maintained in being, the debate as to how man could be elected to
sanctification and what was the balance between revelation and reason, that
is, between the evidence of the Bible and the evidence of man's native
intelligence. For the Bible, of which the Authorised Version was published in
1611, was in everybody's hands. Its coming had stimulated the teaching of
letters.
Speaking of the duties of man, a sixteenth‑century writer wrote: Some things
in such sort are allowed, that they be also required as necessary unto
salvation, by way of direct immediate and proper necessity final; so that
without performance of them we cannot by ordinary course be saved, nor by any
means be excluded from life observing them. In actions of this kind our
chiefest direction is from scripture, for nature is no sufficient teacher what
we should do that we may attain unto life everlasting.' Thus Richard Hooker,
the man who composed the sublime apology for the Elizabethan middle way in
religion, and laid down the principles of faith and Bernard E. Jones,
Freemason's Guide and Compendium, 98. z Hooker, The Laws of Ecclesiastical
Policy, Bk ii, ch viii, FOLKLORE INTO MASONRY 29 conduct that were classic in
the seventeenth century. His attitude was adopted widely by his countrymen.
The
Bible was read greedily, extensively and quite uncritically. No distinction
was drawn between the significance of an account of early Hebrew barbarity and
late prophetic insight, between the moral teaching of Proverbs and that of
Paul. As commentary upon the elucidation of Scripture, men had the conception
of world organisation which had been transmitted through the Middle Ages
growing more complicated and more ingenious as the centuries went by. It
ultimately constituted a compendium of knowledge contained in the seven
liberal arts and sciences, and, of course, fully attained only by the learned
few, yet in general outline part of the background of the common mind. It is
to this general outline that I have referred in my title as `folklore'. Here
it is summarised.
In
designing the world, The Great Archited imposed upon His Creation a particular
style of His own, fitting every item into a single pattern and decreeing for
each a course of action appropriate to the part assigned. The pattern was
alluded to as a chain, the lowest links consisting of inanimate objects, the
next vegetation, then groups of beasts, then men, then angels. Within each
class the members were not ranged indiscriminately, but held their positions
by merit and desert, and at the head of each class was the primate: fire among
the elements, sun among the stars, king among men, eagle among birds. For
instance, in Shakespeare's Richard II, Act III, Scene 3, Bolingbroke before
Flint Castle says: Be he the fire, I'll be the yielding water, and a few lines
later: See, see, King Richard doth himself appear, As doth the blushing
discontented sun From out the fiery portal of the east, When he perceives the
envious clouds are bent To dim his glory and to strain the track Of his bright
passage to the occident To which York adds: Yet looks he like a king: behold
his eye, As bright as is the eagle's lightens forth Controlling majesty.' Like
children, the medieval thinkers were not accustomed to consider things
detached from all other things. All were creatures of God's making and He had
given to each nature which it is its raison d'etre to fulfil. The kind of
strange theory that was produced to interpret a fact or to relate it to an
accepted theory is exemplified by an explanation of the period of creation:
the world was created in six days because the crown of creation was human
kind, male and female, but the number three stands for man the number two for
woman, and through the creative act of multiplying you get six.
The
point that must be borne in mind is that as everything in the world has been
designed by the Great Architect, it had, as it were, His mark upon it and was
1 Quoted by E. M. W. Tillyard, The Elizabethan World Picture.
30
`THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' personalised. Brethren will remember that as a
certain word was once a test word to distinguish friend from foe, King Solomon
afterwards caused it to be adopted as a Pass Word in a Fellowcraft Lodge to
prevent any unqualified person ascending the winding stair'. The propriety of
the use of the word for this purpose, to our minds, must consist in a chance
felicity produced by the almost humorous comparison between the turbulent
Ephraimites and either an entered apprentice or a cowan to masonry trying to
force entry to a Fellowcraft Lodge. But to our ancient brethren the word had
an existence of its own and with that a special virtue, just as the name of a
powerful supernatural being might liberate miraculous powers. The same applies
to numbers, as we have seen. The perfection of the number seven is illustrated
for masons by the fact that King Solomon was seven years and upwards in
building, completing and dedicating the Temple.
I
trust that I have made the point that things were never indifferent in the
medieval mind. If one of them symbolised some abstract idea, the symbolism was
never regarded as imposed by man; it was inherent. Without any doubt the
twenty‑four inches in the twenty‑four inch gauge were not considered to be
similar in number to the twenty‑four hours of the day by accident. The
correspondence was part of the pattern. It is obvious that to acquire this
knowledge ‑ or science, as it was named‑profound imagination and willingness
to be taught were required; the student must `dedicate his heart, thus
purified from every baneful and malignant passion, fitted only for the
reception of truth and wisdom . . .' THE PASSING OF THE OLD The movement of
thought with which the name of Francis Bacon will always be connected began in
the seventeenth century to loosen the foundations of this system. Men started
to notice things for themselves and found that the facts they observed did not
square with it. `Our method,' he said, `is continually to dwell among things
soberly ... to establish forever a true and legitimate union between the
experimental and rational faculty." Those who have gone all the way with Bacon
have completely discarded the scheme of accounting for the universe by
abstract principles and values, preferring one which rests upon observation,
measurement and the analysis of the results of these. They have built up
Science in its modern meaning, and to them the universe apprehended in a form
of mathematical terms is the real one, the world dreamed of in
seventeenth‑century folklore only a glow of twilight in the sky.
THE
GUARDIANS OF TRADITION The old ideas passed slowly, and in our century there
were many notable writers who sought to fuse the old and the new. Such names
as John Milton and Isaac Newton could be instanced, but there is room for one
quotation, and I shall choose it from Religio Medici. The family of its
author, Thomas Browne, came from Cheshire. His father was a merchant in
London, where Thomas was born in 1606. He studied medicine in Leyden, in
Holland, and practised as a doctor in Norwich. He wrote on a variety of
subjects and wrestled with this question of abstract against experimental
science. He was not a freemason, but for reasons ' Preface to De Augmentis.
FOLKLORE INTO MASONRY 31 that I have already given the speculative mason would
eagerly search his books, which are wise, lively and most choice in style.
Nor do
I so forget God as to adore the Name of Nature, which I define as that
straight and regular line, that settled and constant course the wisdom of God
hath ordained the actions of His Creatures, according to their several kinds.
To make a revolution every day is the nature of the Sun, because of that
necessary course which God hath ordained it, from which it cannot swerve but
by a faculty from that voice which did first give it motion. Now this course
of Nature God seldom alters or perverts, but like an excellent Artist hath so
contrived His work, that with the self‑same instrument, without a new
creation, he may effect His obscurest designs . . . for God is like a skilful
Geometrician, who when more easily and with one stroak of His compass he might
describe or divide a right line, had yet rather do this in a circle or longer
way; according to the constituted and forelaid principles of His Art.' ‑Religio
Medici, Sect 16 Sir Thomas is, of course, deprecating recourse to miracles to
account for events in Nature. So far he is in step with the rationalisers, but
his method is not `continually to dwell among things soberly'; to him, God is
Artist and Geometrician, he preserves the idea of Divine style in the ordering
of the universe. Had opinion in the next century been faithful to Browne's
teaching which is reflected in many of his contemporaries, we should not have
developed in the one‑sided way we have done.
Let me
not be misunderstood. That there was much rubbish cumbering medieval science
goes without saying. It had to be cast out, and the new science, with all its
triumphs, replaced it. Truth has benefited.
But
Truth has also lost: the facts that life is one: that perfection is a goal to
be believed in even if never to be achieved: that the universe exists not only
as a mine for wealth, but also as a place of service: that persons rank before
things: that there is Absolute Being which we disregard at our peril ‑ these
facts are incapable of experimental proof, they cannot be weighed or measured,
so they are reduced to the order of indeterminate propositions. But just as
those propositions were slipping out of the consciousness of Western Man, the
Order of Speculative Freemasons fastened upon them and preserved them in
Charge, Constitution and Ceremonial, so that we, their descendants, might
follow them in tracing the intellectual faculty from its development, through
the paths of Heavenly Science, even to the throne of God Himself.
1 Sir
Thomas Browne, Religio Medici, Sect 16.
THE
GENESIS OF OPERATIVE MASONRY THE PRESTONIAN LECTURE FOR 1964 THE REV A. J.
ARKELL, MBE, MC BRo FRED L. PICK concluded the Prestonian Lecture for 1948
with these words: `There would therefore appear to be some justification for
the theory of Bro J. E. Shum Tuekett (The Origin of Additional Degrees, AQC,
xxxii) that a portion only of the store of legend, tradition and symbolism
possessed by freemasonry passed into the Rite evolved after the constitution
of the first Grand Lodge in 1717.' And Robert Freke Gould, in his History of
Freemasonry (1951, vol 1, p 3), quotes with approval Brand's Popular
Antiquities as saying: `We must despair of ever being able to reach the
fountain‑head of streams which have been running and increasing from the
beginning of time. All that we can aspire to do is only to trace their course
backwards, as far as possible, on those charts that now remain of the distant
countries whence they were first perceived to flow'; and a very few lines
later Gould makes the thought‑provoking remark: `Past events leave relics
behind them more certainly than future events cast shadows before them.' These
considerations, then, are my justification for asking you to take yourselves
back in time a long way before 1717, when the Grand Lodge of England was
founded, indeed back for nearly five thousand years, to consider what
archaeology has revealed to our generation of the circumstances under which
operative masonry began. I must from the outset disclaim any intention of
suggesting that the beginning of operative masonry in any way influenced the
evolution of the ceremonies of speculative masonry; but the beginning of
operative masonry cannot lack interest to us as freemasons; and it is
particularly important to note that the invention of operative masonry sprang
from a religious impulse.
It was
probably in the Old Stone Age that some genius first thought of piling rough
stones on one another to make a shelter. And archaeologists have recently
discovered that in Asia, by the seventh millenium BC, rough stone‑walling had
been so far developed that, for example, Jericho proves to have been a
well‑built town, surrounded by stone fortifications, during much of the
seventh and sixth millenia BC.* History begins in Egypt with the introduction
of picture‑writing, which has enabled us to compile a list of kings and to
learn something about the events which led to the union of Upper and Lower
Egypt under the First Dynasty, circa 3000 BC and about ceremonies and other
events; for labels on wine jars and receptacles containing food, buried in the
tombs of kings and their great officers, mention these events as a way of
recording dates.
* W.
F. Albright, The Archaeology of Palestine, revised edition, 1960. p 62.
32 THE
GENESIS OF OPERATIVE MASONRY The kings of the First and Second Dynasties were
buried at Abydos, the religious capital of Upper Egypt before the union of
Egypt, while their great officials and some relatives were buried at Sakkara,
a few miles south of Cairo on the western edge of the fertile Nile Valley, in
the middle of which they had sited Memphis, the new capital of united Egypt,
at the junction of the Nile Valley with the Delta.
The
superstructures of the royal tombs of the first two dynasties at Abydos have
not survived, but judging from the burial chambers there and the great tombs
of the same date at Sakkara, there is little doubt that what was seen of them
above the surface of the ground was a rectangular mass of sun‑dried mud brick
with a rounded roof, the whole painted white, in length anything up to fifty
yards, and up to thirty feet high. Internally, the superstructures were
divided into thirty or so rooms, in which were stored jars of wine and food,
furniture and copper tools ‑ indeed, any objects that were then considered
essential for good living. In the centre was a great room; gradually sunk
deeper and deeper into the ground in order to make it more safe from robbers.
In this room was a wooden coffin, constructed to resemble a house of the
period. In the burial chamber were also placed the most valuable treasures ‑
jewellery, dishes of unbelievably skilled workmanship in rock crystal and
other fine stones, some made to resemble vine leaves or baskets, etc.
Sometimes the burial chamber itself was panelled with wood; in one case (King
Den or Udimu) it was paved with slabs of granite brought from Aswan, about 240
miles south of Abydos. As the burial chamber was sunk deeper into the ground
it was cut into the natural limestone, the shaft being sometimes built up
above the living rock with rough stone walling. Where a sloping staircase was
cut down from the surface of the ground to the burial chamber, it came to be
blocked by one to three large slabs of dressed limestone, let down by ropes in
grooves, portcullis‑wise, to prevent robbers getting in by the stairway.
Frequently on the walls of the burial chamber, and occasionally on the walls
of the storerooms above it, was painted a doorway in red to imitate wood.
There were no other doors, these false doors being intended for the use of the
spirit of the dead king, whose `house of eternity' (the ancient Egyptian
phrase for the tomb) this large erection was. Indeed, the tomb was an attempt
to make in brick as a more permanent material a lasting copy of the palace in
which the king lived in life, and which was constructed of timber, with the
walls decorated with matting woven in elaborate coloured patterns, of which
imitations were painted on the mud brick walls of the tomb. The spirit of the
dead king was at this time thought to remain on earth, living in his `house of
eternity' among his people, continuing to influence the land for good, as he
had done in life.
Zoser
Neterkhet, the first King of the Third Dynasty, built a tomb of this old type
at Beit Khallaf, in Upper Egypt; but then he built a much larger tomb of a new
type at Sakkara, employing a completely new method of construction: stone
blocks cut and fitted together. Indeed, this new tomb is so large and shows so
much advance in many details that at first the mind refuses to believe that it
is the first stone masonry construction in Egypt ‑ or, for that matter, in the
world. But the more familiar one becomes with the remains, the more clearly
one can see that 33 34 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' they contain in themselves
evidence of the birth‑pangs of stone masonry ‑ of the efforts of a genius
wrestling with problem after problem as it arose from the use of the new
technique.
There
is, too, some indication that it was a new religious belief, attributable to
the same genius, which was behind not only the use of the new building
material, but the change in form of the superstructure and surroundings of the
royal tomb. Neterkhet, the Horus name of King Zoser and the only name used in
his tomb, is written with two signs, a flag on a pole above an animal's belly.
The first sign means `god' or `divine', and the second is usually interpreted
`body'. Whatever the exact meaning of the conjunction of the two signs, the
name Neter‑khet indicates that the king was looked on as divine. Thus, when he
died, it was reasonable for a man of sufficient imagination to think of the
king's spirit as no longer haunting the tomb, his `eternal home' on earth, but
as going up into the sky, where the Imperishable Stars, those that revolve
round the Pole Star in the northern sky without ever setting, had been ‑
probably from prehistoric times in Egypt ‑ thought of as the mighty dead.
Indeed, I hope that you will be able to see, from what follows, that the
superstructure of Neterkhet's tomb, the Step Pyramid of Sakkara, the unique
and oldest of the pyramids, began as a representation of the king's palace and
ended up as a staircase to heaven.
While
its enclosure wall was plain, the rectangular mud‑brick superstructure over a
large First Dynasty tomb was panelled or recessed, apparently in imitation of
the appearance of a movable house constructed of timber planks fastened
together by lashing and so of necessity overlapping one another. (A few of
these planks have been found lining First Dynasty graves at Tarkhan, not far
from Sakkara.) The wall enclosing the Step Pyramid and its associated
buildings was nearly six hundred yards long from north to south and just over
three hundred yards wide. The enclosure was thus ten to twelve times as long
as that of a large First Dynasty tomb, and covered one hundred times the area.
This enclosure wall preserved the traditional recessed form of the First
Dynasty mud‑brick tomb superstructure (see sketch), but instead of being built
of brick it was built of very fine white limestone brought from the Tura
quarries on the other side of the Nile. It was, however, built, according to
the principles governing brickwork, in regular courses of small cut‑stone
blocks, each from seven and three‑quarters to ten inches high. In this wall,
fourteen double gates were represented as closed and irregularly spaced,
suggesting that the architect modelled this enclosure on some actual enclosure
in which the gates served a real purpose, probably the famed `White Wall of
Memphis', the palace compound built by Menes, legendary first king of united
Egypt. The height of this stone enclosure wall, twenty royal cubits or over
thirty feet, was ascertained from its batter. In the upper half of this wall
were small rectangular recesses representing the ends of timber beams usually
built into the upper part of large mud‑brick walls to strengthen them.
In the
centre of the vast rectangle enclosed by this wall, a pit about twenty‑three
feet square was cut in the rock to a depth of ninety‑two feet, and at the
bottom of this pit a chamber about 9 ft 9 in in length and 5 ft 6 in in width
and height was constructed, entirely of granite brought from Aswan. At its
northern end a hole was cut through two of the rafter‑like slabs spanning the
roof, in order to admit THE GENESIS OF OPERATIVE MASONRY 35 The Step Pyramid
enclosure at Sakkara (Reproduced by permission from I. E. S. Edwards. The
Pyramids of Egypt ‑ after J.‑P. Lauer, La Pyramide 6 Degr9s, vol It, plate IV)
the royal corpse at the funeral. After the body had been placed in the
chamber, this hole was filled by a granite plug, measuring about six feet high
and three feet in diameter, and weighing about three‑ and‑a‑half tons. Access
to the chamber above this granite roof was by a staircase, which began in an
open trench on the north side of the pyramid and descended underground. The
tomb was completed by various underground passages in which were stored very
many magnificent stone vases and other furniture. One gallery and two
underground rooms nearby had their walls lined with blue faience tiles. In one
of the rooms the tiles represented the matting‑covered fagade of a palace with
windows, its three dummy doors of fine limestone carved with reliefs showing
the king in the crown of Upper Egypt performing religious ceremonies.
Above
the burial pit at first was built a rectangular stone platform (or mastaba)
207 feet square and 26 feet high, each side facing one of the cardinal points.
It was made of rubble set in clay mortar, and cased with carefully‑dressed
white limestone blocks. It was then extended by about fourteen feet on all
four sides and a second facing of dressed limestone added. The height of this
extension was two feet less than that of the original platform, making a step,
which was probably significant in view of subsequent developments. Along its
eastern edge were now sunk a series of eleven pits, each over a hundred feet
deep, having at the bottom of each a corridor nearly a hundred feet long
running west under the superstructure. These corridors were intended as tombs
for the various members of the royal family; in some of them, alabaster
coffins were found. This row of tombs was then incorporated in the main tomb
by a further enlargement of about twenty‑eight feet which was added on to the
east side of the superstructure, thus rendering it oblong. But before the
facing of this second addition had been dressed, there was a complete change
in the design.
Hitherto the tomb had been hidden from anyone outside the enclosure wall; only
the wall on the crest of the western desert could have been seen by the
inhabitants of Memphis. But now the architect conceived the idea of a great
step‑shaped building, a gigantic ladder as it were, erected skywards, as if to
facilitate the ascent of the dead king's soul to a celestial abode. The
platform was extended by nine‑and‑a‑half feet on each side, and it now became
the lowest stage of a pyramid with four steps. On the northern side of this
pyramid the construction of a mortuary temple was begun, but before either the
pyramid or the temple 36 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' had been finished it was
decided to extend the pyramid further to the north and west, and to give the
pyramid six steps. But when this enlargement had reached the fourth step, this
plan also was abandoned, and the sixth and last extension added a little more
to each side. The six‑step pyramid was now completed and cased with a final
layer of dressed Tura limestone. Its height was now 204 feet, and its base
approximately 411 feet from east to west and 358 feet from north to south.
It is
interesting to note that there was a change in the size of the blocks of stone
used in the construction of the pyramid, larger blocks being used in the last
extension. No doubt the architect was learning as the work proceeded that
though small blocks of stone approximately the size of bricks are easier to
handle, they take more time to prepare and the resultant construction is less
strong than one built of larger blocks.
Zoser's successor, Sekhem‑khet, possibly employing the same architect as an
old man, began another enclosure with a step pyramid close to the south‑west
corner of Zoser's tomb complex. It was never completed and is therefore known
to archaeologists as the Unfinished Pyramid. Probably the architect died. Its
excavation, began in 1951, has also not been completed; but as far as it has
gone it has revealed that the stone blocks with which the enclosure wall was
built are twenty inches high, that is, double the height of the largest blocks
used in Zoser's wall. An economy was also made in the best limestone facing
it; for the casing was reduced to one course (about one foot) thick.
Many
stone masonry constructions surrounded (and mostly still surround) Zoser's
Step Pyramid within the great enclosure wall. With the exception of the
Mortuary Temple and the Serdab, each built up against the pyramid on its north
side, none of the other buildings has any precedent or parallel. But it is
important to note that every building in the enclosure had a religious
purpose, being intended to provide for the king's needs after death. Between
the pyramid itself and the entrance colonnade at the south‑east corner, which
will be described later, there is a series of dummy buildings, all solid, of
rubble covered with cut stone, intended to provide the setting necessary for
repeating in the king's after‑life his jubilee ceremony. Every king of Egypt
was entitled to celebrate his jubilee after a certain number of years (usually
thirty). This festival derived from prehistory, when kings reigned for a
limited time and were then put to death, in the belief that it was essential
for the welfare of the country that the king should be physically strong. The
jubilee ceremony enabled the king to regain his vigour by magic, and so
obviated the necessity of replacing him by a younger man. It is probable that
by reproducing in stone the temporary booths, shrines, etc, of wood and
matting, in which the ceremony was celebrated in life, the aim was to secure
immortality for the king by providing for the perpetual celebration of his
jubilee in a new and more permanent medium, stone.
In the
jubilee festival all ceremonies were duplicated, for, despite the union of
Upper and Lower Egypt, the king usually wore a double crown and was looked
upon as a dual personality, the King of Upper Egypt and the King of Lower
Egypt. Thus the buildings within the Step Pyramid enclosure appear all to have
been duplicated for the same reason. There was even a tomb complete with
burial chamber duplicating the tomb under the Step Pyramid itself. The
superstructure THE GENESIS OF OPERATIVE MASONRY 37 of this second tomb was in
the form of a large rectangular mastaba with a curved roof, running east and
west, the greater part of it being concealed in the body of the southern
stretch of the enclosure wall. The substructure of this mastaba has many
features in common with the Step Pyramid itself. A tomb chamber made of blocks
of Aswan granite was built at the bottom of a vertical shaft. Its only
entrance was a hole, stopped with a granite plug, in the flat roof. East of
the tomb chamber were galleries, in one of which were also three separate
limestone reliefs of the king performing religious ceremonies. In a parallel
gallery just west of the first one, the backs of three doors were carved in
the limestone facing of the wall. The position of these doors, approximately
behind the reliefs of the king, suggests that the panels with reliefs were
regarded as false doors through which the king was thought of as emerging. The
walls of several of these galleries were covered with blue faience tiles,
representing hangings of matting. The tomb chamber here, being only
five‑and‑a‑quarter feet square, is unlikely to have been used for an actual
burial, and is therefore regarded as a duplicate tomb required for ceremonial
purposes, especially in view of the duplication of the reliefs showing the
king performing ritual ceremonies.
Immediately on the north side of this apparently duplicate tomb, and thus
corresponding in orientation with the temple on the north side of the pyramid,
there is a rectangular masonry building. It is almost solid except for two
elongated chambers set at right angles to each other, and its outer walls of
dressed limestone are decorated at the top with a frieze of cobra‑heads‑the
first known example of a motif which was to become very common. These are the
well‑known emblems of the cobra goddess of Buto, guardian of the kingdom of
Lower Egypt, and it is therefore probable that this south mastaba complex was
regarded as the ceremonial tomb of Zoser as King of Lower Egypt.
Immediately between this `duplicate tomb' and the pyramid itself was a large
open court in which are two solid stone B‑shaped bases, and in line with them
near the pyramid an altar. These bases probably marked the course of the
ritual race which the king, carrying a flail and accompanied by the priest of
the spirits of the dead kings of Upper Egypt, had to run as part of his
jubilee ceremony. The king is shown running this race in reliefs found both
under the Step Pyramid and in the duplicate tomb.
An
important element in the jubilee was a re‑enactment of the coronation. Here a
procession led by a priest entered the chapels on one side of the jubilee
court, in which were the gods of the various districts of Upper Egypt. Having
obtained from each god consent to a renewal of his kingship, the king was
conducted to the southern of two thrones, placed on a dais beneath a canopy,
in order to be crowned with the white crown of Upper Egypt. A similar ceremony
was then repeated in the chapels of the gods of the districts of Lower Egypt,
before the king ascended the northern throne to receive the red crown of Lower
Egypt. This clearly was the purpose of an oblong court on the eastern side of
the open space for the ceremonial race. Along both the east and west sides of
this oblong court was a series of dummy chapels constructed of solid masonry.
In front of each chapel was a small court provided with an imitation open door
(also in solid masonry). Sculptured in high relief on the stone walls
separating each chapel 38 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' were representations of a
wooden fence made of tapered uprights piercing a horizontal crossbar.
A
passage from the south‑west corner of the jubilee court leads to a smaller
court, in which stood a building with an imposing entrance hall, three inner
courts and a group of side chambers. Projecting from the middle of the west
side of the entrance hall were three tongue‑walls, two of which ended in
engaged columns decorated with vertical flutings. Another similar engaged
column projected from the north wall, and in the east wall is a dummy door of
stone in a half‑open position. The whole may have represented the pavilion in
which the king was thought of as residing during his jubilee, and to which he
retired between ceremonies in order to change his robes.
Going
back again through the oblong court between the two rows of dummy shrines, one
passes out at the north end between two large masses of rough masonry from
which the casing has been stripped, into the area east of the pyramid which
was originally dominated by two large rectangular buildings with curved roofs,
each composed of a solid core of masonry overlaid with dressed Tura limestone.
The southern face of each building, which was once nearly forty feet high, was
decorated with four engaged columns, which, together with a broad pilaster at
each side, supported a cornice following the curve of the roof. In the more
northern of the two buildings, vertical flutings were carved on both the
engaged columns and the pilasters. In the southern building the engaged
columns were similarly fluted, but the pilasters were ribbed. The capitals of
the engaged columns resemble two large pendant leaves, probably those of the
Giant Fennel, of which the stem is ribbed when green and fluted when dry.
Situated near the middle of the southern face of each building was the
entrance to a narrow passage which led, by two right‑angled turns, to a small
cruciform sanctuary. The stone ceiling of the passage was carved to resemble
the log rafters which similar corridors were roofed in buildings composed of
wood and mudbrick.
In
front of each of these buildings was an open court, the southern one much the
larger of the two. Each court was surrounded by a wall, in the east side of
which, near the corner of the building, was a broad recess. In the northern
court in this recess were three engaged columns, each representing the
triangular stem of the papyrus with a single flower‑head at the top; while in
the recess in the southern court there was only a single engaged round‑stemmed
column which represented a lily. The lily and the papyrus were the emblems of
Upper and Lower Egypt respectively, and it is probable that the southern
building represented the prehistoric sanctuary of Upper Egypt, and the
northern the corresponding sanctuary of Lower Egypt. The presence of a
D‑shaped altar in the court of the southern building confirms that their
function was religious.
The
southern sanctuary is near the east side of the pyramid, and its northern face
is in line with the northern face of the pyramid.
Going
round the north‑east corner of the pyramid, one comes to the serdab already
mentioned. This was a chamber completely closed and backing on to the pyramid,
built throughout of dressed Tura limestone, its front wall inclining inwards
at an angle of 16 degrees from the perpendicular to correspond with the THE
GENESIS OF OPERATIVE MASONRY 39 angle of the lowest step of the pyramid.
Inside it was a limestone statue of King Zoser seated. Two round holes were
cut in the front wall of the serdab opposite the face of the statue, to enable
the king to look out without harming onlookers by the glory of his presence.
It is probably significant that the king is looking towards the north. The
serdab is flanked on either side by a wall, against the north end of which on
the inside is sculptured in stone the representation of one half of a double
door wide open! Just west of the serdab, and also abutting on the north side
of the pyramid, is the outer wall of the mortuary temple. Six feet of this
wall still stand today. In it is the entrance to the temple, with a single
(dummy) door sculptured in stone as if open, with a baffle passage behind it.
Little remains of the interior of the temple, but there were many other
similar imitation open doors in stone, and the bases of fluted engaged columns
belong to the fagade of two interior and symmetrical courts. From one of these
courts a staircase descends to the passage under the pyramid. To the west were
two rooms, each with a stone bath in its floor, and on the south side of the
temple was a sanctuary with two reccsses sunk into the face of the pyramid
itself. The duplication of the chief features (courts, ablution rooms and
recesses in the sanctuary) indicates that the temple was intended for the
celebration of a ritual which had to be repeated for the king, once as ruler
of Upper Egypt and again as ruler of Lower Egypt.
We
have yet to consider the actual entrance (into the great compound surrounding
the pyramid). This was situated about thirty yards from the south‑east corner
of the enclosure wall, and consisted of a narrow passage running through the
fourth bastion. The passage, originally roofed with stone slabs carved on the
underside to represent wooden logs, ends in a small hall, on the right side of
which can be seen the hinge of one half of an open dummy door carved in stone.
Then follows another passage, slightly wider than the first, which ends in
another dummy open door, this time a single door. Beyond this is a magnificent
walled colonnade consisting of a long narrow passage running westwards between
a series of alcoves formed by tongue walls, of which there were forty in all,
twenty on each side. These tongue walls terminated in engaged ribbed columns,
about twenty feet high. No trace of statues has been found, but it is probable
that these alcoves were intended for double statues of the king, each with one
of the gods of the forty‑two nomes or districts of Egypt, those on the south
side representing him as King of Upper Egypt and those on the north side as
King of Lower Egypt. (Such double statues are known from the next dynasty.)
This colonnade was covered with a heavy roof made of stone slabs placed on
edge and carved round on the lower edge to represent trunks of palm trees.
Slits cut at an oblique angle in the side walls near the roof admitted light
to each alcove. Across the west end of the colonnade ran a small rectangular
hall with a flat roof, borne by eight ribbed columns joined in pairs by
masonry walling.
The
exit from this small pillared hall was on its west side by a narrow passage,
at the end of which is an unusually detailed half‑open dummy door, on which
can be seen the ends of the crossbars to which the wooden panels were nailed,
all details carefully represented in stone. Passing through, one enters the
large open court, bounded on the south side by the panelled enclosure wall and
on the north by the 40 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' pyramid itself. Straight in
front on the west side of this open court is a wall decorated with recessed
panelling, which is the outer wall of the first of two parallel structures of
solid masonry which cover nearly the whole of the western side of the pyramid
complex. The second structure, which was higher than the first, had a curved
roof resembling the roof of the south mastaba, and it may therefore be the
superstructure of a row of tombs belonging to the king's retinue, but here the
rock is dangerous and it has not been excavated. Beyond the two structures was
the thick enclosure wall itself.
We
have now considered the main features of the complex of buildings surrounding
the Step Pyramid. It is indeed one of the most remarkable feats of
architecture ever produced by the ancient Egyptians. No other pyramid was
surrounded by such an array of buildings to supply the king with his needs in
the after‑life. In their place, subsequent pharaohs were content with
pictorial representations painted or carved in relief; no court with buildings
specially designed for the jubilee ceremony was ever made again.
Doubts
are naturally expressed from time to time as to whether such a high degree of
architectural perfection could have been achieved without having been preceded
by long development, but for some centuries before this the Egyptians had been
making beautiful stone vases from the hardest of stones, which show that the
stone‑worker had obtained complete control over his material, both in cutting,
drilling, shaping and polishing it. There is, however, no evidence that stone
had been employed in any earlier building, except for the construction of
isolated parts, and then seldom, if ever, carefully cut stone. Over and over
again in the Step Pyramid, features occur which show that its builders lacked
experience in the use of stone for building. Small blocks which could easily
be handled were used instead of the massive blocks found in later buildings.
Clarke and Engelbach (Ancient Egyptian Masonry, 1930), point out that the
masonry of the Step Pyramid is inferior to the better examples of later times
in that the fineness of the joints between two adjacent blocks, which appears
good when viewed in front, only extends inwards for at most a couple of
inches; afterwards the joints become wide and irregular, and are filled in
with thick white gypsum mortar.
In the
Step Pyramid, fineness of jointing at the face of the walls was only obtained
at the expense of solidity. More patches are noticeable at the joints in the
Step Pyramid than ever afterwards. The architect was also clearly puzzled as
to how to represent in immovable stone the doors which, in wood, naturally
swung on their hinges. That is why in the Step Pyramid the doors are made in
stone in one of three positions: open, shut or half‑open. Later, when the
stone architecture developed its own rules, the door itself was of wood
covered with copper plates and had copper hinges. The unique character of many
of the buildings, of which the form, line and proportions were those suitable
for the brick, wooden or reed constructions of the time, shows how they were
adapted quite naturally by the architect when faced with the need for
innovation in creating this, the first great construction in cut stone.
It is
the size, complexity and beauty of the complete work that make it seem
incredible that it is the first edifice in cut stone, especially when one
remembers that the architect had little but manpower and the copper chisel at
his disposal.
THE
GENESIS OF OPERATIVE MASONRY 41 The explanation is that he had genius as well.
Imhotep, King Zoser's architect, must have had a brain of the same type as
that of Leonardo da Vinci. He must have been an inventor and organiser of
unique brilliance, capable of inspiring both his master, the king, and all who
worked under him, of teaching craftsmen, and of controlling the huge labour
force required for this work.
It is
to Manetho, an Egyptian priest of Heliopolis, who wrote in Greek a history of
Egypt in the third century BC for the new Macedonian rulers of the country,
that we owe the bare statement that Imhotep invented the art of building in
hewn stone. His association with the Step Pyramid is supported by the
occurrence of his name on part of the base of a fine limestone statue of King
Zoser found just outside the main entrance to the Step Pyramid, with an
incomplete inscription which suggests that Imhotep dedicated the statue to the
king. This statue, judging from the fragments which survive, represented Zoser
as King of Lower Egypt, and must have been one of a pair of statues, the other
representing him as King of Upper Egypt. The fragmentary inscription on the
front of the base, besides giving the names of the king and of Imhotep, gives
part of Imhotep's titles, which may be translated `the Treasurer of the King
of Lower Egypt, Next after the King, Steward of the Pharaoh, Prince, Chief
(Astronomical) Observer', and two signs, a carpenter's axe and a pair of
harpoons, which probably stand for `carpenter' and `sculptor',1 and suggest
something like the old priestly title, `Chief of the Master Craftsmen', which
was the title of the high priest of Ptah at Memphis, as `Chief of the
Observers' was the title of the high priest of On (later Heliopolis, the seat
of the cult of Ra). Imhotep's apparently combined responsibility for all
astronomical reckonings and craftsmanship is significant, for his masterpiece,
the Step Pyramid, is orientated on the north, and its successor, the Great
Pyramid of Giza, is the most carefully orientated of all Egyptian buildings.
We
know that for the construction of temples in later times the actual site was
astronomically fixed the night before the foundation ceremony by orientating
the short axis of the temple from north to south between the Great Bear and
Orion. At the beginning of the ceremony the site was marked out by the king,
who, with a mallet, drove in a stake at each of the four corners and then
himself made four mud‑bricks. The ceremony ended by the king laying one of
these bricks at each corner of the temple. Foundation deposits, including
model tools, were placed at these corners. 2 Professor Cerny says that this
ceremony was very old and was designed for buildings made of wood or bricks,
and is therefore probably earlier than the introduction of building in stone.
No
foundation deposits have yet been found at the Step Pyramid site, but, at
Meydum, Petrie found two foundation deposits 3 that had been under the temple
attached to the pyramid. This was begun at the end of the Third Dynasty,
perhaps as a step pyramid, and changed into a true pyramid by Seneferu, the
first king of the Fourth Dynasty and father of the builder of the Great
Pyramid at Giza.
By
2000 BC model metal tools were being included with full‑sized pots in the
foundation deposits of the temple of the pyramid of Senusret II at Illahun, Bt
C. Firth, `Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Saqqara (19250', Annales
de Service, Vol 26, 1926, pp 97‑101. itiscombe Gunn, `Inscriptions from the
Step Pyramid Site', op. cit., pp 175‑202.
J.
Cerny, Ancient Egyptian Religion, 1952, p 114 f.
3 W.
M. Flinders, Meydum and Memphis 111, 1910, p 2 and pl XXV.
42
`THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' although for some reason the four sets of deposits,
instead of being put under the corners of the building, were all put together,
in a cavity roofed with stone blocks, at the centre of the building. By the
New Kingdom (1580‑1085 BC) it was the regular custom to place deposits
consisting of stone vases (some unfinished), model pots and tools, and
specimens of the materials used in the building, under each of the four
corners. Many of these objects had the name of the reigning pharaoh in
hieroglyphs inscribed on them.' Thus our present custom of placing coins of
the realm, etc, under the corner of a new building is likely to be a
continuation of the Egyptian custom of over 3,400 years ago, and unlikely to
be connected with a primitive human sacrifice, as Bro Speth suggests. 2 The
foundation stones of Sennacherib and Ashurbanipal of Assyria, which were
probably inscribed bricks placed under the walls of the palaces they built,
were the oldest foundation deposits known to Bro Speth, but they only date
from the seventh century BC, and they are later than all the Egyptian examples
I have mentioned. Indeed, the introduction of this custom into Mesopotamia was
no doubt part of the spread of Egyptian culture into Palestine and the Near
East. This culture was influencing Byblos in Syria by the First Dynasty; and
in the two millennia that followed, Palestine and Syria were dominated by
Egypt, often politically as well as culturally. This applied in the sphere of
architecture as well as in other spheres. King Solomon's date is about 1000
BC, and his temple can have been no exception to this Egyptian influence.
About
a century before King Solomon's day, during the Twentieth Dynasty in Egypt
(1200‑1085 BC), we know something about the life and organisation of the
stone‑cutters and masons employed on the construction of royal tombs in the
Valley of the Kings at Thebes, from the excavation of their village at Deir el
Medina. These workmen were organised in gangs. Each gang was divided into the
right side and the left side. Each side was under a foreman, `the head one of
the gang', and each foreman had a deputy to help him. The size of the gang
varied, usually numbering about sixty. The division into right and left sides
was not bnly administrative, but applied also to their work, the right side
apparently working on the right side of the tomb. A scribe or secretary kept a
diary of the work, helped to supervise it, and forwarded regular progress
reports to the vizier, the highest official under the king, a rank held by
Imhotep long before. As the tomb working penetrated the hill, lamps (pottery'
bowls filled with vegetable oil) became necessary, and the issue of wicks from
the royal store to either side of the gang was recorded by the scribe.
The
working day seems to have been divided into two equal periods for labour, with
an interval for refreshment. Do we not hear an echo of this when our lodges
are called off and on? The workmen were paid monthly by issues of wheat,
barley, etc, from the royal granaries. This is interesting, for in the Bible
(II Chronicles, 2) we read how King Solomon gave wheat, barley, wine and oil
to the hewers of timber from Lebanon for his temple, and, in the explanation
of the Tracing Board t G. W. Speth,'Builders'Rites and Ceremonies: the Folk
Lore of Masonry', QuatuorCoronati Pamphlet No 1, 1947, pp 5 end 51.
The
erection of the Egyptian temple at Sesibi, in the Sudan, has been dated to
within four years because the name of the pharaoh in the foundation deposits
is Amenhotep (IV), and we know that he changed his name to Akhnaton in the
fourth year of his reign.
THE
GENESIS OF OPERATIVE MASONRY 43 in our Second Degree ceremony, it is said that
at the building of KST the EAs received a weekly allowance of corn, wine and
oil.
Near
the village were small sanctuaries of the deities specially revered by the
workmen, and it may be significant that the largest and finest sanctuary was
that of Hathor, the goddess of the night sky in the Archaic period. Some of
the workmen themselves acted as the priests of these sanctuaries. Professor
Cerny, who took part in the excavations and gave me this information, comments
that this small community of royal workmen enjoyed a degree of self‑government
in religious as well as civil matters which is remarkable, for Egypt at that
time was under the control of an elaborate bureaucracy and a powerful priestly
class.
The
organisation of stone masons into gangs in King Solomon's time seems to find
an echo in our own ceremonies when, on a particular occasion which will be
familiar to you, fifteen trusty FCs formed themselves into three lodges or
classes when ordered by KS to search for ... HA. There is evidence that gang
organisation of masons went back in Egypt to the Fourth Dynasty, and probably
to Imhotep and the building of the Step Pyramid itself, for his workmen must
have been well organised, or such a `stately and superb edifice' could never
have been completed. At a certain point, which will again be familiar to you,
our ritual also reminds us of the grievous consequences of the loss of the
principal architect, which could not fail to be generally and severely felt,
and you will recall that the want of those plans and designs which had
hitherto been regularly supplied to the different classes of workmen was the
first indication that some heavy calamity had befallen our M. From the pyramid
at Meydum, probably begun as a step pyramid at the end of the Third Dynasty,
come the names of several gangs found on casing blocks: `Step Pyramid gang',
`Boat gang', `Vigorous gang', `Sceptre gang', 'Enduring gang', `North gang'
and `South gang'. And at the Great Pyramid of Giza built by King Khufu (Cheops),
the successor of Seneferu who finished the Meydum pyramid, was found a block
of limestone on which is written: `The Craftsmen gang'. How powerful is the
white crown of Khnum Khufu (I. E. S. Edwards, The Pyramids of Ancient Egypt,
1961). Here the king's full name means that he is under the protection of
Khnum, the creator god from Aswan, incidentally the source of granite much
used in his pyramid. Egyptologists have not explained why the names of gangs
were placed on stones. Does the last inscription suggest a lodge or class of
operative masons who, with instruction in their craft, gave their apprentices
esoteric teaching too? Parallels with our working tools are remarkable. I have
already mentioned the copper chisel. I do not know of any masons's tools which
actually come from the Step Pyramid, but all the working tools of the First
and Second Degrees must have been used by Imhotep's masons. If we take the
cubit rod as equivalent to the 24‑inch gauge, gavels of wood for striking the
chisel and mauls of stone for dressing the stone were in use then, and so no
doubt were the square, level and plumb rule. Examples of masons' tools which
survive from the Third Dynasty, and must be almost, if not quite, contemporary
with the Step Pyramid, are plumb bobs of limestone, gavels of wood and chisels
of copper. A model wooden square and plummet were found in a mason's grave at
Sedment, dating from about 2200 BC. The earliest surviving level of which I am
aware dates from about 1250 BC 44 (about the time of the Exodus). Long before
that we know that the Egyptians made use of the property of water to maintain
its own level, a slight error in the level of the base of the Great Pyramid
being attributable to the prevalence of the north wind.
From
early times, scribes used to pour a libation to Imhotep from the little vase
of water with which they prepared their coloured inks before writing. A number
of statuettes of Imhotep as a demi‑god date from 1000 to 500 BC, and it was
probably about 500 sc, during the Persian occupation of Egypt, that Imhotep
was raised to the status of a full god, as third member of the trinity of
Memphis, where he was known by such titles as `Great One' or `Son of Ptah, who
gives life to all men'. Two centuries later, when the Ptolemies ruled Egypt,
he had become the chief god worshipped at Memphis, and under the Greek form of
his name, Imouthes, he was equated with the Greek god of medicine, Asklepios.
His botanical skill, shown by his accurate representations of plant forms in
his columns, which copy the papyrus, lily and Giant Fennel, probably led him
to study the properties of plants and so to found the science of medicine.
His
final deification is not unconnected with the great part he played as high
priest in the spiritualisation of the religion of ancient Egypt. This we have
seen reflected in his alteration of the superstructure of the royal tomb, what
had been the king's `house of eternity' on earth being changed into a `place
of ascent' to the sky, where the king's spirit was to join the immortals, the
`Imperishable Stars', revolving round the Pole Star. This explains the
northern orientation of the Step Pyramid, with its mortuary temple on the
north side, and the chief royal statue in the serdab or `statue house' facing
the Pole Star, at the north‑east corner of the pyramid. Incidentally, this may
possibly explain why, as it is stated at the beginning of the Charge in our
First Degree ceremony, `it is customary at the erection of all stately and
superb edifices'‑ what an apt description of the Step Pyramid! ‑ 'to lay the
first or foundation stone at the N.E. corner of the building'. For the king,
who in foundation ceremonies had to lay a brick at each corner, may well have
chosen to lay the first one at the corner at which his own representation in
stone was to stand in his `statue house'.
We
know that in the next (Fourth) Dynasty there was a change in the state
religion, the worship of Ra the sun god becoming predominant. The king was now
given the title `Son of Ra' during life, for he was regarded as the
representative of Ra on earth, and thought of at death as rejoining Ra in the
boat in which he crossed the sky every day. The superstructure of the royal
tomb now became a true pyramid, probably reflecting the angle at which the
sun's rays may often be seen descending from the clouds in the afternoon sky
in Egypt. Corresponding with the change from stellar to solar religion, the
pyramid temple was moved from the north side to the east side of the pyramid,
the eastern horizon now becoming important as that on which the sun rises to
open and enliven the day.
The
priests of Ra from On (Heliopolis) seized political power and replaced the
Fourth Dynasty. During their dynasty (the Fifth) the walls of the royal burial
chamber under the pyramid began to be covered with magic texts. These texts,
which consist of spells, some of which must have been preserved from
prehi$toric times in the college of the priests of On, not only refer to the
pyramid as a `place of `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' THE GENESIS OF OPERATIVE
MASONRY 45 ascent to the sky', but reflect in a confused way all three beliefs
as to the after‑life of the king: terrestrial, stellar and solar. (J. H.
Breasted, Development of Religion and Thought in Ancient Egypt, 1912).
Imhotep's title, `Chief of Observers', shows that he was head of the college
of priests at On. His other title suggests `Chief of the Master Craftsmen',
the title of the head of the college of priests of the god Ptah at Memphis:
and this is to some extent confirmed by the fact that when he was deified
centuries later he was called the Son of Ptah. He was a priest as well as an
architect and a builder: and it was his religious belief which led him to use
his creative and imaginative genius to become the Father of Operative Masonry.
The purpose of the stately and superb edifice which he built at Sakkara was
entirely religious, to provide a heavenly as opposed to an earthly after‑life
for the Pharaoh: and to achieve this end he invented, or at least developed
into a new form of architecture, the use of cut stone, which before his day
had only been used incidentally for the flooring or doorways of mud‑brick
buildings. His pyramid and its associated temple and shrines set a pattern for
all temples built in Ancient Egypt during the three thousand years that
followed. And it is generally accepted that operative masonry all over the
Near East, including Palestine, evinces evidence of an Egyptian origin.
Thus,
while there can, of course, be no suggestion that Imhotep's beliefs in any way
influenced the evolution of the ceremonies in speculative masonry as we know
them, he did undoubtedly influence the ideas behind the construction of King
Solomon's Temple. In so far, therefore, as Solomon and his temple are imbedded
in masonic tradition, it can be said, if only obliquely, that Imhotep and his
pyramid are imbedded in masonic tradition also. Thus, brethren, should we not
be grateful for this light shed by archaeology on our past, revealing as it
does how, through his priestly position as mediator between God and man,
Imhotep became the Father of Operative Masonry, being assisted in all his
undertakings by the Great Architect of the Universe? BRETHREN WHO MADE MASONIC
HISTORY THE PRESTONIAN LECTURE FOR 1965 EDWARD NEWTON OVER A PERIOD of some
250 years many distinguished names have been recorded in the annals of
freemasonry. Some known to the outside world, some only in the craft ‑
Anderson, Desaguliers, Dunckerley, Dermott, Leslie, Preston, Harper, Crucefix,
and a host of others. It is impossible to say which of them had the greatest
influence, not only in their day, but on the future of the craft. For the
purpose of this lecture on some of the brethren who made history I have chosen
Anderson, Desaguliers, Dunckerley, and Hemming. Not all will agree with my
choice but the careers of these men have always had a fascination for me and
such must be my excuse for their selection.
JAMES
ANDERSON, DD (1679‑1739) The story of the formation of the first Grand Lodge
of Free and Accepted Masons has been told innumerable times. The earliest and
only official accounts are those found in the first and second editions of The
Constitutions of Freemasons, compiled by James Anderson and published by the
order of the Grand Lodge of England. The edition of 1723 contains only a
passing reference to the event. The edition of 1738 is the one which supplies
the earliest summary of happenings from 1716.
James
Anderson was born at Aberdeen in 1679. He graduated from Marischal College and
afterwards received the degree of Doctor of Divinity. About 1708 he arrived in
London where he gathered together a number of his Presbyterian countrymen and
became their minister. On 15 February 1709, he was assigned the lease of a
house in Glasshouse Street, his first preaching place. In 1710 he removed to
the Scottish Protestant Church in Swallow Street, St James'. There he had a
numerous congregation and became popularly known as `Bishop Anderson'. In 1734
he left Swallow Street and moved to Lisle Street, Leicester Fields.
Among
his published sermons is one preached on 30 January 1715, the anniversary of
the execution of Charles I, entitled `No King Killers', and was chiefly
intended to beat down current misrepresentation of the position of the
Presbyterians during the civil war. The publication is dedicated to the Rev
Daniel Williams, one of the most eminent divines of the time, by whom Anderson
had been ordained to the ministry.
Apart
from the Constitutions his chief literary work was entitled Royal Genealogies,
or the Genealogical Tables of Emperors, Kings and Princes, from Adam to these
times, published in 1732. The folio was dedicated to Frederick Lewis, Prince
of Wales. It was the first work of its kind on so large a scale 46 BRETHREN
WHO MADE MASONIC HISTORY 47 published in the English language. A catalogue of
his non‑masonic writings was compiled by W. J. Chetwode Crawley and published
in AQC, vol XVII, 1905. When or where Anderson was initiated into freemasonry
is not known, but the earliest records of lodges (Grand Lodge Minute Book,
1723‑31) shows that in 1723 he was a member of a lodge which met at the Horn
Tavern, one of the four old lodges which founded the Grand Lodge, and which
now works as the Royal Somerset House and Inverness Lodge, No 4. In 1725 he is
recorded as a member of The French Lodge which met at Solomon's Temple,
Hemmings Row. (This lodge is not shown on the 1729 List of Lodges or in
subsequent lists.) He attended the meeting of Grand Lodge on 24 June 1723, as
Junior Grand Warden, but there is not other record of his attendance until 28
August 1730, when he acted as Senior Grand Warden pro tempore.
The
circumstances which led to the compilation of the first two editions of the
Book of Constitutions are as follows. At the Annual Assembly of Grand Lodge on
24 June 1718. Brother George Payne was elected and Installed as Grand Master.
He thereupon `desired any brethren to bring to the Grand Lodge any old
Writings and Records concerning Masons and Masonry in order to show the Usages
of ancient Times: and this Year several old copies of the Gothic Constitutions
were digested and collated.' (BoC 1738, p 110).
During
his second term as Grand Master, 1720, Payne compiled a list of General
Regulations from the collection of writings, which doubtless included several
extracts from the Old Charges. These were approved by Grand Lodge at the Grand
Feast held on St John the Baptist's Day, 1721.
At a
meeting of Grand Lodge on 29 September 1721, the Duke of Montagu, Grand
Master, `finding fault with all the old Gothic Constitutions, order'd Brother
James Anderson AM, to digest the same in a new and better Method'. (BoC 1738,
p 113). Anderson began this task immediately and on 27 December of that year
the Grand Master appointed a Committee of 14 learned brethren to examine
Brother Anderson's manuscript. This Committee reported to Grand Lodge on 25
March 1722, that they had perused the manuscript and after some amendments had
approved of it, upon which the Grand Lodge ordered it to be printed. The
printed work was produced at the meeting on 17 January 1723, and approved.
The
minutes of the meeting of Grand Lodge held on 24 February 1735, record
`Brother James Anderson reported that whereas the First Edition of the General
Constitutions of Masonry compiled by himself was all sold off, and a Second
Edition very much wanted; and that he had spent some Thoughts upon Some
Alterations and Additions that might fittly be made to the same which was now
ready to lay before the Grand Lodge for their approbation if they were pleased
to receive them'. It was then resolved `That a Committee be appointed
consisting of the present, and former Grand Officers and such other Master
Masons as they think proper to call on to revise and compare the same, and
when finished they might lay the same before the Grand Lodge ensuing for their
approbations'. Anderson reported to Grand Lodge on 25 January 1738, that the
new edition was ready for the press and requested approval for the printing,
which was granted.
His
last recorded attendance at Grand Lodge was on 6 April 1738, when he acted as
Junior Grand Warden. He died on 28 May 1739.
48
`THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' James Anderson's History of Free‑Masonry prior to
1716, contained in his `Constitution' has been severely criticised by masonic
scholars. In his defence it can be said he was a pioneer in the field and had
little to guide him. There is no doubt that he gave rather free rein to his
imagination when studying the `Old Writings' collected by Payne, but his
chronicle of events from 1716 to the commencement of the first official
minutes, 1723, has stood unchallenged and has been quoted many times as an
authentic history of the Grand Lodge of England.
Freemasons owe him a deep debt of gratitude for without his account we should
have no knowledge of the occurrences which led to the establishment of the
Grand Lodge from which all regular freemasonry has sprung.
JOHN
THEOPHILUS DESAGULIERS, FRS, LLD (1683‑1744) This worthy brother was closely
associated with Dr Anderson in the compilation of the Book of Constitutions.
He has been credited with the authorship of `The Charges of a Free‑Mason',
which appeared in the 1723 edition and which have remained substantially the
same since that time.
John
Theophilus Desaguliers was the son of a French Protestant minister and was
born at La Rochelle on 12 March 1683. These French Protestants were
descendants of the Huguenots of the sixteenth century, who after many years of
religous persecution had been granted a measure of toleration by Henry IV
under the Edict of Nantes of 1598. The somewhat stormy period of toleration
ended when Louis XIV, an ardent Catholic, decided in 1685 on the forcible
conversion of all his subjects to Rome, to which end he revoked the Edict
promulgated by his grandfather. The results of the Revocation were that French
Protestants lost all legal status and became practically outlaws; their
property was confiscated, and all personal rights forfeited. The Protestant
clergy were ordered to leave France within 14 days under the penalty of death.
Their churches were destroyed and laid in ruins. It was forbidden to take
children out of the country and it was ordered that these were to be educated
in the Roman Catholic faith.
John
Theophilus was about two years of age at the time of the Revocation, when his
father escaped with him to Guernsey. Nine years afterwards they settled in
England. The lad was educated by his father until the age of 16 years and then
at Sutton Coldfield, Warwickshire. He matriculated at Christ Church, Oxford,
where he obtained the degree of BA in 1709, and on 7 June 1710, received
Deacon's Orders from the Bishop of London. In the same year he was installed
Lecturer in Experimental Philosophy at Hart Hall, Oxford, an appointment he
held until 1713, having in the meantime proceeded to the degree of MA in 1712.
On giving up this Lectureship he went to live at Channel Row, London, and gave
public lectures in Natural Philosophy.
On 29
July 1714, he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society and became its
Demonstrator and Curator shortly afterwards. He received the degrees of `B &
LLD' at Oxford on 16 March 1718. (These degrees are now known as sCL and DCL.)
On 8 December 1717, he received Priest's Orders from the Bishop of Ely and was
then presented by the Lord Chancellor to the living of Bridgeham in Norfolk,
which he held until March 1726, when he exchanged for the living of Little
Warley in Essex.
BRETHREN WHO MADE MASONIC HISTORY 49 In the eighteenth century it was not
unusual for a clergyman to hold two livings at the same time, hence we find
that on 28 August 1719, Dr Desaguliers was appointed Rector of Whitchurch (or
Little Stanmore) by a lease from the Duke of Chandos whose Chaplain he had
been appointed.
During
the years 1730, 1731 and 1732, the Rector spent some time in Holland where he
gave lectures. He was a prolific writer, contributing many papers to
Philosophical Transactions. In 1742 he received the Copley Gold Medal from the
Royal Society in acknowledgement of his experiments, and his `Dissertation of
Electricity' published in the same year gained a prize at the Academy of
Bordeaux. His deep scientific knowledge, backed by an intensely practical
mind, made him something of an inventor and an engineering consultant and he
was retained as such on many large projects. It appears, for instance, that he
was adviser on engineering questions at the rebuilding of Westminster Bridge
in the years following 1738. His natural bent appeared to be scientific rather
than clerical, which no doubt prompted him to appoint a curate to look after
the spiritual needs of his congregation at Whitchurch, leaving him free to
devote his time and energies to scientific work and freemasonry.
There
is no evidence to show the date or lodge in which he was initiated, but it can
be established that he was a fellow member with his friend James Anderson in
Lodge No 2 which met at the Horn Tavern, and was Master of the French Lodge at
Solomon's Temple, Hemmings Row. He was also Master of the Lodge of Antiquity,
then No 1, in 1723. In the 1731 List of Lodges he appears as a member of the
Bear and Harrow Lodge (now the St George's and Corner Stone Lodge, No 5) and
in the same List he is shown among the members of University Lodge, No 74,
which went out of existence in 1736.
On 24
June 1719, Dr Desaguliers was elected Grand Master at a lodge held at the
Goose and Gridiron Ale‑house, as recorded by Anderson in the 1738 edition of
the Book of Constitutions in the following terms: ASSEMBLY and Feast at the
Said Place, 24 June 1719, Brother Payne having gather'd the Votes, after
dinner proclaim'd aloud our Reverend Brother John Theophilus Desaguliers, LLD,
FRS, Grand Master of Masons, and being duly invested, install'd, congratulated
and homaged, forthwith reviv'd the old regular and peculiar Toasts or Healths
of the Free Masons. Now several old Brothers, that had neglected the Craft,
visited the Lodges; some Noblemen were also made Brothers, and more new Lodges
were constituted.
He
held office until 24 June 1720, when George Payne, Grand Master in 1718, was
again elected to succeed him.
His
association with the Grand Lodge continued after his tenure of office as Grand
Master had expired, and for three successive terms he was Deputy Grand Master
‑ in 1722 to the Duke of Wharton, in 1724 to the Earl of Dalkeith, and in 1725
to Lord Paisley. In later years it was usually Desaguliers who was called upon
to act as Master when an exalted person was being admitted, and he doubtless
had much to do with the introduction of freemasonry to many men of learning
and position. It is noteworthy that many members of the craft at that period
were also members of the Royal Society. It is certainly of importance to note
that with the arrival of Desaguliers freemasonry took on a new and extensive
outlook, in 50 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' improving the status of the Order by
bringing into it initiates of the most desirable kind.
On 8
June 1726, he initiated Lord Kingsdale at the lodge which met at the Swan and
Rummer, in the presence of the Grand Master, the Earl of Inchquin. While
living in Holland, in 1731, he acted as Master of an Occasional Lodge at The
Hague for the initiation of the Duke of Lorraine, afterwards Francis I.
Emperor of Germany, thereby introducing freemasonry into the Netherlands. At
the Palace of Kew in 1737 he presided as Master of a lodge at which Frederick
Lewis, Prince of Wales, was initiated, the first of a long line of Hanoverian
Royal Personages to be freemasons.
The
minutes of the meeting of Grand Lodge held on 26 November 1728, inform us that
`Dr Desaguliers, Past Grand Master, proposed that in order to have the Annual
Feast conducted in the best manner a certain number of Stewards should be
chosen who should have the entire care and direction of the Feast (together
with the Grand Wardens). Twelve brethren then advanced to the table and signed
their names to be Stewards.' The healths of the Stewards was then proposed
`which they returned jointly in like manner. The Stewards then proposed Dr
Desaguliers' health for reviving the office of Stewards, and the same was
drank accordingly.' As a champion of order and regularity he was responsible
for the introduction of the important regulation concerning masonic clothing,
for the minutes of the meeting of Grand Lodge held on 17 March 1731, record:
Dr Desaguliers taking Notice of Some Irregularities in wearing the marks of
Distinction which have been allowed by former Grand Lodges, Proposed, That
none but the Grand Master, his Deputy and Wardens shall wear their Jewels in
Gold or Gilt pendant to blue Ribbons about their necks and white Leather
Aprons lined with blue silk.
That
all those who have served any of the three Grand Offices shall wear the like
Aprons lined with Blue Silk in all Lodges and Assemblies of Masons whenever
they appear clothed.
That
those Brethren that are Stewards shall wear their Aprons lined with red Silk
and their proper Jewels pendant to red ribbons.
That
all those who have served the office of Steward shall be at liberty to wear
Aprons lined with red Silk and not otherwise, that all Masters and Wardens of
Lodges may wear their Aprons lined with white Silk and their respective Jewels
with plain white Ribbons but no other colour whatsoever.
The
Deputy Grand Master accordingly put the question whether the above Regulation
should be agreed to.
And it
was carried in the affirmative Nemine con.
Desaguliers was especially active in the work of the Charity Fund and acted as
a kind of Charity Steward (for the want of a better term) in taking charge of
the sums voted for the benefit of poor brethren and dispensing relief when the
need arose. At the meeting of Grand Lodge on 29 January 1730, he brought about
the appointment of a Standing Committee for the disposal of the Charity Fund
and at the meeting in December following he proposed that these reliefs should
be extended to widows and orphans of masons.
No one
could doubt the value of the contribution he made during those years as the
effective head of the newly organised Grand Lodge. He continued to guide the
craft in its constructive work up to the time of his last attendance on 8
BRETHREN WHO MADE MASONIC HISTORY 51 February 1743. He died on 29 February
1744, and was buried in the Royal Chapel of the Savoy.
THOMAS
DUNCKERLEY (1724‑95) The period 1760 to 1796 was a most eventful one for
freemasonry in England being one of consolidation and the adoption of measures
which raised the status of the Society and established it on a solid basis.
Grand Lodge was then being harassed by an active and powerful rival in the
shape of an opposition body of freemasons that had been organised in London in
1751, and which, having formed themselves into a Grand Lodge, made rapid
progress in prosperity and influence. It will be sufficient for the present
purpose if we state that in the period mentioned the two rival masonic bodies
were distinguished by the names of the `Antients' and the `Moderns'; the
former because it alleged that it worked according to the ancient institution
and the latter because of its innovations and in spite of the fact that it was
the premier Grand Lodge.
Thomas
Dunckerley was a pillar of strength during that difficult period. He devoted
more time, hard work and enthusiasm for the extension and elevation of
freemasonry than any other member of the craft.
Born
on 23 October 1724, at Somerset House, London, Dunckerley entered the Navy in
1744 and served for 20 years as a Warrant Officer. In this connection Henry
Sadler (Thomas Dunckerley, His Life Labours and letters, p 66) was responsible
for originating the statement that Dunckerley was an Able Seaman on board HMS
Guadaloupe. This was not so. Admiralty records reveal that he served firstly
as a Schoolmaster (HMS Edinburgh, 19 February 1744, until 4 March 1746) and
then as Gunner in various vessels from 1746 until superannuated in 1764. His
service record in the rank was: From To HMS Fortune 20 May 1746 1 March
1747 HMS Crown 17 June 1747 17 April 1753 HMS Nonsuch 18 April 1753 24 April
1753 HMS Tyger 25 April 1753 31 March 1754 HMS Vanguard 1 April 1754 26 July
1754 HMS Eagle 27 July 1754 25 September 1755 HMS Vanguard 26 September 1755
26 March 1761 HMS Prince 27 March 1761 31 May 1763 The rank of Gunner was as
important in 1764 as it is today. The armament, ammunition, warlike stores and
everything appertaining thereto are under the Gunner's immediate care and he
is required to keep an account of their receipt and expenditure.
The
reasons behind Dunckerley's voyage in the Guadaloupe are set down by
Dunckerley himself. (Further particulars of the late Thomas Dunckerley, Esq,
communicated in his own handwriting by his executors. The Freemasons'
Magazine, February 1796.) Shortly after his retirement he found himself in
acute financial difficulties. `Fearful of being arrested,' he records, `I left
the Kingdom in August 1764; and, having ordered the principal part of my
superannuation for the 52 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' support of my wife and
family during my absence, I sailed with Captain Ruthven in the Guadaloupe for
the Mediterranean, and here it was that I happened to be known to Lord William
Gordon, who was going to rejoin his regiment at Minorca. In June 1765, I was
put ashore at Marseilles, being seized with the scurvy to a violent degree.'
Six weeks later he returned via France overland to England.
It is
most improbable that a pensioned Warrant Officer would sign on as an Able
Seaman. Again, an Able Seaman would not describe himself as sailing with
Captain Ruthven ‑ he would sail under him. Sadler's mistake probably arose
from the fact that, at about this time, two others of the name Thomas
Dunckerley are recorded in the Admiralty as serving in the Guadaloupe, viz,
one, aged 17, who joined from Guernsey as an Able Seaman on 16 August 1764,
and was discharged, Leghorn, 11 January 1766, and another who joined the ship
from Mahon in the same rating 28 January 1765, and who was discharged Cadiz,
13 April 1765.
The
Captain of the Guadaloupe, the Hon John Ruthven, had been initiated in the
Royal Navy Lodge, No 282, on 7 September 1762, while Dunckerley at that time
had been a mason for eight years. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore,
that they would have been on friendly terms and that Dunckerley accompanied
the Captain as his guest and not as a lower deck rating. All this is of
importance for during that period a lodge was held on board the Guadaloupe.
Dunckerley was initiated on 10 January 1754, in the Lodge of Antiquity, No 31,
which met at the Three Tons Tavern in High Street, Portsmouth. This lodge was
frequented by seafaring men of the time, but is not now in existence, having
been erased from the roll in 1838. While at Plymouth he joined the Masons Arms
Tavern Lodge, No 129, and the Pope's Head Tavern Lodge, No 203. Both lodges
are now extinct. Quickly he impressed his personality upon the members of
these lodges, and after filling the Wardens' Chairs was installed as Master in
both lodges, and was re‑elected in each for three successive sessions.
In
September 1758, the Vanguard with Dunckerley as her Master Gunner, covered the
successful landings in the St Lawrence under General Wolfe. Among the troops
which garrisoned Quebec after that decisive victory were seven military lodges
from different constitutions; five were Irish, one English under the Antients
Grand Lodge, and one under the Provincial Grand Lodge of Boston, emanating
from the Moderns. On 8 November 1759, these lodges held a joint meeting and
formed themselves into a Provincial Grand Lodge and petitioned Grand Lodge for
a Provincial Grand Master to preside over them. Dunckerley carried this
petition to London when the Vanguard returned to England late in 1759 for
refit and revictualling.
By
this time he had developed a fiery enthusiasm for freemasonry which was
evidently appreciated by the Grand Lodge who gave him a Patent to `Inspect the
Craft wheresoever he might go' (Grand Lodge Letter Book, 1769, p 176), and was
also granted Warrant No 254, dated 16 January 1760, to hold a lodge and make
masons on board HMS Vanguard. The ship arrived back in Canada on 15 May 1760,
and on 24 June following Dunckerley honoured the military lodges with his
approbation of their conduct and installed Col Simon Fraser as the first
Provincial Grand Master of Canada.
On
leaving the Vanguard in 1761 Dunckerley took the Lodge Warrant ashore BRETHREN
WHO MADE MASONIC HISTORY 53 with him, but he made no use of it until 1768,
when he formed a lodge in London to meet at the Queen of Bohemia's Head, Wych
Street. This lodge now works as the London Lodge, No 108.
Soon
after his appointment to HMS Prince he obtained Warrant No 279, dated 22 May
1762, with which he formed the second sea‑going lodge. The last payment which
Grand Lodge acknowledged from the lodge on board that ship appeared in the
accounts of 23 April 1764.
Much
has been written concerning the circumstances of the birth of Thomas
Dunckerley. It will suffice to mention here that he had been acknowledged the
natural son of King George II and had been granted a pension from the Privy
Purse and allotted a tenure of apartments at Somerset House. Somerset House
was then used for precisely the same purpose as Hampton Court is now, that is,
for the accommodation of gentlemen and gentlewomen recommended for admission
by the Lord Chamberlain. On demolition of the former Somerset House in 1774,
the residents were transferred to Hampton Court.
On
retirement from the Navy Dunckerley retained possession of the Warrant from
HMS Prince and it was with the authority of this that he presided over a lodge
on board HMS Guadaloupe, described in the Engraved List of 1764, 2nd edition,
as `A Masters Lodge on board the Guadaloupe'.
A
meeting of the Committee of Charity was held at the Horn Tavern in Fleet
Street on 22 January 1766, which was attended by the Masters of 38 lodges.
Only the names of the lodges attending are recorded, second on the list being
`Majesty's Ship Guadaloupe'. A reasonable inference would be that as the
Guadaloupe was then in the Mediterranean Dunckerley himself attended as
Master.
By
this time he had taken up residence at Somerset House and with the Prince
Warrant he formed a lodge in a Private Room at Somerset House. On 29 January
1766, a Quarterly Communication of Grand Lodge was held at the Crown and
Anchor in the Strand, and the minutes record that two members of the lodge
attended. One year later it was named the Somerset House Lodge.
At
that time one of the four lodges which participated in the formation of Grand
Lodge in 1717, the Horn Lodge, No 2, had fallen into a decline and was
practically dormant. It is evident that Dunckerley set about its revival by
uniting it with his own vigorous Somerset House Lodge and thereby acquiring
the much earlier number. The union of these two lodges took place on 10
January 1774, and the lodge now exists as the Royal Somerset House and
Inverness Lodge, No 4.
Among
the names of the Grand Officers who attended the meeting of Grand Lodge on 15
April 1767, is `Thomas Dunckerley, PGM for the County of Hampshire', the first
time his name appears in the minutes. His Patent of Appointment for Hampshire
is dated 28 February 1767. Prior to this appointment the office of Provincial
Grand Master was virtually dormant in England. The advent of Dunckerley and
the earnest enthusiasm he brought to bear on his new duties doubtless awakened
the authorities to the knowledge that it was possible for a Provincial Grand
Master to be of great service in consolidating freemasonry under the Moderns
Grand Lodge. Evidence of this is given in the minutes of Grand Lodge, 54 `THE
PRESTONIAN LECTURES' where under date 12 November 1777, Thomas Dunckerley is
described as `Superintendent over the Lodges in the Province of Wiltshire',
and by Patent dated 22 November 1786, he was appointed `Provincial Grand
Master for the Counties of Dorset, Essex, Gloucester, Somerset and Southampton
together with the City and County of Bristol and the Isle of Wight'. His last
appointment was for Herefordshire, the date of Patent being 8 May 1790.
While
in residence at Somerset House Dunckerley had been associated with many London
lodges, but after removal to Hampton Court he gradually dropped out of active
interest in these and devoted most of this time to extensive travel throughout
his provinces, constituting many lodges.
He
retained his great love of the craft until the end of his life. His
constructive work during a critical period did much towards bringing peace and
reconciliation between the Antients and Moderns which gained for him the
respect and confidence of a large number of notable contemporaries, and in
particular the brethren of those counties he served so zealously as Provincial
Grand Master.
William Preston pays this tribute in his Illustrations of Masonry, 1781: By
the indefatigable assiduity of that masonic luminary, Thomas Dunckerley, Esq.,
in whose favour the appointment for Hampshire was first made, masonry has made
considerable progress, not only within his Province, but in other Counties in
England.
The
Grand Lodge recorded its thanks on 22 November 1786, when it was resolved
unanimously: That the rank of Past Senior Grand Warden (with the right of
taking place immediately next to the present Senior Grand Warden) be granted
to Thomas Dunckerley, Esq., ... in grateful Testimony of the high Sense the
Grand Lodge entertains of his zealous and indefatigable Exertions for many
years to promote the honour and interest of the Society.
He
died at Portsea on 19 November 1795, and was buried in St Mary's Church, now
the Cathedral Church of Portsmouth.
SAMUEL
HEMMING, DD (1757‑1828) The Rev Samuel Hemming is best known in masonic
literature as a brother well versed in ritual and who had much to do with the
compilation of our present forms and ceremonies.
He was
initiated in Thomas Dunckerley's first shore lodge, the Somerset House Lodge,
on 14 February 1803, and on 21 July following he became a member of the last
lodge to be constituted by that worthy brother, the Lodge of Harmony, No 384
(now No 255), at Hampton Court.
Samuel
Hemming was born on 3 February 1757. He entered the Merchant Taylor's School
in 1773; proceeded to St John's College, Oxford, taking his BA degree in 1787;
his MA in 1791 and lastly a Doctorate of Divinity in 1801. In 1803 he was
appointed Headmaster of the Hampton Free School, which then adjoined the north
wall of the Parish Church, and which is now known as the Hampton Grammar
School. He held the appointment until his death on 13 June 1828.
Brother Hemming showed an aptitude for masonic ceremonial from the beginning,
for within five years of his initiation he was installed Master of the Lodge
of BRETHREN WHO MADE MASONIC. HISTORY 55 Harmony and was re‑elected as such on
nine successive occasions. He was again re‑elected in 1820, 1821 and 1826.
On 1
December 1813, the Articles of Union between the Antient and Modern masons
were ratified and confirmed by the two respective Grand Lodges. In pursuance
of Article V thereof, nine worthy and expert Master Masons or Past Masters
were nominated from each of the fraternities, together with the two Grand
Secretaries, to form the Lodge of Reconciliation, the Warrant for which was
issued on 7 December 1813. Brother Samuel Hemming was appointed by the Grand
Master, the Duke of Sussex, to preside as its Master.
This
special lodge was entrusted with the task of co‑ordinating the forms and
ceremonies of the Antients and the Moderns agreeable to all brethren rejecting
everything which would not be universally accepted.
The
fifth Article of Union also enacted that all subscribing members from each
fraternity should be re‑obligated in the other mode so that they might be
registered on the books of Grand Lodge to entitle them to be present at the
Assembly of Union on 27 December 1813. The Lodge of Reconciliation set about
this wearisome business at once for the minutes of the lodge inform us that
under the Mastership of Samuel Hemming the lodge met on the 10th, 14th, 20th
and 21st of December and re‑obligated a total of 365 brethren.
Immediately after the Union the Lodge of Reconciliation continued assiduously
in the work of reconstruction of the ritual, meeting at regular intervals
until 6 December 1814, when the Master sent this report to the Grand Master:
To HRH Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex, etc, etc, Grand Master of Masons.
The
Lodge of Reconciliation respectfully beg leave to report to the Most
Worshipful Grand Master that they have proceeded so far in performance of the
duties entrusted to them, as to have thrice exhibited to the Lodges in the
London District the newly arranged modes of instruction, so far as relates to
the opening and closing of a Lodge in the three degrees, the several
obligations therein required and the ceremonies of making, passing, and
raising, with a brief test or examination in each degree, and that they are
also prepared to proceed in their system of elucidation, by such means as may
be considered the best adapted to their purpose.
Saml.
Hemmings, S.G.W., R.W.M.
Freemasons Tavern, Sept. 6th, 1814 From this brief document it is evident that
Brother Hemming and his lodge had laboured with all diligence in the important
task imposed upon them. They then proceeded with the work of instructing
lodges in the revised workings. It is recorded that at these rehearsal
meetings 98 lodges of the Moderns attended, 63 London lodges, 34 country
lodges and 1 overseas lodge. Of the Antients the total lodges attending was
77, of which 47 were London, 28 country and 2 overseas lodges. Samuel Hemming
presided at 16 of these meetings.
Early
in its career the Lodge of Reconciliation decided that no note or record of
the newly arranged ritual or ceremonial should be written or printed. A member
of the lodge offended in this regard, as is disclosed by the following extract
from the records, which unfortunately bears no date: 56 `THE PRESTONIAN
LECTURES' On a Motion regularly made and seconded `That Bro Thompson having
offended against a known masonic rule, in printing certain letters and marks,
tending to convey information on the subject of Masonic Instruction, should
for this offence be reprimanded in such terms as the W. Master of the Lodge of
Reconciliation might think proper'.
The
Master being in the chair, did express accordingly, the high senses of
disapprobation which the Lodge felt at the unguardedness of his conduct, in
having so done, but, that in consequence of his candid acknowledgement of the
Error into which he had fallen, and his determination to collect every Copy of
the same that could be got at, and place them in the Custody of the Lodge of
Reconciliation, to be destroyed at their discretion.
The
Master expressed his confidence that the reproof now exhibited would
effectually prevent any recurrence of such offence in future.
This
is clear evidence that the scholarly ability of Samuel Hemming helped
considerably in guiding the lodge in the literary composition of the ritual,
depending largely on the Master's capability of retaining his memory, the
essentials of the work as it progressed.
At a
special meeting of Grand Lodge on 20 May 1816, the Master and brethren of the
Lodge of Reconciliation attended, and after opening the lodge in the three
degrees, exhibited the ceremonies of initiating, passing and raising a mason.
The Grand Master would not permit any discussion on this demonstration. At the
quarterly meeting held on 5 June following, the several ceremonies, etc,
recommended were approved and confirmed.
Thus
ended the labours of the special lodge which had completed its task under the
skilful mastership of Brother Samuel Hemming to the satisfaction of the Grand
Master and the Grand Lodge, reflected in his appointment to the high office of
Senior Grand Warden conferred upon him.
There
can be little doubt that to this day the ritual worked by English lodges
remains essentially the same as that drawn up and demonstrated by the Lodge of
Reconciliation. There are, of course, many variations in non‑essentials in the
wording and working of the degrees, but bearing in mind that no written record
of his demonstration has been handed down to us, these variations would seem
to be of little importance, and while it is true to say that no written or
printed ritual has ever been approved by Grand Lodge, it is equally true that
the Grand Lodge would quickly assert itself if the essentials were departed
from.
CONCLUSION Having recorded something of the activities of four brethren who
made history is it possible to compare them? I think not. Each was great in
his own way. Each made his mark. Each influenced the development of
freemasonry. Anderson's has proved the most widely known name, at home and
abroad. His production of the first Book of Constitutions was of the greatest
importance, even though his imagination got the better of him in the
preparation of the historical portion of the second issue of that great work.
Desagulier's contribution was the introduction of many distinguished
personages into freemasonry, thereby adding lustre to the craft and improving
its status. His regularisation of the wearing of regalia was important.
Dunckerley was perhaps the greatest of my four brethren. His work for the
Moderns during the difficult period experienced at the formation and growth of
the Antients Grand Lodge was outstanding and his devotion to BRETHREN WHO MADE
MASONIC HISTORY 57 masonic duties in the various provinces over which he
presided as Provincial Grand Master with the consequent spread of freemasonry
therein was of the highest order. Hemming's claim to fame lies in his labours
in preparing the craft for the Union in 1813 and his work in reconciling the
ritual for use in lodges under the newly united Grand lodges. They are each
assured a place in masonic history.
THE
EVOLUTION OF THE ENGLISH PROVINCIAL GRAND LODGE THE PRESTONIAN LECTURE FOR
1966 THE HON W. R. S. BATHURST Provincial Grand Lodge Today PROVINCIAL GRAND
RANK is such a common feature of the English Constitution that perhaps we
hardly realise how odd it must seem to freemasons of other countries. An
observant Norwegian, for instance, on seeing an Englishman wearing an apron
edged with crimson (two inches in width) will wonder which of the higher
degrees this can denote. On learning that this is the clothing of a Past
Provincial Grand Steward of Barsetshire, should he then require an explanation
of the duties of the office and the method by which brethren are selected to
fill it, our Scandinavian friend may well be confirmed in his opinion that the
English are definitely ‑ though not unpleasantly ‑ mad.
Every
freemason knows that within Grand Lodge and Provincial Grand Lodge a great
deal of administrative work is performed by a small nucleus of `permanent
staff' and that the more eminent officers perform much ceremonial work as
well. But the most obvious function of these bodies is the conferment of Grand
or Provincial Grand Rank, once in every year ‑ the creation, in fact, of
sinecure offices on a vast scale as a result of which the fortunate recipients
are entitled to wear the clothing more decorative than that of those brethren
who have not been dignified in this way. This concept is one which, as so
often happens, has gradually evolved from something fairly different. Having
grown in'this way the system is full of anomalies.
London
neither is nor could be a Province. To meet the demand of the London brethren
for garter‑blue and gold clothing, London Grand Rank was created. But in that
system of honour there is one notable advantage. The recipients are all of
equal rank. One would have thought that Grand Lodge honours could be arranged
somewhat similarly. Active Grand Rank is conferred annually on 64 individuals
(exclusive of the Grand Stewards). But what of the `Past Ranks' numbering
between 200 and 220 annually? Would it not be simpler to create them `Honorary
Officers of Grand Lodge', rather than preserving the fiction that these worthy
men at some former time assisted in the direction of ceremonies or bore the
standards in Grand Lodge? When the same idiom is transferred to the Provinces
and Districts a further complication ensues. For these groups of lodges differ
widely in size.
The
minimum number of Provincial or District Grand Officers is 20. To this may be
added two Past Ranks but you may subtract five specialist offices, leaving 17
offices to be distributed annually. Four of the Provinces do not have as many
as 17 lodges. Some of the Districts moreover consist of a few lodges which
elected to 58 THE EVOLUTION OF THE ENGLISH PROVINCIAL GRAND LODGE 59 remain
under the English Constitution rather than join a new Grand Lodge which had
been formed. Others are on islands or in similar isolated colonies. More than
half the 35 Districts have fewer than 17 lodges.
At the
other end of the scale six Provinces have more than 200 lodges culminating
with West Lancashire, last recorded as having 473 and increasing at the
average rate of six per year. There is of course a sliding scale regulating
the number of Ranks Present and Past that may be awarded in ratio to the size
of the Province. But the gradation of this curve is such that in the largest
Province just about half the Past Masters will receive Provincial Honours and
the other half will not. In the smallest Provinces every Past Master expects
to receive Provincial Rank with little delay as a matter of course; in the
larger Provinces there must be a process of selection ‑ in the smaller there
is practically none.
Selection is never easy. Gideon (Judges vii, 5) thought of an ingenious method
but he was only aiming at a product of 3 per cent. In most fields of human
activity it is more likely that some 10 per cent will be outstandingly good
and 10 per cent outstandingly poor: and, in between, 80 per cent who are
tolerably good. A system under which a proportion of 50 per cent are rewarded
and the rest left unrewarded must be exceedingly difficult to operate fairly.
In the smaller Provinces, omission from the Honours List would of course be
regarded as a slur. The award is however taken largely as a matter of course.
And as an illustration of this it may be observed that it is still unusual for
a recipient to trouble to provide himself with a Past Rank jewel, when his
year of office expires.
Both
in Grand Lodge and in Provincial Grand Lodge this mass of sinecure offices and
Past Ranks must be regarded as a vast ormolu case in the centre of which the
compact works are busily ticking. Grand Lodges however were at liberty to
provide themselves with additional offices as and when necessary ‑ eg the
Presidents of the Boards of General Purposes and of Benevolence. Or in times
past, with a Grand Portrait Painter, or a General Secretary for German
Correspondence.
Provincial Grand Lodge cannot do this. The most important function of some
officer of Provincial Grand Lodge is the organisation and co‑ordination of the
efforts of the Lodges of the Province in support of the recurring Charity
Festivals. These Festivals are nearly always organised at the Provincial level
in support of the Provincial Grand Master who is termed President or Chairman.
The organising secretary could of course be the Provincial Grand Secretary or
Treasurer but the office is an onerous one and is usually held by some brother
with a talent for that sort of work. He is of course a Past Provincial officer
but it does seem strange that, among the mass of sinecures, there should not
be a specific rank of Charity Secretary or Almoner so as to give this brother
a high place among the present officers of Provincial Grand Lodge. (The Grand
Lodge of Scotland has a Grand Bard and a Grand Piper.) The Constitutional
Position in the Nineteenth Century Such is Provincial Grand Lodge at the
present. How, then, did it come into existence? Bro J. R. Rylands, in his
interesting paper on the West Riding of 60 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' Yorkshire
reminds us that in the 1815 edition of the Book of Constitutions it is laid
down that: As the Provincial Grand Lodge emanates from the authority vested in
the provincial grand master, it possesses no other powers than those here
specified. It therefore follows that no provincial grand lodge can meet but by
the sanction of the provincial grand master or his deputy; and that it ceases
to exist on the death, resignation, suspension or removal of the provincial
grand master, until he be reinstated or a successor appointed, by whose
authority they may again be regularly convoked.
In the
1884 Book of Constitutions a new rule (79) appeared which provided that on the
death, etc of the Provincial Grand Master, his Deputy should perform all the
functions of that office until a Brother is duly appointed Provincial Grand
Master. This disposed of the inconvenient doctrine that Provincial Grand Lodge
actually ceased to exist when the Provincial Grand Mastership was vacant. It
was not until the 1940 edition of the Book of Constitutions that it was
declared the Grand Master forms an area into a Province and jurisdiction over
it is thereupon given to Provincial Grand Lodge, the Provincial Grand Master
acting therein by the authority vested in him under his Patent of Appointment
(Rule 62 B of C).
The
jurisdiction exercised by Provincial Grand Lodge is of course very limited. It
can do little beyond the framing of its own By Laws. But right up to 1940 its
authority was still held to `emanate' from the Provincial Grand Master. It
could throw out motions tabled by him but could not enact any measures of its
own volition.
Eighteenth Century Origins A difficulty which besets all historians is that
words in one age acquire meanings which they did not possess a generation or
so before. The words `Pools', 'Grammar School', `Rock' and `Roll', all existed
thirty years ago but they did not mean what they mean now. Similarly the term
Provincial Grand Master when used in the early eighteenth century does not
imply that there was any Provincial Grand Lodge, of if there was that it bore
much resemblance to the kind of gathering with which we are familiar today.
There
are no rules concerning Provincial Grand Masters in Anderson's Second Book of
Constitutions ‑ the edition of 1738. It is here however that the existence of
Provincial Grand Masters is first recognised. They appear in what one might
regard as a sort of narrative appendix. For the learned author seems to be
discussing the theme of freemasonry as a society for the promotion of
Palladian architecture. He turns to Wales as being full of gothic castles,
`but now,' he says, `The Augustan stile is as well esteemed in Wales as in
England and there also the Brethren of the Royal Art have coalesced into
lodges as branches of our fraternity'.
Then,
as a sort of digression, he launches into lists: Inchiquin Grand Master
granted a Deputation on 10 May 1727 to Hugh Warburton Esquire to be Provincial
Grand Master of North Wales at Chester ‑ and another on 24 June 1727 to Sir
Edward Mansel Bart. to be Provincial Grand Master of South Wales at
Caermarthen.
His
next list is headed `II Deputations have been requested from and sent to
several Countries (sic) Cities and Towns of England'. He names four ‑ Shrop‑
THE EVOLUTION OF THE ENGLISH PROVINCIAL GRAND LODGE 61 shire, Lancashire,
Durham and Northumberland. His third list is headed `III Deputations sent
beyond Sea' and there follows a list of sixteen names, for places in Europe,
East India, Africa and America.
He
then continues: 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, tho' they have the same Constitution charges and regulations etc. for
substance with their brethren in England, and are equally zealous for the
Augustan Stile, and the Secrets of the antient and honourable fraternity.
The
source of Anderson's information is preserved at Grand Lodge. It is a rough
notebook headed An Acco`. of Provincial Grand Masters. It appears to have been
first compiled about 1737 since the entries up to that date are all in the
same handwriting, those for 1738 and later years being by different hands. The
names and places are approximately the same. The first entry subsequent to the
printing of the list by Anderson, ie in 1739, is of some interest. It is
'William Horton Esq. for ye West Riding of ye County of York'‑ not, as has
been stated, for the whole of Yorkshire.
The
other interesting feature in the notebook `Account' is a blank space ‑ no name
given ‑ `for Cheshire'.
The
first reference to Provincial Grand Masters in the minutes of Grand Lodge
occurs on 24 June 1747. The order of the procession into the Hall was laid
down. They were to enter juniors first. Provincial Grand Masters are placed
after `The Grand Treasurer with his Staff' and are followed by Past Junior
Grand Wardens and Past Senior Grand Wardens.
The
Constitutional Position in Dunckerley's Time We now come to the next edition
of the Book of Constitutions. This was Enticks First Edition published in
1756. We read as follows: `OF PROVINCIAL GRAND MASTERS' ART. I. The Office of
Provincial Grand Master was found particularly necessary in the Year 1726;
when the extraordinary Increase of the Craftsmen, acid their travelling into
distant Parts and convening themselves in Lodges, required an immediate Head,
to whom they might apply where it was not possible to wait the decision or
Opinion of the Grand Lodge.
ART.
11. The Appointment of this Grand Officer is a Prerogative of the Grand
Master; who grants his Deputation to such Brother of Eminence and Ability in
the Craft as he shall think proper; not for life, but during his good
pleasure.
ART.
III. The Provincial thus deputed is invested with the Power and Honour of a
Deputy Grand Master; and during the continuance of his Provincialship is
entitled to wear the Cloathing, to take rank as the Grand Officers, in all
publick Assemblies, immediately after the past Deputy Grand Masters: and to
constitute Lodges in his own Province.
ART.
IV. He is enjoined to correspond with the Grand Lodge and to transmit a
circumstantial Account of his Proceedings, at least once in every year. At
which times, the Provincial is required to send a List of those Lodges he has
constituted, their contributions for the general fund of Charity; and the
usual Demand, as specified in his Deputation, for every Lodge he has
constituted by the Grand Master's Authority.
62
`THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' Several points of interest arise from the Articles.
i The
status of a Provincial Grand Master is defined as that of a Deputy Grand
Master. His precedence has been raised. In 1741 he was senior to the Grand
Treasurer but below the Past Grand Wardens. He now ranks only below Past
Deputy Grand Masters.
ii
There is no mention of Provincial Grand Lodge and its Officers at all. Grand
Lodge did not apparently know or care whether these existed or not.
iii
The Provincial Grand Master is appointed by the Grand Master.
iv
Entick's Article I. confirms the impression given by the Notebook `Account'
and by Anderson's List and his verbiage relating thereto ‑ that Provincial
Grand Masters were intended primarily for Foreign Parts and for Wales.
Entick's sentence sidetracks the issue, just as Anderson's does, that `these
foreign lodges' include Provincial Grand Masters who were not foreign at all.
And that they were all in the North of England.
Entick's Constitutions went through several editions and in the fourth,
published in 1767, we find that the third article has been altered.
ART.
III. `The PROVINCIAL GRAND MASTER thus deputed is invested with the Power and
Honour of a Grand Master in his particular District, and is intitled to wear
the Cloathing of a Grand Officer, to constitute Lodges within his own Province
and in all public Assemblies to walk immediately after the Grand Treasurer. He
is also empowered to appoint a Deputy, Wardens, Treasurer, Secretary and Sword
Bearer who are entitled to wear the Cloathing of Grand Officers while they
officiate as such, within that particular District; but at no other time or
place.' This is the first official appearance of Provincial Grand Officers. As
there are now other officers, Entick no longer uses the expression `The
Provincial' to denote the Provincial Grand Master. The Provincial Grand Master
is a Grand Master within his District. The previous edition defined him as a
kind of Deputy Grand Master at large. He now has Officers and they wear the
same clothing as Grand Officers, but are only to wear it on Provincial
occasions‑not on ordinary lodge nights. The Provincial Grand Master's
precedence at Grand Lodge reverts to the 1741 position, ie senior to the Grand
Treasurer but inferior to the Past Grand Wardens. In Entick's first edition
the precedence had been next below Past Deputy Grand Masters.
The
number of Provincial Grand Officers may appear rather meagre but there were no
more Officers in the Grand Lodge than this, at that period.
In
Noorthouck's Constitutions of 1784 the individual Officers to be appointed are
no longer specified by name. The Provincial ruler is empowered to appoint
grand officers for his province ‑ that is to say officers on the same scale as
those in the Grand Lodge. Grand Lodge had acquired a Grand Chaplain and a
Grand Architect by then, so that Provincial Grand Masters could presumably
appoint the same for their Provinces.
In
1767 Thomas Dunckerley was first appointed Provincial Grand Master for
Hampshire. He was, as you all know, the apostle of freemasonry in the South of
England. Before we take this year ‑ the same year as Entick's new Article III
‑ as the date of origin of Provincial Grand Lodge we must enquire what was
happening in the North of England.
THE
EVOLUTION OF THE ENGLISH PROVINCIAL GRAND LODGE 63 The Grand Lodge at York The
old lodge at York City, says Anderson, `affecting Independency' was under its
own Grand Master. This old lodge was flourishing in 1705. No doubt it was a
good deal older than that. The system there was like that which persisted in
Scotland. There was a General Lodge on one or both St John's Days but in the
meantime written licences could be granted to small bodies of brethren
anywhere in Yorkshire to enter masons: and we know that occasional meetings
were held one at Bradford and one at Scarborough.
The
County gentry joined the lodge. Social distinctions were well understood but
the classes mixed quite happily. It was a common feature of the dining clubs
of the period both in and outside masonry that squires and craftsmen sat down
together. At the General Lodge a local notable was elected `President' and
served for varying periods.
On St
John's Day in Winter 1725 instead of a `President' there were elected a Grand
Master, Deputy, Wardens, Treasurer and Clerk. The new Grand Master was called
Charles Bathurst.
You
will, I hope, forgive a short digression on my distant cousin. The Bathurst
family were small yeoman and landowners on the borders of Sussex and Kent.
Various members went to London, made money and settled in various parts of the
country. My immediate ancestors were cavaliers but Dr John Bathurst of
Goudhurst was obviously on the other side and became physician to Oliver
Cromwell. He invested his professional fortune in land in Yorkshire.
The
doctor's great grandson, Charles, is described as of Clint and Skutterskelf in
the County of Yorks. The latter place is near the Durham border not far from
Stockton. He was High Sheriff of Yorkshire in 1727 at the age of 23. He was
just 21 when he was `admitted and sworn' into the Society of Free and Accepted
Masons at York. This was in July 1725 and his election as Grand Master
followed on 27 December. This kind of thing was quite normal at that date.
Most of the Grand Masters in London were men in their early thirties and the
Antient Charges still provide that, though a Grand Warden must have been
Master of a lodge, The Grand Master need only be a fellow craft at the time of
his election. The lodge at York was moreover clearly working a single‑session
rite, whether of one or two degrees we do not know. But it must have been a
simple affair as compared with the prodigious feats of memorisation to which
we are accustomed today.
The
Provincial Grand Lodge at Chester Entick gives 1726 as the date when somebody
at Grand Lodge realised that the Grand Lodge in London would have to become
the Grand Lodge of England and indeed of the whole world. It probably occurred
a year or two earlier, since it is clear that the brethren at York had heard
of the development in London by 1725 and decided that they had just as good a
right to form a Grand Lodge as their brethren in the Capital.
I
doubt whether this was regarded as a hostile act, in London, at that date. The
idea that the other lodges in the North might `join' York rather than London
had hardly formed itself in men's minds. Forty years later of course, things
were very 64 different. Still, the more thoughtful members in London must have
been quite pleased when at the Quarterly Communication on 27 November 1725,
returns came in from Chester.
The
Master, Wardens and Members of three lodges are given, but at the head of the
senior lodge‑ the lodge at the `Sunn' in Bridge Street‑ above the Master's
name there appears: `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' This seems to me truly
remarkable. The decision of the York Lodge to go on electing their own
President and to dignify him with the style of Grand Master is quite natural.
But here we see the Chester lodges telling London that they already had a
Provincial Grand Master, Deputy and Wardens in 1725. They were not appointed:
they were elected.
One
can form all sorts of theories as to what had happened. Armstrong, the author
of the History of Freemasonry in Cheshire (1901) presumes that Cheshire was
already a Province bearing `a certain allegiance to the Grand Lodge at York'.
I feel sure that this is most improbable but what the truth is I cannot
imagine. There could have been some correspondence with London in which the
position of the elected ruler of the Chester lodges was discussed and the
title of Provincial Grand Master suggested. It is hard to see otherwise how
the very expression was known in Chester at such an early date. But this is
mere conjecture.
The
next three Provincial Grand Masters at Chester were likewise elected. In 1757,
after the publication of Entick's First Book of Constitutions, a `deputation'
was sent to Chester appointing the Provincial Grand Master, John Page, who had
in fact been elected three years previously. The Chester brethren seem to have
received this quite happily and the `deputation' was read in open lodge. They
probably felt that the change would not greatly affect them and that any
candidate whom they recommended would certainly always be appointed. They
could not foresee what odd appointments future Grand Masters would make in
some other parts of England.
We can
now see the reason why the Notebook Account shows a blank against Cheshire and
why Anderson does not mention it at all. No deputation had been sent to
Cheshire because the Provincial Grand Master there was not deputed, but
elected.
Whatever may have happened before 1725, there was one man at Grand Lodge who
realised that the position called for some action. This was John Theophilus
Desaguliers. It seems certain that he was the masonic statesman who, after his
journey to Edinburgh in 1721, realised the need for a Grand Lodge of England.
It was he who visited Chester, as Deputy Grand Master, in 1727. A letter which
was signed by Hugh Warburton, Provincial Grand Master, and the other three
Provincial Officers was thought so important that it was copied verbatim into
the Minutes of Grand Lodge. It is a beautiful letter expressing `most
Chearfull obedience and extensive Gratitude to our Superiors in London and
Westminster'. It is addressed to the Grand Master, Lord Inchiquin, and
expresses thanks `for the Coll. Francis Columbine Provincial Grand Mar.
Samuel
Smith Deputy Coll. Herbert Laurence Wardens Captain Hugh Warburton THE
EVOLUTION OF THE ENGLISH PROVINCIAL GRAND LODGE 65 great honour done us by
your Worship's most affectionate L're and the kind visitation of our Lodges by
your most acceptable Deputy'.
It is,
I think, extraordinary that Armstrong in his History quotes this letter but
does not so much as mention who the `most acceptable Deputy' was. That
Desaguliers was a wise, far‑seeing man is not in question, but this must have
been one of his greatest personal triumphs. The elective Provincial Grand
Officers of Chester were tacitly recognised, and peace reigned serene! The
immediate result was the issue of the `deputation' of 10 May 1727, to Hugh
Warburton, the Provincial Grand Master who signed the letter, to be Provincial
Grand Master for North Wales. This would give him surveillance over the lodge
at Holywell in Flintshire,17 miles away. Bro William Waples tells us‑ of his
evidence of a lodge there in 1728. The Master of the lodge moreover was John
Coleclough who had been Master of one of the three Chester lodges in 1725 and
who, as Provincial Junior Grand Warden, had signed the letter to the Grand
Master in 1727. Desaguliers must have known that Chester was about to `spill
over' into North Wales. No record, however, was made in London and the lodge
at Holywell never made any returns to Grand Lodge.
Sir
Edward Matthews, Provincial Grand Master for Shropshire (1732) appears to have
been deputed for North Wales in 1735. A typical `paper transaction' of the
period ‑ since he knew nothing of Holywell or they of him. On the contrary,
the Holy well MS refers to one 'Wm Wessel de Linden' as Grand Master! No doubt
`Provincial Grand Master', was meant but, equally, what we have here is
another elected Provincial Grand Master, as at Chester. We who are accustomed
to everything being `cut and dried' can hardly imagine that Grand Lodge and
everybody else could be so vague and informal as was the case in those days.
The
Other Northern Counties As regards the other Northern Counties the position is
even more uncertain than that of Cheshire. Three 'deputations' were issued in
1734 to Edward Entwizle for Lancashire, Joseph Laycock for Durham and Matthew
Ridley for Northumberland. The simultaneous issue to three adjacent counties
is suggestive that something was being done to regularise a state of affairs
which had already come into existence and of which Grand Lodge was not
previously aware.
It is
possible that there were elective Provincial Grand Masters here also before
the date in question. We only know that in Durham the old lodge at Swalwell
did claim the right to elect, and that Joseph Laycock and his successor were
members of that lodge. Bro William Waples has recently recounted that Joseph
Laycock was also Provincial Grand Master of the Harodim and conferred degrees
the names of which sound as if they consisted of Christian Lectures or
Catechisms. Evidently then, in some places St John's Masonry was not all.
There was something else as well.
Edward
Entwizle, of Lancashire, had been the first Master of the Anchor and Hope
Lodge (now No 37) of Bolton in 1732. Matthew Ridley was the grandfather of Sir
Matthew White Ridley, Provincial Grand Master for Northumberland 1824‑37 whose
grandson in turn served that office from 1886 to 1906.
It is
impossible to say whether there was any calculated policy underlying the 66
`THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' recognition of Cheshire and the promulgation of
these appointments to three Northern Counties. They may have been purely
fortuitous ‑ due to the fact that freemasonry was stronger there than in the
South. Or they may have been deliberate defensive operations inspired by
misgivings at the independence of York. Someone may have thought that, if
Provincial Grand Masters were not appointed for the North as for Wales,
separatist movements might arise in parts of the country in which rule from
London might not be particularly welcome.
Stages
in Evolution A pattern is now beginning to emerge.
1.
1726‑67 Provincial Grand Masters appointed with no reference to any Provincial
Grand Officers. In at least one case, the Provincial Grand Master and some
Officers were already in existence though how they came to be so is unknown.
II.
1767‑1813 Provincial Grand Masters have power to appoint Provincial Grand
Officers, but the nature of Provincial Grand Lodge undefined.
III.
From the `Union Period' onwards. The Williams Constitutions 1815‑27, require
the Provincial Grand Master to hold Provincial Grand Lodge at least once a
year: and for the first time Provincial clothing is differentiated. The
garter‑blue edging is to be 2 inches wide, while that of the Grand Officers is
31/2 inches.
Most
writers of Provincial histories refer with pained surprise to the Provincial
Grand Masters of the first two periods. They seldom attended lodges, they say,
and never held Provincial Grand Lodge. But in fact no one at Grand Lodge ever
expected them to do anything of the sort. The most a Provincial Grand Master
was expected to do at this date was to issue warrants for new lodges (until
prevented from doing so by the Unlawful Societies Act of 1799) and to visit
Grand Lodge when up in London (eg for Parliament) perhaps so as to give
warning of any spurious masons or lodges in his part of the country.
The
eighteenth century was, of course, an age of sinecures, but the early
Provincial Grand Masters are not to be blamed for neglecting their duties. If
anyone had supposed that they had any, this would have been quite a strange
new idea. They themselves were unaware of any. Sir Walter Vavasour, Bt of
Yorkshire when invited to resign in 1783 complied in a charming letter to the
effect that, if there was any work attached to the appointment he had not the
slightest objection to resigning since he had always known that he was not fit
to hold the office. One gets the impression that any peer, baronet or MP who
was invited to dine with Grand Lodge was apt to be made Provincial Grand
Master irrespective of whether there were any lodges working in his part of
the world or not.
Absentee Provincial Grand Masters The most absurd instance was that of Robert
Cornwall, MP for Leominster. His father, a Vice Admiral, had been offered a
baronetcy but declined it `not liking the expense in the way of fees'. Robert
reckoned that he had been cheated out of his dignity and called himself Sir
Robert. He also called himself `de Cornewall' as his ancestors had often done
in the Middle Ages. In 1753 he was appointed Provincial Grand Master not only
for Herefordshire but for the adjoining Coun THE EVOLUTION OF THE ENGLISH
PROVINCIAL. GRAND LODGE 67 ties of Monmouth, Gloucester, Worcester and
Shropshire, and for North Wales. Whether there were any lodges working in this
large area, and, if so, whether it was anybody's duty to inform them of the
appointment ‑ all this seems to have been regarded as quite unimportant. One
is tempted to wonder if the whole thing was not a practical joke.
John
Dent was appointed Provincial Grand Master for Worcestershire in 1792. He was
a partner in Child's Bank at Temple Bar. He was MP first for Lancaster and
afterwards for Poole, Dorset. In Parliament he became notable for introducing
the Bill for licensing dogs. It can never have been likely that such a man
would perform any masonic duties in Worcestershire.
The
first Provincial Grand Master for Oxfordshire was Physician Extraordinary to
the Prince Regent. There were no Modern lodges working in Oxford or the County
at the date of his appointment iI; 1792. John Allen was a native of Bury in
Lancashire. He was a barrister in Clements Inn. He attended Grand Lodge
regularly often acting as Deputy Grand Master and sometimes even presiding. He
carried out the conveyancing work of the first purchase by Grand Lodge of
premises in Great Queen Street. He was Provincial Grand Master for Lancashire
from 1769 to 1806. Such a man was a useful representative of the Lancashire
lodges in London but he spent very little of his life in Lancashire and was
not a member of any Lancashire lodge.
`The
appointment of this Grand Officer is a prerogative of the Grand Master'. We
must conclude that the Grand Masters who made these appointments had no idea
on the question of whether Provincial Grand Masters were really necessary or
not. Indeed, if the modern duties of the office had been described to them,
they would probably have replied that no one would ever take on such a job.
The
Pocket Provincial Grand Lodge Entick's Constitutions of 1767 made provision
for the appointment of Provincial Grand Officers but none for the holding of
Provincial Grand Lodge. When therefore, during Period II (1767‑1813), we come
across the expression, we must not assume that it connoted an assembly of the
Master and Wardens of every private lodge. The normal arrangement was that it
was something that existed within a private lodge; usually, but not always,
the oldest lodge in the district. We have seen that this was in effect the
position at Chester in 1725 when the names of the Provincial Grand Master, his
Deputy and Wardens were given at the head of the list of members of the lodge
at the `Sunn'.
There
are numerous other instances, some of which have puzzled local historians. In
fact there was not much else to do about it at that date. Travelling was slow
and dangerous and, besides this, there were no provincial dues from which the
expense of regular Provincial assemblies could have been defrayed.
Bro
Beesley, the author of Freemasonry in Lancashire is at a loss to understand
the Return to Grand Lodge of 1768 by the Lodge of Unanimity (now No 89) in
Manchester. The list of Officers and members of the lodge is headed by the
list of Provincial Officers. The Master and Senior Warden of the Lodge proper
are Past Provincial Junior Grand Wardens. In fact (and this is the only
confusing feature), the lodge was, inaccurately, known as `The Provincial
Grand Lodge'. We find the 68 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' same thing in
Shropshire. The lodge at Whitchurch was commonly referred to as `the
Provincial Grand Lodge', meaning that it had the Provincial Grand Lodge within
it and that, if the Provincial Grand Master‑ or, in his absence, the Deputy ‑
were present he could open Provincial Grand Lodge and discharge any Provincial
business: after which the lodge reverted to its normal work.
The
position at York was similar and owing to the great size of the County soon
became a cause of discontent. There the ancient Grand Lodge of York, after a
period of dormancy, had, rightly or wrongly, been revived, but, in 1773, the
more realistic members decided, instead, to hold a regular private lodge under
the Modern Constitution. The Apollo Lodge, which was then constituted, became
‑ or contained ‑ the Provincial Grand Lodge. And when the Apollo Lodge began
to droop, the Union Lodge at York took over the privileged status. This sort
of arrangement began to look absurd when, owing to the Industrial Revolution,
the West Riding towns began to grow in size and importance.
Thomas
Dunckerley To appreciate the extent of Dunckerley's work, we must first
realise how small a part of the country was even nominally under Provincial
Grand Masters in 1767. Cheshire and Cornwall were in working order. There was
an annual gathering of lodges, with a procession to Church. The Provincial
Grand Master, or his Deputy, presided and there were Provincial Grand Wardens.
The church service in connection with Provincial Grand Lodge is one of the
oldest traditions of the Craft. In those Provinces where the custom still
survives, it should not be lightly cast away. I myself as a young man have
taken part in a procession through the streets. In view of modern traffic
conditions however this would be hardly practicable today.
Cornwall claims superiority over Chester on the somewhat specious grounds that
their first ruler was deputed by the Grand Master in 1752, whereas, as we have
seen, the Provincial Grand Master of Cheshire, though recognised by Grand
Lodge in 1727, did not actually receive a deputation until 1757.
In the
other three Northern counties, Lancashire, Durham, and Northumberland, there
were Provincial Grand Masters; and also in Norfolk and in Somerset. None of
these rulers was expected to do very much, although we do know that the two
last named, Edward Bacon and John Smith were quite active by the standards of
the day. In York the independent Grand Lodge was still in existence. In the
rest of England, Provincial Grand Masters can hardly be said to have existed
at all.
Dunckerley's career is well known, because ‑ or may I say in spite ‑ of the
fact that his life was written by the egregious Sadler. (It is surely one of
the worst biographies ever published.) A casual reader of the Masonic Year
Book may suppose that Dunckerley's `empire' was of a similar nature to the
imaginary domain of Sir Robert de Cornewall. But this is far from being the
case.
Dunckerley was initiated at Portsmouth in 1754, and Hampshire was therefore
his first Province. Thinking that he had found a suitable successor he
relinquished that office in 1776 and took on the two adjoining counties,
Wiltshire and Dorset in 1777. Likewise Essex. Wiltshire was the only County in
which he was not successful. He had acquired a small house in Salisbury (in
addition to his apart‑ THE EVOLUTION OF THE ENGLISH PROVINCIAL GRAND LODGE 69
ments in Hampton Court), but the Salisbury brethren seem to have thought this
was not quite grand enough for their taste, and they gave him a bit of
trouble.
In
1784 he took charge of the next two counties ‑ Somerset and Gloucestershire,
the latter consisting only of lodges in Bristol. He formed a lodge at
Gloucester and severed it from Bristol in 1786. The Isle of Wight was severed
from Hampshire in 1787. Finally he took on Herefordshire as well in 1790.
In
1786 he wrote: I have in the course of this year held Grand Lodges at
Colchester, Blandford and Bristol. I was favour'd with the attendance of near
two hundred Brethren (on his Majesty's birthday) in procession to the Church
at Wells, and the ladies honour'd us with their company at the Assembly Room
where like the welcome Sun, at High twelve they beautify'd adorn'd, and
enliven'd our happy meeting.
Writing of the formation of the two new Provinces he says: This will be very
pleasing to the Brethren at Bristol and the Isle of Wight: and it will enable
me to appoint a greater number of blue and red aprons, which I find of great
advantage to the Society as it attracts the notice of the principal Gentlemen
in the several Counties, whom seem ambitious to attend me at my Prov. Grand
Lodges.
This
is, incidentally, the first mention of Provincial Grand Stewards. Under
Noorthouck's Constitutions of 1784 it was inferred, though not expressly
stated, that Provincial Grand Officers could be appointed on the same scale at
Grand Officers, and wear the same clothing. Dunckerley's `red aprons' were
presumably the same as those of the Grand Stewards.
Dunckerley made freemasonry spectacular. He also collected money, not only for
the General Charity, but for the fund for building a Masonic Hall in Great
Queen Street. In this necessary project, brethren who lived a hundred miles or
so from London displayed a very faint interest. He saw, however, that a fine
spectacle and an elegant repast for the ladies was no bad method of raising
funds.
And he
made freemasonry interesting. He cultivated additional degrees. The Royal Arch
was worked by the `Antients' but was little known to the `Moderns' in the
South of England. He appears as Grand Superintendent in and over 18 Provinces
‑ though that is really as misleading a picture as it would be to describe St
Paul as `Bishop' of all the places which he visited on his missionary
journeys. There was also a degree called the Mark and, at the end of his life,
another known as the Knight Templar. These all added variety to the masonic
scene.
Had it
not been for this man's work, the `Modern' Grand Lodge might quite easily have
been taken over by the `Antients'. And they had no Provincial system.
Dunckerley's example created a demand for Provincial Grand Masters in other
parts of the country. He not only preserved the `Modern' Constitution ‑ he
kept it influential, and indeed enhanced its prestige.
With
elected Provincial Grand Masters (under the original system) or with no
Provincial Grand Masters at all, British freemasonry would not have survived.
But for Lord Moira, the Royal Dukes and other peers, and many Members of
Parliament, the Craft would have succumbed under the Unlawful Societies Act of
1799.
70
`THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' The Union of the Two Grand Lodges, 1813 After the
Union, the new Book of Constitutions was written by William Williams
(Provincial Grand Master for Dorset) in 1815. Provincial Grand Lodge now
assumes recognisable shape. It is to meet once a year. Present and Past
Provincial Grand Officers and the Masters, Past Masters and Wardens of every
lodge are members. It may have a local fund for `charitable and other Masonic
purposes'. The minutes are to be kept. And, as I have said, the clothing is
now defined. Curiously enough there is no specific provision as to the collars
and aprons of Provincial Grand Stewards. These were not defined until 1841.
Hitherto the minutes of Provincial Grand Lodge had been within the lodge
minutes of the lodge to which Provincial Grand Lodge was attached. Cornwall
anticipated the new rule by keeping a separate Provincial Minute Book as early
as 1792, and seem to have been the first Province to have done so. :' ‑z The
new arrangements naturally gave rise to new problems. If, as was now made
clear, the Provincial Grand Officer was an inferior species of Grand Officer,
what were the qualifications for admission to the superior grade? The logical
conclusion was not conceded until 1887 when ‑ apparently under cover of
celebrating the Jubilee ‑ large numbers of Provincial Masons, eg Deputy
Provincial Grand Masters, were at last admitted to Past Rank in Grand Lodge.
A
distressing incident had arisen in Gloucestershire in 1880 at the Installation
of Sir Michael Hicks Beach. The retiring Deputy Provincial Grand Master, G. F.
Newmarch by name, who had toiled with immense zeal for 30 years, had never
been made a Grand Officer. A number of Grand Officers Present and Past
attended the Installation Ceremony and Newmarch, well aware that the
Constitutions stated that a Deputy Provincial Grand Master was invested with
the rank of a Deputy Grand Master within the Province, was amazed to find that
as a Past Deputy he was considered inferior in rank to Past Assistant Grand
Director of Ceremonies. As the Constitutions then stood he seems to have had a
strong case. It took Grand Lodge over sixty years to realise that if
Provincial Grand Officers were to wear less gorgeous clothing than the Grand
Officers, then the leading Provincial Officers must be given rank in Grand
Lodge.
The
new status of Provincial Grand Lodge seems to have given rise to some
unexpected problems at first ‑ as reforms often do. Three Provincial Grand
Masters came to grief through inexperience in presiding over the new species
of assembly‑those for Bristol (1814), Somerset (1819), and Lancashire (1822).
In all three cases the underlying cause was the same ‑ some `difficult'
brother who, feeling that his merits had been insufficiently appreciated,
organised a hostile faction.
Arthur
Chichester of Somerset had made several propositions with regard to the
Byelaws including, however, fines to be inflicted on Provincial Grand Officers
who neglected to attend. None of his proposals was confirmed at the following
Provincial Grand Lodge, and he resigned. In the other two cases the Grand
Registrar was placed in charge whilst accusations against the Provincial Grand
Master were investigated. Goldwyer of Bristol was fully vindicated. But even
so it must have been a most humiliating experience.
THE
EVOLUTION OF THE ENGLISH PROVINCIAL GRAND LODGE 71 William Tucker One
Provincial Grand Master, however, has actually been deposed by the Grand
Master. This was William Tucker, of Coryton Park, Axminster, Provincial Grand
Master for Dorset. His offence was that at a Provincial Grand Lodge at Wareham
on 18 August 1853, he appeared in the clothing of the 33░.
He also delivered an address in which he claimed to have taken away the
reproach of freemasonry being Anti‑Christian. The Ancient and Accepted Rite in
its present form was introduced into England in October 1845 from America.
Tucker, who had been appointed Provincial Grand Master for Dorset in January
1846 was one of the eight brethren who, later in the same year, were elected
to join the original Supreme Council.
I have
always wondered how Tucker committed his crime. The correspondence is however
preserved at Grand Lodge, and from this it appears that he wore his full
clothing as Provincial Grand Master and over it the robe of the 33░.
This answers my question since nowadays, as you know, no robes are worn by
members of that or any other Rose Croix degree. But apparently there was a
robe, and he wore it. Tucker did not argue ‑ he was not given time to do so.
He might have observed that the Constitutions of 1815 and of 1841 refer only
to jewels, though those of 1853 specify `jewel, medal or device'. He could
possibly have pleaded that no mention is made of robes. He may of course have
worn his collar badge, but it is not stated that he did.
On 24
October Tucker admitted that he had committed the offence.
On 30
October, the President of the Board of General Purposes (R. G. Alston) wrote
to the Grand Secretary (W. H. White). He had, he said, long foreseen that a
contest on the pretensions of the 33rd Degree was inevitable‑that it must be
far better to fight the battle now, than when they had proceeded further and
got a firmer hold. In his opinion an enforced resignation would not have so
wholesome an effect as a formal removal, and could not be announced with such
good effect to Grand Lodge. On 10 November William Tucker was accordingly
deposed. Within two years he was dead.
Did
Tucker know what he was doing? Was he really a revolutionary or had he
wandered aimlessly into a crypt full of barrels of gunpowder? We shall never
know the answer. There is an alternative form of masonic government and it is
the one with which our Norwegian friend is familiar. In the Scandinavian
countries the Third Degree does not predominate as it does in the English
speaking world. The Craft is ruled by the highest Christian degree ‑ the 10░
in fact.
But
the date of the episode was 1853. We could have been thrown out of India by
the Mutineers in 1857 in which case our African Empire would probably never
have existed. If England had become a power without colonies, and if Tucker
had been allowed to start a movement (always assuming that he intended to do
so) it was then within the bounds of possibility that English freemasonry
would have developed along Swedish lines ‑ an interesting picture in the
gallery of MightHave‑Beens.
Conclusion Provincial Grand Lodge is an accident. It grew from the appointment
of Provin‑ 72 cial Grand Wardens. The Grand Lodge had Grand Wardens when it
was first formed in 1717. There were Provincial Grand Wardens at Chester in
1725. At York, however, until 1726, there was only a President. Whether the
Chester Wardens were elected in imitation of the Grand Wardens in London, or
whether both were derived from some earlier tradition, I cannot tell.
Grand
Lodge do not seem to have contemplated setting up Provincial Grand Lodges at
the outset ‑ at least there is no mention of them till the Constitutions of
1767. And the Constitutions of 1756 seem to envisage a Provincial Grand Master
acting alone, very much like the Grand Inspectors today. What Desaguliers
encountered on his visit to Chester in 1727 was a fait accompli'.
Given
the modest establishment of a Deputy and Provincial Grand Wardens the rest
followed in logical sequence. Grand Lodge had a Treasurer, Secretary and Sword
Bearer ‑ the Provincial Grand Master had to have them too. The Grand Officers
wore `blue and red aprons'‑ sooner or later the Provincial Grand Officers must
wear them too. This distinction was naturally coveted and the bestower of the
honours was faced with the problem of how to select some without giving
umbrage to the rest. This problem is solved in the smaller‑ but not presumably
in the larger‑ provinces by honouring everyone eligible, thus, as the Kings of
Barataria discovered, defeating the object of the exercise.
The
Provincial Grand Masters who were overcome by the complexity of the office
cannot, I think, have had‑or have taken‑expert advice. This is fortunately
available to every holder of the office today. The tireless and tactful
labours of Deputy and Assistant Provincial Grand Masters and Provincial
Secretaries keep their chief up to the mark, prevent him from getting into
trouble, or get him out of it if he does. Their work will never be recorded in
any published Provincial History. Behold, it is written in the Book of Jasher.
`THE
PRESTONIAN LECTURES' Sir Cuthbert Sharp Freemasonry in the Province of
Durham 1836 Alexander Graham A History of Freemasonry in the Province of
Shropshire 1892 Hamon le Strange History of Freemasonry in Norfolk 1896
John Strachan, OC Northumbrian Masonry 1898 John Armstrong A History of
Freemasonry in Cheshire 1901 J. Littleton & A. C. Powell Freemasonry in
Bristol 1910 George Norman Provincial Grand Lodge of Gloucestershire 1911
E. A. Beesley Freemasonry in Lancashire 1932 E. S. Vincent A Record of
Freemasonry in the Province of Cornwall 1751‑19.59 1960 Wilfred G. Fisher
History of the Provincial Grand Lodge of Somerset 1962 Col. A. J. Kerry,
OBE History of Freemasonry in Oxfordshire 1965 BIBLIOGRAPHY THE EVOLUTION OF
THE ENGLISH PROVINCIAL GRAND LODGE 73 J. R. Rylands The Qrigin of the
Provincial Grand Lodge of Yorkshire (WestRiding) AQC, Ixvi William Waples
Note A QC, lxxv G. Y. Johnson Division of the Masonic Province of Yorkshire
AQC, lxxvi Norman Rogers Note A QC, Ixxvii THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND A
History of the First Hundred Years, 1717‑1817 THE PRESTONIAN LECTURE FOR 1967
THE CELEBRATION IN 1967 of such a unique event as the 250th anniversary of the
founding of the premier Grand Lodge of the world makes it fitting that the
Prestonian Lecture for the year should be devoted to a brief historical survey
of its origin and growth in the first hundred years notwithstanding that so
much has already been said and written on the subject.
FREEMASONRY BEFORE 1717 For how long non‑operative or speculative freemasonry
existed before the advent of its first governing body it is impossible to say;
an exact date can never be assigned to something which has evolved over a long
period of time. Undoubtedly what is now known as free and accepted or
speculative masonry emerged from early operative masonry‑the craft of the
stone mason, the builders or workers in stone. Unlike other crafts and trades
the masons needed to travel the country seeking localities where building was
in progress whence, on the completion of the work, they moved on once more.
For this reason it was seldom possible to organise themselves into static
guilds as did other crafts which, generally, operated in some settled place.
An exception was the London Company of Masons which regulated the operative
craft in and about the City of London. The itinerant masons congregated in
lodges at the building site wherein the work was planned, discipline enforced
and matters affecting the craft discussed. They were also places for
refreshment and relaxation.
THE
OLD CHARGES Mention should perhaps be made here of the `Old Charges'
consisting of a legendary history of the mason craft with a code of
regulations governing the behaviour of craftsmen. In the absence of a central
or controlling body these `Charges' were a kind of binding force for the
craft. Many versions are in existence today the earliest being that known as
the Regius Poem (sometimes called the Halliwell MS) written about the end of
the fourteenth century (c 1390) and now in the British Museum. Another is the
Cooke MS of the early fifteenth century (c 1410). The third oldest is the
Grand Lodge MS No 1 and dated 1583. A lodge of mason craftsmen fortunate
enough to own a version of these Old Charges would have considered it a
treasured possession enabling it to enjoy a measure of continuity. The Ancient
Charges known today are their counterparts, many of the individual charges
being reminiscent of those read to our predecessors. They form one of the
closest links between the operative masons of yesterday and the speculative
freemasons of today.
74 THE
GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND 75 THE LONDON COMPANY OF MASONS Whereas the travelling
masons assembled in lodges near their work the London Company was an
established and settled guild of craftsmen founded in the City before the year
1375 (Conder) and some masonic scholars believe that much of the framework of
our masonry of today was inherited from that Company. Certainly its mode of
government, its coat of arms, its system of accepting non‑operatives into a
lodge and probably some of its esoteric character were adopted by Grand Lodge.
Conder, author of the standard history of the Company, believed that the
Company included a lodge into which persons in no way connected with the
building trade were `accepted', a necessary qualification for non‑operatives
before being admitted to the Company's livery. The earliest reference to
acceptance into masonry in this way is the year 1621.
EARLY
NON‑OPERATIVE MASONS Elias Ashmole, the distinguished antiquary, recorded that
he was, with others, made a freemason at Warrington in Lancashire in 1646.
Another antiquary, Randle Holme, a contemporary of Ashmole, and himself a
speculative, refers to the words and signs of a freemason in a MS note written
between 1670 and 1675, attached to an early version of the Old Charges (Harleian
MS No 2054). A third seventeenth‑century reference to the craft is that made
by Dr Robert Plot, the historian and antiquary, who mentions the Society of
Freemasons and the ceremony of their admission in his Natural History of
Staffordshire, 1686. Yet another reference is to be found in John Aubrey's
Natural History of Wiltshire, written between 1656 and 1691. Ashmole, 36 years
after his admission into the Warrington Lodge, recorded in his diary that, in
1682, he was summoned `to appear at a lodge to be held . . . at Masons Hall,
London'.
A
lodge at Swalwell had a history from the beginning of the eighteenth century
and another is known to have met in York in 1705‑6, both probably mainly
operative lodges. There was also an operatives' lodge at Alnwick with records
from 1701.
Grand
Lodge minutes, 24 June 1731, refer to a Henry Pritchard as a mason of upwards
of 40 years who was, therefore, admitted in c 1690, although the minutes of 15
December 1730 refer to him as being thirty years a mason ‑ whichever was
correct he was admitted before the formation of Grand Lodge. Again, 2 March
1732, there is mention of Edward Hall, made a mason in Chichester 36 years
previously and therefore admitted in 1696.
THE
FORMATION OF GRAND LODGE Enough has been said to indicate the existence of
numerous lodges throughout the country and that non‑operatives ‑ the gentlemen
masons as they are jometimes called‑were being accepted into craft lodges in
various parts of England in the seventeenth century, a practice which
continued into the early eighteenth. There is even more evidence of similar
practice in Scotland. At the turn of the century many lodges had lost their
operative character and it was four of such lodges that agreed to band
together and form a Grand Lodge. The event has been recounted on innumberable
occasions but for the sake of completeness and 76 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES'
continuity it must be retold here. There is no contemporary account of this
historic event but Anderson in his second Book of Constitutions (1738) records
that, in 1716, a few lodges in London thought fit to cement under a Grand
Master as the centre of union and harmony. The four lodges were those that
met: at the Goose and Gridiron Ale‑house in St Paul's Churchyard (now the
Lodge of Antiquity, No 2); at the Crown Ale‑house in Parker's Lane, near Drury
Lane (no longer in existence); at the Apple Tree Tavern in Charles Street,
Covent Garden (now the Lodge of Fortitude and Old Cumberland, No 12) and at
the Rummer and Grapes in Channel Row, Westminster (now the Royal Somerset
House and Inverness Lodge, No 4). They and some old brothers held a meeting at
the Apple Tree and, having placed in the chair the oldest Master Mason present
(who was at the time the Master of a lodge) they agreed to constitute
themselves into a Grand Lodge pro tempore and forthwith `revived the Quarterly
Communication'.
THE
FIRST GRAND MASTER The use of the word 'revived' has been the subject of
conjecture because, in spite of Anderson's legendary history, there is no
record or suggestion of any previous Grand Lodge. The meeting also resolved to
hold an annual assembly and feast and to choose a Grand Master from among
themselves until such time as `they should have the Honour of a Noble Brother
at their Head'. Accordingly, an assembly and feast was held on 24 June 1717,
and, by a majority, Mr Antony Sayer, gentleman, was elected Grand Master of
Masons and invested. He appointed Capt Joseph Elliot and Mr Jacob Lamball,
carpenter, Grand Wardens. The assembly then congratulated him and paid him
homage. He commanded the Master and Wardens of lodges to meet the Grand
Officers every quarter in Communication at a place that he should appoint in
the summons. And so Grand Lodge was born.
Anderson records regular annual assemblies at which a Grand Master was chosen
for each ensuing year. Beginning with only four lodges the new Grand Lodge
steadily improved its status by the admission of noblemen and other persons of
`quality'. Its jurisdiction was extended by the adherence of more of the
self‑constituted lodges and by the constitution of new lodges, so much so
that, in 1721, requiring more room, it was proposed that the next assembly and
feast should be held at the Stationers' Hall.
THE
BOOK OF CONSTITUTIONS The second Grand Master, George Payne, in 1718: Desired
any Brethren to bring to the Grand Lodge any old Writings and Records
concerning Masons and Masonry in order to spew the Usages of antient Times:
and this Year several old copies of the Gothic Constitutions [i.e., the Old
Charges] were produced and collated.
Thus
steps were taken for the production of the first Book of Constitutions which
Anderson prepared and published in 1723. That year also saw the commencement
of recorded minutes, namely, those for 24 June, which continued until 1868
(thereafter only printed minutes have been maintained). The first minute is
THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND 77 devoted to matters relating to the Constitutions
and one of the resolutions carried provided: That it is not in the Power of
any person, or Body of men, to make any Alteration or Innovation in the Body
of Masonry without the Consent first obtained of the Annual Grand Lodge which
bears a familiar ring today.
DEVELOPMENT IN THE EARLY YEARS At first the jurisdiction of Grand Lodge was
confined to the cities of London and Westminster and adjacent localities, in
fact the earliest Engraved List of lodges, 1723‑24, contains a note of 52,
only one of which was beyond the metropolis, viz at Richmond, Surrey. Means of
communication were slow and it took time for the founding of Grand Lodge to
become known and acknowledged. Some lodges in the country were reluctant to
recognise a governing body in London, about which little was known, and so
lose their independence, although a study of the 1723 Constitutions reveals
how little Grand Lodge controlled or dictated the internal management of
private lodges. The first provincial lodges to appear in the list (1724) ‑
apart from those situated near London at Edgware, Acton, Fulham and Brentford
‑ were at Reading, Bath, Bristol, Norwich, Chichester, Chester, Gosport and
Carmarthen, all of which appear to have been founded in 1724. The first lodge
to be formed overseas was at Gibraltar, known to be in existence on 10 May
1727, when the health of the brethren thereof was drunk in Grand Lodge
although the formal deputation to constitute it was not approved until 9 March
1729. In the meantime the Duke of Wharton (Grand Master 1722‑23) had set up a
lodge in Madrid in 1728, which was regularised 27 March 1729. Tradition has it
that the Earl of Derwentwater established a lodge in Paris in 1725 but nothing
is known of it in the Grand Lodge records of the period. On 27 December 1728,
a petition was received from brethren at Fort William, Bengal, for a lodge
there, the constitution of which was authorised 6 February 1729/30. Some early
lodges were of short duration but others were being firmly established ‑ by
the end of 1724 there were 61.
CONSTITUTION OF LODGES Before the existence of Grand Lodge and for some years
after 1717 no formal documentary authority for the constitution of a lodge was
deemed necessary. Lodges were probably formed by brethren joining together in
meetings who then regarded themselves as a lodge, or by a lodge splitting into
separate gatherings or by the possession of a copy of the Old Charges as has
already been suggested. After Grand Lodge became firmly established new lodges
were formed by the issue of 'dispensations' or 'deputations' authorising some
well‑known brother to constitute a number of brethren into a lodge. The
Antients Grand Lodge (founded in 1751) constituted the lodges by deputing a
distinguished brother to open and hold a Grand Lodge at the place concerned
for a number of hours, usually three, and no more. The date of the first
English Warrant of Constitution is unknown but by the 1750s Warrants were
being regularly issued. It was sometimes the 78 'THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES'
practice to sell or'assign' a lodge Warrant to a brother or brethren wishing
to form a lodge but with the prestige of an earlier number ‑ a masonic offence
today, one may hasten to add. After the passing of the Unlawful Societies Act
in 1799 the formation of new lodges was impossible for a time and it became
the practice to re‑issue Warrants of erased or defunct lodges so as to permit
the establishment of new lodges. Although existing lodges were safeguarded
under the Act it was not until the passing of the Seditious Meetings Act,
1817, that exemption from both was secured.
OTHER
GRAND LODGES Within 20 years of the founding of the premier Grand Lodge three
others came into being. First, the old lodge in the City of York constituted
itself a Grand Lodge in 1725, under the title of Grand Lodge of All England.
After a chequered existence it finally disappeared in about 1792. During its
lifetime it constituted some 11 lodges and one other Grand Lodge. Secondly,
the Grand Lodge of Ireland was formed in 1725 and, thirdly, the Grand Lodge of
Scotland in 1736.
IRREGULAR MASONS AND THE `EXPOSURES' As early as 1724 there is evidence that,
in spite of the existence of Grand Lodge and many regular lodges clandestine
masons, some calling themselves honorary masons, were being made and irregular
meetings held. The frequent use of the expression 'regular lodges' in the
Grand Lodge records pre‑supposes that there were numerous 'irregular' ones. In
1735 the Grand Master took notice of the 'making [of] extranious [sic] Masons
in a private and clandestine manner, upon small and unworthy Considerations'
and measures were enacted against those so admitted.
Irregularity in the making of masons in the middle and later 1720s was
undoubtedly stimulated by the publication of a number of so‑called exposures,
the first, A Mason's Examination, in 1723. The most successful of such
publications was Samuel Prichard's Masonry Dissected which appeared in 1730.
It was referred to in Grand Lodge (15 December 1730) by the Deputy Grand
Master with indignation and 'as a foolish thing not to be regarded'. In spite
of being so described Prichard's book went through many editions in the
following years and was used as a basis for similar works. It also proved
invaluable to brethren as a book of ritual ‑ hitherto they had had to rely
mainly on ritual handed down by word of mouth.
ELECTION AND INSTALLATION OF GRAND MASTERS Before the year 1720 Grand Masters
were selected by the Masters and Wardens of Lodges assembled in Grand Lodge,
the Grand Officers, Stewards and others having previously withdrawn. A change
was made in 1720 when it was agreed that the outgoing Grand Master would
propose his successor for approval by Grand Lodge.
The
installation of a Grand Master in the 1720s and 1730s was attended by great
ceremonial both in public before the meeting of Grand Lodge and in private
after dinner. The former consisted of an impressive cavalcade of coaches and
chariots THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND 79 carrying the Grand Officers, with
others on foot or horseback, which escorted the Grand Master elect from his
house to the Hall. The procession round the dinner table included the Grand
Officers and Grand Secretary with his bag and others carrying the Great
Lights, the Book of Constitutions on a cushion, and the Sword of State. The
procession escorting Lord Weymouth to his installation on 17 April 1735 was
accompanied by 'hautboys, trumpets, french horns and kettle drums playing'. In
1747 Grand Lodge ordered that public processions should cease.
GRAND
OFFICERS For many years there were only four Grand Officers, namely, the Grand
Master, the Deputy Grand Master and Wardens. The Secretary was not designated
Grand Secretary until 1737 and the Treasurer Grand Treasurer until 1753 (by
resolution of 14 June) although the latter was not so shown in the minutes
until 1758. The first office holder (other than those mentioned) to be
appointed was a Sword Bearer in 1733 who was, at the time, regarded as an
Officer of the Grand Masterhe was first described as Grand Sword Bearer in
1768. Other Grand Offices were created in later years‑ Grand Chaplain, 1775;
Grand Architect, 1776; and Grand Portrait Painter, 1776. The Antients Grand
Lodge (to which reference is made later) first appointed a Grand Pursuivant
and a Grand Tyler in 1752, a Grand Chaplain in 1772 and a Grand Sword Bearer
in 1788. The other Grand offices known today were not created until the Union
in 1813 and after.
EARLY
JEWELS AND REGALIA Nothing is known of the jewels and regalia worn in the
early years of Grand Lodge, the first description occurring in the minutes of
24 June 1727. It was then laid down that Masters and Wardens of lodges should
wear the jewels of masonry hanging from a white ribbon, the Master to wear the
square, the Senior Warden the level and the Junior Warden the plumbrule. A
portrait believed to be of Sir James Thornhill, FRS and Sergeant Painter to
Queen Anne, Senior Grand Warden in 1729, shows him wearing a level suspended
from a light blue ribbon and an apron edged with the same colour. On 17 March
1731, it was ordered that none but the Grand Master, his Deputy and Wardens
should `wear Jewels in Gold or Gilt pendant to blue Ribbons about their Necks
and white Leather Aprons lined with blue Silk'. It was also laid down that
[Grand] Stewards should wear aprons lined with red silk and those of Masters
lined with white silk.
RITUAL
In the matter of ritual there is such a dearth of material of the seventeenth
and early eighteenth centuries that little is known of the subject. Anderson
tantalisingly records that in 1720.
several very valuable Manuscripts . . . concerning the Fraternity, their
Lodges, Regulations, Charges, Secrets and Usages, were too hastily burnt by
some scrupulous Brothers, that those Papers might not fall into strange Hands.
If it
had not been for such scruples there might still be in existence today
something further to enlighten us on questions of ritual. A little may be
gleaned 80 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' from versions of the Old Charges but
early catechisms and printed `exposures' of the time are the real sources. The
subject is too large to be considered here except to mention that in the early
part of the century there were only two degrees and that the ritual was
catechismic. The trigradal system evolved during the 1720s and by the end of
the decade three degrees were, generally, being worked in lodges. There was no
ceremony of installation as it is known today.
CONSOLIDATION The decade beginning 1720 was a period of consolidation.
Freemasonry was attracting to its ranks persons from all walks of life ‑
clergy, physicians and surgeons, lawyers, the army, actors, writers and
painters as well as tradesmen and artisans. Peers joined in some numbers. The
first noble Grand Master was John, 2nd Duke of Montagu, elected in 1721, and
even envisaged in 1717 when the first Grand Master was installed. Montagu was
followed by two barons, two Earls and four Dukes, the last of whom in the
decade was Thomas, 8th Duke of Norfolk, 1729‑31, not a very active holder of
the office but he is remembered by his gift of the Sword of State in 1731,
borne before the Grand Master in Grand Lodge to this day. On the same occasion
he gave ú20 to the Charity and a new Grand Lodge minute book.
Not
only were the nobility attracted to freemasonry but so were members of the
Royal family. According to Anderson, Frederick Lewis, Prince of Wales, was
initiated at an occasional lodge held at Kew Palace on 5 November 1737, with
the Rev Dr Desaguliers, cleric, philosopher, scientist and a Past Grand
Master, as Master. He thus became the first English Royal initiate but 30
years were to elapse before another joined the Order.
It is
safe to say that in 13 years the new body had firmly established itself as a
`centre of union' and its authority had become widely acknowledged.
Freemasonry had spread rapidly to many parts of the country as well as to a
number of places overseas ‑ a quite remarkable achievement ‑ and the growth of
new lodges continued. By the end of the 1720s 69 lodges were recorded. The
year 1732 was an outstanding one in that no fewer than 32 lodges were
constituted. The extent of the expansion is reflected by two references in the
minutes. On 21 November of that year the Deputy Grand Master `observing that
the Number of Lodges are very much increased proposed that the Committee of
Charity shall be enlarged'. The Junior Grand Warden on the same occasion said
that the `Number of Lodges are so very much encreased that . . . some
restraint ought to be put upon making any more' unless each should pay five
guineas to the General Charity. A year later (13 December 1733), a complaint
having been made by a number of lodges that the minutes and proceedings of
Grand Lodge had not been sent to them, the Deputy Grand Master observed that
the expense of sending minutes to every lodge had become a charge too
burdensome ‑ a further indication of growth.
ADMINISTRATION AND APPOINTMENTS OF PROVINCIAL GRAND MASTERS During the 1720s
an administration was taking shape. The first Secretary of Grand Lodge,
William Cowper, was appointed in 1723. A Treasurer, Nathaniel THE GRAND LODGE
OF ENGLAND 81 Blackerby, was appointed in 1727, the year in which the
Secretary and Treasurer were each allowed a clerk. The first Book of
Constitutions was prepared by Anderson and published in 1723. A Charity Fund
was established and a Committee appointed to manage its affairs (1724). The
first Provincial Grand Masters were appointed, namely, Col Francis Columbine,
Chester (1725); Sir Edward Mansell, Bt, South Wales (1726); Capt Hugh
Warburton, Chester and North Wales (1727); James Prescot, Warwickshire (1728);
Capt Ralph Farr Winter for East‑India (1729) and Daniel Cox, Provinces of New
York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania in America (1730). The appointment of a
Provincial Grand Master did not imply the establishment of a Provincial Grand
Lodge ‑ his duties were intended to be supervisory of freemasonry in his
territory.
COMMITTEE OF CHARITY The Committee of Charity, to which reference has just
been made, was later enlarged and its functions extended; for example, in
1733, it was found that business before Grand Lodge was increasing to such an
extent that it was impossible to go through it on one night and it was agreed
that business not despatched at a Quarterly Communication should be referred
to the Committee of Charity. As time passed it exercised many general
functions and became, in fact, the predecessor of the Board of General
Purposes which, with various other boards and committees, was established at
the Union in 1813.
SECOND
BOOK OF CONSTITUTIONS In February 1735, Anderson reported that copies of the
Book of Constitutions were exhausted and, at the same time, complained of
piracy of his work by William Smith, author of the Pocket Companion for
Freemasons (1735). A new edition was prepared and published in 1738. In
addition to recording changes in the Regulations since 1723 the new edition
contained a much extended legendary history and particulars of meetings of
Grand Lodge from 1717 (including the historic meeting when Grand Lodge was
formed) and so bridging the gap from that date to the commencement of the
first minute book in June 1723. The Regulations of 1723 contained a number of
a procedural nature but the first formal Rules of Procedure to be observed in
Grand Lodge were laid down in 1736, probably as a result of a'great want of
Order that had sometimes happened in the Debates' to which the Deputy Grand
Master drew attention on 24 June 1735.
James
Anderson, whose name will always be associated with the Book of Constitutions,
was a Presbyterian Minister, a Master of Arts and Doctor of Divinity and JGW
in 1722. He died in 1739 and was buried in Bunhill Fields Cemetery, London. A
contemporary account of the funeral (London Daily Post) recorded that the
brethren attending `in a most dismal posture, lifted their hands, sigh'd and
struck their aprons three times in honour of the deceased'.
A
PERIOD OF DECLINE The steady growth of the first 20 years of Grand Lodge was
arrested in the 1740s and 1750s. A number of unfortunate factors built up over
a period of time to 82 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' create serious deterioration
in the affairs of the craft, in its Grand Lodge and in the popularity of
freemasonry, resulting in the division of the craft into two opposing camps.
Let us look at some of these factors.
(i)
The increasing number of irregular masons and the influx of Irish, Scottish
and continental freemasons in the early 1730s, many trying to gain admission
into the regular lodges, coupled with the publication of so‑called
,exposures', caused Grand Lodge grave concern. In an endeavour to cope with
the problems involved it took a step which had far reaching effects, quite
unforseen at the time. It decided to change the modes of recognition by
transposing them in the first and second degrees so that `irregular' masons
would be more easily detected. Many in the craft felt that Grand Lodge
neglected, or at least did not encourage, observance of the established or
pure masonic ritual ‑ exactly what that was, there being no established
ritual, is uncertain.
(ii)
The availability of `exposures', particularly Prichard's Masonry Dissected,
enabled the profane to learn something of the ritual and ceremonies.
Possession of such information was enough for some unscrupulous per sons to
advertise the `making' of freemasons for paltry considerations, for example,
at a fee of 2/6d. and, in one instance, in exchange for a leg of mutton. These
publications also encouraged a number of public burlesques and processions of
mock masons. Ridicule, a powerful weapon, did much to bring the craft into
disfavour.
(iii)
Some Grand Masters during the unhappy period showed little or no interest in
the craft and were quite ineffectual in the high office they held. Again,
there was a general apathy on the part of Grand Lodge itself. Regular
Quarterly Communications were dropped ‑ in some years only two or three were
held and in each of the years 1746, 1749 and 1750 there was only one meeting.
Apathy was not confined to the Grand Lodge. Many lodges did not bother to send
representatives to meetings of Grand Lodge and were, in consequence, erased.
Owing to the number of lodges in existence in the larger towns, many were too
weak to be viable. In this connection the Grand Master on 24 June 1742 `took
notice of the great Decay of many Lodges in a great Measure occasioned as he
apprehended by the Multiplicity of them'.
(iv)
There was bad feeling between the Grand Lodges of England and Ireland. (v) The
issue of the first Papal Bull against freemasonry in 1738 and the persecution
of freemasons on the continent were having detrimental effects. Although the
Papal Bull was not promulgated in England for many years it did affect the
craft here in that a number of prominent freemasons resigned the Order but no
reference to it occurs in the Grand Lodge minutes. Abroad, its effects were
more widespread.
GRAND
LODGE OF THE ANTIENTS Such a state of affairs created fertile ground for the
establishment of a rival Grand Lodge which came about in 1751 when six lodges
agreed to establish such a body.
THE
GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND 83 The purists as well as the malcontents were soon
attracted to its ranks. Unattached masons as well as many Irish joined. The
newly created Grand Lodge claimed that it practised a more ancient and purer
form of freemasonry and thereupon named the older Grand Lodge the `Moderns'
because of its neglect of the old forms and for recent innovations. It always
maintained this view. For example, in 1775, in a memorial to the Grand Lodge
of Scotland the premier Grand Lodge was accused of `swerving from the original
system of masonry'. Members of the new Grand Lodge called themselves the `Antients'
(almost invariably spelt in this manner) which might imply that it was the
older body. The unfortunate use of these terms has caused great confusion ever
since and, clearly to differentiate between the two, it is more logical to
refer to the earlier body as the premier Grand Lodge.
`ANTIENT'
RITUAL Not all the lodges under the jurisdiction of the premier Grand Lodge
adopted the ritualistic changes. Many of them, although loyal to their Grand
Lodge, remained true to the old tradition and continued to practise the old
ritual. To describe such masons, `Modern' in loyalty but `Antient' in
practice, Heron Lepper coined the expression `traditionar' a most apt and
descriptive word. Some lodges even went so far as to obtain Warrants from both
Grand Lodges.
The
spread of `Antient' or traditional ritual throughout the country and overseas
was due, in large measure, to movements of military lodges. Such lodges were
constituted in Regiments of the British Army by means of ambulatory Warrants
issued by the Grand Lodge of Ireland from 1732, 18 years before the first
military lodge was formed under the Grand Lodge of England. As the traditional
ritual was in use in Ireland it was this ritual which the majority of military
lodges took with them.
CHARGES AGAINST THE MODERNS As well as the charge of making innovations in the
ritual the Antients also accused the so‑called Moderns of, inter alia, de‑Christianising
the ritual, ignoring the Saints John days and discouraging the esoteric
character of the Installation ceremony. Another important difference between
the two was the attitude towards the Royal Arch, at this time beginning to
take firm roots. The premier Grand Lodge refused to recognise it (although
many of its members took the degree as individuals), whilst the Antients
actively supported it by encouraging its conferment in its craft lodges.
That
the significance of the Saints John days was ignored by the premier Grand
Lodge cannot be denied. On 20 May 1725, the Grand Lodge ordered that the
Festival be held on St John the Evangelist's day and not on St John the
Baptist's day. On 25 November 1729, it being inconvenient to have a feast on
the following St John's day, it was ordered that it be `adjourned' to another
date. It was also deferred or postponed on other occasions and it seems that
the last feast to be held actually on a St John's day was that on 27 December
1728, with the exception of the meeting held in 1813 when the Articles of
Union were signed. When the annual Festival was omitted entirely the Grand
Master sometimes invited 84 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' members of Grand Lodge
to breakfast or dine with him in town, in Hampstead, Putney or elsewhere but
these informal occasions were not minuted as were the Festivals.
GROWTH
OF THE ANTIENTS From the earliest record of the new Grand Lodge (known as
Morgan's Register) it appears it first met on 17 July 1751, when a committee
was appointed to draw up a set of Rules and Orders. The first recorded minutes
are those of 5 February 1752, shown as Transactions of the Grand Committee ‑
the title Grand Lodge was not used until December 1753, although the Rules and
Orders of 1751 use the term throughout. John Morgan, first Grand Secretary,
held office only until February 1752, when Laurence Dermott, an Irish mason,
was appointed. Painter, winemerchant, self‑educated, he became the moving
spirit in the Grand Lodge and its early success was undoubtedly due to the
energies of this extraordinary man. Two and a half years elapsed before a
Grand Master, Robert Turner, was appointed. Like its older rival, the premier
Grand Lodge, the new body was anxious to have a noble Grand Master at its head
and in 1756 the Earl of Blesington (a past Grand Master of Ireland) was
appointed. In 1760 he was followed by the 6th Earl of Kellie (later Grand
Master of Scotland). The first of the Atholls (also Grand Masters of
Scotland), the 3rd Duke, was appointed in 1771 to be followed by his son, the
4th Duke, from 1775 to 1781 and again from 1791 to 1813. The long reign of the
Atholls ‑ a total period of 33 years ‑ earned the Antients the additional name
of `Atholl Masons'.
Apart
from the appointment of a noble Grand Master the year 1756 was an important
one for the Antients. Its first Book of Constitutions was published and the
lodges warranted, together with the six founder lodges, reached a total of 59,
an indication of its fairly rapid growth. The Book of Constitutions was
compiled by Dermott and published under the curious title of Ahiman Rezon or
help to a Brother, much of its contents being based on Anderson.
EFFECT
OF THE ANTIENTS ON THE MODERNS The premier Grand Lodge did its best to ignore
the new body. The first implied reference in the minutes to its existence
occurred on 20 March 1755, when a complaint was considered that Lodge No 94
and other members were meeting at Ben Jonson's Head under the denomination of
Ancient masons who considered themselves independent of Grand Lodge and who
tended to introduce `Novelties and Conceits of opiniotative [sic] Persons and
to create a Belief that there have been other Societies of Masons more Ancient
than that of this Ancient and Honourable Society'. The lodge was erased.
Earlier, in 1753, other measures were taken to tighten control over the making
of masons it being ordered that no lodge should make a mason without due
inquiry into his character, neither should a lodge make and raise the same
brother at one and the same meeting. As a further means of identification it
was later decided that Certificates granted to a brother should, in future, be
sealed and signed by the Grand Secretary for which a copper plate was engraved
and vellum ordered. Hitherto such certificates, issued by individual lodges,
had been handwritten.
THE
GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND 85 The earlier difficulties experienced by the premier
Grand Lodge were increased enormously by the development and growth in
popularity of its rival, which by 1777 had issued or re‑issued over 200
Warrants. On 7 April of that year the premier Grand Lodge ordered that:
persons calling themselves Ancient Masons and now assembling in England or
elsewhere under the patronage of the Duke of Athol are not be considered as
Masons.
Antagonism between the two systems is further exemplified by the fact that it
became common practice for each Grand Lodge to require brethren under the
other's constitution to be re‑made before being admitted either as members of,
or visitors to, its own lodges. It was in this connection that a number of
lodges `played safe' by obtaining a Warrant or other authority to meet from
both Grand Lodges.
Apart
from the Antient masons the irregular making of masons continued and the
premier Grand Lodge decided to increase fees for initiation and the issue of
new Warrants, presumably to `raise the tone'.
ERASURE OF LODGES Lodges continued to default in their payments and returns
and, as a result, were erased from the Roll. That internal disputes disrupted
lodges is abundantly clear from the minutes of the Committee of Charity which,
on many occasions, it was called upon to resolve. Dissension within the lodges
and default by lodges in sending dues was not confined to the one Grand Lodge.
The minutes of the Antients and of their Stewards Lodge reveal the existence
of similar problems and difficulties. The latter half of the century saw much
strife and dissension.
ATTEMPTED INCORPORATION OF GRAND LODGE A matter which probably caused more
bitterness than any other was the attempted Incorporation of the premier Grand
Lodge, proposed by the Duke of Beaufort (Grand Master, 1767‑71). The purpose
behind the proposal was to strengthen Grand Lodge, as a legally constituted
Corporation, in its fight against the Antients. Although first suggested by
Lord Ferrers (Grand Master 1762‑63) it was Beaufort, in 1768, who pressed the
matter in the Committee of Charity and before Grand Lodge, finally securing
approval by the latter in October 1768. At the same time it was agreed to open
a fund for the building of a Hall and to institute a new scale of fees and
payments. The project for Incorporation soon ran into trouble in both London
and the country. One lodge, the Caledonian (then No 325) went so far as to
enter a caveat against the proposal, an action which brought upon it the grave
displeasure of Grand Lodge. On 28 October 1769, it was moved that the lodge be
erased but the Master, being present, publicly asked pardon of Grand Lodge and
the offence was pardoned. The Master, however, the affair still rankling in
his mind, behaved in so truculent a manner at later meetings of the Committee
of Charity and of Grand Lodge that he was expelled the Order.
So
many lodges were against the scheme that the idea of a Royal Charter was
dropped in Grand Lodge but in 1772 a Bill with the same object was introduced
into Parliament. Although it received first and second Readings it was
ultimately 86 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' withdrawn. No further attempts at
Incorporation were made but the resulting ill‑will lived on.
RELATIONS WITH IRELAND AND SCOTLAND The early coolness between the premier
Grand Lodge and Ireland also developed between England and Scotland which
regarded the Antients as the Grand Lodge of England, a fact borne out by
correspondence in 1775 between the Grand Lodge of Scotland and William Preston
of the Moderns. In one of his letters to Edinburgh, Preston regretted that
Scotland had been so grossly imposed upon as to have established a
correspondence with an irregular body of men who falsely assume the
appellation of Antient Masons, and I still more sensibly lament that this
imposition has likewise received the countenance of the Grand Lodge of
Ireland.
One of
the reasons for the close affinity between Ireland, Scotland and the Antients
was that Irish and Scottish ritual was more antient than modern. Although
Scotland appeared on occasions to adopt a neutral attitude towards the
differences in England the appointment of the Dukes of Atholl, later Grand
Masters of Scotland, as Grand Masters of the Antients undoubtedly swung its
sympathies towards the GL Antients rather than to the premier Grand Lodge.
That
the Antients over the years had grossly misrepresented the status and work of
the premier Grand Lodge, at least to the Scottish brethren, is revealed in
exchanges between Lord Moira, Acting Grand Master of the Moderns, and the
Grand Lodge of Scotland in 1806. Moira reported (12 February 1806) that, on a
recent visit to the Scottish Grand Lodge, he had taken the opportunity of
explaining the extent and importance of the premier Grand Lodge and the origin
and situation of those Masons in England who met under the authority of the
Duke of Athol.
The
brethren of the Scottish Grand Lodge expressed to Moira that, until then they
had been greatly misinformed of the circumstances having always been led to
think that the Grand Lodge of the Moderns was of recent date and of no
magnitude but being now thoroughly convinced of their error they were desirous
that the strictness union and most intimate communication should subsist
between the premier Grand Lodge and the Grand Lodge of Scotland.
THE
FIRST HALL AND THE HALL COMMITTEE The premier Grand Lodge had met in taverns
and Livery Company Halls since 1717 and the need for a permanent home became
progressively urgent. Mention has already been made that the building of a
Hall was mooted at the same time as Incorporation in 1768 but there was little
progress until the appointment of a Hall Committee in 1773. After considering
several sites, including the Old Playhouse in Portugal Street and one in Fleet
Street, premises in Great Queen Street were acquired in 1774 for conversion
and rebuilding. The foundation stone of the Hall was laid on 1 May 1775. It
took one year to build and was dedicated and opened in the May following. The
Hall Committee continued in being until 1813, it chief THE GRAND LODGE OF
ENGLAND 87 purpose being to watch over the maintenance of the Hall, its
furnishing and fittings, letting for outside functions, etc, but it did, on
occasions, deal with matters not normally within its purview, including the
publication of an Appendix to the Book of Constitutions and a Calendar in 1775
and the issue of Noorthouck's edition of the Book of Constitutions in 1784.
Extraordinary as it may now seem this Committee on 24 April 1777, by
dispensation. initiated, passed and raised two gentlemen engaged as performers
for the anniversary concert in 1778.
ATTEMPTS AT RECONCILIATION BETWEEN THE GRAND LODGES The division of the craft
into two Grand Lodge systems in the eighteenth century, each following its own
tradition, with differing rituals, each refusing to recognise the other or its
members, each taking every opportunity to decry their opponents, might have
brought down the whole edifice of freemasonry. Fortunately, before irreparable
harm was done, moderate men on both sides believed reconciliation was possible
and essential for the good of the Order. Active moves towards a union were
spread over a period of more than 20 years before it was effected. As early as
the 1760s however, according to Heron Lepper, efforts were made by Lord
Blayney (Grand Master of the premier Grand Lodge, 1764‑66) to restore the
ancient ritual in his Grand Lodge. Blayney was a 'traditioner' as was his
successor, the Duke of Beaufort (1767‑71) and Lepper credits the former with
having set the course which led to Union in 1813. During Blayney's Grand
Mastership Laurence Dermott published the second edition of his Book of
Constitutions, Ahiman Rezon, which contained a bitter and somewhat spiteful
attack on the premier Grand Lodge.
The
appointment of Lord Moira (afterwards first Marquess of Hastings, KG) as
Acting Grand Master during the Prince of Wales' Grand Mastership of the
premier Grand Lodge (1790‑1813) was a turning point in the affairs of the
craft. A moderate and diplomatist, Moira probably did more than any other to
smooth the way towards reconciliation. To two others must also be given a
share of the honours, the Duke of Sussex and his brother the Duke of Kent. The
latter held appointments at various times under both Grand Lodges and was,
therefore, sufficiently broadminded to understand the problems involved and to
attempt their resolution. During his military duties in Canada he held the
office of Provincial Grand Master of Lower Canada under the Antients. A period
of duty in Quebec ended in January 1794, and on his departure from the
Province an address was presented to him, signed by the Deputy Grand Masters
of both jurisdictions, the Moderns and the Antients, in which the hope was
expressed that under the conciliating influence of Your Royal Highness the
fraternity in general of Free Masons . . . will soon be united, thus
indicating that Kent's desire for and work towards a union was well known. In
his reply the Duke said you may trust that my utmost efforts shall be exerted
that the much wished for Union of the whole Fraternity of Masons may be
effected.
The
pity of it is that such worthy aims were frustrated for a number of years by
the actions or inaction of others.
88
'THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' In 1797 there was a slight softening on the part of
the Grand Lodge of the Antients in its rigid attitude towards 'modern masons'
which it had consistently refused to acknowledge. On 6 December of that year
it ordered that when any such mason was to be registered its Grand Secretary
should 'request the sight and Inspection of the Grand Lodge Certificate of
such Modern Mason' before entering the same in the Antient's Grand Lodge
books. By so ordering that Grand Lodge acknowledged the fact that there was
another Grand Lodge which issued certificates and which the Antients were
willing to accept or at least inspect.
On the
same day it was also resolved to appoint a Committee to meet one that might be
appointed by the Moderns and 'with them to effect an Union'. How such a
resolution came about is quite unknown; there is no amplification in the
minutes, neither is there any indication that the premier Grand Lodge had
appointed at about the same time a similar Committee nor had it suggested such
a move.
SET‑BACKS IN RECONCILIATION In 1801 and 1802 action by the premier Grand Lodge
in the matter of irregular masons and reaction by the Antients undoubtedly
postponed any hope of reconciliation. Thomas Harper, Deputy Grand Master of
the Antients and a prominent member of that Grand Lodge for many years, having
held the offices of Senior Grand Warden and joint Grand Secretary, was also a
freemason under the premier Grand Lodge. In April 1801, a complaint came
before the premier Grand Lodge against a number of brethren for having
participated in the making of irregular masons. Amongst those accused was
Thomas Harper, who, as a Modern mason, was called upon to justify himself. He
duly appeared before the Committee of Charity and the Grand Lodge, and was
requested to renounce his connection with irregular lodges. It was an
impossible request with which to comply and he asked for time to consider the
matter and to consult with others in the hope of terminating the differences
which had so long subsisted amongst masons. This was an admirable opportunity
of working towards the common goal and steps were taken accordingly.
Unfortunately the premier Grand Lodge appeared to be in something of a hurry
and events did not move quickly enough for it. Harper was again taken to task
but his answers not proving satisfactory the premier Grand Lodge, on 9
February 1803, expelled him. Some hard things were said by both sides. A kind
of 'open letter' from Robert Leslie, Grand Secretary of the Antients, to the
brethren was printed and circulated with the minutes of 27 December 1802. It
mentioned 'spurious societies' which may not necessarily have been aimed at
the premier Grand Lodge but reference was also made to departures from the
purity of original principles and to the dressing up of masonry in new‑fangled
draperies. The premier Grand Lodge had been through a difficult financial
period and had organised a Hall Fund to meet the cost of the new Hall erected
in 1776. Leslie referred to his own Grand Lodge as being 'without a shilling
in debt'. Other oblique allusions in his letter might also be read as jibes
against the Moderns.
Leslie's open letter was following by a Declaration, approved by the Antients
Grand Lodge on 2 March 1803, and printed, from which it must be assumed that
THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND 89 the Moderns had been using `unprovoked
expressions' and had resorted to `illiberal and unfounded' acts, etc. The
Declaration was an answer to the Moderns and was prepared for the widest
circulation. It dragged up the old problem of the ,variations' introduced by
the Moderns many years previously and set out to show them as the sinners and
the Antients as the saints. One paragraph therein, together with the foolish
action of the Moderns in expelling Harper (although he was later restored)
effectively put an end to all hopes of union in the near future. The damaging
paragraph read The Antient Grand Lodge of England has thought it due to its
character to make this short and decisive declaration, on the unauthorised
attempts that have recently been made to bring about an union with a body of
persons who have not entered into the obligations by which we are bound, and
who have descended to calumnies and acts of the most unjustifiable kind.
IMPROVEMENT IN RELATIONS WITH IRELAND AND SCOTLAND After events over the
period 1801 to 1803 no approach seems to have been made by either side to the
other but in the years 1805, 1806 and 1808 efforts were made to improve
relations between the Moderns and both Ireland and Scotland. On 4 April 1805
Lord Moira reported that a communication had been received from the Grand
Lodge of Scotland whereupon it was resolved that, as that Grand Lodge had
expressed its earnest wish to be on terms of confidential communication with
the Grand Lodge of England and that as the Grand Lodge was ever desirous to
concur in a Fraternal intercourse with regular Masons doth meet that
disposition with the utmost cordiality of sentiment and requested Moira to
make a `Declaration' accordingly to the Grand Lodge of Scotland.
Moira
visited the Grand Lodge of Scotland and took the opportunity of dispelling
that Grand Lodge's misconception about the premier Grand Lodge. Scotland, as
previously mentioned, acknowledged that it had been misinformed and was
convinced of its error. Being desirous `that the strictest union and most
intimate communication should subsist' between the two Grand Lodges and as a
first step towards such a desirable object, the Grand Lodge of Scotland
forthwith elected as its Grand Master the Grand Master of the premier Grand
Lodge ‑ the Prince of Wales. The Grand Lodge of England resolved that Masters
and Wardens of Scottish lodges visiting London should be given seats in Grand
Lodge. Other communications with Scotland indicate that the most cordial
relationship had been happily established. Although the minutes are silent on
the subject discussions with Scotland were, apparently, also being held
regarding reciprocity in the matter of masonic discipline for, on 23 November
1808, the minutes refer to a communication from Scotland applauding the
principles proposed by the premier Grand Lodge, in a declaration to Scotland,
as to authority necessary to be maintained over an individual lodge by a
representative body of the whole craft. In this Ireland also pledged itself.
not to
countenance or receive as a Brother any person standing under the interdict of
the Grand Lodge of England for masonic transgressions.
90
`THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' Here, then, were the Grand Lodges of Ireland and
Scotland working in harmony with the premier Grand Lodge in matters of common
concern to the exclusion of the Antient, a complete change from the previous
attitude.
A
RETURN TO CONCILIATION On 12 April 1809, Grand Lodge with Lord Moira as Acting
Grand Master, passed a significant resolution.
That
it is not necessary any longer to continue in force those Measures which were
resorted to in or about the year 1739 respecting Irregular Masons and do
therefore enjoin the several Lodges to revert to the Antient Land Marks of the
Society.
The
measures referred to cannot specifically be identified but it is safe to
assume that they included the transposition of the words of recognition in the
first and second degrees. The restoration of the original practice thus
removed one of the most contentious of the charges levelled by the Antients
against the Moderns.
The
year 1809 saw another preparatory step towards union, namely the setting up by
the premier Grand Lodge of the Lodge of Promulgation which was charged with
the task of reviewing and revising the ritual. It rehearsed revised forms and
ceremonies, many such rehearsals taking place in the presence of Masters of
lodges. It certainly restored the ancient forms, remodelled the ceremony of
Installation and introduced the office of Deacon in lodges (hitherto they were
almost unknown in Moderns lodges). Other matters dealt with included the
giving of honours, adjournment to refreshment and returning to labour and the
arrangement of Wardens' columns. The lodge lasted until 1811.
Signs
that the Antients were again looking towards a union appeared in the same year
when their Grand Lodge set up, not without opposition, a Committee to consider
and adopt prompt and effectual measures for accomplishing a masonic union. The
Committee met on 24 January and 7 March 1810, when it was finally agreed that
a union between the two Grand Lodges on principles equal and honourable to
both and preserving inviolate the Landmarks of the Craft would be expedient
and advantageous and that it be so communicated to Lord Moira. He reported to
his Grand Lodge which received the desire for union with `unfeigned
cordiality'. The Antients Grand Lodge held an emergency meeting 1 May 1810,
and proceeded, somewhat prematurely, to lay down certain conditions for a
union regarding the obligation, attendance of Masters, Past Masters and
Wardens of lodges at all meetings of Grand lodge and matters of benevolence.
It decided to submit these conditions to the Grand Lodges of Ireland and
Scotland for their opinions, both of which intimated that the moves met with
their wholehearted approval. During the negotiations in England Ireland
appointed a Committee to take into consideration the propriety of admitting
Modern English masons to Irish lodges. Ireland `received with inexpressible
satisfaction' the news that negotiations towards an English union were taking
place.
MEETINGS BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES Representatives of both sides first met
together at Freemasons' Tavern, 21 July 1810, an historic occasion, although
little was achieved. Negotiations were prot‑ THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND 91
racted mainly on the question of the presence of Masters, Past Masters and
Wardens at any meetings of a united Grand Lodge, a proposal resisted by the
premier Grand Lodge on the grounds of inadequacy of accommodation for so
potentially large attendances. The premier Grand Lodge showed signs of
impatience over the lack of progress and requested the Antients to appoint a
Committee with full powers to effect a union to which the Antients agreed. At
one of the meetings of the Antients Grand Committee it was reported that the
premier Grand Lodge had resolved to return to the Ancient Landmarks and would
consent to the same obligations.
A
significant event occurred before the meeting of the premier Grand Lodge on 6
February 1811. Moira announced that he intended to be installed before the
business of that Quarterly Communication and had requested the attendance of
the Lodge of Promulgation for the purpose. He was duly installed accordingly
in a form believed to be much as is known today ‑ a complete innovation
amongst Moderns masons.
CAPITULATION OR STATESMANSHIP? It is clear from the minutes of the Antients
Committee that the premier Grand Lodge representatives were prepared to accept
the Antient form of obligation and working. It was also recorded that the
Moderns had for some time exerted themselves to act by the Ancient forms; they
had formed a Lodge of Promulgation and they had the assistance of several
Ancient Masons ... in short they were ready to concur in any plan for
investigating and ascertaining the genuine course, and when demonstrated to
walk in it.
The
setting up of the Lodge of Promulgation to review and revise the ritual was in
fact an admission by the premier Grand Lodge that its ritual left much to be
desired and that it was willing to consider and accept change. It certainly
accepted the Antient form of obligation and remodelled the Installation
ceremony. These and other changes would appear to be capitulation on the part
of the premier Grand Lodge, but in the author's view, they demonstrate its
greater statesmanship. In its desire to effect a union to the lasting benefit
of the craft, it was prepared to change its practices in favour of those
tenaciously followed by the Antients, perhaps to the latter's credit, but such
inflexibility on the part of the Antients could have prevented unity if the
premier Grand Lodge had not been prepared to put the welfare of the craft
before everything else.
THE
DUKES OF SUSSEX AND KENT In February 1812, the Duke of Sussex was appointed
Deputy Grand Master of the premier Grand Lodge by his brother the Prince of
Wales, then Grand Master. In the following year the Prince did not seek
re‑election and Sussex thereupon succeeded him as Grand Master, the Duke of
Kent of the Antients, being present at the Installation. At the last meeting
of the premier Grand Lodge, August 1813, the Grand Master expressed his
anxious wish that a Union of the two Societies should be effected upon terms
equal and honourable to both parties. He was thereupon empowered to take such
measures as might seem to him most expedient for arranging such a Union. And
so in Committee and behind the scenes the 92 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' task of
settling outstanding differences and preparing for eventual unity went on.
Finally, delegations of both Grand Lodges headed by the Dukes of Sussex and
Kent respectively, met at Kensington Palace, 25 November 1813, and the
Articles of Union were signed.
On 1
December 1813, the Duke of Kent succeeded the Duke of Atholl as Grand Master
of the Antients and was duly installed in the presence of the Duke of Sussex
of the Moderns. It will be noted that complete identity of interests was
established at both Installations by the presence of the representative of the
other Grand Lodge.
UNION
A Grand Assembly of Freemasons for the Union of the Two Grand Lodges of
England was held on St John's Day, 27 December 1813. Each Grand Lodge opened
in adjoining rooms. Seating in the Hall for the final act was so arranged that
brethren of the two Constitutions who had been re‑obligated in the Lodge of
Reconciliation (to which reference is made below) were completely
intermingled. Two processions then entered the Hall headed by the respective
Grand Masters who took each a place on either side of the Throne. The Articles
of Union were read and placed in an Ark of the Masonic Covenant. The Duke of
Sussex was elected Grand Master of the United Fraternity and placed on the
Throne and proclaimed. Prayers were offered. Congratulatory letters from the
Grand Lodges of Ireland and Scotland were read ‑ there being insufficient time
for their representatives to attend. Grand Officers were nominated. It was
then `solemnly proclaimed that the two Grand Lodges were incorporated and
consolidated into one' and declared open by the Grand Master. The Grand Lodge
was called to refreshment when the Cup of Brotherly Love was passed round. On
resumption some business was transacted, Grand Lodge was closed in ample form
and the brethren repaired to a banquet. Thus ended some 60 years of division
in the Craft.
Such a
drastic reorganisation of the craft could not, however, be expected to meet
with universal approval and acceptance. Some disharmony developed in parts of
the country mainly in the matter of ceremonial, ritual and the lectures. The
most disturbing revolt occurred among some Lancashire lodges resulting in the
expulsion of brethren and the erasure of lodges. In spite of the erasures some
of the lodges continued to meet, eventually forming their own Grand Lodge in
1823 which became known as the Grand Lodge of Wigan. After a short period of
operation it was in abeyance until 1838, later revived but again becoming
ineffectual until its disappearance in 1866. During its existence it
constituted six lodges but in 1866 only one was left, the Lodge of Sincerity
which, in 1913, returned to the fold as No 3677.
LODGE
OF RECONCILIATION Under the Articles of Union a Lodge of Reconciliation was
constituted, the first duty of which was to undertake the re‑obligation of
Masters, Wardens and Past Masters. They were required to attend.
for
the purpose of being obligated, certified and registered to entitle them to be
present at the assembly of Masons for the Union of the two Grand Lodges THE
GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND 93 on 27 December 1813. The lodge's main task, however,
was to `promulgate and enjoin the pure and unsullied system of ritual and
ceremonial ‑ in short, to reconcile the two former systems. For this purpose
Masters and Wardens attended its meetings to learn the agreed ritual and so be
enabled to instruct their own lodge members accordingly. It demonstrated or
`exhibited' the opening and closing ceremonies and the ceremonies of the three
degrees before the Grand Lodge and representative meetings of lodges. Its
members and those present at meetings and demonstrations were forbidden to
make notes of the proceedings and ceremonies and it is as well to stress here
that no ritual has ever been printed and issued as an `approved' ritual. The
lodge ended its work in 18.16.
ADMINISTRATION AFTER THE UNION The Union of two Grand Grand Lodges
necessitated, as a matter of course, an amalgamation of the two
administrations into one. Joint Grand Secretaries were appointed, one from
each of the former Grand Lodges. A Board of General Purposes was established
to carry out the general functions formerly exercised by the Committee of
Charity of the Moderns and by the Stewards Lodge of the Antients. Three other
Boards were set up, Finance, Works and Schools. The two latter disappeared in
1819 and the Board of Finance in 1835. A Colonial Board came later but has
long since disappeared. A Committee, or Lodge, of Benevolence was also
established which later became the Board of Benevolence.
The
first task of the Board of General Purposes was to supervise and arrange the
compilation of a new Book of Constitutions which was finally approved and
published in 1815. The Board of Works considered the matter of regalia and in
due course prepared regulations as to design, etc, which were approved by
Grand Lodge. The Board of Finance dealt firstly with the financial problems
arising out of the Union and recommended the establishment of a fund of
general purposes and a fund of benevolence. It also prepared laws relative to
the fund of benevolence.
To
provide the necessary increase in accommodation the Hall was altered and
extended in 1814. In the following year two houses adjoining the tavern were
also acquired for the same purpose.
The
lists of lodges were amalgamated with a new enumeration resulting in the names
of 648 lodges appearing in the new list.
An
International Compact between the Grand Lodges of England, Ireland and
Scotland, which regulated fraternal intercourse, territorial jurisdiction and
other matters of common concern was signed in 1814.
The
remaining years of the first century of organised freemasonry were devoted to
consolidation. In spite of inevitable problems the united body steadily
advanced towards complete integration and harmony under the guiding influence
of the Duke of Sussex, Grand Master for 30 years until his death in 1843, who
can fairly be regarded as one of the chief architects of Union and a great
Grand Master.
THE
FIVE NOBLE ORDERS OF ARCHITECTURE THE PRESTONIAN LECTURE FOR 1968 H. KENT
ATKINS Five hold a Lodge, in allusion to the five noble orders of
architecture, namely, the Tuscan, Doric, Ionic, Corinthian and Composite.
ALL
FREEMASONS are familiar with the explanation of the Second Tracing Board, and
the reference to the Five Noble Orders of Architecture, but not all are as
well acquainted with the Orders themselves. Manuals and learned papers have
been written on the Five Orders and their place in masonry. William Preston,
after whom the Prestonian Lectures are named, arranged a lecture on the Five
Orders, which first appeared in the Syllabus. An `explanation' of the lecture
appeared in the second edition of his Illustrations of Masonry, 1775, and
`remarks' thereon in the third edition, 1781. The manuals and learned papers,
however, are not well known, and the Lecture is now unknown in most English
lodges.
THE
FIVE ORDERS AND THE CRAFT It should be remembered that the Five Orders are of
`Architecture'. Architecture has always been closely associated with operative
masonry, and its influence, its symbolism, was carried forward during the
transition period, and into free and accepted or speculative masonry.
Non‑operative masonry certainly existed before the formation of Grand Lodge in
1717, but there is a lack of information as to the development of ritual and
ceremony.
Freemasonry is reputed to be descended from the guilds of medieval stone
masons, who worked in the Gothic style; but it was the classical style of
ancient Greece and Rome that was adopted for the lecture on architecture. It
is impossible to say with certainty when the Five Orders first became
associated with the Craft, but as classical architecture was the quintessence
of the Renaissance, it is reasonable to assume it was during the latter half
of the seventeenth century or early in the eighteenth. An age when the Gothic
style was everywhere attacked and abused, and the classical world was the
all‑sufficient model. An age when it was the custom for cultured people to
devote their attention to the study of architecture. In those days it was not
unusual for lectures on architecture to be given at lodge meetings; for the
gentlemen of the period, who had travelled and studied the subject, to
instruct the ordinary members of the Craft.
William Preston (1742‑1818) is considered by some writers to have been
responsible for the introduction of the Five Orders of Architecture into the
masonic system. Certainly his Lectures have a noted place in masonic
literature, but there is ample evidence that the Five Orders were of
significance to Freemasons before the publication of his Illustrations of
Masonry. A Mason's Examination, an irregular Catechism issued in 1723,
fifty‑two years before Wil94 96 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' liam Preston's
Lecture first appeared, refers to the Five Orders in the form of question and
answer: Q. How many Orders be there in Architecture? A. Five; Tuscan, Doric,
Ionic, Corinthian, and Composite, or Roman. Also, in Dr James Anderson's first
Book of Constitutions (1723), the frontispiece shows a pavement or arcade with
the Five Orders, coupled, on each side; the Composite Order in the foreground,
receding to the Tuscan in the background. It is of interest that this
illustration, without the figures, bears a close resemblance to designs by
Inigo Jones for scenery for Court Masques; made more than one hundred years
before, at the time when he introduced into England, Palladian Renaissance
architecture.
It is
intended in this Lecture, first, to refer to the Roman architect and writer
Vitruvius; to trace the Five Orders of Architecture from the Roman era, when
they were regularly employed, to the beginning of the eighteenth century, when
their use became firmly re‑established in England; and to briefly mention the
Italian and English architects particularly associated with the Renaissance of
the Classical style. Then to describe each of the Five Orders; and finally to
consider the Three Pillars more generally known to freemasons.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Vitruvius is the earliest known authority on the Orders,
and his celebrated treatise, de Architectura, had been the most important
source of information for all subsequent studies. Sir Henry Wotton, traveller,
diplomat and scholar, in his Elements of Architecture, printed in London in
1624, refers to him as `Our principal Master'. Vitruvius's treatise was
written about two thousand years ago, and is the only book on architecture in
the whole of classical literature. He describes the Tuscan, Doric, Ionic, and
Corinthian Orders, and promulgates the canons governing their proportions. He
does not mention the Composite Order; it was not evolved until later, possibly
in the first century AD. As Vitruvius apparently never visited Greece, the
information he gives about the Greek Orders was probably obtained from various
Greek authors, with whose writings he seems to have been well acquainted.
VITRUVIUS, whose full name was MARCUS VITRUVIUS POLLIO, lived in the time of
Julius Caesar and Augustus, the first Roman Emperor, sometime between 90 Bc
and 10 Bc. He was a military as well as a civil architect and engineer, and
served under Julius Caesar in the African war of 46 BC. He was made by
Augustus an Inspector of the various Engines of War and also Inspector of
Public Buildings. It is likely that his treatise was composed when he was
advanced in life, and that it was presented to his patron, Augustus, to whom
it is dedicated, sometime about 25 BC.
It is
usually accepted that the manuscript of Vitruvius's treatise was rediscovered
in about 1414, at the monastery of St Gall, near Lake Constance in
Switzerland. Another version is that it was found in the library of the
Benedictine Abbey of Monte Cassino, near Naples. The first known printed
edition is in Latin, and is believed to have been printed at Rome in 1486. In
the sixteenth century further Latin editions were published, and translations
in Italian (1521), THE FIVE NOBLE ORDERS OF ARCHITECTURE 97 French (1547),
German (1548), and Spanish (1582), but the first English edition was not
issued until two hundred years later, in 1771.
Some
writers have doubted the authenticity and age of the treatise, believing that
the author was not a contemporary of Augustus, but of a later date, possibly
of the third century or even as late as the fifth. That he was not a practical
architect but an unknown man of letters, who had so little faith in his own
work that he used the name of the architect mentioned by Pliny.
Three
of the Classic Orders, the Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian, were used by the
Greeks. The Romans adopted these three and added the Tuscan and the Composite,
so making the Five Orders of Architecture. These Orders are contemporary with
Roman civilisation, and examples of them are found, not only in Italy, but in
all countries of the Roman Empire. With the decline of the Roman Empire of the
West and the eventual break‑up in AD 476, the style of architecture gradually
changed, broadly, through Early Christian, Romanesque, and Gothic, and the
Roman Orders fell into disuse. It was not until the beginning of the Italian
Renaissance, early in the fifteenth century, that the Classic Roman Orders
were reintroduced, after having been in abeyance for nearly one thousand
years.
PHILLIPO BRUNELLESCHI (1377‑1446) may be considered as the first of the
Renaissance architects. He was born in Florence, and was first a goldsmith,
then a sculptor, and finally an architect. When twenty‑four years of age he
entered a competition among sculptors for the famous bronze north doors of the
Baptistry in Florence, but he was unsuccessful. He then visited Rome and
studied the ancient ruins, and there settled the Orders of architecture from
classic examples. In 1418 he started his career as an architect, and one of
his first works was the Foundling Hospital in Florence (1421‑34), one of the
first Foundling homes in the world. This building has a famous arcaded loggia
of Corinthian columns supporting semi‑circular arches. His other works also
show the influence of the Classic Orders, for example, the Church of Santo
Spirito, Florence (144582), designed by him but only just begun in his
lifetime, has a classic arcaded interior and, after a long period of
suppression, the entablature again appears interposed between the very light
arches and the thirty‑five supporting Corinthian columns.
Of all
the Italian architects of the period, the two who contributed most to the
spread of the Renaissance of Classic architecture to the west were Vignola and
Palladio.
GIACOMO BAROZZI DA VIGNOLA (1507‑73), engineer and architect, was the author
of Regola delli cirque ordini d'Architettura, issued in 1562. This publication
made a considerable impression on the architecture of his time, especially on
the design and treatment of the Classic Orders. He went to France for two
years (1541‑43) in the service of Francis I, where he greatly influenced the
development of French Renaissance architecture. One of his best known works is
the villa of Pope Julius in Rome (1550‑55), now the Etruscan Museum.
ANDREA
PALLADIO (1508‑80), usually considered the greatest architect of the whole
Renaissance, first trained as a mason, and did not appear as an architect
until he was thirty‑two years of age. His careful study of ancient buildings
still 98 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' standing in Rome led to the issue in 1570
of his famous book 1 quattro libri dell' Architettura. Many of his buildings
no longer exist, or were never completed, but the publication of the designs
in his book, first issued in Venice, and since published in every country of
Europe, had a very important influence on architecture, especially in England.
Palladian architecture, which conforms closely to the precepts of Vitruvius,
remained for a long period the model for an entire style. The result of
Palladio's classical research can be traced in his designs for buildings, both
in Venice and Vicenza. One of particular interest is his celebrated Villa
Capra, Vicenza (1567), known also as the Rotonda, with its exaggerated
application of Classic features, is a square building with pillared portico of
Ionic columns on each face. The design has often been copied both in England,
and on the Continent. Mereworth Castle, Kent (1722), by Colin Campbell, is
based very closely on the Villa Capra. The elevations are the same on all
fronts, each having a pillared portico of Ionic columns. Chiswick House,
Chiswick (1725), built by Lord Burlington and William Kent, long known as the
Palladian Villa, is a modified copy, but has only one portico.
The
great Italian architects were the founders of the Renaissance, and it was from
the remains of Roman architecture alone that the inspiration came; there is no
evidence that they had any knowledge of the more refined architecture of the
Greeks. Owing to the distance from Italy, the slow communications of the age,
and her insular position, England was the last country to come under the
influence of the new movement. Whereas the dawn of the Renaissance in Italy
was early in the fifteenth century, the beginning of the full Renaissance in
England was not until the early part of the seventeenth century, when Inigo
Jones, the famous English architect, introduced Palladian Renaissance
architecture, with its reversion to Classic style, and the employment of the
Roman Orders.
More
than one thousand five hundred years before the introduction of Palladian
Renaissance architecture, the Classic Orders were used in England by the
Romans. With the Roman invasion of AD 43 and the subjugation of the country
forty years later, Britain became one of the forty‑five provinces of the Roman
Empire. For the next three hundred years, under Roman protection and with
comparative civilisation, towns were laid out, and buildings erected. A period
of time almost equal to that which separates us today, from the restoration of
the monarchy under Charles II. Roman architecture in England was of the same
character as in other parts of Europe, although possibly inferior in detail,
and the Classic Orders were employed in the design of forums, temples, and
other important buildings. After the withdrawal of the Roman legions and the
end of Roman control in the year 410, the Britons were left to defend
themselves against invasions by the Angles and Saxons. The process of
Anglo‑Saxon conquest was slow, and one hundred and fifty years elapsed before
the conquest of even southern England was complete. During those turbulent
years, Roman buildings were either destroyed by the Saxons, or deserted and
left to fall into ruins; the ruins were plundered for building materials, and
all trace of Roman architecture disappeared from view.
INIGO
JONES (1573‑1652) was born in London, the son of a clothworker. Little is
known of his early life. It is known, however, that he paid several visits to
THE FIVE NOBLE ORDERS OF ARCHITECTURE 99 Italy, where he made serious studies
of Italian buildings, both contemporary and antique, and more especially of
the works of Andrea Palladio. He was a stage designer as well as an architect,
and on his return to England he introduced the precepts of Palladio in scenery
designed for Court Masques. When he was forty‑two years of age, Inigo Jones
was appointed Surveyor‑General of the Royal Works. A number of country houses
and other buildings claim him, but many do not merit serious consideration,
for as Sir John Summerson had pointed out, `the figure of Jones is obscured by
such a swarm of misattributions that the toil of discernment enfeebles
perception'. The only buildings now existing which can be attributed to him
with absolute certainty are the Banqueting House, Whitehall, London (1619‑22),
and the Queen's House, Greenwich (1616‑35). The Banqueting House, Whitehall,
intended to form part of a vast royal palace, is considered to be the first,
and one of the finest examples of the English Renaissance. The severely
Classic treatment, with its Ionic and Corinthian pilasters and half columns,
bold cornice, and balustrade, was the result of his study of the Palladian
architecture in Italy. It is ironical that his patron, King Charles I, stepped
out to execution on the scaffold in 1649 from a first floor window of this
Banqueting Hall. Horace Walpole, the eighteenth‑century writer, said of Inigo
Jones, `Vitruvius drew up his grammar, Palladio showed him the practice, Rome
displayed a theatre worthy his emulation, and King Charles was ready to
encourage, employ, and reward his talents. This is the history of Inigo Jones
as a genius'.
Inigo
Jones initiated the change in England to formal Classic design, with the use
of the Orders. His completed works were few but the traditions of design which
he pioneered were lasting. Palladian architecture would have been more
developed by him had he not lived in an age of wars and general unsettledness:
the Thirty Years War, the Civil War, the Execution of King Charles, the
Commonwealth with the reaction represented by Puritanism. The Civil War
brought a chapter in English architecture to an abrupt close and Inigo Jones
died before the Restoration.
The
second great architect of the period, whose name and work are more widely
known, was SIR CHRISTOPHER WREN (1632‑1723). Scholar, mathematician,
astronomer, and architect. Professor of Astronomy at the age of twenty‑five;
Surveyor‑General and principal Architect for rebuilding London after the Great
Fire at thirty‑four; Surveyor‑General of the Royal Works at thirty‑seven;
President of the Royal Society at forty‑eight. Who built `the noblest temple,
the largest palace, and the most stupendous hospital', as well as fifty‑two
London churches, and a great number of other buildings throughout England. He
did not practise architecture until he was thirty years of age, when he was
already one of the most famous scientists in Europe. With the restoration of
the monarchy in the year 1660, and the destruction caused by the Great Fire of
London in 1666, Sir Christopher Wren, with the patronage of King Charles II,
had many opportunities to exercise his undoubted talents. He continued the
classical tradition, though with a more independent style, and did not rely on
the precedents of the Italian Renaissance as much as Inigo Jones. He was more
influenced by the French Renaissance. Pembroke College Chapel, Cambridge
(1663‑65), designed 100 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' for his uncle, the Bishop of
Ely, was his first work; a restrained rectangular building with pedimented
fagade and simple great Corinthian pilasters. St Paul's Cathedral (1675‑1710)
is his most famous and best known building. He was ninety‑one years old when
he died, having lived and worked through five reigns.
Both
Inigo Jones and Sir Christopher Wren are reputed to have been freemasons, and
to have hcid high office in the Craft. Dr James Anderson in the second edition
of his Book of Constitutions (1738), written fifteen years after Sir
Christopher Wren's death, credits him with having held the offices of Grand
Warden, Deputy Grand Master, and Grand Master. More recently, George H.
Cunningham in his book, London. A Comprehensive Survey of the History,
Tradition and Historical Associations of Buildings and Monuments, published in
1927, states that: The former Banqueting House of Whitehall Palace was built
in 1619‑22 by Inigo Jones, the famous architect and Grand Master of the
Freemasons.
The
Goose and Gridiron, St Paul's Churchyard, was the meeting‑place of St Paul's
Lodge, one of the first lodges of freemasons in London. During the building of
St Paul's Catherdral, Sir Christopher Wren presided as Master.
St
Paul's Cathedral. The present cathedral dates from 1675, when the foundation
was laid by Sir Christopher Wren, the architect, as Grand Master of the
Freemasons, assisted by his Lodge.
However, it is now usually accepted that neither Inigo Jones nor Sir
Christopher Wren were prominent freemasons. It is known that Dr James Anderson
had a rather vivid imagination, and that much of his writings are legendary;
and it is likely that Cunningham's statements are based on Anderson's works.
Bro Bernard E. Jones, in his authoritative book Freemasons' Guide and
Compendium (1956), does not mention Inigo Jones in this connection, but he
considers that Sir Christopher Wren was almost certainly a speculative mason,
but not a Grand Master of the Order nor an important figure in the emergence
of speculative masonry.
At the
beginning of the eighteenth century the influence of Inigo Jones and Sir
Christopher Wren had spread throughout England. Classical design, of which the
Orders were an essential part, was adopted, not only by architects but also by
working masons and carpenters. The precepts of Inigo Jones and Sir Christopher
Wren were carried on by pupils and followers; such as Sir John Vanbrugh
(1664‑1726), who designed Blenheim Palace, Oxfordshire, the most monumental
mansion in England; Nicholas Hawksmoor (1661‑1736), a pupil of Sir Christopher
Wren, who built a number of London churches; and James Gibbs (16831774), who
designed many buildings in the prevailing Palladian mode. Of note is his
Church of St Martin‑in‑the‑Fields, Trafalgar Square, London, with its great
Corinthian portico. Sir William Chambers (1723‑96) was probably the last
practitioner of the strict Palladian tradition, and his works are found in
almost every part of England and even extended to Ireland. His Treatise on
Civil Architecture, published in 1759, is still today an important guide as
regards the proportions of the Five Orders.
And so
after thirteen centuries, the Classical style of architecture was again THE
FIVE NOBLE ORDERS OF ARCHITECTURE 101 firmly established in England, and the
Orders were once more an integral part of design. The age, probably when the
Five Orders of Architecture were introduced into the masonic system. It should
be remembered that the Orders associated with freemasonry are those employed
by the Renaissance architects.
ORDERS
OF ARCHITECTURE An `Order' in Classic architecture is a combination of column,
including capital and base, and horizontal entablature or part supported;
designed in relation one to the other. The column by itself is not the order.
William Preston in his Lecture on the Five Orders (1781), defines an `Order'
in possibly more picturesque language. 'By order in architecture is meant a
system of all the ornaments and proportions of columns and pilasters; or a
regular arrangement of the projecting parts of a building, especially those of
a column, which form one beautiful, perfect and complete whole.' The Orders,
as used by the Greeks, were essentially constructive. The Romans introduced
the use of column and entablature as facings to piers, and frequently used
them as purely decorative features, without any structural value; although
they continued to use them constructively, as in the colonnades of forums and
temples. The characteristics of all Greek architecture is in its simplicity
and refinement; in Roman architecture, in its forcefulness and lavishness of
display. The Roman use of the Orders was followed by the architects of the
Italian Renaissance who, as previously mentioned, had no knowledge of the
architecture of the Greeks. Eastern Europe at that time was dominated by the
Ottoman Empire, and travel was almost impossible and certainly dangerous.
TUSCAN
ORDER The Tuscan is the first of the Five Orders of Architecture. Severely
designed with no ornament but mouldings; the column, an unfluted shaft with
base and capital, seven diameters high. The entablature is plain, and in
ancient times was constructed in timber. The Renaissance architects made their
own Tuscan Order with a stone entablature. Sir Henry Wotton (1568‑1639), in
his Elements of Architecture (1624), describes it as 'a plain, massive, rural
pillar, resembling a sturdy well‑limbed labourer, homely clad'.
There
is no certainty as to the origin of the Order; it was not used by the Greeks,
and it is unlikely that the Romans invented it. No example exists similar in
formation to that described by Vitruvius. It seems highly probable that it was
used by the Etruscans, and that it was adopted by the Romans at the same time
as the arch, vault, and dome. The use of timber in the entablature of the
early examples, appears to confirm the origin, as it is known that this form
of construction was practised by the Etruscans. Some authorities consider that
it is a simplified version, or a mutation, of the Doric Order; while William
Preston, in his Lecture on the Five Orders, simply states that it was invented
in Tuscany. The Tuscan Order gives an impression of severe dignity, and a good
example of this can be seen in the portico of St Paul's Church, Covent Garden,
London. The original church (1631‑35) was designed by Inigo Jones, but was
burnt down in 1795. The present one is a close copy, built by Thomas Hardwick
(1752‑1829), in 101 102 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' 1795‑98. Anthony Sayer,
the first Grand Master of the 1717 Grand Lodge, is buried in the vaults of the
church.
DORIC
ORDER The Doric is the second of the Five Orders of Architecture, and the
first and simplest of the three Greek Orders. The Roman Order differs in
design from the Greek original; it has less monumental grandeur and is freer
in detail, without any of the delicate profiles. The Doric Order was evolved
by the Greeks of the Western territories, simultaneously with the Ionic Order
by the Greeks of the Eastern territories. The true Doric style is found in
Greece, Sicily, and South Italy, and its finest and culminating example is the
Parthenon on the Acropolis at Athens (447‑432 BC). The Doric was the Order
most liked by the Greeks, and they used it almost entirely in temple
buildings; it was little used by the Romans, being too severe and plain for
the buildings they required. Vitruvius tells us that the Doric column was
modelled on the form of a man. That it was found that the length of the foot
was one‑sixth of the height of the body; and so the height of the column,
including the capital, was made six times its thickness at its base. Thus the
Doric column exhibits the proportions, strength, and beauty of the body of a
man.
In the
Greek Order the column stands without a base, directly on a stylobate, usually
of three steps, and the circular shaft is divided as a rule into twenty
shallow flutes, separated by sharp arrises or edges. The column, including the
capital, has a height of from four to six times the diameter in the earlier
period, and up to seven in the later period. The entablature, the frieze or
middle section of which is often ornamented with sculpture, is about
one‑quarter the height of the Order. The column of the Roman Order is more
slender, has a base, and the circular shaft is frequently without flutes. The
height of the column, including base and capital, is about eight diameters.
Sir William Chambers in his Treatise on Civil Architecture (1759), gives the
height of the Greek Doric column as six diameters, and the Roman Doric is
eight diameters.
There
are several different opinions as to the origin of the Doric Order. It is
traced by some to the sixteen‑sided columns at the entrance to the Egyptian
rock‑hewn tombs at Beni Hasan on the Nile. Also, to the numerous small
rock‑cut tomb fagades to be found in Asia Minor. Bro Bernard E. Jones
considers that the idea of the Doric came from Egypt, but that the Greeks so
largely redesigned the Order as to be regarded as its originators. The
consensus of opinion is that the Order is traceable to Egypt and that it had a
timber origin. The considerable width between the columns of the very early
Greek temples shows that the lintel or horizontal beam was of wood, and it is
suggested that the columns also were of the same material, being replaced
gradually with stone. There is little but a legendary reason why the style
should be called Doric. Historic tradition has it that, in about 1000 BC, the
Dorians, a tribe from the region to the north of the Gulf of Corinth, invaded
and conquered southern Greece; and made important settlements also in Sicily
and in south‑west Italy. The Dorians, being the dominant race, gave their name
to the style of architecture especially characteristic of the lands over which
they ruled.
THE
FIVE NOBLE ORDERS OF ARCHITECTURE 103 IONIC ORDER The Ionic, the third of the
Five Orders of Architecture, and the second of the three Greek Orders, is
placed after the Doric though it was developed at the same time. The Romans
adopted the Order but they treated its details with less beauty and
refinement. The Ionic Order was evolved by the Greeks of the Eastern
territories, and its true home was Asia Minor; probably the most important
example, however, is the Erechtheion on the Acropolis at Athens. According to
Vitruvius: whereas the Doric column was modelled on the form of a man, so the
Ionic was fashioned on the proportions of the female figure. That the height
of the column was made eight times its thickness at is base, so that it might
have a slender look, and in the capital, volutes or scrolls, were placed
hanging down at the right and left like curly ringlets; the front was
ornamented with cymatia and with festoons of fruit arranged in place of hair,
while the flutes were brought down the whole shaft, falling like the folds in
the robes worn by matrons. Thus the Ionic column has the delicacy, adornment,
and proportions characteristic of women.
The
Order is comparatively slender; the column, with base and capital, being
usually nine times the diameter in height. The circular shaft has as a rule
twentyfour flutes, with fillets left between them in place of the sharp edges
as in the Doric. The shaft of the Roman column is often unfluted. The base is
moulded; the distinctive capital has, in the Greek Order, usually two volutes
or scrolls, showing to the front and back, and in the Roman Order, often angle
scrolls, showing on all four sides. It is sometimes suggested that the scrolls
may have been derived from the Egyptian lotus, or that they represent the
horns of a ram, as it is known that rams were venerated in Western Asia. The
entablature is usually one‑fifth of the Order. The Ionic Order is thought to
take its name from the Ionian tribes, who settled on the coasts and isles of
Asia Minor, when driven out of Central Greece by the Dorians.
CORINTHIAN ORDER The Corinthian is the fourth of the Five Orders of
Architecture, and the third of the three Greek Orders. The Corinthian Order
first appeared in Greek architecture as a variant of the Ionic, the difference
being almost entirely in the capital. It was less used by the Greeks than
either the Doric or the Ionic, and was never fully developed by them; their
major achievements had been completed before the Order was invented. The
Romans brought the Corinthian Order to full maturity. The richness and
exuberance of its decoration appealed to the Roman instinct, and was employed
by them far more frequently in their buildings than any of the other Orders of
Architecture. Vitruvius relates that, as the Doric column was modelled on a
man, and the Ionic on a female figure, so the Corinthian was an imitation of
the slenderness of a maiden; for the outlines and limbs of maidens, being more
slender on account of their tender years, admit of prettier effects in the way
of adornment. Sixteen hundred years after the time of Vitruvius, Sir Henry
Wotton gives a different, and maybe less pleasing, description of the
Corinthian column: `lasciviously decked like a courtesan, and therein much
participating of the place where they were first born; Corinth having been
without controversy one of the wantonest towns in the world'.
104
`THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' The column of the Order is more slender than that of
the Ionic, and including base and capital, is usually ten diameters in height.
The circular shaft of the Greek column is fluted, while the Roman shaft may be
either fluted or unfluted. The Romans were inclined to leave the shaft plain,
possibly as a contrast to the lavishly decorated capital; or because of their
preference for using monolithic columns of granite and veined marble, both
materials being unsuitable for fluting. The ornate capital is as a rule about
one and one‑sixth diameter high, the Roman capital being more heavily
decorated than the Greek. The leaves surrounding the `bell' of the Greek
capital are of the prickly acanthus type having pointed leaves of V‑shaped
section; while those surrounding the Roman one are blunt‑ended flat section
acanthus, or of the olive. The entablature is usually one‑fifth of the whole.
The
origin of the Order is uncertain, and there is apparently no conclusive reason
for its being called Corinthian. The name is possibly derived from the
foliated capital. The following traditional legend of the creation of the
capital is first recounted by Vitruvius in about 25 BC, it is repeated by many
eighteenthcentury architectural writers, and is included by William Preston in
his Lecture on the Five Orders of Architecture.
A
freeborn maiden of Corinth was attacked by an illness and died. After her
burial, her nurse collected a few things which used to give the girl pleasure
while she was alive, put them into a basket and placed it on her grave,
covering the basket with a roof‑tile for protection. It happened that the
basket was placed over the root of an acanthus. When the plant grew, the
stalks and leaves curled gracefully around the basket, until reaching the tile
they were forced to bend downwards into volutes. Callimachus, a sculptor and a
worker in Corinthian bronze, passed by the grave and observed the basket with
the leaves growing round it. Delighted with the novel style and form, he built
for the Corinthians some columns with capitals designed after that pattern,
and determined the proportions to be followed in finished works of the
Corinthian Order.
Anderson and Spiers in their book, The Architecture of Greece and Rome,
published in 1902, consider that in early examples of the Greek Corinthian
capital, the treatment of the leaves and tendrils is such as to suggest their
having been copied in marble from metallic orginals. And as Callimachus of
Corinth is known to have worked in marble as well as in metal, he perhaps
executed capitals of this type in Corinthian bronze or brass. They suggest,
therefore, that the name may have been given because it was invented by
Callimachus of Corinth, or on account of the material in which the first
prototype was made.
COMPOSITE ORDER The Composite, called also Roman, is the last of the Five
Orders of Architecture. It differs from the Corinthian only in the design of
the capital; which is a combination of the Corinthian and the Ionic, having
the angle volutes or scrolls of the Ionic capital inserted above the
Corinthian leafage. The height of the column, including base and capital, is
usually ten diameters. The entablature resembles the Corinthian. The Order was
unknown to the Greeks, being a Roman invention, and used largely by them in
triumphal arches to give a very ornate character. Sir Henry Wotton says of the
Order: `though the most richly tricked, yet the poorest in this, that he is a
borrower of all his beauty.' THE FIVE NOBLE ORDERS OF ARCHITECTURE 105 THE
THREE PILLARS William Preston concludes his Lecture on the Five Orders of
Architecture with: `The ancient and original, orders of architecture, revered
by masons, are no more than three, the Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian'. Early
writers refer to Three Great Pillars, the emblematic supports of a mason's
lodge; and the traditional history attaches considerable importance to the
Three Pillars.
In the
explanation of the First Tracing Board we are told that the three great
pillars are called Wisdom, Strength, and Beauty; but as we have no noble
orders of Architecture known by the names of Wisdom, Strength, and Beauty, we
refer them to the three most celebrated; the Ionic, Doric, and Corinthian.
They are now explained as: the Master's, the Ionic, representing wisdom; the
Senior Warden's, the Doric, representing strength; and the Junior Warden's,
the Corinthian, representing beauty. It is a matter of interest, that whereas
the generally accepted sequence of the three Classic Orders is the Doric,
Ionic, and Corinthian, in the masonic use of the three, the sequence is
changed; the Ionic is placed before the Doric.
In
early lodges the appropriate floor pillar stood before the Master and each of
the Wardens, but few lodges now continue this old custom. Today we have floor
candlesticks, and in many lodges the actual candle‑holders are on Ionic,
Doric, and Corinthian columns. The columns of the three Orders are also often
found as pillars on the backs of Master's and Wardens' chairs, but there
appears to be no uniformity in the Orders used. Three chairs made by Thomas
Chippendale in about 1760, and owned by Britannic Lodge, No 33, can be seen in
the museum at Freemasons' Hall, London; the Master's has Corinthian pillars,
and both the Senior and Junior Wardens' have Ionic. Also in the museum are two
large gilt Wardens' chairs; the Senior Warden's has Ionic pillars, and the
Junior Warden's, Corinthian. Other examples of chairs have Corinthian pillars
on the Master's, and Doric on the Wardens'.
Since
the middle of the eighteenth century certificates have been issued to
brethren. In the early days of non‑operative masonry they they were apparently
written documents, but in 1756 the premier Grand Lodge issued engraved and
printed certificates. Owing to the custom in the eighteenth century of
destroying all written or printed masonic matter, more especially the
certificates of a deceased Brother, to prevent any information passing into
the hands of nonmasons, no very early example exists today. The `Three Graces'
certificate, which incorporated the Three Pillars, was first issued in 1757
and since that time, despite changing designs, all the pictorial certificates
of the two rival Grand Lodges show the Three Pillars. In 1819 the United Grand
Lodge first used a design with the Three Pillars in line across the
certificate, forming two panels. This certificate is known as the `Pillars
Certificate', and, with modifications, is in use today.
EXTERNAL INFLUENCES ON THE EVOLUTION OF ENGLISH MASONRY THE PRESTONIAN LECTURE
FOR 1969 J. R. CLARKE THE NUMBER of masons, and subsequently freemasons, in
this country has never been more than a relatively small proportion of the
population yet there has been a tendency when tracing the development of the
Craft to concentrate attention on the purely masonic documents available and
not sufficiently to take into account the inevitably great influence of
contemporaneous thought and events on its evolution. This influence has been
continuous for the brethren have always been men living in a wider society and
subject to the pressures of their environment. In this lecture I propose to
give a few examples of the effect of these at crucial times.
The
first is from the beginning of our masonic history. In Grand Lodge, 1717 to
1967 H. Carr reminded us that there is justification for regarding the
beginning of the trade organisation of masons in England as having taken place
in 1356, when the master‑masons of London submitted a code of craft
regulations to the civic authorities for registration. These regulations were
concerned with men who had more or less permanent employment in one city; and
they established working standards which the authorities, the craft and the
public could all accept as representing fair dealing. There were, however,
masons in a different category who moved from site to site, either voluntarily
or by impressment, who could not become members of a city gild and who indeed
could only in special circumstances obtain employment in a place where there
was one. It is natural to suppose that they also would have to conform to
local rules which would have a basis common to all localities; and, in
addition, that they would have some means of establishing that they were
experienced craftsmen when they moved to a new site. Only so, one would
imagine, would it be possible for the immense number of masons to work
together at Windsor Castle in 1360 when, it is said, nearly all the masons in
England were employed; probably the largest assembly of them there has ever
been.
THE
EARLIEST MASONIC DOCUMENTS These men had been impressed from all over southern
England, from Essex in the east to Gloucester in the west, and later from the
northern counties also. William of Wykeham was Clerk of Works at the Castle;
John of Sponlee (or Spoonley near Winchcombe, Gloucestershire) was chief mason
both before and after the impressment; Robert of Gloucester is named as warden
of the masons and was succeeded in 1361 by William of Wynford (Somerset). It
seems not unlikely that 106 EXTERNAL INFLUENCES ON THE EVOLUTION OF ENGLISH
MASONRY 107 these men would establish a code of practice which would have as
its basis that of their west country origin, though it would have resemblances
to the others. When there was dispersal from this great assembly, the masons
would carry with them the usages which had obtained there, of which perhaps
some record had been made. Masons from York were amongst those impressed and
this may have influenced the rules drawn up by the Chapter of York Minster in
1370 for the masons regularly employed there. They included the provision that
Master Masons were to be sworn `upon the book' (ie the Bible) to adhere to the
code, a provision later found in the Old Charges. It is even more probable
that it influenced the two earliest extant full statements of the customs and
usages of masons, the Regius MS and the Cooke MS. These were written in the
half century which followed, in western and south‑western dialects of the
English of the period. On textual grounds Knoop, Jones and Hamer have decided
that they have a common origin. They are the first of the Old Charges, which
were used at the admission of operatives, and later of accepted masons, before
the eighteenth century. It is known that the Regius MS, which is in verse,
found a home in the now ruined Llanthony Abbey, about a mile west of St
Peter's Abbey which is now Gloucester Cathedral, and it may have been written
there early in the last decade of the fourteenth century. The Cooke MS has
been dated as having been written not later than 1410. It came to light when
the second Grand Master, George Payne, produced it at the Feast in 1721 and
appealed for only early documents so that the Regulations could be revised. He
said he had it from the west country.
A
Gloucester School of Masons flourished between 1330 and 1500, its last great
work being the Lady Chapel of Gloucester Cathedral, though its greatest
achievement must be considered to be the origination, in the latter half of
the fourteenth century, of fan vaulting in the cloisters of the Cathedral.
This was later to reach its finest expression in the Chapel of King's College,
Cambridge and in Henry VII's Chapel in Westminster Abbey. That the School
played a large part in the development of the peculiarly English style of
Perpendicular Architecture is especially shown in the sequence of changes in
the style in the Cathedral. There was also much rebuilding at Llanthony during
the Priory of William of Cheriton from 1376 to 1401. The work of the School
was not confined to Gloucester, however, but is in evidence at many other
places in a wide area. Consequently it is not surprising that statements of
the practices and responsibilities of masons should have been written in the
west country. They give an account of the customs, state the oath of entry,
include an account of the origin of the Craft and cite the authority of King
Athelstan for holding an assembly.
Why
the Regius MS should have been versified is still to be determined but before
we leave these early documents there is another to be mentioned. The masons at
Lincoln claimed to have established a gild there in 1313 though there is no
documentary evidence to support this, the first record of its existence
appearing in 1389. It was made in response to a writ issued by Richard II in
1388. The country was at war and this had to be financed. In 1385 the Commons
petitioned the king setting forth the view that the confiscation of Church
property would relieve the situation: this was one hundred and fifty years
before Henry VIII secularised the monasteries. Richard's writ seems to have
been the sequel to the 108 THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' petition. It required that
Masters and Wardens of all gilds and brotherhoods (which latter term would
include masons not in a gild) should send a return describing the foundation
and form of government over which they presided. They were to state the oath
of entry, describe their feasts and meetings, liberties and customs, give a
list of all their property, all other particulars relating to their
constitution, and copies of their Charter or Letters Patent if they had any.
Westlake has examined the returns made as a result of this writ, and includes
one from the Lincoln gild of All Saints (masons). It enumerates the duties of
the masons to each other and to the gild; no oath is mentioned; they were to
go to Church and offer up a candle on the Feast of Pentecost and were to meet
to transact the business of the gild `on the morrow of Easter'; they had `no
general meetings save such as are held for their social purposes among
themselves'; and they had no property. The reply was evasive and gave few of
the particulars requested; their customs and usages were not described. The
differences between a gild and the fellowship of masons not specifically
attached to a city or religious centre are recognised but it is noteworthy
that The Two Earliest Masonic MSS gives much more of the information demanded
by Richard; that they were produced fairly soon after the writ; and that there
are no others extant which were written for almost two centuries after it. It
may be that these Old Charges were written, perhaps from copies of others, in
response to the writ.
SIXTEENTH‑CENT URYINFL UENCES There is no evidence of any later attempt to
control fraternities except that in 1437 Henry VI enacted that no gild,
fraternity or company should make any ordinance without first submitting it to
the authorities for approval. No response to this by any body of masons has
been found. After the dissolution of the monasteries there was little large
scale ecclesiastical building and no building of castles in the old style: the
impressment of labour had considerably diminished and the royal palaces of St
James and Hampton Court and many large houses were made of brick, the use of
which material was gaining ground. Moreover, the conditions under which masons
worked were changing: there was less direct employment of labour and an
increase in the number of master‑mason contractors who employed their fellows
and bargained for the completion of a work or a portion of it. Masons still
collected in groups but with decreasing mobility these became stabilised with
permanent homes, as operative lodges.
It is
possible that other MSS relating to masons may have been lost at the
dissolution. Westlake ohserves that there are large areas of the country for
which no replies to the writ of 1388 are available. On the other hand, it may
be that few masonic MSS were written: the transmission of the wording of those
which existed may have been oral and the fact that the Regius MS is a poem has
been held to help this suggestion, for verse is more easily remembered than
prose. Moreover, there are at present many brethren who need no book to help
them with our rituals though they are at least as long as the Old Charges. The
earliest of the later versions extant to which a definite date has been
assigned is the Grand Lodge MS No 1 of 1583, though it is considered possible
that a few others were written shortly before this. In these and all
subsequent versions the mason is no EXTERNAL INFLUENCES ON THE EVOLUTION OF
ENGLISH MASONRY 109 longer bidden to reverence `All Hallowes' or `All Saints'
but to be `true to God and Holy Church and Use no Error or Heresy'. This
change seems to be significant and may have been made when the monasteries
were dissolved. The people who assisted at their dismantling had as little
respect for superstitious beliefs about the saints as had Thomas Cromwell's
later namesake Oliver. It was about this time (1540), according to Knoop and
Jones on other evidence, that a `first revision' of the Old Charges was made.
The Reformation had begun and so had the Revival of Learning when educated men
were beginning to be interested not only in the knowledge of the ancients but
also in that of other groups of their fellow men: for example, in the
knowledge which had enabled masons to erect stately and superb edifices. Only
fifteen years after 1583 the Schaw Statutes for masons were propounded in
Scotland by a man who was not an operative mason though the acknowledged head
of the Craft in that country. The accounts of the London Company of Masons
contain a record of some operative masons being admitted into the Acception of
the Company in 1621; and later it is found that non‑operatives were `made
masons' in the same inner circle, which we may conclude to be the first record
of a body of Accepted Masons in England. There is no indication that this was
anything new: it may have been going on for years, and if in London so
elsewhere. I suggest that Accepted Masonry, not yet called `Speculative', may
be older than has been imagined: it may have started in the latter half of the
sixteenth century when a number of new versions of the Old Charges began to
appear. If the Charges were to be read or recited at the admission of a mason,
copies would have to be made for the benefit of the new type of entrants: for
example, the Sloane MS may have been written for the meeting at which Ashmole
was initiated in 1646. As the Accepted Masons became more numerous more copies
would be made, which is why more than one hundred of them written between 1583
and 1723 have been found.
It is
not intended in this lecture to follow the transition from operative to
speculative masonry. The whole story, as given by Carr for example, shows the
influence of external events on the Craft. He concludes: The transition from
operative to speculative Masonry was not a nation‑wide deliberately planned
operation, but the result of economic and industrial changes in which the
Craft suffered a purely passive role.
THE
ESTABLISHMENT OFA GRAND LODGE In the latter part of the seventeenth century
the Craft continued to be affected by external events but it was by no means
passive. It was conscious of its development from operative to accepted
masonry both in London and throughout the country, though there is no evidence
of communication between the various centres. The want of it may be more
apparent than actual because we find lodges at Norwich and Bristol aware of
the re‑organisation in London in 1717 soon after it had taken place. The roads
may have been bad but all classes of people managed to move about, as we know
from the diaries of Pepys and Evelyn. Moreover, owing to its high death rate,
the metropolis was continually drawing on the rest of England to make good the
loss and to allow for the expansion which was taking place. It was in London,
however, more than in any other place in the world, that 110 `THE PRESTONIAN
LECTURES' there arose the custom of men meeting together in taverns and
coffee‑houses to learn the news of the day and to discuss it and other things
with a freedom that surprised foreigners. The number of such places increased
enormously and before the end of the century any Londoner had only to walk to
the end of the street to find a coffee‑house. Gradually the various meeting
places attracted a specialised clientele, merchants meeting at one place (eg
Lloyd's), lawyers at another, wits and politicians elsewhere, each group
frequenting its own house. Thus there developed a club‑habit and also the
custom of men meeting together at stated intervals for conversation and other
purposes, as exemplified by the meetings of the newly founded Royal Society.
The century was a time of new thought, when questions were being asked about
everything; about the phenomena of nature and about the very foundations of
religion.
The
many opportunities for private meetings and the prevalent spirit of inquiry
provided just what was required for the development of Accepted Masonry and
afford sufficient reasons for the existence of several lodges of Accepted
Masons in London at the beginning of the eighteenth century and the question
arises why some of them should decide to co‑operate to form a Grand Lodge at
this particular time. It seems to have been accepted that the object was
social and colour is given to this by an advertisement in the Daily Courant of
7 July 1716: For the Continuance of Mutual Society, the Annual Feast of the
Fraternity of St James's at Clerkenwell will be held as usual, on Wednesday,
the 25th Instant, at Jerusalem Hall within the said Parish . . . N.B. Stewards
are provided for the year ensuing.
Freemasons, however, could enjoy their mutual society at their stated
meetings, which other brethren could attend if Ashmole's visit to the London
Acception in 1682 may be taken as a guide. I have already advanced the
suggestion that the political state of the country made it imperative that the
freemasons should protest their loyalty at this time. The Jacobite rebellion
of 1715 was badly managed and easily suppressed but the government feared a
recurrence, suspecting Jacobites behind every closed door. Only one month
after the preliminary meeting of the `four old lodges', in January 1717, the
Swedish Ambassador was arrested contrary to diplomatic usage and his papers
revealed that he and his fellow Ambassadors in France and Holland were
involved in a conspiracy to support a fresh insurrection with 12,000 Swedish
troops. Later in the year a projected invasion of Scotland with the help of
the Swedish fleet was prevented by the intervention of an English fleet. In
1719 a fleet sailed from Cadiz, the Pretender being then in Spain, with
regular troops on board, but storms dispersed it and only a small force could
be landed in Scotland. This was defeated and forced to surrender. The
prolonged trial of Dr Atterbury, Bishop of Rochester, tnded in his exile after
he had been shown to have been in communication with the Jacobite leaders
abroad since 1717. The fears of the government were entirely justified: and
freemasons' lodges were meeting behind closed doors. Whatever the truth of
Anderson's story in the Book of Constitutions that Wren had been Grand Master
and had forsaken them, it is certain that there was now nobody of position and
influence to speak for them. It was necessary for them to demonstrate their
loyalty and they decided to do this by co‑operating to hold a Feast.
EXTERNAL INFLUENCES ON THE EVOLUTION OF ENGLISH MASONRY 111 Accordingly they
met on 24 June 1717, elected a Grand Master and held their Feast in a
semi‑public place, a tavern. In such a place their loyal toasts and loyal
songs would be heard and gain them credit. Soon they were joined by men of
good social standing and the first of a continuing series of noble Grand
Masters was elected in 1721. In spite of this, when the Duke of Wharton tried
to capture the Craft for the Jacobites in 1722, an influential body of the
Society deemed it desirable to wait on the Secretary of State who was in
charge of Foreign Affairs (and consequently of anti‑Jacobite measures) and,
averring their loyalty, ask permission to hold their annual meeting at
Midsummer. This was granted but the fact that such a deputation was needed and
could be assembled shows that the decision to publicise the Craft in 1717 had
been vital. In the year following this deputation, William Cowper, Clerk of
the Parliaments was appointed Secretary to Grand Lodge. That he should have
been able to accept this position is a further indication that freemasonry was
then well regarded by the authorities.
An
important aftermath of the declaration of loyalty to the House of Hanover was
the Papal Bull of 1738, issued after the Pretender had been in Rome. Although
by that time freemasonry had spread to the continent, the Bull was never
promulgated in France. It was directed against English freemasonry and for two
hundred and thirty years it has made it difficult for a Roman Catholic to be a
freemason.
THE
CHANGES IN THE FIRST BOOK OF CONSTITUTIONS In addition to the freedom of
general discussion in the clubs, there was also much more freedom of religious
thought and expression than on the continent, though there had been some
suppression of it during the Commonwealth and attempted restriction of
religious practices by the ecclesiastical Acts of the reign of Charles II. On
the whole, however, there had been throughout the century an examination of
the foundations of religion which had resulted in a tendency towards
Unitarianism. The Deism propounded by Lord Herbert of Cherbury in the time of
James I had been discussed and re‑discussed; and at the end of the century the
philosophy of John Locke had more `natural religion' in it than Christianity,
in spite of his assertion that he was a sincere member of the established
church. In fact the tendency to Deism had infiltrated into the churches, both
conformist and non‑conformist. G. M. Trevelyan states this succinctly when he
writes: The age of latitudinal piety that followed the Revolution of 1688 was
prepared by the intellectual movement of the Restoration . . . by the end of
the century, Unitarian doctrines, for which men were burnt one hundred years
before, were not uncommon among English Presbyterian congregations of the
highest bourgeois respectability.
There
had developed a toleration by the churches for other beliefs in God which has
resemblance to that of the present time. This evolution of thought was to find
expression in the statement of the First Charge in the first Book of
Constitutions of the recently formed Grand Lodge, issued in 1723.
The
new Regulations for the Craft, which George Payne had said in 1721 that he
intended to make, were printed in the 1723 Constitutions, preceded by a
legendary history of the Craft and a revised version of the Old Charges. In
this 112, `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' version the statement of the first Charge,
entitled `Concerning God and Religion' now read: A Mason is oblig'd by his
Tenure, to obey the moral Law; and if he rightly understands the Art, he will
never be a stupid Atheist, nor an irreligious Libertine. But though in ancient
Times Masons were charg'd in every Country to be of the Religion of that
Country or Nation, whatever it was, yet 'tis now thought more expedient only
to oblige them to that Religion in which all Men agree, leaving their
particular Opinions to themselves; that is, to be Good Men and true, or Men of
Honour and Honesty, by whatever Denominations or Persuasions they may be
distinguish'd; whereby Masonry becomes the Center of Union and the Means of
conciliating true Friendship among Persons that must have remain'd at a
perpetual Distance.
This
was a very important change from the wording of the Cooke MS and the other Old
Charges to be true to God and Holy Church and it bore fruit quickly. There is
incontestable evidence that within a few years Jews were admitted to the Craft
which had been, till that time, wholly or predominately Christian. In America
Benjamin Franklin was initiated in 1731 and he was a pronounced Deist, never
reluctant to proclaim himself as such, not a Christian. In the latest Book of
Constitutions issued by Grand Lodge, as in its predecessors of last century,
there is amplification of the above wording but no essential change of
meaning. The Craft did not become anti‑Christian nor even non‑Christian, but
today, by reason of this wording, the product of the latitudinarian thought of
the time, Christians, Unitarians, Jews, Moslems, Hindus and men of all other
faiths which require a belief in God, are equal members of the Society of
Freemasons which has, indeed, become `the Center of Union and the Means of
conciliating true Friendship'.
THE
ORIGIN OF THE ANTIENTS GRAND LODGE I now pass to an instance of the influence
of economic conditions on freemasonry. These produced an influx of Irishmen
into England in the middle of the eighteenth century. At this time England was
prosperous and although the conditions in which the poor of London lived were
deplorable by modern standards, the streets of the city seemed to be paved
with gold to those outside it. A very large proportion of the population of
the country was concentrated in it and there was continuous migration towards
it. Pitiable as the life of the London poor appears to us, conditions in
Ireland were far worse. An appalling picture is drawn by the historian Lecky:
The famine of 1740 and 1741 . . . was followed by malignant fevers so that
whole villages were laid waste ... the country was so decimated of its wealth
that but little could be done (to alleviate the distress) ... one third of the
people in the country of Kerry had disappeared ... it was estimated that in
1742 there were more than 50,000 strolling beggars in the country.
Famine
was recurrent and was particularly bad again in 1756 and 1757. Protestant
emigration from Ireland had started at the end of the seventeenth century when
political considerations here had necessitated the imposition of protective
duties on woollen goods and the Irish woollen manufacture had been destroyed.
Other protective tariffs had followed, Irish industry had been further
depressed and the famines gave great impetus to the emigration. It has been
said that for several EXTERNAL INFLUENCES ON THE EVOLUTION OF ENGLISH MASONRY
113 years the Protestant emigrants from Ulster annually amounted to more than
12,000. Of course, only a relatively small proportion of them came to these
shores, the tide setting mainly westwards, but many came here and gravitated
to the capital.
Whatever the qualifications and abilities of the immigrants their first
thought on arriving in London would be means of subsistence and they would
take the jobs available. They would naturally associate with each other and
those who were freemasons would meet to talk about the Craft and eventually
form lodges. There was no difficulty about this since even at that time
warrants were not essential: and there is evidence that lodges of Irishmen had
previously been formed in London and Norwich. The premier Grand Lodge had not
the power nor, apparently, the desire to prevent this. The immigrants could
not affiliate with this Grand Lodge because the Grand Lodge of Ireland, whence
they derived their masonry, had not recognised the changes made in the English
system in the 1730s as a consequence of the disclosures made in such
publications as Masonry Dissected. Eventually, in 1751, they considered that
there were enough lodges to enable them to form their own Grand Lodge. They
asserted that they adhered to `the Old Constitutions', called themselves `Old
York Masons', and obtained recognition from the Grand Lodge of Ireland. In
their first Book of Constitutions, issued in 1756, the Secretary, Laurence
Dermott, addresses the original members as `Men of some Education and an
Honest Character but in low Circumstances', which completely tallies with the
description of them as immigrants. The book also makes clear their close
connection with the Grand Lodge of Ireland. There is no suggestion in it of
antagonism to the Grand Lodge of England: the rivalry only developed when the
latter appreciated that the adherence to the old ways, plus the remarkable
energy of the Secretary, was attracting to the new body many who might have
given their allegiance to the one established in 1717. As we know, the rivalry
increased until the end of the century when the political state of this
country made a rapprochement and ultimately a union desirable. It is to this
that we turn next.
THE
END OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY AND AFTERWARDS The closing years of the
eighteenth century were as full of incident as had been those of its
commencement. The arts of literature, painting and music were flourishing; the
brothers Adam were combining their artistic taste with architecture. The
industrial revolution was beginning for Watt's steam engine had been made;
Huntsman was producing better steel by the crucible method and the cutting
edges of cutlery and tools were improved by its use; and in the cotton
industry the most famous of the inventions concerned with spinning had been
made by 1790. These industrial developments and the publication of Thomas
Paine's Rights of Man in 1791 led to a demand for electoral reform and to
political unrest, intensified by events abroad. The loss of the American
colonies was followed in 1789 by the French Revolution. There was a spate of
formation of political clubs: the Constitutional Society was founded in
Sheffield in 1791; the London Corresponding Society was established in 1792
and at once allied itself with the Sheffield body; and many others arose in
Manchester and other growing `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' towns. They professed
`Reform and not Revolution is our object' and in this they followed the famous
Jacobin club in Paris, started in the year of the Revolution, for it also was
at first moderate in its aims. One of the early actions of the London society
was to send representatives to present addresses to the French Convention: as
one of the most able of its organisers wrote later `All the leading members of
the Society were republicans'. The total membership of these societies was not
very great in proportion to the population and the majority of the people were
not in sympathy with them, so that they had difficulty in finding
accommodation for their meetings: in some places the meetings were broken up
and riots ensued. A modern sympathiser with them has written `The country, in
truth, was against reform'. Nevertheless the propaganda continued and the
government came to fear Jacobinism as much as its predecessors at the
beginning of the century had feared Jacobitism. This resulted in May 1792 in
the issue of a proclamation against seditious meetings and publications. It
was not effective and a second proclamation was made in December which ordered
the embodiment of the militia because the Constitution was in danger from
`evil disposed persons . . . acting in concern with persons from foreign
parts'. In 1794 the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended and the suspension was
renewed annually until 1801. In 1795 an attack on the King when he went to
open Parliament was followed by the Treasonable Practices Act which made any
defamation of the Sovereign or the established government or Constitution a
high misdemeanour. Another Act of this year, the Seditious Meetings Act,
prohibited meetings of more than fifty persons without notice to a magistrate.
Still
the political unrest continued and it was increased by a succession of poor
harvests and the ill‑success of the war on the continent, declared in 1793, in
spite of Nelson's successes at sea which eventually enabled victory to be won.
Britain was the paymaster of Europe and that made the cost of the war so great
that income tax was imposed for the first time in 1798, and in a few years
nearly ú300,000,000 was added to the National Debt. `It was a time of crushing
taxation, high prices, unemployment, misery and starvation.' Apparently the
restrictions of 1795 did not prevent the two Grand Lodges from holding their
Festivals, for Stewards were still appointed annually; there are allusions in
the Minutes to show that they were much concerned at the state of the country
and their own position therein. In 1791, for example, the premier Grand Lodge
voted a loyal address to the King `at this period of innovation and anarchy'.
In 1799 a Bill brought before Parliament to control subversive activities
threatened to create such a serious position for freemasonry that the heads of
the two Grand Lodges felt that they must act together. The events are clearly
set out in the minutes of the Antients where, on 6 May it was reported that: a
Committee of the Grand Officers had met by command of the Right Worshipful
Grand Master to take into consideration what was Necessary and Right to be
adopted by the Antient Craft in the Critical State of the Country. Resolved
unanimously that it be recommended to his Grace the Duke of Atholl, Right
Worshipful Grand Master of Masons according to the Old Constitutions to
inhibit and totally prevent all public Masonic Processions and all private
meetings of Masons of Lodges of Emergency on any pretence whatever and to
suppress and suspend Masonic meetings except the regular Stated Lodge Meetings
and Royal Arch Chapters which shall be held open to all Masons EXTERNAL
INFLUENCES ON THE EVOLUTION OF ENGLISH MASONRY 115 duly qualified as such.
That when the usual Masonic Business be ended the Lodge shall then disperse
the Tyler from the door of the Lodge room and formality of restraint of
Admission shall cease.
On 5
June the record states: Report of the Deputy Grand Master respecting the
proceedings relative to a Bill now pending in Parliament for the suppression
of Private Meetings of Societies and now containing a Clause granting a
Priviledge to the Grand Lodge of Masons according to the Old Constitutions and
to all subordinate lodges under them to be exempted from the penalties and
Operation of the said Act. Resolved to give thanks to the Duke of Atholl for
this Clause.
The
Premier Grand Lodge had reacted similarly. The Bill which caused this concern
was the Unlawful Societies Act and it became law on 12 July 1799. It refers
particularly to some societies, mentioned by name and including the London
Corresponding Society, which were considered to be in collusion with societies
on the continent; and it directs that they should be immediately suppressed
and prohibited. Certain other societies were deemed unlawful, namely
societies: the members whereof shall . . . be required to take an oath which
shall be an unlawful oath . . . or to take any oath not required or authorised
by law; and every society the members whereof or any of them shall take or in
any manner bind themselves by any such oath or engagement . . . and every
person who from and after the passing of this Act shall become a member of any
such society at the passing of this Act . . . shall aid, abet or support any
such society . . . shall be deemed guilty of an unlawful combination and
confederacy.
Heavy
penalties were prescribed for contravention of the Act, which clearly would
put a stop to all masonic activities. The two leaders therefore exerted their
influence and obtained the insertion of clauses which stated that the Act was
not to extend to regular lodges of freemasons held before the passing of the
Act and in conformity with the rules prevailing among the masonic societies.
The condition was made that: Two members of such Lodge (are) to certify on
Oath as to such Lodge . . . that such society or Lodge had before the passing
of this Act been usually held under the denomination of a Lodge of Free Masons
and in conformity to the rules prevailing among the societies or lodges of
Free Masons in this kingdom . . . which certificate with names and
descriptions of all and every the members thereof, (is to be) registered with
the clerk of the peace . . . on or before the 25th day of March in every
succeeding year.
All
was not well, however, for ten months later the Earl of Moira (Acting Grand
Master of the Moderns) had to call attention to `the situation in which the
Society was placed by the late Act of Parliament restraining the Constitution
of New Lodges': the exempting clause was not so comprehensive as had been
hoped. Apparently it was felt that nothing could be done about it for this
premier Grand Lodge only issued two Warrants for lodges at home in the seven
years which followed. The Antients Grand Lodge was more fortunately placed
during this difficult period: it could grant the numbers of erased Warrants to
new lodges... for a consideration. These lodges were allowed to function as
having existed previous to the passing of the Act. Both Grand Lodges continued
to issue `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' Warrants for military lodges and lodges
abroad. The position was clarified in 1817 by a revision of the Seditious
Meetings Act. This re‑enacted the Act of 1799 but there was a change in the
exempting clause, which now gave exemption to all lodges of freemasons. The
returns to the Clerk of the Peace had to be made annually until an Act passed
in 1966 made changes in a number of laws relating to offences and among other
things nullified the 1817 Act and thus brought to an end a requirement which
had been in existence for some 150 years.
For
almost the whole of the existence of the Society of Antient Freemasons there
had been many brethren in both systems who deplored the existence of two Grand
Lodges, both professing brotherly love yet openly at variance. Among these
were the two Grand Masters at the end of the century and their joint action to
obtain amendment of the 1799 Act was a considerable step towards a union. The
negotiations to effect this were prolonged, but all English freemasons know
that it was accomplished on 27 December 1813. Unfortunately, internal
dissensions in the country over electoral reform followed soon afterwards;
there was a recurrence of civil disturbance and this affected the prosperity
of the Craft. The total number of lodges slumped to a minimum of about 430 in
1840 but the improved economic situation in the Victorian era reacted on
masonry and there began the steady increase which has continued ever since.
In our
own time we have seen the effect of national events for after each of two
world wars there has been a `bulge' in the number of lodges and members, men
having been attracted to masonry, possibly in the hope that they could renew
the companionship with their fellow men which they had experienced on service.
The humane tendencies of our national thought have led to the reconsideration
of the statements concerning the penalties for breaking the obligations, with
consequent permission to make changes. As I said at the beginning of the
lecture we are brethren living in a wider Society of all men: we hope that our
brotherhood will influence this Society for good; and it is inevitable that,
in its turn, it should react on us. This is what I have tried to show has
happened in the past.
IN THE
BEGINNING WAS THE WORD...
AN
EXERCISE IN RITUAL ARCHAEOLOGY THE PRE STONIAN LEC'T'URE FOR 1970 Lt Col ERIC
WARD, TD At the distance of twenty‑five years, I can neither forget nor
express the strong emotions which agitated my mind as I first entered the
Eternal City . . . as I sat musing amidst the ruins of the Capital, while the
barefooted friars were singing vespers in the temple of Jupiter.
THESE
WORDS. WHICH I hasten to add are not mine but those of Edward Gibbon, seem to
me to express dramatically, majestically and not a little romantically, an
emotional experience which so inspired the great historian that he was
impelled to write his classic history of ancient Rome. But despite his modest
disclaimer, he did quite often express his emotions in words and phrases of
excelling beauty.
I have
quoted Gibbon's sentiments for the reason that there is about them something
not altogether dissimilar to the feelings we as masons have in looking back,
for all of us have an abiding interest in beginnings. To effect these we use a
ritual having the preciseness of form required of liturgical recitation, which
we try to perform and encourage others to emulate in such a way that an
emotional atmosphere is created which can be felt throughout the whole lodge.
It is thus communicated to the candidate with the same impact that another
temple had upon Gibbon. We want to make so powerful and enduring an impression
upon the mind of the initiate, to convey to him the gravity of the occasion,
that he will remember it to the end of his life. For this purpose we depend
mainly upon words, since words are not only the stones of our fabric but are
also the principal working tools of the speculative mason and the way we
handle them will determine our qualifications. For patently we are craftsmen
in words. But recognition of these qualities depends upon our use of other
men's words, for no honours are awarded if we make up our own as we go along.
This
is not the occasion, nor am I the person to expound upon the delivery of
masonic material, but I have an historian's interest in the way our words came
to us and it is in the hope that I can stimulate similar interest in others
that I have made this the theme of my address.
Perhaps the edifices I build are not to the taste of everyone, but I can only
suggest that, as in almost every walk of life today, that which was once
acceptable without question to our forebears is now seen in a different and
not necessarily worse light. But before going on to discuss parts of our
ritual on which this new light is to be thrown, my own understanding of the
beginning of our kind of masonry must be declared, for this a fundamental.
117
`THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' THE ADVENT OF FREEMASONRY English free and accepted
masonry, from which stems speculative masonry the world over, was established
in the early years of the eighteenth century. There were sporadic growths
before that, but none that can be looked upon as the unleashing of the great
stream. We cannot in truth claim to be a continuation of medieval operative
masonry for the ground rules are entirely different. When in 1717 a small
group of people met together in London to form that which eventually blossomed
out into the first Grand Lodge, it was a very primitive organisation composed
mainly of men of humble origin who left for posterity no records of their
proceedings. In the early 1720s, still within the confines of London and
Westminster, the seeds of a great international movement has begun to take
root but the days of the elaborate ceremonial familiar to us now were a very
long way off. If our forebears had any intention of developing a system of
morality, etc, it is difficult to recognise it as such, whereas on the other
hand it is crystal clear that one of their principal objects was to meet
together in the lodges and Grand Lodges Festivals to enjoy the warmth of human
companionship, free from the bickerings about politics and religion which
characterised that era and the vulgarity which permeated it. As a means of
controlling membership, they adapted certain simple rites and customs which
they gathered from documents of the operative craft of former times and to
give an aura of respectable antiquity they maintained and believed they were
merely continuing an unbroken line of masonic practice and philosophy.
To me
the way in which speculative masons have drawn upon material from former
times, from the freestone masons, the Bible and from ancient sources
unconnected with either ‑ is little short of amazing. By a long process of
refinement, by adding and discarding, a system has been developed which
despite all the anomalies and anachronisms inevitable in such a growth is
nevertheless surprisingly harmonious.
I will
now move on to the consideration of some examples from many that in my opinion
demonstrate how significant is the part which words have played in the masonic
saga.
SAINT
JOHN'S MASONRY Until the end of the eighteenth century, when freemasonry in
Britain was predominantly Christian and frequently referred to as St John's
Masonry, we find continual references linking the Craft to the traditional
author of the fourth Gospel.
In the
MS constitutions or Old Charges which undoubtedly are of English origin there
are virtually no references to St John and it is only in very late versions,
probably for Scottish or Northern English use, eg Taylor (17 cent) and
Gateshead (c 1730) MSS, that the Evangelist's name appears. From about 1700_
many of the Catechisms, eg Sloane, Grand Mystery and Whole Institutions
contain in various forms the question `From whence came you' with the answer
`I come from a R. Worshipful Lodge . . . of Holy St John'.
There
are innumerable references from about 1730 onwards to the VSL being open at
the Gospel of St John, eg the evidence of John Coustos before the IN THE
BEGINNING WAS THE WORD . . . 119 Portuguese Inquisition, and similarly it is
most common to find the English speculative lodges having their principal
meetings on St John the Evangelist days. Many lodges which had half‑yearly
installations celebrated them on St John the Baptist's day in summer, and St
John the Evangelist's day in winter. The custom of arranging meetings on both
those days is still preserved by many others. In Scotland, the wholly
operative lodges adopted the practice much earlier, eg Edinburgh 1599, Melrose
1674, Dunblane 1696 and Aitchisons Haven 1700.
Instances of the masonic connection with St John the Evangelist during the
first hundred years of organised Free and Accepted Masonry are indeed so
common that it is unnecessary to labour the point. But why that particular
patron saint? I can see no really valid reason other than the first verse of
his Gospel, `In the beginning etc' which remains to this day one of the few
and surviving and undoubtedly the most important of the Christian fragments to
be still in use in what is called Pure Antient Masonry.
The
somewhat cryptic phrase `In the beginning was the word, and the word was with
God and the word was God' was of course utilised by the author of the
Johannine gospel as an extension of the similar quotation in Genesis I.]. He
was leading to a proposition fundamentally unacceptable to Jewish thought,
which we do not need to develop here. However, the reference is clearly to the
beginning of the Jewish adherence to Jehovah, and the foundation of the
national religious doctrine. This was when God revealed himself to Moses who
received the tables of the Law. Yet Moses did not see God, for revelation was
by voice alone. He thus heard only the spoken word, but this momentous
occasion provided the foundation for all the biblical material that was to
follow, the completed work being familiarly known as the Word of God.
John's
proposition was that now God had revealed himself further through the person
of his Son Jesus, ie the word was made flesh. Thus the expression in Genesis
and that by John, have in common a conspicuous reverence for the importance of
the word as the primeval form of communication between Creator and Man.
But to
see the real significance of the phrase `In the beginning . . .' we must look
back some 3,000 years before Christianity and long before the era of Moses.
For we find that even then Egyptian philosophers were proclaiming of the
Creator that `all things came into being through that which the heart [ie
mind] thought and the tongue commanded', which is a still further and more
primitive way of expressing the same idea.
Now of
all living things the genus man is the only one physiologically as well as
psychologically equipped to form abstract thoughts and concepts, to express
his thinking in terms understandable by other men, and he does this most
easily by word of mouth. Although obviously animals, fish and insects can
communicate with each other, such communication does not go beyond the
material needs of living or perpetuation of the species. No creatures other
than men and women can discuss abstract matters, can contemplate phenomena
outside their own experience and dilate upon them. None possess minds that can
imagine and convey to others beliefs and disbeliefs, nor yet the symbols of
speech if they had such minds. To primitive man then the power of speech, the
unique ability to use words as a 120 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' means of
conveying thought, must have seemed of such tremendous importance as to be a
manifestation of the character and personality of the Creator himself. So in
Genesis 1 we find `In the beginning' God created Heaven and Earth . . . and
God said let there be light . . .'. Not we should note, God decided or God
willed, but God said, even though since none were yet created to listen, he
said these things to himself. In John's brief account of the creation he
condenses both the philosophies of the Egyptian sages and the writer of
Genesis by elevating the word to a position where it has become not merely the
most important function of the Creator but a manifestation of him.
Now
some of us may see in the teaching of St John a source of religious conviction
which inspired the masons of the eighteenth century and in Scotland from an
earlier period. Or alternatively we may perhaps discern a parallel between the
importance of the Word as defined by John and the supreme importance to
Scottish working masons of the `Mason Word' as a means of protecting their
very livelihood. It is my view that such a coincidence was too good to be
overlooked and that in this we find the real explanation of the connection
between masonry and St John.
If
such a proposition seems like heresy or merely far‑fetched, I must cite the
case of the English Gild of Merchant Taylors who changed from their original
patron to St John the Baptist, because they argued he was the harbinger of the
Lamb and the wool from the lamb provided the finest material upon which they
relied for their living.
What
then is more likely than the operative masons recognising in the biblical
phrase `In the beginning was the word' a dual‑purpose expression strikingly
appropriate to their calling, conveying the suggestion of piety on the one
hand and reverence for the antiquity of the `Mason Word' on the other? And it
is significant that, in the early days of speculatives, warrants issued by
Grand Lodge in the setting up of subordinate lodges, eg Royal Cumberland at
Bath, carried a seal with the inscription (in Greek) `In the beginning' etc.
THE
MASON WORD We can now consider the Mason Word itself, by which is meant a
password traditionally associated with the craft of the stone mason, but in
recent times one of the essential esoterics imparted at the making of a Free
and Accepted Mason. Now there is no reason for thinking that there ever was a
secret word used by the freestone masons of England, yet there is no doubt at
all that it was of great importance to the working masons of Scotland. On the
other hand, the Old Charges or manuscript constitutions, of which many copies
from the fourteenth century onwards have survived, were devised for and
followed by English freemasons, although none of these documents is to be
found in Scotland except those undoubtedly of English origin. But there was
another vital difference. In England the mason designers and craftsmen of the
Gothic era were essentially workers in freestone, ie a material peculiarly
adapted to the carving of intricate lace‑work, the beauty of this entailing
and the material itself being one of the glories of our ancient cathedrals,
royal palaces, and university edifices. Hence these men, the freemasons
acquired superlative skill and had no fear of being ousted from their IN THE
BEGINNING WAS THE WORD . . . 12.1 jobs by semi‑skilled workers since such men
would be detected as soon as they applied hammer to chisel or axe to stone.
But in Scotland it was different, for there was virtually no freestone in that
country but only intractable stones which cannot be so decoratively fashioned.
Hence, those ancient buildings in Scotland made from indigenous stone and by
native craftsmen are conspicuously austere in external appearance, simple
treatment of the stone being apparent. Consequently in Scotland there were no
native freemasons, the term being virtually unknown there. It thus follows
that in Scotland there grew up generations of men (who became known as Cowans),
without formal apprenticeship whose skill would be not so very far short of
those who had followed the time‑honoured procedure. Those who thus did not
belong to a lodge, the recognised organisation for regulating the Craft, had
first to be challenged if they came to seek employment and then to be rejected
once their irregularity was established. One means of testing, although almost
certainly not that alone, was the interchange of the Mason Word which was thus
a passport of considerable commercial value. In short it was a useful
commodity of livelihood, and such was its importance in this respect that so
late as 1715, ie centuries after the heyday of the English freestone mason,
the Lodge of Journeymen (essentially operative) of Edinburgh successfully
applied to the Courts for their right to its use in their trade.
We are
then on fairly firm ground in regarding the Mason Word as an essentially
Scottish institution, where lodges of operative masons continued in being long
after the very different pattern of the English freestone mason trade
organisation had disappeared. But if it was of no value to the English
craftsman and seemingly never had been, the Mason Word was of inestimable
value to the non‑operative society when that came into being as a means of
preventing `cowans' from obtaining the benefits open to bona‑fide members.
In the
above I have referred to the Mason Word as if there were only one. But of
course secrecy would not for long be preserved by that alone and signs as well
as further words were needed in the armoury of the operative Scottish mason.
Some of these words and tokens were borrowed by the speculatives as the
society developed and further ones were invented to meet requirements unknown
to the operative.
Distinct from but relevant to the subject of the Mason Word something should
be said of the name by which we of the Order are known, because this is an
example par excellence of the way that words take on different meanings over a
period of time. It has already been indicated that the English word freemason
was used over centuries to denote a freestone mason, a craftsman expert in the
art of fashioning and carving the fine quality free‑cutting limestone familiar
to all in the southern part of the United Kingdom. At the advent of
speculative masonry the brethren called themselves Free and Accepted Masons
(the Entered Apprentices song is a familiar example), eventually abbreviating
this to Free (hyphen) Masons, a term always used in printed matter during the
era of the first Grand Lodge. With the revolution of the building trade and
the ever decreasing requirement for the old type of freestone mason, all
workers in stone tended to be called just masons, and by the end of the
eighteenth century the speculative mason had taken the name of his operative
predecessor and became a freemason, the title by 122 'THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES'
which he is now universally known. Yes such is the tenacity of tradition that
throughout the Bristol ritual the word freemason is never once used. It is
always Mason and the art which he practices Masonry, with the implication that
it is still the free and accepted variety to distinguish it from the operative
kind of freemasonry which incidentally still exists as a trade.
THE
ROYAL ARCH In a previous section attention has been given to a phrase now an
integral part of the Royal Arch and I am sure most brethren are familiar with
the odd sounding, but very important words used at the time of the Union in
1813 and still a fundamental, that 'pure Antient Masonry consistes of three
degrees and no more . . . including . . . the Holy Royal Arch'. Now we all
know perfectly well that before the Union the original Grand Lodge did not
officially recognise the RA, whilst the later rival GL regarded it as the
'root, heart and marrow of Free‑Masonry', union of the two being conditional
upon retaining the RA. So what was needed then was a simple compromise phrase
to indicate that those masons satisfied with three craft degrees were not to
be considered incomplete, but those who leaned towards the RA could feel that
it was no less ancient and entitled to be regarded as an integral part of
masonry for those who wanted it. For sheer economy of words the 1813 phrase
would be hard to improve upon but it poses considerable incongruity. If Pure
Masonry consists of no more than three degrees then the RA would seem to be
either impure which is not what was meant, or else it was not a degree at all,
which also was not intended.
My
personal view for what it is worth, is that 150 odd years is too long to live
with an illogicality that custom (in England) has outmoded. For the RA is
beyond doubt a degree and to the great majority part of the masonic system
quite irrespective of whether it is a sort of completion of the third degree
(as some think) or nothing of the kind (as I think.) Not to recognise this and
make it known from the beginning is I feel to render a disservice to young
masons who often in later life bitterly regret that their entry into the RA
was too long delayed, usually because no one advised them otherwise.
It is
not my purpose to discuss in depth the history or development of the RA, for
many of us have devoted a large slice of our masonic lives to doing this and
we are still quite a long way from general agreement. But it is worth while
considering why this degree is called the Royal Arch.
Now it
is no secret that the legend describes the discovery of an arched vault. But
the latter is merely an incidental detail and quite unimportant to the theme
of the ritual, which would not be impaired had the vault been found with a
lintel over the opening. Indeed, historically it would be more sensible as the
discovery of an arched vault belonging to the first Temple would have by
itself been an archaeological find of exceptional importance seeing that none
are known in Phoenician architecture. Yet even if there had been, no one by
any stretch of imagination would refer to the entrance to a vault as a Royal
arch.
We
must therefore consider the circumstances which obtained at the beginning. I
have argued elsewhere that the degree known as the Scots Master which appeared
sporadically in southern England in the 1730s is most likely to have been IN
THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD . . . 123 imported from France and, for what we
know of the earliest continental Scots Masters degree, the evidence is fairly
clear that it was born of Jacobite and therefore Roman Catholic influences.
The period not being conducive to Jacobitism, intended or otherwise, the
English 'Scots Master' soon disappeared but almost immediately afterwards the
Royal Arch began to be heard about.
We
know from the earliest literary evidence that the degree, albeit very
primitive, was not conferred ad libitum but was reserved for masons of special
standing, such as ex‑Masters of lodges. I am sure all are familiar with the
well‑known expression by Dassigny concerning brethren 'who have passed the
Chair', and the later subterfuge ceremony of passing the Chair as a necessary
preliminary to being exalted.
Indeed
it is quite evident from the documents that the RA was looked upon as a very
superior kind of degree, to be conferred only upon men of higher status. Thus
it seems certain that Arch meant superior and an Arch mason was of exalted
rank compared with the Craft mason. The use of the words Arch Mason to denote
a superior mason is exactly paralleled by Archbishop meaning a superior bishop
and Archduke, a pre‑eminent duke. Or to come still nearer home as Architect is
(or was) a Master Mason of the tectonic art ‑ the profession of building.
It was
not until many years had passed that a different meaning of Arch began firmly
to take root, when conferment of the degree had become almost commonplace and
other still more exalted degrees had been invented. By a fortunate
coincidence, the ritual act of opening up a keystoned arch, an architectural
device so dear to the founding fathers of the eighteenth century but quite
unknown to the builders of the Temple, came to be regarded as worthy of
entitling the RA degree itself. Thus the most important and central theme of
discovering lost secrets was, so far as the title was concerned, subordinated
to the incidental act of demolition.
But
tradition is not easily extinguished and so late as the 1780s an RA ritual of
the period and the earliest authentic one we know, contains the basic question
addressed to the candidate, 'What is your request', to which the proper answer
was 'To be admitted into this sublime arch order'. We could not expect
anything more conclusive than this declaration telling us loud and clear of
the days when the RA was essentially the arch, equals superior and/or exalted
order in FreeMasonry.
The
appellation Royal may well have come from the earlier Scots Master link,
slender that it was, with the Royal House of Scotland influenced possibly by
the fact that in the first Book of Constitutions James Anderson was rather
fond of referring to masonry generally as the Royal Art. This expression could
not properly be used for the Craft in the middle of the eighteenth century,
but it could in an abstract sense be applied to a special degree at a time
when so few knew anything about it.
For
those to whom the above explanations may come as perhaps a rather unwelcome
surprise, I hope we can at least agree on the two basic facts. They are that
in the English Royal Arch as it has been developed from mid eighteenth century
the rite, splendid though it is, has nothing about it which is markedly Royal.
Nor yet is the breaking away of an arch of any vital significance to the
performance or meaning of the ceremony.
124
`THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' Before leaving the Royal Arch it is relevant to
refer to another word, now more or less inseparable from that degree, but
which we shall meet in another form in the next section. JEHOVAH, the name
given to God by Christian translators of Hebrew in the thirteenth century and
used ever since, was derived in error, being compounded from the right
consonants with the wrong vowels. Certain it is that no such word was known in
ancient times, the one now generally accepted by modern scholars being YAHWEH.
The original pronunciation is still in some doubt but probably the nearest for
the English tongue is Yarway.
WHAT
IS TRUTH? Having just cited the example of an extremely important word which
through errors of transmission has come down to us in a form which whether
spoken or written would not be recognisable to the ancients, we should perhaps
consider the broader issue before going on to further examples.
The
importance of the VSL to freemasonry generally and masonic ritual particularly
needs no stressing and indeed Truth as revealed to us through the words of the
Old Testament is one of the three grand principles of the Order. We accept as
fundamental our belief in the Deity and the moral precepts which in every
language are conveyed by this remarkable collection of ancient books.
But
there are two things to be remembered. Firstly the Old Testament is really a
misnomer as no single definitive one is yet in existence. Secondly the work
contains the saga of the Hebrews and thus embraces a vast amount of incidental
historical matter, social customs, laws and so on from which masonic ritual
has drawn freely. It is on this aspect alone that I draw attention to the
peculiarity that the Old Testament in our native tongue is so familiar to us
from childhood that we tend to forget that were it possible to show any of the
biblical writers a copy of any English version, not one of them would be able
to understand a single word even in the part for which he was responsible. It
is not just a matter of the difficulty of exact translation from an ancient
language to a modern one, but that we are far from certain both of
understanding and interpreting archaic documents all of which are copies of
originals which had mostly perished long before the Christian era began. The
earliest textual material now known occurs scattered in manuscripts written in
Hebrew, in Syriac, in Greek and in Latin, so if we want to know what the Old
Testament as a whole has to say we shall not find out from any one of these,
not even from the Hebrew text itself. Because so much original matter has been
lost and errors of copying and translation have inevitably occurred, as well
as changes and re‑arrangements; the Old Testament has never reached finality
but is being continuously revised and amended as archaeological discoveries
and rethinking bring new light. Such discoveries, generally minute in
themselves, frequently involve application of the whole range of Semitic
languages and many more besides, so that when some fragment of what is
believed to be original text has thus been recovered, the task of deciding its
meaning is both extremely complex and arduous, requiring access to a vast
amount of comparative data and scholarly equipment of no mean order to make
use of it.
Thus
although we can all agree with and understand the broad moral principles which
the VSL teaches, the words used to express them as indeed all other matters IN
THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD . . . 125 of profound interest are often at best
approximations of literary material of great antiquity. The understanding of
these is beset by highly complex problems of linguistics, transmissional
inaccuracies and perhaps most difficult of all that of deciding what the many
ancient authors meant to convey in idiomatic phrases used in civilisations
that have long since ceased to exist.
In the
two examples which now follow I discuss the masonic usage of biblical material
as portrayed in English versions of the Old Testament but with significantly
new meanings. It is nevertheless necessary to make clear that certain
conclusions can only be tentative, awaiting the discovery of additional
material or better hypotheses to confirm them.
JACHIN
& BOAZ No aspect of masonic ritual is more intriguing both in symbolism and in
Craft history than that of the pillars J and B. Nor would it be easy to find a
subject which during the last hundred years has been written about so
exhaustively. Yet there is more to be said if we want to have a better
understanding of our materials.
In
masonry, the liturgical description seems strangely at odds with our
representations of them. Although we assign to them the qualities of strength
and establishment, nowhere so far as I know are they depicted as supports for
any part of Solomon's Temple. What then are they supposed to carry to justify
being specially named apparently for their exceptional functional qualities?
On tracing boards and even on the pillars themselves where they are used in
lodges, it is customary to find them surmounted by globes, sometimes said to
represent the earthly and celestial spheres and in other cases the sun and
moon. If such were the purpose we can hardly doubt the need for strength and
(conjointly) stability but we are fairly certain that was not the intention of
Solomon. Our usage comes from not being sure of the original purpose, our
forbears evidently thinking it necessary to find something for the columns to
support rather than they should stand in the open merely holding up the sky.
This was by no means the only instance of enthusiasts seeking to improve
ritual matter by the injection of common sense, only to bequeath tangled
problems which have to be unravelled by those that follow. Let us therefore
look at the original pillars J and B to find if we can their original purpose
and meaning.
Since
every stone of Solomon's Temple has disappeared our main source of information
is that in I Kings VII, 15 to 22. Although the earliest account, it was
nevertheless written during the Exile some 400 years after the Temple was
built when the original was in ruins. II Chronicles III, 15 to 17 gives a
parallel account but this was written 200 years later still. Nevertheless,
both give the impression that the pillars were free standing before the
Temple, an interpretation so firmly handed down by tradition that virtually
all representations from the introduction of printing in the late fifteenth
century show them thus.
Yet a
study of the earliest manuscripts reveals the possibility that they could have
been within the porch, in which case they would most likely have had the
simple functional purpose of supporting the roof. Now bearing in mind that
this building was of Phoenician design circa 960 BC it had long been hoped to
find evidence of similar temples of the same period in Palestine, and we are
fortunate 126 'THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' that within the last fifty years two
have been discovered. The earliest, in the process of excavation now, was the
thirteenth‑century BC temple at Hazor, the latter incidentally being a city
which Solomon rebuilt. The other excavated in 1936, was that at biblical
Hattina also in Syria dated eighth century BC. Both these temples are of
Phoenician design and follow the same principles consisting essentially of
porch, holy place and holy of holies. Indeed their ground plans follow so
closely the pattern of Solomon's Temple as described in the VSL that being
prior to and after their famous counterpart, we can with some degree of
certainty say that they all had a family likeness. Both these known temples
had the twin pillars within the porch, a fact which supports the Greek version
of the Septuagint which in reference to the J & B of Solomon's edifice tells
us of 'a beam upon both the pillars', evidently describing the beam of the
porch roof. In such case the Temple would most likely have had the appearance
indicated on page 127. Compare the proportions of this modern reconstruction
from biblical and archaeological data with that imagined in the seventeenth
century and illustrated on page 128.
Now it
is important to our consideration to realise that Solomon's Temple was at the
beginning a royal chapel or sanctuary having a not altogether dissimilar
relationship to Solomon the King as St George's Chapel, Windsor, has to the
English royal house. It was made by a king for a kingly purpose, and except in
one respect we must remove from our minds the traditional belief that it was a
kind of Westminster Abbey, a shrine for national worship. No such purpose
could have ever been considered by David or Solomon, but it does seem clear
that their object was to establish a sort of religious focal point for the
tribes which was for the first time in Israelitish history synonymous with the
court of the King. By this means they were able to prevent the priestly class,
the religious leaders, from themselves becoming heads of State. In this they
succeeded admirably, as is proved by the fact that for four centuries
descendants of David continued to occupy the throne and he himself has been
revered as the King par excellence throughout the whole of Jewish history. The
Temple, a very modest building by any standards, only began to assume its
undisputedly paramount place in the religion of Israel long centuries after it
had ceased to exist in its original form, when indeed distance and time lent
enchantment to writers recording a glorious past.
In the
beginning then the Temple planned by David and executed by Solomon was a
dynastic institution. It was the place to be identified for ever with the
accession of kings, and just as the raising of pillars had from time
immemorial been a ritual custom associated with monarchs, so we can expect
that the pillars J & B had similar ritualistic significance. Otherwise it is
difficult to see why these two of all the many pillars used in the
construction of the Temple were alone dignified by special names.
In
1939 Professor R.B.Y. Scott pointed out that the names Jachin and Boaz were
most likely to have been the initial words of inscribed oracles, ie the pillar
names were contractions of divinely inspired messages to the single opening
words which became accepted in time through common usage. Such abbreviations
of well‑known texts are familiar to churchgoers of the present day, eg
Solomon's Temple as visualised by the author from available evidence.
![](prestonian_lectures_volume_2_files/image004.jpg)
![](prestonian_lectures_volume_2_files/image006.jpg)
N J z
x m m z z F a x m 0 z d IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD 129 Paternoster is The
Lord's Prayer in Latin from opening words Pater noster‑ Our Father . . .
Again, most people belonging to the Christian church know that the canticle
merely called the Te Deum signifies that one which commences Te Deum Laudamus
(Thee God we praise).
So if
JACHIN and BOAZ were the first words of inscriptions, it is reasonable to
expect that the pillars themselves were in some way connected with the throne
and that the full inscriptions would signify Yahweh's support for the King.
What then were these oracles and what was their significance.
We
have no clue during Solomon's time, but at a later period an account is given
of the accession rites of Jehoash when we have the significant observation in
II Kings XI, 4 (AV) `And the King stood by a pillar, as the manner was'. This
is translated by the Revised Standard Version as `The King standing by the
pillar according to custom'.
Again
at a similar ceremony in honour of Josiah we have in 11 Kings XXIII, 3 `And
the King stood by the pillar and made a covenant before the Lord'. These
quotations could refer to any pillars were it not for the observation in II
Chron XXIII, 13 (RSV): `The King standing by the pillar at the entrance' [to
the house of the Lord] Since we know of no pillar or similar furnishing at the
entrance other than J or B, we must conclude that one or other of these is
meant. But the narrative has the pillar and although there is no evidence to
support the proposition it could be that Jachin the southern pillar
represented the Southern Kingdom and Boaz the Northern. For it must be
recalled that the purpose in selecting Jerusalem as the site of the Temple was
to unite the two Kingdoms and the Temple itself had a significant part to play
in effecting that unity. Thus it is possible that the King would stand by each
pillar in turn as a symbolic gesture to both sides.
But to
return to the oracles inscribed on the pillars. The words Jachin and Boaz are
evidently derivations of early Hebrew terms Yd‑kin and Bo‑6z. Of the former,
Scott points out that the verb kun appears again and again with the meaning
`to establish', eg II Sam. VII, 12‑26 `1 will establish his Kingdom' and `I
will establish the throne of his Kingdom for ever'. And since Yd can be
anglicised as He, God, Jehovah or more properly Yahweh, the oracle on the
pillar would most probably have the meaning `Yahweh will establish the throne
of David and his Kingdom to his descendants for ever'.
St
Jerome's Bible known as the Vulgate compiled in the fourth century AD has the
name of one of the pillars as Booz and in Phoenician the noun 6z is of
frequent occurrence in the Psalms to denote strength. Thus in Psalm 21 `O
Yahweh, in thy strength shall the King rejoice' and from similar expressions
we may conclude that the Bo‑6z caption would most likely be the equivalent of
`In the strength of Yahweh shall the King rejoice'.
Summarising the evidence, it seems conclusive that the ritualistic
significance of the original pillars J & B differs from the masonic
application in that the former was concerned with the house of David and the
latter with the house of God. And although the verb kun and the noun 6z cannot
literally be conjoined to mean stability, maybe we could stretch a point to
derive say the significance that `Strengthened by Yahweh the house of David is
established for ever'.
130
`THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' The dynastic connection is really a much more
satisfactory one than that used masonically, for the latter implies that the
first house of God and that necessary to perpetuate his name was the one built
by Solomon in 960 Bc, which is irreconcilable with the nature of the Creator
and indeed the VSL itself.
Nevertheless, it is rather curious that the masonic explanation of Jachin and
Boaz by giving them religious rather than dynastic significance, was thereby
unable to bring out and exploit the fact that just as the original pillars
were necessary symbols at the making of a King, so representations of them now
form an essential part of the making of a freemason.
THE
HAILING SIGN In the previous section we considered Solomon's Temple from its
secular rather than religious aspects. It is understandable that the biblical
narrative being primarily concerned with the worship of Yahweh, it could not
be expected to eulogise the Kings or heads of state of Israel for their purely
regal qualities. Consequently, many passages of mainly historical or
instructional value in the ancient records were rephrased by the priestly
authors of the biblical books to be interpreted in a lofty spiritual sense as
indeed they have been ever since.
One of
the most striking is that from which the Hailing Sign was derived. We are all
familiar with the passage in Exodus XVII, 11: And it came to pass, when Moses
held up his hand, that Israel prevailed: and when he let down his hand, Amalek
prevailed. But Moses' hands were heavy and they took a stone and put it under
him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the
one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the
going down of the sun.
Now
these words can never have been meant to be taken literally see page 131. They
obviously signify in metaphorical language the vital importance to success of
the sympathetic bond of confidence generated between the head of a nation and
his people, a parallel to which was the inspiration conveyed to the British
nation under the leadership of Winston Churchill in recent times. Every great
general has possessed this same quality from which troops believing in their
leader will face overwhelming odds, certain in their minds that they are going
to win because he inspires and radiates confidence.
Thus
when Moses metaphorically lifted up his hand, when it could be seen that he
was confident in the ability of his subjects, he transmitted to the people the
will to overcome the enemy. When he became weary and his hand fell or to use
another biblical metaphor his hand was weakened, this attitude of mind
dispirited the troops and they too lacked the essential ingredient needed to
win. It furthermore needed the moral support of Aaron and Hur for Moses to
regain confidence, after which the former fighting spirit was revived and the
Israelites triumphed.
So the
story of Exodus is really an allegory meant to show primarily the quality of
Kingship in a developing nation and secondly the importance of loyalty on the
part of the King's trusted advisers.
This
metaphor of `weakened hands' occurs in other similar instances. In 1935
tablets were discovered during excavations of the ancient city of Lachish
which 132 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' was finally destroyed circa 588 ac by
Nebuchadnezzar. One of them reads approximately: And behold the words of the
princes are not good, but weaken your hands and slacken the hands of the men
who are informed of them.
The
writer of this message again was referring to hands in a figurative manner,
but the sense is exactly as that in Exodus. When the princes spoke in
pessimistic terms, despondency was communicated to all who heard what had been
said and they lost the will to succeed.
Similarly in Jeremiah XXXVIII, 4: `he weakeneth the hands of all the people in
speaking such words unto them'.
So
although the masonic explanation of how the hailing sign arose is very
colourful and of considerable dramatic value, it is really based upon
misinterpretation of quite another message already veiled in allegory.
We can
be quite sure that the phases of the battle at Rephidim were in no way
influenced by the angular position of the hands of Moses, but as in any other
battle by his demeanour as a commander during critical periods. Or to use
another metaphor whether or not he had cold feet.
IN
CONCLUSION The purpose of this exercise was really to demonstrate the
extraordinary symbolic value we place upon words, some of which were never so
interpreted by our ancestors and others were not even to be invented for
centuries after the events they depict. Majestic and beautiful as is the
English of the King James Bible, it is at best a substitute for material much
of which has long since perished and could only approximately be translated if
any surviving original fragments were ever found. In adapting material,
biblical or otherwise to masonic ritual usage many original meanings have
tended to become lost or obscure, but this is not a good enough reason for
them to remain so ad infinitum if we are interested enough to want it
otherwise. In my opinion knowledge of how things were in the beginning greatly
enhances appreciation of the form in which they have come down to us, for if
there are lessons to be learned we are the better enabled to teach others.
But
there is another purpose. Words being symbols to convey ideas to the human
mind, it follows that over long periods of time their meanings change as the
subjects which they portray themselves change. In the early days of
freemasonry many words conveyed quite different meanings to our forbears from
those which are commonly understood today. This creates a perpetual temptation
to ritual improvers to modernise and tidy up expressions without adequate
awareness of the significance of their actions. Certain it is that the
application of what may superficially be believed to be common sense can play
and in some instances has played havoc with tradition.
Hence
the full circle is turned. The masonic historian not only takes part in the
time‑honoured search for words that are lost and must be found. He has also to
consider whether words employed in the search are themselves substitutions for
others whose loss has passed unrecognised.
MASTERS AND MASTER MASONS A THEORY OF THE THIRD DEGREE THE PRESTONIAN LECTURE
FOR 1971 THE REV CANON RICHARD TYDEMAN BRETHREN, IN so respectable an
assembly, and before such competent judges of real merit, it may probably be
deemed arrogant or presumptuous in an individual to offer his sentiments;
especially when convinced that neither his knowledge of language, or his
talents for eloquence, can do sufficient justice to the dignity of his theme.
It is
not my intention to enter into an elaborate disquisition concerning Masonry.
That task far exceeds the limits of my abilities. I shall only venture to
submit to your serious consideration a few observations . . .
Those
words are not an example of twentieth‑century modesty; they are, in fact the
opening words of the Oration given by Brother William Preston himself, in
1772, when he introduced the first of his Masonic Lectures (Illustrations of
Masonry).
All
the same, those words may be said to sum up the general requirement for a
Prestonian Lecture: that it should not be an `elaborate disquisition', but
rather the submission of `a few observations', and it is in this spirit that
the following thoughts are offered on the subject Of MASTERS AND MASTER
MASONS.
THE
LOGICAL PATTERN OF DEGREES Let us begin with a quotation that will be familiar
to all: `To distinguish the spot, they stuck a sprig of acacia at the head . .
.' A living sprig from a tree was unceremoniously broken off and hastily
thrust into the ground as a temporary measure. So runs the story. But surely
that sprig took root in the ground and grew and flourished, until its branches
covered the whole earth.
In
other words, that sprig of acacia may be said to represent the Third Degree
itself, which began as a temporary measure and is now firmly established all
over the world. Its light is still darkness, its emblems sombre, its s ..... s
are substituted and its ritual incomplete (as every Companion of the Royal
Arch knows), and yet its popularity remains as strong as ever. Perhaps this is
because it comes nearer to our‑own human experience than any of the so‑called
`higher degrees'.
In the
`retrospect of degrees' through which the candidate has already passed, he is
reminded that the First represents man's infancy, a state of.helpless
indigence in which he is gradually given light and instruction to fit him for
his task. The Second develops the intellectual faculty and represents the
maturity of man. The Third brings him face to face with his inevitable
destiny, the one absolutely certain forecast for each one of us; and it
teaches us to face that destiny with fortitude and humble confidence in the
Lord of Light who will, in his own good time, restore to us the genuine s . .
. . . s denied us in this our mortal existence. 133 134 `THE PRESTONIAN
LECTURES' CONFUSION OF TITLES This pattern of degrees in freemasonry is
completely logical and understandable. The strange thing is to find that,
until two hundred and fifty years ago, masonry in this country acknowledged
only two kinds of mason, Apprentices and Fellows, and there is little talk of
`degrees' at all until about 1730 (see A QC, vol 75, p 150). The only
reference to a'Master Mason' applied to the Craftsman who was elected to
preside over the lodge.
Confusion arises here because in early days the terms `Master' and `Master
Mason' were virtually interchangeable: thus in the Haughfoot Minutes for 1704
(see Freemasons' Magazine, 18 September 1869, p 222) it is agreed that John
Hoppringle should continue Master Mason till St John's Day next ‑ which
obviously means that he should stay in the Chair until then; while at York in
1725 (Gould, History of Freemasonry, vol IV, p 275) at least three brethren in
one lodge are referred to simply as `Masters'. And at Dumbarton in 1726, (AQC,
vol 75) Gabriel Porterfield, Fellow Craft, was unanimously admitted and
received a Master of the Fraternity.
There
is further confusion in the use of words to describe the making of a Master
Mason. The word `raising' does not appear before 1737 (Collected Prestoman
Lectures, Vibert, p 38). One reads of `making', `admitting', `receiving' and
even `passing' Masters ‑ which led to the extreme complication of a `passed
master' (p.a.s.s.e.d.) as opposed to a `past master' (p.a.s.t.) And just to
round it off, we actually find our dear friend Brother William Preston at the
very end of the eighteenth century laying down ceremonies for `the initiation
of a Master Mason'! (Illustrations of Masonry, 2nd ed, 1775, p 100).
DRAWING THE THREADS TOGETHER Little wonder, then, that historians have not
been able to make any hard and fast statements about the origins of our
three‑degree system, or the actual date when it came into being. There were so
many threads to draw together: there was the old‑established working of the
operative masons where a Master Mason would take on an apprentice in the same
way that a Master Printer or a Master Cutler would take apprentices, while
between the master and apprentices came the journeymen who worked on their
own. Then there was the early Scottish speculative masonry from which derived
the titles (though not necessarily the degrees) of Entered Apprentice and
Fellow Craft; there were the Knights Templar and Knights of St John who
undoubtedly contributed the title `Grand Master' to freemasonry, and may very
well have contributed much more; and there was the old theosophical teaching
of the Kabbalah, parts of which probably survive in the Royal Arch.
THE
MASTER'S PART These and various other threads were all weaving together at the
beginning of the eighteenth century and it was clear that some central
authority was vitally necessary to co‑ordinate and regularise things into due
order. The four London lodges who formed our Grand Lodge in 1717 had just that
purpose in view. Within a very few years their Book of Constitutions, under
the guiding hand of Brother Ander MASTERS AND MASTER MASONS 135 son, had laid
down rules for lodges to make Apprentices and Fellows, ‑though at this stage
it is not clear whether this meant two separate ceremonies or only one. What
is abundantly clear, however, is that private lodges were not permitted to
`work the Master's Part', and Masters could only be made by and in Grand Lodge
itself. In this way, Grand Lodge could keep a firm hand on those to 15e
numbered among the rulers of the Craft, and be able to `vet' each incoming
Master to make sure he was orthodox and suitable.
This
state of things lasted a very short time. On the one hand as lodges grew in
number it must have become increasingly difficult for candidates to make the
necessary journey up to Grand Lodge to be given `the Master's Part', and on
the other hand there were other lodges working in defiance of Grand Lodge who
insisted on making Masters themselves; and so we find in 1725 a motion in
Grand Lodge repealing Article 13, and saying, `that the Mast of each lodge
with the consent of his Wardens and the majority of the Brn, being Mas"may
make masts at their discretion'. By 1738 there are records of at least eleven
such lodges working the `Master's Part' (Gould: History of Freemasonry, vol
IV, p 368).
THE
MASTER ELECT For a time, then, it seems certain that this third degree of
Master Mason was given only to those who were about to become Masters of
lodges. This is the only interpretation which makes sense of the idea of a
`Master's Part', and as evidence I rely on the footnote to the Antient Charges
printed at the beginning of our Book of Constitutions (1970, p 6).
N. B.
In antient times, no brother, however skilled in the craft, was called a
Master Mason until he had been elected into the chair of a Lodge.
The
expression `in antient times' is certainly vague; but here at any rate is a
direct connection between Master Mason and Master Elect ‑ not Master, you
notice, but Master Elect; and this perhaps provides the clue to the way in
which things then developed.
No
doubt because of the difficulties of travel and the infrequency of such
ceremonies, it became the practice to get the Master's Part conferred, in one
of the `Masters' Lodges', on Fellowcrafts who were qualified by experience and
skill to occupy the chair some time in the fairly near future, so as to have a
reserve of qualified candidates for installation without having to send each
one up for his third degree after becoming Master Elect. In much the same way
that on board ship, almost every Mate will already hold a Captain's ticket in
preparation for the day when he may be given a ship of his own.
INSTALLATION And so there began to be found this new phenomenon, the Craftsman
who had `taken the Master's Part' but had not yet been installed in the Chair.
He was not a Master in the sense of `Installed Master', and yet he was
obviously more than a Fellow Craft. He was in fact, and still is, a Master
Mason.
Those
Antient Charges in our Book of Constitutions again seem to support this
theory: 136 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' No Brother can be a Warden until he has
passed the part of a Fellow Craft, nor a Master until he had acted as a
Warden.
or
again, The most expert of the fellowcraftsmen shall be chosen or appointed the
Master.
And
notice that in our Installation ceremonies we still acknowledge the old
working, and go on behaving as though the degree of Master Mason did not
exist! For example, the Master Elect is presented and obligated not in the
third degree but in the second. (For, don't forget, that according to the
Antient Charges, a Warden only needed to be a Fellow Craft.) The Installing
Master addresses the Brethren: From ancient times it has been the custom . . .
to select . . . an experienced craftsman to preside as Master not `an
experienced Master Mason', but `an experienced craftsman', who must have been
elected by his `Brethren and Fellows'. The Master Elect advances and takes his
obligation in the position of a Fellow Craft. The lodge is then opened in the
third degree, but nothing whatever is done in it, and all below the rank of
Installed Master retire immediately. I suggest to you that in the early
eighteenth century it was at this point, and originally at this point only,
that the third degree as we know it, was conferred on the Master Elect.
JEWELS
AND SYMBOLS Of the inner working of the Board of Installed Masters one can
obviously say nothing here, except to mention that when the new Worshipful
Master is invested with his collar he is informed how the Square is to be
applied by Master Masons. Is this a slip of the tongue or a printer's error?
Should the Square have been applied by Installed Masters rather than Master
Masons? Or is this not just one more indication that the new Master is also a
new Master Mason? When the brethren return after their temporary absence, the
only visible difference they find is that their newly installed Master now
wears the collar and jewel of his office, and some new symbols on his apron,
and we might stop for a moment here to consider what these new symbols are.
They
are usually described as `levels', and indeed they do bear a superficial
resemblance to that particular working tool; but they are certainly not
intended to be levels ‑ and in any case the level is the jewel of the Senior
Warden and not of the Worshipful Master.
They
are neither explained nor even referred to in the inner working, so we can get
no help there. The Book of Constitutions describes them cautiously and
mathematically, without saying what they are: `perpendicular lines one inch
each upon horizontal lines two inches and a half each, thereby forming three
several sets of two right angles'. This latter description will sound familiar
to Companions of the Royal Arch who will see in this a separation of certain
elements which are gathered together in new form in that supreme degree.
Others have likened them to `T‑squares', or `two squares back to back', while
some writers have gone into fanciful references to phallic symbolism and the
cult of Osiris.
MASTERS AND MASTER MASONS 137 A FURTHER EXPLANATION None of these explanations
would seem entirely satisfactory and I want to suggest another idea
altogether, which fits in completely with what we have been saying so far.
Remembering that, under the old system, only Installed Masters were considered
to be in possession of the third degree it therefore follows that only they
had taken the three regular sps in freemasonry. But recollecting how those sps
are formed my submission is that each of these symbols which we call levels or
perpendicular and horizontal lines is in fact a picture of a I.f. with a r.f.
in its h., thus showing that the wearer of this apron has taken the three
regular sps. Now there is no proof of this, but it seems reasonable,
especially when we consider the evolution of the apron generally.
THE
APRON In every case, speculative masonry has formalised and standardised what
it took from operative masonry. Thus the large protective leather apron of the
operatives, which covered him from chin to below the knee, has been reduced to
(again to quote the Book of Constitutions, 1970) `a plain white lamb‑skin from
fourteen to sixteen inches wide, twelve to fourteen inches deep, with a flap'.
The flap, of course, is all that remains of the upper part that formerly went
up to the chin.
This
plain white lamb‑skin is, as the Senior Warden tells the newly made brother,
the badge of a mason‑ not just the badge of an Entered Apprentice, but the
badge of a mason. In time it may get covered with rosettes and symbols, sky
blue, garter blue and gold braid, but all the time the plain white lamb‑skin
is still there, as it was on the night he was initiated. It is rather
impressive to read the description in the Book of Constitutions which begin,
as quoted, with the plain white lamb‑skin for the Entered Apprentice, and then
goes on: Fellow Craft, the same, with two rosettes. Master Mason, the same,
with three rosettes and a light blue edging etc, and so on up the scale,
through `Provincial Grand Officers, the same, with garter blue edging and gold
cord' until last of all comes Grand Master, the same, with the blazing sun
in,gold in the centre, an edging of pomegranate, lotus and seven‑eared wheat,
and a fringe of gold bullion.
but
the most important word in all those descriptions is `the same', the plain
white lamb‑skin.
ROSETTES The origin of rosettes is obscure. Could they have started as buttons
or buttonholes which, when no longer required, were left in position like the
two useless buttons on the back of a tail coat? Brother Vibert in his
Prestonian Lecture for 1925 made this suggestion: The MM may have worn it (the
apron) with the flap down as we do today; the EA and FC keeping the flap up,
buttoned to the waistcoat, the EA further turning up one corner. The rosettes
... may have been adopted in Germany in the 18th century; they seem to
represent original buttonholes for the turned up corners.
138
`THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' Brother Hills in 1916 (Somerset Masters
Transactions) wrote: The . . . rosettes . . . possibly originated in some
contrivance, a loop or a buttonhole, which appears in old illustrations, for
fastening the flap up against a brother's coat and he adds, In the USA the
ordinary apron is simply a white‑skin, and the rank is distinguished by the EA
wearing the flap turned up, the FC the flap turned down, whilst the MM has the
corner of his apron turned up.
Against this there is a statement in the Encyclopedia of Freemasonry (Hawkins
& Hughan, 1920) There is evidence in some old American aprons still existing
that rosettes were formerly worn but have since been discarded.
Therefore, though the idea of `functional' button‑rosettes is attractive, it
seems more probable that the two rosettes of a FC were purely ornamental, to
distinguish him from the EA. There is such an apron in the museum at
Freemasons' Hall with two rosettes, dated 1795.
Meanwhile the Master had lined and edged his apron, first with white silk and
by 1770 with blue, together with those indications that his three sps had now
been completed. But if there were still brethren who had `taken the Master's
Part' but had not yet occupied the chair; how could they be distinguished? And
if, by then, the symbols on the apron had become a regular part of the
Installed Master's regalia, then a new form would have to be evolved. Why not
add one more rosette to the Fellow Craft's? A third `button' to indicate that
here is a craftsman marked out for promotion, and on his way to the chair.
Now I
realise that this has considerably simplified and streamlined the history of
aprons. It is not as easy as all that. For many years there was no set pattern
for aprons at all, and they were decorated with painted, embroidered or
printed designs incorporating pillars, working‑tools, all‑seeing eyes and
practically anything else you can think of. But by the end of the eighteenth
century a set pattern had started to emerge, and I submit that my explanation
is not unreasonable.
THE
GREAT DIVISION Before we leave this subject we must not lose sight of the
great division that existed during the eighteenth century between the
so‑called Antients and the Moderns, with two Grand Lodges both claiming
supremacy. (The Moderns, in spite of this name which their rivals bestowed on
them, represented the premier Grand Lodge established in 1717; the self‑styled
Antients were constituted in 1751, claiming that they alone preserved the
ancient customs and practices of masonry. The division was only finally healed
by the Union of 1813 into the United Grand Lodge of England.) The Antients
were concerned about the third degree for quite another reason: in their
system the Royal Arch was an integral part of the Craft working. Their Grand
Secretary, Laurence Dermott in 1764 (Ahiman Rezon) calls it `the very essence
of masonry' and in another place says he `firmly believes it to be the root,
heart and marrow of masonry'. `A Modern', says Dermott, `is unqualified to
MASTERS AND MASTER MASONS 139 appear in a Master's Lodge . . . nor in a Royal
Arch Lodge [sic] until he has been installed'.
And he
has hard things to say about `those who think themselves Royal Arch Masons
without passing the chair in regular form'.
Now
there seems no particular reason why an uninstalled Master Mason should not be
exalted into the Royal Arch. There is certainly nothing in our present
Installation ceremony which would be necessary for that purpose, and in fact
Master Masons are readily exalted every day into our Chapters; but it would
make complete nonsense of the Royal Arch ceremony to confer it on a Fellow
Craft who would not have the necessary background to understand what it is all
about.
PRACTICE OF THE ANTIENTS And so, among the Antients, the same sort of
subterfuge was adopted to allow brethren to proceed to the Royal Arch without
actually going through the chairthey were made Master Masons. Thus Brother
Gould expresses an opinion in an article (in the Freemason, 1 September 1883)
on Rights and Privileges of Past Masters that the `degree of Master . . . was
invented by the (Antient) Grand Lodge to serve as a constructive passing of
the chair, and thereby qualify Brethren for the degree of Royal Arch which
could only be conferred on actual Past Masters of Lodges'. The same author in
his History of Freemasonry (vol IV) admits that under both Grand Lodges the
practice of `passing Brethren through the chair‑ or in other words conferring
upon them the degree (without serving the office) of Installed Master, which
had crept into the ritual of the Antients, was very common'. If, by this,
Brother Gould means that craftsmen were given the `Master's Part' to proceed
to the RA before being installed in the chair of a lodge, then surely it has
become so common that it is now the normal procedure.
One
more point about regalia: not all the old customs have survived. Laurence
Dermott, in reference to the Moderns, informs us that each Apprentice carries
a plumb, Fellow Crafts carry a level, and `that every person dignified with
the title of a Master Mason [italics sic] should wear a square pendant to his
right leg' (Ahiman Rezor, 1764, 2nd ed. p xxx).
Laurence Dermott is not entirely trustworthy, and here he is obviously being
facetious at the expense of his rivals, but even so there is surely something
significant in applying to every Master Mason the pendant Square which is now
worn only by the Master of the Lodge ‑ albeit on a collar and not on his leg.
WORKING TOOLS For two hundred and forty years, then, the three degrees as we
know them have been generally practised with this strange mixture of logic and
illogic, with so much of the third degree being more appropriate to an
Installed Master: Look at the working tools. In the first degree they are
menial ‑ measuring, hammering, smoothing, but never finishing. In the second
degree they are responsible, the tools for finishing the job, trying,
adjusting, fixing. But the third degree tools are not the tools of a workman
at all; they are the instruments of the architect, the Master himself, laying
lines, drawing designs and rendering the circle complete.
140
`THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' The sps in the first are hesitant but growing
bolder; in the second ascending towards the place of reward. The bold marching
sps of the third would carry us right up to the chair itself if they had not
been diverted on the way.
THE
HIRAMIC LEGEND Which brings us to Hiram Abif and the masonic traditional
history. That there was such a person there is no doubt. He is mentioned
several times in Scripture where he appears as a highly skilled craftsman sent
to King Solomon by Hiram King of Tyre to supervise the building of the Temple.
He was of mixed race, his father being a man of Tyre and his mother a widow of
the tribe of Dan or Naphtali. The legend of his death and its consequences
will not be found in Scripture, but only in our masonic ritual. This is not to
say, as some have suggested, that the story was only invented 250 years ago
when the third degree took its present form; but one of the handicaps which
our society has to accept is the absence of documentary evidence. One can say
that there is no written evidence of the Hiramic legend before the eighteenth
century, but that does not prove that the oral tradition did not exist, for
masonic ritual was not written down at all in those days but passed on by
memory and word of mouth. (Perhaps it would make for the better preservation
of our secrets if the same practice were still observed today.) BIBLICAL
EVIDENCE There is, however, one piece of historical evidence that has
sometimes been overlooked, and that is the name by which we refer to our hero
‑ Hiram Abif. Where does it come from? Certainly not from the Authorised
Version of the Bible which tells us plainly about Solomon King of Israel and
Hiram King of Tyre, and merely mentions a third man called Hiram or Huram. But
there are two texts where this name appears to be qualified in some way. As we
shall be referring to these two texts quite extensively, let us call them, for
convenience, text (a) and text (b). Text (a) is in fact II Chronicles II, 13,
and text (b) II Chronicles IV, 16. In the Authorised Version they read as
follows: The first is part of the letter from King Hiram to King Solomon: (a)
`And I have sent a cunning man, endued with understanding, of Huram my
father's.' The second is at the end of the list of ornaments: (b) `And all
their instruments did Huram his father make to King Solomon for the house of
the Lord of bright brass.' THE ORIGINAL HEBREW Both obviously refer to this
Hiram or Huram who was a skilled craftsman, but what is the significance of
`my father's' and `his father'? Look now at the original Hebrew: in text (a)
we find `Huram Abi' (aleph, beth, jod). In text (b), `Huram Abiv' (aleph, beth,
jod, van). The Hebrew word `Ab' means `Father', `Abi' means `My father', and
Abiv' means `His father'. So far, so good; but the trouble is that `Huram my
father's' and `Huram his father' just don't make sense, for this Hiram could
hardly have been the father of King Hiram, and certainly wasn't the father of
King Solomon.
MASTERS AND MASTER MASONS 141 THE VULGATE The Greek version of the Septuagint
ignores the dilemma and just calls him `Cheiram', but St Jerome and the Latin
Vulgate plumped for the literal translation: (a) Mihi ergo tibi virum
prudentem et scientissimum Hyram patrem meum . (b) Omnia vassa fecit Salamoni
Huram pater eius.
It was
this version that was followed by most subsequent translators, so that the
first English Bible of Wyclif in 1388 has: (a) I sente to ye a prudent man and
most kunnynge Huram my fader (b) Hyram ye fader of Salomon made to hym alle
vessels in ye hous of ye Lord The Great Bible of 1539 which was the parent of
the Authorised Version varies this slightly: (a) ... a man whom my father
Hyram did use (b) ... did Hyram (his father) make.
THE
BISHOPS' BIBLE The Bishops' Bible 1572 repeats this, omitting the parenthesis
in (b) ` . . . did Hiram his father make', and adds this interesting footnote:
'Hiram is called Solomon's father because Solomon reverenced hym and favoured
hym as his father'. This shows that the editor was unhappy about the text and
felt he must attempt to justify it. So also in the version printed by
Christopher Barker in 1599 `with most profitable annotations upon all the hard
places, and other things of great importance', text (b) reads: `All these
vessels made Huram his father', and the marginal note says, whom Salomon
reverenced for his gifts that God had given him, as a father. He had the same
name also that Huram the King of Tyre had; his mother was a Jewesse and his
father a Tyrian. Some reade, for his father, the author of this work.
This
latter statement represents yet another tradition to which we shall be
returning presently.
THE
DOUAI VERSION However, not all editors agreed that the `fatherhood' referred
to Solomon; some thought it referred to the King of Tyre. Thus the Douai Bible
1635 makes that King write in text (a): `I have sent thee a man wise and most
skilful, Hiram my father', explaining in the marginal note, It is probable
that this man had instructed the King of Tyre in true religion of One God,
whom he confesseth in verses 11 and 12, and that therefore the King called him
his father.
From
then onwards, until the Revised Standard Version of 1952, all English Bibles
have stuck to the plain `my father's' and `his father', without any attempt at
explanation.
LUTHER
AND COVERDALE Now in all this wilderness of translations and marginal notes,
there have been one 142 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' or two lone voices which
have insisted that if a description doesn't make sense, then the likelihood is
that we are dealing with a proper name and not a description at all. The
earliest I can find of these is Martin Luther in Germany in the 1520s who made
his own translation of the Bible, going back when possible to original
manuscripts. Here is his version of our texts: (a) ... einen weisen man der
verstand hat Huram Abi.
(b)
... and alle ihr gefess macht Huram Abif dem Konige Solomo.
In
1528, Myles Coverdale, one of the leaders of the English Reformation, finding
England too dangerous for him, fled to Hamburg where he met William Tyndale
and helped him to translate the Pentateuch. By 1535, Coverdale had produced a
complete translation of the Bible into English, using not only the Latin
Vulgate but also Luther's German Bible as his sources. And so it is that in
Coverdale's Bible, published only in three years 1535, 6 and 7, we find in
text (a) the name Hiram Abi, and in text (b) Hiram Abif. Not `Huram' but
`Hiram'‑Hiram Abif, in two distinct words with a capital H and a capital A.
This
is the one and only place in the whole of English literature outside masonic
ritual that I have been able to find the full name printed in this particular
manner. In 1537 the 'Matthews' Bible, which drew upon Tyndale and Coverdale,
prints 'Abi' in both places, but by 1539 the Great Bible had arrived with `my
father' and `his father', and the old name was lost again.
RECENT
TRANSLATIONS It reappears in the French Bible of D'Osterwald in 1881 as 'Huram‑Abi'
in both texts, with a capital `A' but hyphenated, but we do not find it again
in English until the Revised Standard Version of 1952 where it is printed in
both texts as 'Huramabi', hyphenated and without the capital 'A'. It is
repeated in this form in the Jerusalem Bible of 1966.
It
remains to account for the third possible reading of the original Hebrew,
hinted at in that marginal note of 1599: 'Some reade, for "his father, the
author of this work" ', suggesting that it means, 'The work was done by Hiram
who was the author or father of it'. Later translators have observed that the
word `Ab' besides meaning `father' could possibly bear the meaning of
`author', `originator' ‑ or even `master'. This is the sense in which the
Esperanto Bible of 1890 took it, using `mian majstron Huram' `lia majstro
Huram', and it is interesting to note that this is the interpretation accepted
by the most recent translation of all, the New English Bible 1970, in which
our two texts are given as: (a) I now send you a skilful and experienced
craftsman, master Huram.
(b)
All these objects master Huram made of bronze, burnished work for King
Solomon.
THE
NAME IN REGULAR USE Out of all this bewildering mass of material, one fact of
great significance emerges clearly: that in England the name Hiram Abif had
appeared in print but once, in a little known Bible of 1535, and nothing like
it was used again in Scripture for 400 years. Yet freemasons in 1723 were
apparently familiar with the name and did not find it necessary to explain it
in any way. Can we really suppose that Anderson MASTERS AND MASTER MASONS 143
and his brethren invented a legend, and took the trouble to dig out a name
from a Bible of two centuries earlier to go with it? Is it not far more
probable that the name Hiram Abif was in regular use among masons even before
Luther and Coverdale came across it, and that it has been in continuous use
among masons ever since? Perhaps someone should do a little research on the
relationship between Luther and the Craft, to see which way round the
borrowing took place! The story of Hiram Abif, then, cannot be proved as
history, but neither can it be disproved. It is therefore aptly described in
our ceremony as a `traditional history', and as such it still can and still
does teach Master Masons many great and useful lessons.
THE
TRACING BOARD Let us turn now to the Tracing Board of this degree.
The
first thing to notice about it is that it stands the opposite way round,
compared with the other two, for its head is towards the west and its foot to
the east. * Here, surely, is yet another indication that the third degree is
the `Master's part', for the other two Boards are placed so that they can best
be seen by the brethren on the floor, but the Third is placed so that it can
best be seen by the Worshipful Master in the chair. (Tracing‑boards are, of
course, of comparatively late origin, but this pattern had become well
established towards the end of the eighteenth century.) Round the edge of the
Board are the points of the compass, with the rest of the emblems occupying
the centre. This degree attaches a great deal of importance to the Centre: the
lodge is opened on it; we hope to find the genuine secrets with it; ashes are
to be burnt on it, and the sign recovered on it. And now we find in the
description of the dimensions that they are to be measured `from the centre, 3
ft. E and 3 ft. W'.
For in
this degree it is implied that we can now work to render our circle complete.
But the first thing necessary for making a circle is to establish a centre,
and then one can trace the circumference, every part of which will be
equidistant from that centre.
However, the compasses, we are told, belong to the Grand Master in particular
as being the supreme authority by which we are kept within due bounds. The
compasses, together with the VSL, and the S are described as the three Great
Lights; they are symbols of authority and command. On a French tracing board
of 1745, a pair of compasses is depicted in the east and a square in the west.
This seems to fit in with that early eighteenth‑century catechism described in
the exposure called Masonry Dissected: (reproduced in Early Masonic
Catechisms, Knoop & Jones, p 168).
Q. How
came you to be pass'd Master? A. By the help of God, the Square and my own
industry. Q. How was you pass'd Master? A. From the Square to the Compass.
" This
statement maybe disputed by lodges who are accustomed to stand all their
boards against a pedestal or hang them on the wall; but the fact remains that
most boards have the points of the compass inscribed round the edge, and if
boards are placed on the floor with the `N' to the north and the `E' to the
east, it will be found that the first two face one way and the third the
other.
144
`THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' Can this be interpreted as anything less than a
reference to the passing of a Master into the chair of authority in his lodge?
THE CENTRE But to go back to the emphasis laid on the Centre in this degree,
and the enigmatic statement that with it we hope to find the genuine. Let us
take it that the Centre whose aid we seek is in some way connected with the
grave of Hiram Abif who is certainly the central character in this story.
There
is a grave, from the centre 3 ft. E and 3 ft. W, 3 ft. between N and S, and 5
ft. or more perpendicular . . .
We
solemnly recite those dimensions, but what do they mean? Certainly they
represent the sort of grave one would expect for a man of average height; but
the measurements are so specific: let us try multiplying them together and see
what happens. 6 ft long by 3 ft wide gives us an area of 18 square ft. Now
multiply this 18 by the 5 ft perpendicular, and we get a total volume of 90 cu
ft‑ninety degrees, or the fourth part of a circle. In other words, Hiram Abif
is buried on the Square. But he is also buried on the Centre, the point within
the circle.
`How
will you be proved?T 'By the Square and Compasses'‑ in other words, by the
test of the perfection of Hiram Abif. It is for this reason that we hope to
find that which is genuine `with the Centre', for this Centre contains an
example of the perfect mason.
But
where is this Centre? The First TB tells us that in every regular well‑formed
constituted lodge there is a point within a circle round which the brethren
cannot err. On the upper part of this circle rests the VSL. So the Centre is
located as close to the Holy Word as it can be. And our Master was ordered to
be re‑interred as near the SS as Israelitish law would permit. In fact it
would seem that we are to understand that his sepulchre was right in front of
the SS just as the point within the circle is right in front of the pedestal.
ORNAMENTS Further indications of this are given by Ornaments of a Master
Mason's Lodge. There they are, appropriately enough in the centre of our
picture.
The
Porch is the Entrance, showing that we need go no further than that. Next
comes `the window that gave light to the same'. I am sure that we usually
interpret `the same' as referring to the SS but is this the right
interpretation? The SS needed no light, for (Exodus XL, 34) `the glory of the
Lord filled the tabernacle'. The light therefore is coming from within, and we
should understand that the Porch was the Entrance to the SS, the D the window
that gave light from within to that Porch, just as the VSL, that great light
in freemasonry, gives light to all who move in the circle before it. And
thirdly the reference to the Square Pavement over which the HP walked to
approach the Porch, should surely suggest that it was beneath this that Hiram
found his last resting place.
In
these ways the actual spot where the grave is to be found is disguised under
various symbols so as to be intelligible only to those who can understand
their meaning. Or, as the Charge after the second section of the third lecture
puts it: MASTERS AND MASTER MASONS 145 To him who did the Temple rear, Who
lived and died within the Square And now lies buried, none know where But we,
who Master Masons are.
THE
MUSGRAVE RITUAL This somewhat extravagant manner of concealing a secret
hiding‑place by a series of questions and answers was perhaps not so uncommon
as might be supposed. An interesting side light is thrown on the subject by
the great detective Mr Sherlock Holmes in the story called The Musgrave
Ritual.
For
ten generations, the eldest son of the Musgrave family was required to learn
and answer a series of questions when he reached the age of twenty‑one,
although he had no idea what he was talking about, or why. It remained for a
clever and unscrupulous butler ‑ and of course for an equally clever but more
scrupulous Sherlock Holmes, to find the place where the treasure was hidden.
Compare some of the questions we ask (eg `How came they lost?', `How do you
hope to find them') with these questions in The Musgrave Ritual: Whose was it?
His who is gone.
Who
shall have it? He who will come.
What
was the month? The sixth from the first.
Where
was the sun? Over the oak.
Where
was the shadow? Under the elm.
How
was it stepped? North by ten and by ten, west by five and by five, south by
two and by two, west by one and by one, and so under.
What
shall we give for it? All that is ours.
Why
should we give it? For the sake of the trust.
In the
end the treasure of the Musgraves turned out to be part of the crown jewels of
King Charles I, concealed in 1649. The clues to their whereabouts had been
carefully passed on from father to son, but the identity of the treasure and
the meaning of the clues had long been forgotten.
There
is much in this fascinating Sherlock Holmes story which will sound familiar to
us: a winding staircase, the endeavour to raise something, only achieved with
the aid of two others, and a very indecent interment. But this is not really a
coincidence, for the author, Brother Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, was initiated in
the Phoenix Lodge No 257 in Portsmouth in 1887.
CIPHERS AND CODES Returning to our tracing‑board: every coffin carries an
inscription, and this one is no exception. On the plate on this coffin is the
statement ‑ so we are told, that 146) 'THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' here lies
Hiram Abif who was slain three thousand years after the creation of the world.
How do
we arrive at this? By interpreting the masonic cipher in which it is written.
These ciphers and codes were very popular in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries but have since fallen out of use ‑mainly because they are so easy to
find out.
First
of all, as one can guess from the figures, the writing is back to front ‑
'Mirror writing', in imitation of Hebrew which is written from right to left.
Next, all the letters and symbols are made up of straight lines and dots ‑ the
usual thing for masons' marks which have to be made with the straight edge of
the chisel or with the point of a compass. The alphabet was constructed by
making two sets of crossed parallel lines (as if about to play 'noughts and
crosses') and inserting letters in the angles so formed, from right to left,
starting with 'A' in the top right‑hand corner. This diagram will accommodate
the first nine letters of the alphabet (A‑I), and the process is then repeated
for the next nine (J‑R). The last eight letters are shown in the same way in
two saltire crosses. To write in code, all that was necessary was to depict
the section of the diagram in which the letter is situated, and this now stood
for the letter. To indicate a letter from A to I, the section was drawn plain;
to indicate a letter from J to R, it was shown with a dot in it. Similarly S
to V were plain, W to Z with a dot. With the aid of these diagrams the
inscription can now be clearly understood.
NUMERALS AND ACACIA Very often on a third Tracing‑Board you will also find
three '5's, or else three Hebrew characters which are in fact the letter 'He',
the fifth letter of the Hebrew alphabet which has the same numerical value.
These allude to the fifteen trusty fellow crafts who divided into three lodges
of five each, and they further allude to the five sns, the five Ps of F and
the salute of five which all Craftsmen give to their new Master when they
enter the Lodge after their temporary absence.
And so
we return to that sprig of acacia at the head. Plucked in haste it may have
been, and temporary it was intended to be, but the more you think about it,
the more you will realise that there could have been no more appropriate
symbol to adorn the grave of Hiram Abif.
For
first, the acacia which grows in Israel is an evergreen, a symbol of
immortality containing all the hope and expectation of the life to come.
Secondly the acacia was a sacred tree, the Hebrew 'shittim', and of its wood
Moses was commanded to make the Ark of the Covenant, the Table of Shewbread,
and all the furniture of the Tabernacle.
Thirdly the word 'acacia' itself is a Greek word signifying 'innocent' or
'guiltless'.
Here,
then, in this symbol of innocence, holiness and immortality, are summed up all
the mysteries of life and death, of time and eternity, of the present and of
the future.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS Such, then, are the 'observations which I submit to
your serious consideration'.
MASTERS AND MASTER MASONS 147 And what conclusions can we draw from them?
Surely that the office of Master and the degree of Master Mason have been torn
away from each other, just as a sprig is torn from a tree. The logical pattern
of the three degrees only remains logical if the third degree leads straight
to the chair. The reluctance of the first Grand Lodge to let this degree pass
out of their hands, the evidence of the Antient Charges in the Book of
Constitutions, the curious way in which modern installation ceremonies ignore
the third degree, the sps, the working‑tools, the symbols on the apron, the
relationship to the Royal Arch, the square, the compasses, the Tracing Board ‑
all these point to the identification of Master and Master Mason as one and
the same person.
Not
that one would wish turn back the clock. We may indeed be thankful that every
installation does not have to include the working of the third degree on the
same evening, and thousands of Master Masons all over the world have cause to
be eternally grateful to those eighteenth‑century pioneers who evolved a means
whereby a man need not remain a Fellow Craft until elected to the chair, but
can now participate in the mysteries of a Master Mason to prepare himself for
the day when he may be called on to preside as Master of the lodge.
From
being an elite minority, Master Masons now form the overwhelming majority of
the membership of the Craft: the sprig has grown bigger than the original
tree. Thus that `one great and useful lesson more' has been taught to so many
who can profit by it. Courage, faithfulness, truth and honour are qualities
which the modern world does its best to devalue, and virtue is constantly
under attack in our permissive society.
EIGHTEENTH‑CENTURY MORALS It was surely no accident that the third degree, as
we know it, dates its popularity from the early eighteenth century: for this
was an age when death held many terrors; when public executions were common;
when churches were empty and prisons full. It was the age of Hogarth's `Rake's
Progress', of Dick Turpin and Jack Sheppard, Jonathan Wild and similar
anti‑heroes glorifying crime; an age of piracy and 'hi‑jacking', with
outbreaks of violence in the streets coinciding with a fashion among young men
for growing their hair long.
As far
as morals were concerned, notice that it was found not only desirable but
apparently necessary to insert a clause in the Ob to protect the chastity of
those nearest and dearest to a Brother Mason‑ even defining the relationship
to include sisters as well as wives and children. Notice also how this seems
to suggest, by implication, that the chastity of any other female can still be
fair game, even to a man of honour and a Master Mason. Such was life in the
early eighteenth century.
However, the picture was not entirely gloomy, for you will observe that this
same Ob does not consider it necessary to define what it means by `the posture
of my daily supplication'; the reference to a knee was quite sufficient to
take that for granted. They may not have been great churchgoers but it could
be safely assumed that every Brother said his prayers every day. I venture to
believe that this could also be assumed about far more brethren in 1971 than
any sort of statistics would be likely to show.
148
`THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' HOPE FOR THE FUTURE There is great encouragement in
this. For the age of Dick Turpin and Jack Sheppard was quickly followed by the
age of Wesley and Wilberforce, of John Howard and Elizabeth Fry ‑ a complete
swing of the pendulum, made possible only because there were sufficient
individuals who prized honour and virtue above the external advantages of rank
and fortune, who kept faith with the past, and gave hope to the future.
And
so, perhaps the origins and history of the third degree are after all the
least important parts of it. What really matters is the meaning of it today ‑a
call to us in another age of moral and spiritual chaos to hold on steadfastly
to what we know to be right, at whatever cost, confident that the pendulum is
about to swing again, if we keep faith.
I
quoted Brother William Preston at the beginning of this talk. Let him also
have the last word, for he sums it all up better than I can, and thus he ended
his lecture on the third degree: The whole serves to commemorate the life and
death of our Grand Master Hiram Abif whose extensive genius was amply
displayed by his works, while the fidelity to his trust and his manly
behaviour at the close of life must inspire every generous mind with gratitude
and render his name everlasting to our annals. His example must teach us a
noble and heroic fortitude, to defend our virtue when exposed to the most
severe attacks, and to preserve our honour at the risk of our lives.* ' As
transcribed in MS by John Henderson, 1837, for the Lodge of Antiquity.
`IT IS
NOT IN THE POWER OF ANY MAN...' A STUDY IN CHANGE THE PRESTONIAN LECTURE FOR
1972 T. O. HAUNCH Summary of the ANTIENT CHARGES AND REGULATIONS to be read by
the Secretary (or acting Secretary), to the MASTER ELECT, prior to his
Installation into the Chair of a Lodge You admit that it is not the power of
any Man or Body of Men to make innovation in the Body of Masonry
(Constitutions of the United Grand Lodge of England) IT IS, PERHAPS A slightly
unhappy fact that the recorded history of the Grand Lodge of England, the
first Minute Book commenced in 1723, opens with a suggestion of some
disharmony ‑ and in Grand Lodge itself. The retiring Grand Master, the Duke of
Wharton, frustrated in an attempt to have his own way over a certain matter
departed from Grand Lodge in a huff ‑ or, as it is put somewhat less
colloquially in the minutes for 24 June 1723: `The Grand Master went away from
the Meeting without any Ceremony.' Earlier at the same Meeting the authority
for James Anderson's Constitutions (the very first Book of Constitutions) had
been called into question and Grand Lodge, without satisfactorily resolving
that particular matter did, instead, proceed to pass a resolution which has
continued to ring down the years ever since, and to whose substance every
candidate for the Master's Chair in one of our lodges is still called upon to
signify his submission. `It is not in the Power' [Grand Lodge resolved] `of
any person, or Body of men, to make any Alteration, or Innovation in the Body
of Masonry without the Consent first of the Annual Grand Lodge.' To many who
are familiar with the `summary of Antient Charges and Regulations' to be read
to a Master Elect, (an innovation, incidentally, introduced by the 1827 Book
of Constitutions) it may appear significant that the eleventh clause of that
summary omits the final phrase quoted above, `without the Consent first
obtained of . . . Grand Lodge'. This clause is therefore the mast, maybe, to
which many a'no innovations' banner has been nailed over the years for there
has 149 150 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' been ‑ and often still is ‑ a tendency
to cloak freemasonry with an aura of mystic reverence which is as uncritical
as it is irrational. It is to brethren who may not perhaps have paused to
think about it, but who have rather accepted that the system of freemasonry
has always been as it is now and, like the laws of the Medes and Persians `altereth
not', that this lecture is particularly addressed. In it I hope to show that,
as with any living thing, freemasonry has been subject to a continuing process
of alteration and innovation with a climactic date of 1813 at the Union of the
two Grand Lodges.
THE
FORMATION OF GRAND LODGE In 1717 Grand Lodge was itself an innovation.
Independent lodges of free and accepted masons had existed before that date
back into the seventeenth century, but they were unco‑ordinated and often
short‑lived. The four London lodges which held a meeting at the Apple Tree
Tavern (171(‑17) and constituted themselves `a Grand Lodge pro Tempore' were
not seeking to set up, at a stroke, a de facto autocratic system of government
for the Craft. Their purpose was merely `to cement together under a Grand
Master as the Centre of Union and Harmony'. The principal officers of the few
London lodges were to meet together quarterly in fraternal communication (in
the event they did not do so for the first few years) and once a year they
would hold a Grand Assembly and Feast. Outside these meetings Grand Lodge did
not exist except as an abstraction represented by the persons of the Grand
Master and his two Grand Wardens‑the only Grand Officers originally. It is
doubtful whether the instigators of the idea saw anything more than a social
purpose in the periodical getting together of the lodges in a general assembly
or `grand lodge'. If the latter was thought of as a central controlling body
it was one aspiring to strictly limited territorial jurisdiction only, the
Cities of London and Westminster and their immediate environs.
GRAND
LODGE CUTS ITS TEETH In six short years, however, matters had taken on a very
different complexion. By 1723 a Book of Constitutions had been published,
Grand Lodge had appointed a Secretary for itself, had caused the regular
recording of its proceedings to be commenced and had arrogated to itself
sufficient authority to be able, in the first of its recorded minutes, to pass
the resolution from which the title of this lecture is taken.
The
brethren composing Grand Lodge at that date (1723) quite obviously did not
regard freemasonry as a complete system delivered, as it were, from heaven on
tablets of stone and complete to the last detail. Innovations and alterations
could be (and in the event were) made in the `Body of Masonry', but only with
the prior consent of Grand Lodge. And even then, it appears, the sort of
changes immediately envisaged were those affecting the organisation and
administration of the Craft rather than modifications in freemasonry as `a
peculiar system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols'‑
which anyhow it was not at that date; this development was to come later. We
find no evidence for instance that the consent of Grand Lodge was necessary ‑
or sought ‑ for the fundamental `IT IS NOT IN THE POWER OF ANY MAN change
which was taking place at that time (the 1720s): the evolution of a structure
of three degrees from one of two grades only. Grand Lodge in any case could no
more prevent this than it could enforce obedience to its own regulation that
Apprentices were to receive the next‑and then only other‑degree solely in
Grand Lodge and, just as later in the century it could only frown upon, but
not stop the next ritual innovation, the rise of the Royal Arch and the
proliferation of additional degrees.
THE
THIRD DEGREE The study of the development of masonic ritual from the
seventeenth, through the eighteenth and into the early nineteenth centuries is
by the very nature of the subject a difficult one. From such little direct
evidence as there is, and from what can be drawn by inference, it is apparent
that it was very much a process of innovation and change reflecting the
transition from operative masonry, by way of accepted masonry, to speculative
freemasonry. The advent of the Third Degree is a striking example of this
process at work. It was a free and accepted or speculative innovation to take
the material of the old two degrees, `Entered Apprentice' and `Master and
Fellow‑Craft', and rearrange and expand it into three: EA, FC, and `Master's
Part' (ie MM). Yet, as I have already remarked, this three‑degree system was
coming into use in the lodges about, or very shortly after the time (1723)
that Grand Lodge had passed its `no innovations' resolution.
The
new arrangement did not take on immediately. An exposure of 1730 (The Mystery
of Freemasonry) remarked that `There is not one Mason in an Hundred that will
be at the Expence to pass the Master's Part except it be for Interest'. As
late as the middle of the century it had still not penetrated to Kelso in
Scotland, for it was only in 1754 that the lodge there discovered `a most
essential defect of our Constitution', namely'. . . that this lodge had
attained only to the two Degrees of Apprentices and Fellow Crafts, and know
nothing of the Master's part, whereas all regular Lodges over the World are
composed of at least the three Regular Degrees of Master, Fellow Craft, and
Prentice'.
The
Constitutions of the Free‑Masons, the first Book of Constitutions of the first
Grand Lodge, was based on the old two‑degree system. Among the General
Regulations we find this, for instance: `If the Deputy Grand‑Master be sick,
or necessarily absent, the Grand‑Master may chuse any Fellow‑Craft he pleases
to be his Deputy pro tempore.' Then again, in the `Manner of constituting a
New Lodge' (the earliest official piece of ceremonial working we have) the
Master and Wardens designate are described as `being yet among the
Fellow‑Craft' and as the ceremony proceeds it is directed that the Deputy
Grand Master `shall take the Candidate [ie the Master designate] from among
his Fellows'. The resemblance between the Ceremony of Installation as
practised in English 'lodges and this, its counterpart of two hundred and
fifty years ago, will be obvious if the two are compared. It explains, too,
why today the presentation of the Master Elect takes place in the Second
Degree; when this particular piece of ceremonial was devised there was none
higher; the Third Degree was still to come.
The
fact that the three‑degree system was able to establish itself from the 152
`THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' middle 1720s onwards, apparently without demur from
the Grand Lodge, seems to lend support to the theory that it was developed by
a rearrangement and expansion of basic material which already existed in the
two‑degree system. To this extent it was not considered an innovation and
therefore acceptable. This is strengthened when we compare the attitude of
Grand Lodge in the latter half of the eighteenth century to the next degree
novelty which had by then made its appearance, the Royal Arch.
First,
however, it is necessary for us to take a brief look at the relationship
between the two rival Craft systems which were working in England at that
time: that under the premier Grand Lodge of 1717, and that obtaining with its
rival which came into being in 1751, the `Grand Lodge of England according to
the Old Institutions', the so‑called Antients' Grand Lodge.
FREEMASONRY ANTIENT AND MODERN To us the differences between the two systems
may now seem small and of little consequence, and certainly out of proportion
to the unmasonic feelings they generated, but at the time much was made of
them, not least by the leading protagonist and Grand Secretary of the Antients,
Laurence Dermott. In the Book of Constitutions which he compiled for that
Grand Lodge, and to which he gave the curious title Ahiman Rezon, he roundly
condemned (2nd, 1764, and later editions) the whole system of what he called
`modern masonry' (thereby, incidentally, coining the nickname for the original
Grand Lodge) and charged it with having deviated greatly from the old
landmarks. `The innovation,' he declared, `was made in the reign of George the
first [1714‑27] and the new form was delivered as orthodox to the present
members.' He went on to allege in his typically disparaging way that the
founders of the premier Grand Lodge had invented what they could not remember
of the original mode of working: About the year 1717 some joyous companions,
who had passed the degree of a craft, (although very rusty) resolved to form a
lodge for themselves, in order (by conversation) to recollect what had been
formerly dictated to them, or if that should be found impracticable, to
substitute something new, which might for the future pass for masonry amongst
themselves. At this meeting the question was asked, whether any person in the
assembly knew the Master's part, and being answered in the negative, it was
resolved, nem. con. that the deficiency should be made up with a new
composition, and what fragments of the old order found amongst them, should be
immediately reformed and made more pliable to the humours of the people . . .
Dermott's assertions may have a grain of distorted truth in them for, as we
have already noted, the three Craft degrees were developed by a rearrangement
of the existing motifs of the original two degrees and a filling‑out with
certain new material. On the other hand Dermott's own Grand Lodge worked the
same three‑degree system so that he was probably carping only about matters of
detail on which we know the two Grand Lodges differed. In this respect the
most notable case in point related to the modes of recognition of the First
and Second Degrees over which the premier Grand Lodge had made its most
significant‑ and most ill‑judged ‑ innovation.
`IT IS
NOT IN THE POWER OF ANY MAN . . . 153 THE TRANSPOSITION At some time in the
1730s the premier Grand Lodge, alarmed by the publicity which freemasonry was
attracting through so‑called exposures and by the increase in the numbers of
irregular masons (the two things were probably cause and effect), adopted a
series of measures `to be observed in their respective Lodges for their
Security against all open and Secret Enemies to the Craft'. Just how far these
measures went is open to debate for the minutes of Grand Lodge are
understandably reticent on the subject. Some concerned rules for visiting, but
there seems little doubt that the major change was the transposition of
certain words of recognition. This is apparent from the mid‑eighteenth‑century
exposures and from the fact that certain continental systems, which took their
freemasonry from England at that time, still to this day retain the transposed
arrangement, making intervisitation between Constitutions by EAs and FCs
something of a difficulty.
This
innovation was one of the sources of contention between the Antients and the
Moderns. Dermott made an oblique reference to it in a typical skit describing
Moderns' lodges and, in particular, the drawing of the lodge done by the tyler
on the floor of the meeting room. `Nor is it uncommon', he wrote in Ahiman
Rezon, `for a tyler to receive ten or twelve shillings for drawing two sign
posts with chalk &c. and writing Jamaica rum upon one, and Barbadoes rum upon
the other . . .' The premier Grand Lodge, having allowed itself the power to
make this fundamental alteration, equally found no difficulty some seventy or
so years later in countermanding it, in order to pave the way for the union of
the two rival Grand Lodges. In 1809 it passed a resolution to `enjoin the
several Lodges to revert to the Ancient Land Marks of the Society' and so
removed one of the greatest obstacles to a reconciliation.
THE
ROYAL ARCH The Antients were, as we have seen, quick to charge the Moderns
with having made innovations in masonry, but it was they who adopted and
fostered the biggest innovation of all in eighteenth‑century freemasonry, the
Royal Arch, together with a series of `side' degrees out of which have grown
some of the present‑day additional degrees and orders of freemasonry.
The
Royal Arch degree had made its appearance some time during the 1740s and‑the
Antients' Grand Lodge, under Dermott's leadership, were quickly to become
enthusiasts for it. Their lodges worked this degree (and others) under the
aegis of their Craft warrant and they did not admit the necessity of any
separate authority or organisation for doing so. The preamble to their Rules
and Regulations for the , . . Government of Holy Royal Arch Chapters (1794)
led off with the statement that `Ancient Masonry consists of Four Degrees ...
The apprentice, the Fellow Craft . . . the Sublime Degree of Master, [and] The
Holy Royal Arch' and it continued: `It follows therefore, of course, that
every Warranted Lodge possesses the Power of forming and holding Lodges in
each of those several Degrees; the last of which, from its Pre‑eminence, is
denominated among Masons a Chapter.' The premier Grand Lodge on the other hand
did not recognise the Royal Arch as part of the original system of
freemasonry, although had it been so disposed it 154 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES'
could presumably have done so within the power Grand Lodge had reserved to
itself by the 1723 `no innovations' resolution. It preferred however to remain
completely apart from the Royal Arch and so a quite separate organisation came
into existence in 1766 to control the degree among the Moderns ‑ the Grand and
Royal Chapter of the Royal Arch of Jerusalem. The Grand Secretary at that
time, Samuel Spencer, went so far as to say in writing to a correspondent: `.
. . the Royal Arch is a Society which we do not acknowledge, and which we
believe to have been invented to introduce innovations and to seduce the
brethren from the true and original foundations which our ancestors laid down
. . .'In other words it was not an innovation which the premier Grand Lodge
was prepared to accept into the `Body of Masonry' in the way that, in the
formative stage of its development, it had accepted the tri‑gradal system
which, as we have seen, was certainly not laid down by any who might be deemed
to be the `ancestors' of the speculative freemasons of the mid‑eighteenth
century.
Nevertheless, in spite of the premier Grand Lodge's non‑recognition of the
Royal Arch ‑ and I use the neutral term 'non ‑recognition' in preference to
,opposition to' as more nearly defining the attitude of Grand Lodge in the
matter ‑ the degree grew in popularity among the Moderns and indeed many of
the leading figures in the premier Grand Lodge joined it. They were not
opposed to it, but they would not mix the Royal Arch with Craft Masonry in
their Grand Lodge nor allow their private lodges to do so ‑ although here and
there they occasionally did. As it was put by a later Grand Secretary, James
Heseltine (himself a Royal Arch Mason and a founder of the Grand Chapter),
displaying a more tolerant outlook than his predecessor and one better
reflecting the position taken up by Grand Lodge on the subject: `. . . the
Royal Arch is a private and distinct society. It is a part of Masonry, but has
no connection with Grand Lodge.' Then again later, writing apropos the Royal
Arch degree, he commented. . . its explanations of freemasonry are very
pleasing and instructive'.
This
fundamental difference in their attitude to the Royal Arch by the Moderns and
the Antients was one of the more important points at issue which had to be
reconciled before a union between the two could be effected. The compromise
that in this instance did so was the statesmanlike concession by the premier
Grand Lodge in 1813 that the Supreme Order of the Royal Arch was, after all,
part of pure Antient Masonry, and the legal fiction by which it was
acknowledged as `the Perfection of the Master's Degree', thus leaving intact
the body of pure Antient Masonry as consisting of `three degrees and no more'.
An equivocation, perhaps, but one which, happily, was to prove a firm
foundation for the United Grand Lodge.
THE
NATURE OF EIGHTEENTH‑CENTURY FREEMASONRY When one examines (as far as the
evidence permits) the development of eighteenth‑century freemasonry, its
religious basis, the moral and symbolic content of its ritual, the form of its
ceremonies, its social customs‑what, in fact, is of the very essence of
freemasonry ‑ one cannot escape the conclusion that there was a subtle but
continuous process of innovation, alteration and expansion which could hardly
have been envisaged by the framers of the `no innovations' resolution of `IT
IS NOT IN THE POWER OF ANY MAN 155 1723 although the seed of one very
fundamental change had been planted in that year.
The
year 1723, as we know, saw the publication of the first Book of Constitutions.
It has been argued that the First Charge of a Freemason contained in the
Constitutions, `Concerning God and Religion', established the early
speculative freemasonry of Grand Lodge on a deistic basis. It is by no means
certain, however, that this was the intention of James Anderson, the editor,
or of the committee of `14 learned Brothers' who were appointed to examine the
manuscript. It may have been no more than a reflection of the more tolerant
attitude of the Age of Reason to divergent views of the basic and universal
Christian religion of the country. Be that as it may, and in spite of the fact
that there are recorded instances from the 1720s onwards of men of the Jewish
faith being admitted into the Craft, there is no doubt that English
freemasonry remained very definitely Christian throughout the eighteenth
century and up to the watershed date of 1813, the Union of the two Grand
Lodges. Then in a whole series of innovations and alterations the United Grand
Lodge gave a `new look' to the system of freemasonry by, among other things,
de‑Christianising its ritual, thus establishing it henceforward and quite
unequivocally as `the centre of union between good men and true' irrespective
of religion and mode of worship.
It was
only to be expected that speculative freemasonry should earlier have been
developed on a Christian basis in a Christian country by the practising
Christians who formed the great majority of its members. The ritual and
ceremonies embraced Christian forms and allusions. The two Saints named John
figured prominently in masonic tradition; they were the Patrons of the Art,
the two Grand Parallels in masonry; unattached brethren were said to be from
`the Lodge of St John'; the feast days‑that of St John the Baptist on 24 June
and of the Evangelist on 27 December ‑ were observed by masons as the days of
installation which in many cases took place every six months. The installation
meeting was called the Festival of St John; in some places it still is ‑ thus
does tradition die hard.
The MS
Constitutions of the operative masons, the so‑called `Old Charges', were
prefaced by a Trinitarian prayer which Dermott took and reproduced in Ahiman
Rezon as `A Prayer used amongst the primitive Christian Masons'. He also,
incidentally, printed a deistic prayer stated to be `used by Jewish FreeMasons',
but in general the speculative freemasons of the eighteenth century followed
their operative ancestors and when prayers were required in their proceedings
they quite naturally adopted or adapted the Christian forms to which they were
used in their worship. (As a matter of interest we may note that the Book of
Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of Ireland, which is descended indirectly
from an Irish version of Ahiman Rezon, still gives a prayer for use in the
Third Degree which is Christian and Trinitarian in character. On its
certificates, too this Grand Lodge is referred to as `The Most Worshipful
Lodge of St John'.) When lodges started to adopt distinctive titles ‑ the
first to do so was in 1730; Antients' lodges seldom troubled; with the
Moderns, and at first with the United Grand Lodge, it was usual but still
optional; from 1884 it was mandatory ‑a great many took the name.of a
Christian saint. One has only to refer to Lane's Masonic 156 `THE PRESTONIAN
LECTURES' Records and the Masonic Year Book to note the numbers of lodges
which have been and continue to be so named, thus underlining the strong
connection there has always been between the Craft and the established
religion of the country and its individual churches.
RITUAL, CEREMONIAL AND CUSTOM The development of the Craft system in the
eighteenth century and up to 1813 is the final chapter in the story of the
transformation of free and accepted masonry into speculative freemasonry ‑ of
the change from a simple social and benevolent society with a picturesque
ceremony of admission inherited in its essence from the operative masons, to
an altogether more serious and highminded means of demonstrating a pattern for
living by means of allegory and symbols. Freed from the shackles of its
operative, purely trade restrictive purpose, and becoming fashionable and
accepted at all levels of society, it was able to rise and expand on a more
esoteric plane.
The
first stage in this process has already been referred to: the adaptation of
the system into three degrees and the clothing of the skeleton of these with
additional material to fit them into the new pattern. Thus at first the
purpose ‑ or perhaps merely the effect ‑ was to add to the novelty and appeal
of what was becoming a fashionable and growing institution by providing it
with a dramatic content and with traditional `histories' or explanations to
suit its elements and motifs, old and new. As far as can be judged from the
sources available (and, for want of anything better, and unreliable as by
their nature they must to some extent be, we have here to depend very heavily
upon exposures) there appears at this stage to have been no attempt to draw
moral lessons from masonic traditions and emblems. True, Samuel Prichard in
one of the first of the exposures to be widely circulated, his Masonry
Dissected of 1730, did include this exchange: Q. What do you learn by being a
Gentleman‑Mason? A. Secresy, Morality and Goodfellowship.
but he
did not go on to develop this answer either here or elsewhere in the
catechism. The morality which a 'Gentleman‑Mason' learned was probably that of
the code of conduct of the `Old Charges' rather than that conveyed by ritual
allegories and symbols.
In the
1740s however we begin to find scraps of evidence that symbolical explanations
were being attached to certain features of the ritual and ceremonies. These
occur here and there in contemporary French exposures and in the statements
extracted by the Portuguese Inquisition from the unfortunate John Coustos, who
was tried and tortured as a result of his masonic activities in Lisbon. It
seems, therefore, that the expansion of masonic symbolism as a means of
expressing certain ethical teachings must have been taking place round about
the middle of the eighteenth century. By the end of the 1760s writers and
lecturers were beginning to appear to expand and explain this new‑found
philosophy of freemasonry and to develop its spiritual ideas and inner
meanings, culminating in the work of one who was to tower above them all and
whose masonic genius is annually commemorated by a lecture such as this ‑
William Preston.
`IT IS
NOT 1N THE POWER OF ANY MAN 157 There can be little doubt but that the work of
these masonic philosophers did much to give energy and direction to this
aspect of freemasonry. What they did in their commentaries was to produce a
great mass of didactic and homiletic material which, although not specifically
designed with this purpose in mind, was in factor the best parts of it ‑
absorbed into the lodge work, thus establishing the pattern familiar to us.
Reduced to their essentials our masonic ceremonies consist of certain forms of
words and actions by which a man is made a mason or advance to another degree.
These, the esoteric elements of the ceremonies, provide a rite which is
complete in itself and all that is necessary to achieve its prime purpose, but
around this framework is then built an elaborate system of formalised
addresses, exhortations, charges and the like which lifts the whole on to a
higher plane and expands and expounds (which the basic rite does not) the
philosophical principles and tenets of freemasonry.
We can
understand how this, the great but gradual innovation of the latter half of
the eighteenth century, came about if we consider what we know of the working
of the time. The actual ceremonies were probably very brief by modern
standards ‑no more than the simple ritual procedures for making, passing and
raising; the basic rite, in fact. It was in the catechetical lectures, which
at that time were worked as the brethren sat at table, that the explanations,
the moralising and eulogising, the drawing‑out of allegory and symbolism, took
place. This is still so, of course, but the Lectures are largely neglected
since much of their teaching (or, at least, the less verbose parts of it) has
been absorbed into the ceremonies, and because of the change in function of
lodges of instruction, for these are now almost entirely mere lodges of
rehearsal and not, as they were until well into the nineteenth century, lodges
giving instruction in freemasonry by working the Lectures.
The
coalescing of the basic rite and what might be termed the teaching and
preaching part of freemasonry came about as the ceremonial and the social and
convivial aspects of lodge meetings became divorced into two separate and
distinct activities. This was one of the many changes which finally became
universal as a result of the work of the Lodge of Reconciliation in 1815.
Whilst the Lectures were `gone through' as the brethren sat around a table,
smoking and drinking and indulging in many toasts and charges, there was
probably much room for individual ideas in matters of interpretation and
symbolism. The author of the exposure Three Distinct Knocks (1760) confirms
this (despite his gibes) in a footnote appended to his version of the
Fellow‑Craft's Lecture or `Reasons' (as he elsewhere calls a lecture) when he
states: Some Masters of Lodges will argue upon Reasons about the holy Vessels
in the Temple and the Windows and Doors, the Length, Breadth and Height of
every Thing in the Temple. Saying, why was it so and so? One will give one
Reason; and another will give another Reason, and thus they will continue for
Two or Three Hours in this Part and the Master‑Part; but this happens but very
seldom, except an Irishman should come, who likes to hear himself talk ...
some give one Reason and some give another; thus you see that every Man's
Reason is not alike . . .' When the writings of the masonic philosophers began
to make their appearance they found favour by providing and popularising
ready‑made, but deeper inter‑ 158 'THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' pretations which
caught the imagination of the masons of the day. To take an example by way of
illustration, one of the first of these publications was Wellins Calcott's A
Candid Disquisition of the Principles and Practices of the Most Ancient and
Honourable Society of Free and Accepted Masons, published in 1769. The second
part of this book has the sub‑title `The Duties of a Free‑Mason, in several
charges delivered in regular Lodges . . .' It consists of some sixty or so
pages of charges, addresses, prayers and so forth delivered on particular,
named occasions. This is what the author, Calcott, said in `a Short Charge'
delivered by him in the Palladian Lodge (now No 120), Hereford, to a brother
on his being installed in the Chair of that lodge. The language may not be
unfamiliar, although not necessarily in the same context.
Right
Worshipful Sir, By the unanimous voice of the members of this lodge, you are
elected to the mastership thereof for the ensuing half‑year; . . .
You
have been too long standing, and are too good a member of our community, to
require now any information in the duty of your office. What you have seen
praise‑worthy in others, we doubt not you will imitate; and what you have seen
defective, you will in yourself amend . . .
For a
pattern of imitation, consider the great luminary of nature, which, rising in
the east, regularly diffuses light and lustre to all within its circle. In
like manner it is your province, with due decorum, to spread and communicate
light and instruction to the brethren in the lodge.
From
the knowledge we already have of your zeal and abilities, we rest assured you
will discharge the duties of this important station in such a manner, as will
greatly redound to the honour of yourself, as well as of those members over
whom you are elected to preside.
Other
examples could be quoted from this and other authors where one finds phrases
or sentiments unexpectedly standing out from the printed page with equal
familiarity. It is difficult, however, to assess whether these represent
original source material or whether they are instances of a writer collating
or paraphrasing something already well known to him. Whichever way round it
was, their appearance in print would nevertheless have the effect of
standardising approaches and attitudes of mind if not of actual words.
This
process ‑by which the rudimentary degree system was expanded into
fully‑developed speculative freemasonry has a faint analogy today in the
desire of some brethren to expand and embellish lodge work still further by
desiring standard formal addresses or `explanations' where ad hoc informality
would be more appropriate. So new accretions grow quite unnecessarily on to
`The Ritual' to cover such occasions as the presentation of a Grand Lodge
certificate, Hall Stone Jewel, or the Master's 250th Anniversary collar jewel,
`explanations' of the apron and so on. We may remember however that in their
freemasonry eighteenth‑century brethren were only following the custom of the
time, the Age of Formality, when almost any occasion was made the excuse for a
sermon, address or discourse of one sort or another. For instance, James
Boswell on being received as a member of the Literary Club in 1773 recorded in
his Journal: `Upon my entrance, Johnson placed himself behind a chair, on
which he leaned as on a desk or pulpit, and with humorous formality gave me a
charge, pointing out the conduct expected from me as a good member of this
club'. This procedure has a `IT IS NOT IN THE POWER OF ANY MAN 159 familiar
ring to us although it must be stated at once that there is no evidence that
Dr Johnson was ever a member of the Craft although Boswell certainly was.
Apropos this custom of a `charge' being given to the new member of some
organisation, we may remember that the MS Constitutions of the operative
masons are referred to as the `Old Charges' simply because they contained a
series of charges, read to a man on his being made a mason, giving rules and
precepts for his conduct in his trade and in life, to which he was required to
pledge his adherence.
1813 ‑
UNION AND RECONCILIATION Reference has already been made more than once in the
course of this Lecture to the coming together of the two Grand Lodges as the
United Grand Lodge of England and to the year in which this took place, 1813,
as a turning point in the development of English freemasonry. We have now
reached the point where we may take a look at the effect of this great
upheaval and reorganisation of the English Craft, a traumatic experience which
sister constitutions were spared ‑ a fact which accounts for some of the
differences between English practice and theirs. The story of the events
leading up to the Union and how this was celebrated on 27 December 1813 has
been told many times over and need not be repeated here, for we are now more
immediately concerned with the series of alterations and innovations which was
its outcome.
The
Articles of Union‑the `peace treaty' (as it were) ratified and confirmed by
the two Grand Lodges ‑ had provided for machinery `to promulgate and enjoin
the pure and unsullied system, that perfect reconciliation, unity of
obligation, law, working, language, and dress, may be happily restored to the
English Craft' (Article XV). This provision was put into effect by the
warranting of the Lodge of Reconciliation which commenced work in 1814 and
continued over the following two years until 1816 when `the several
Ceremonies, &c.' recommended by the lodge were approved and confirmed by Grand
Lodge (20 May and 5 June 1816 respectively).
Masonic scholars have now been arguing for many years as to how far the Lodge
of Reconciliation went into detail in settling wording and working, and what
therefore was approved and confirmed by Grand Lodge. The minutes of the lodge
(which are preserved in the Grand Lodge Library) are very sketchy and
unrevealing, but it does seem that the Lodge of Reconciliation may have
concerned itself in the main with the broad outline or pattern of the
ceremonies and only to have gone into precise detail on particular matters
like the opening and closing, the obligations, passwords, methods of advancing
and the like.
Be
that as it may, the work of the lodge was not accomplished without arousing
opposition. Six Antients' lodges under the leadership of the Lodge of Fidelity
(former Antients' No 2, now No 3) set up a committee `for the protecting
safeguard of Ancient Masonry' which embarked on a vigorous campaign against
what were described as `the Innovations attempted to be introduced by the
Lodge of Reconciliation'. The leaders were Bros J. H. Goldsworthy of the Lodge
of Fidelity (who had originally been a member of the Lodge of Reconciliation
until 160 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' excluded therefrom for his `improper
conduct' in this affair) and Bro John Woodcock, Master of the Phoenix Lodge
(now No 173).
The
activities of the protesters soon, and inevitably, resulted in their being
arraigned before the newly‑created Board of General Purposes, but they had the
courage of their convictions. Woodcock in particular pulled no punches. He
refused to recognise the authority of the Board denying `that Grand Lodge was
itself properly constituted, the Articles of Union not having been observed'
and the Union therefore not yet complete. He then went on to level at the
Lodge of Reconciliation the accusation that the lodge `had not done what they
were directed by the Articles of Union and had altered all the Ceremonies and
Language of Masonry and not left one Sentence standing'.
But
the Union, so long and earnestly worked for and so recently won, was not to be
jeopardised by renewed divisions and disharmony. The Board showed patience and
the Lodge of Reconciliation a willingness to compromise. The Board could have
recommended‑but did not‑action under one of the Articles of Union (XVI) which
gave Grand Lodge power `to declare the Warrants to be forfeited, if the
measures proposed shall be resisted'. On its part the Lodge of Reconciliation,
through its Master, Samuel Hemming (in a report to the Grand Master, 11
February 1815), stated that `In conformity to the wishes of some of the
objectors the Lodge of Reconciliation have introduced a trifling variation in
the business of the Second Degree, because they are most anxious that the
general harmony of masonic arrangement should not be disturbed by a
pertinacious adherence to mere forms, which are themselves of minor import.'
This was the crux of the matter; the lodge was prepared to take the broader
view for the general good of the Craft.
Although the organised anti‑Reconciliation lobby stemmed from the Antients'
side (which had tended all along to show itself as intransigent as the Moderns
were prepared to be statesmanlike) disquiet at the changes that were being
made could not have been all one‑sided. The premier Grand Lodge had already
made moves to bring itself into line with the Antients, and thus to prepare
the way for the Union, through the work of its own lodge specially warranted
for the purpose, the Lodge of Promulgation which had worked from 1809 to 1811.
(One of its recommendations ‑ an innovation, incidentally, as far as Moderns'
lodges were concerned ‑ was the introduction of Deacons). Moderns' masons had
thus already felt the first stirrings of the wind of change which was to blow
through the Craft at the Union. Nevertheless there must have been many, too,
among their ranks who found this disturbing and even unacceptable. The Old
Dundee Lodge (now No 18), for instance, recorded a number of resignations
about this time (1814‑15) including that of a Past Master who wrote to say
that he had ceased coming to meetings `in consequence of his not being of late
as comfortable when he attended the Lodge (on account of the alterations in
the lodge) owing to the New System since the Union'. The years after 1813 were
unsettled ones for the English Craft when members fell away or were expelled
and lodges erased and, although this may have been partly the result of
economic conditions during the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, it was also
to some extent a reflection of the dissatisfaction of the die‑hards with the
Union and its results. Only the firm Grand Mastership of `IT IS NOT IN THE
POWER OF ANY MAN the Duke of Sussex steered the United Grand Lodge safely
through these difficult and often stormy seas and brought it into calmer
waters beyond.
It is
easy to understand the feelings of brethren as they found the old order
changing. Imagine the reaction today in the event ‑ the highly unlikely event,
we may be sure ‑ of the Grand Lodge deciding to issue an approved, standard
ritual and requiring all lodges to conform. The adherents of this or that'
working' would indeed be quick to protest and to defend their own favourite
variant. We may remember the excitement and controversy aroused on the two
occasions in this century when Grand Lodge has moved from its traditional
position of noninterference in such matters to discuss and legislate on ritual
‑ and then only within particular, narrow fields. The first in 1926, when the
initial prohibition of the extended ceremony of Installation was wisely
modified by a permissive compromise; and the second, in more recent years,
over the optional variations in the obligations. How much greater must have
been the consternation among many brethren a century and a half ago when,
after years of bitterness and rivalry marked by a tenacity often verging on
the fanatical to their own way of doing things, they found the Lodge of
Reconciliation, backed by Grand Lodge, seeking to level out everything on to
one common denominator of ritual and practice.
In
point of fact the lodge could not‑and did not‑succeed in doing this. For the
remoter country lodges the sending of representatives to London to witness the
demonstration of the ceremonies was an expensive and difficult business. Many
did not even attempt to do so. Furthermore, for the transmission of the ritual
to lodges reliance had to be placed on that most fallible of instruments, the
human memory. The influence and effect of the work of the Lodge of
Reconciliation over the country as a whole was therefore patchy and uncertain
and this accounts for the many local variations which survive today. That in
the circumstances so much uniformity was achieved is surprising, but it was
probably' only arrived at over several decades as opposition and
disgruntlement evaporated and the English Craft readjusted itself and settled
down again. The founding of general lodges of instruction, such as Stability
and Emulation, no doubt accelerated the stabilising process, as did that
innovation of the nineteenth century, the printed ritual. The first of these
was brought out by George Claret, a printer, in 1838‑ although not, it may be
noted, without escaping the censure of Grand Lodge. (It was not until 1890
that the first edition of the popular Perfect Ceremonies of Craft Masonry,
purporting to give correct Emulation working, was published.) ALTERATIONS AND
INNOVATIONS AT THE UNION The question which now naturally arises is what then
were the alterations and innovations made in the English Craft at the time of
the Union? In broad terms they affected both of the aspects under which the
system can be analysed. The basic rite was co‑ordinated so that the outline of
and sequence of events in the ceremonies (the openings and closings, making,
passing and raising) followed a uniform and logical sequence. The unifying of
the monitorial content of the ritual, the didactic and homiletic elements
woven around the basic rite, was apparently more a process of selection and
discarding (through the medium of the Lectures) from the mass of such material
that had grown up since the middle of the 162 THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES'
eighteenth century as already described. A process, so to speak, of knocking
off the superfluous knobs and exrescences. In both respects what was
innovation to some was probably established usage to others; of necessity
there had to be a great deal of give and take. It must have been to those
prepared to take only the narrowest view that it seemed as though the ritual
and ceremonies had been so altered that `not one Sentence' had been `left
standing'.
The
fundamentals of the system of freemasonry‑ that is what were and still are the
essentials of the basic rite ‑ remained unchanged. This must be so, but if it
were not self‑evident, proof is forthcoming from a conference of the Grand
Masters of England, Ireland and Scotland, which took place in London six
months after the United Grand Lodge had come into being. At this conference .
. . it was ascertained that the Three Grand Lodges were perfectly in unison in
all the great and essential points of the Mystery & Craft according to the
immemorial traditions and uninterrupted usage of ancient Masons and they
recognized this unity in a fraternal Manner'. Minutes of the Grand Lodge of
Ireland, I December 1814, Author's italics).
It is
possible to gain some idea of the variations which must have existed in the
English Craft by comparison with the workings in those other constitutions
(the Irish, Scottish and, to some extent, American) which were not subjected
to internal strife and the purgative experience of subsequent union as was
freemasonry in this country. Further light can be thrown on the subject by an
examination also of the position in Bristol which managed to remain the `odd
man out' and retain in it affinity with Irish practice its own unique working
and system of degrees. The basic rite is common to all; the variations arise
in the language and in the ceremonial to a greater or lesser degree dramatic
(or even melodramatic) used to enact it, and in the range and diversity of the
allegory in which it is veiled and of the symbols by which it is illustrated.
American printed monitors and lodge manuals provide interesting evidence on
these points. Since they were derived in the first instance from English
practice or publications originating here before 1813 they give an indication
of the motifs and features which disappeared from English Craft freemasonry
at, or shortly after, the Union. They also, and incidentally, well illustrate
the difference between the basic rite and the monitorial material with which
it is embellished. The former, if given at all, tends to be printed in these
American publications in a highly abbreviated form or in code; the latter,
consisting of exhortations, charges, addresses, explanations and the like, is
printed in the clear, sometimes with engravings of the emblems and symbols
involved.
Among
these will be found many of those which appear times over on pre‑1813 English
jewels and regalia, masonic pottery and porcelain, furniture, tracing boards,
emblematic charts and certificates and so on, but which no longer figure in
the English Craft degrees. To quote but a few examples by way of illustration:
the Trowel, emblematically for the spreading of the cement of brotherly love
and affection (still to be found in Bristol); the Beehive, the emblem of
industry, whose example urges man to add to the common store of knowledge so
that he does not become a drone in the hive of nature, a useless member of
society; the Hour‑glass and Scythe, emblems respectively of human life and of
time, serving to remind us `IT IS NOT IN THE POWER OF ANY MAN 163 of the
transitory nature of our existence here on earth; the Pot of Incense, an
emblem of that most acceptable sacrifice, a pure heart; and many others. Then
there are sundry features such as the Middle Chamber Lecture with its homilies
on the Five Noble Orders of Architecture and Five Senses of Human Nature ‑
hearing, seeing, feeling, smelling and tasting‑which originally appeared in
print in Preston's Illustrations of Masonry. The Five Senses did not survive
the Union in this country and the Five Noble Orders remain in the Ritual as a
passing reference only (they are still described more fully in the Craft
Lectures).
It
seems, then, that what the Lodge of Reconciliation aimed to do and what in
large measure it succeeded in doing, was to cut through the thicket of the
accretions of the years to get back to the heart of things and re‑establish
English freemasonry on the basis of `pure Antient masonry'. If in so doing
much was discarded which we may now regard with somewhat nostalgic regret, we
may also be thankful that the Craft degrees emerged from the Union as the
firm, lasting and (with the Royal Arch) the only basis of the English system.
THE
1815 BOOK OF CONSTITUTIONS At the same time that the Lodge of Reconciliation
was working to restore `unity of obligation, . . . working [and] language',
attention was also being given, as required by the Articles of Union to the
subject of `law and dress'. By the twenty‑first (and last) of the Articles of
Union it had been agreed that `A revision shall be made of the rules and
regulations now established and in force in the two Fraternities, and a code
of laws . . . for the whole conduct of the Craft, shall be forthwith prepared,
and a new Book of Constitutions be composed and printed . . .'When this
eventually appeared in 1815 it was a complete departure from what had gone
before, the creaking structure which had been built up over the years on
Anderson's Constitutions and the extraordinary hotch‑potch of Ahiman Rezon
which had done duty as a Book of Constitutions for the Antients' Grand Lodge.
With
the first Book of Constitutions of the new United Grand Lodge a serious
attempt was made to codify the law and custom of English freemasonry by
gathering together under subject heads the regulations already in being (if
appropriate) or such new ones as were required as a result of the Union. The
Book remained in force for a period of three years during which time members
of the Craft were invited to offer comments and suggestions and in 1819 a
revised edition appeared containing a number of important alterations in
substance.
The
1815‑19 Constitutions had many new features, mainly covering administration
and procedural points which had previously only been dealt with inadequately
or not at all. Among them for example was a table of precedence of Grand
Officers, more comprehensive than anything which had gone before and including
a number of new offices the duties of which were detailed in new regulations;
other new sections set out rules on such matters as Provincial and District
Grand Lodges, the London District, and a number of newly created boards
including a `lodge' to administer the Fund of Benevolence and (another
innovation) the Board of General Purposes; a section on certificates appearing
for the first time in 164 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' 1815 was completely
revised in 1819 to make it automatic for a Grand Lodge certificate to be
issued to every member of the Craft ‑ hitherto it had been optional, on
request. There was much else that was new but we are not immediately concerned
with the detailed codification of masonic law and matters of administration;
of more interest to us in this present study are the regulations made to
secure uniformity of dress.
REGALIA BEFORE AND AFTER THE UNION One of the more extensive innovations of
the 1815 Book of Constitutions (not substantially altered in 1819) concerned
masonic clothing. Heretofore little or nothing precise had been ordained about
this. Although from quite early in its history Grand Lodge had occasionally
made orders about regalia, these were concerned only with such details as the
colour of the silk lining to aprons or of that of `ribbons' (ie collars) for
jewels (in each case blue for Grand Officers, red for Grand Stewards, and
white for all other brethren); the overall design of aprons and jewels was
largely at the whim of the maker or wearer. Just as in the latter years of the
eighteenth century masonic writers were being inspired to interpret in many
ways the philosophy and symbolism of freemasonry, the makers of regalia from
the professional to the home‑made gave free rein to their imagination in the
representation of its outward and visible signs and emblems. The result was an
astonishing variety of aprons and jewels numerous examples of which are to be
seen today in masonic museums and collections.
Aprons
were often highly decorated with elaborate hand‑drawn, printed, embroidered or
applique designs. Jewels, apart from those of lodge officers (by no means as
uniform and comprehensive as now) often took the form of medallions ‑ thin
plates of silver either engraved on the solid or intricately fretted with
masonic emblems. Such medallions were for the most part worn by brethren, it
seems, simply as personal adornment; quite often they were presentation pieces
and occasionally they served as officers' jewels. The exposure Three Distinct
Knocks (6th edition, 1776) described them in this way: These Medals are
usually of Silver, and some have them highly finished and ornamented so as to
be worth ten or twenty Guineas. They are suspended round the Neck with Ribbons
of various Colours, and worn on their Publick Days of Meeting, at Funeral
Processions, &c. in Honour of the Craft. On the Reverse of these Medals it is
usual to put the Owner's Coat of Arms, or Cypher, or any other Device that the
Owner fancies, and some even add to the Emblems other Fancy Things that bear
some Analogy to Masonry.
Plenty
of room there for innovation, it would appear.
The
Regulations of the 1815 Book of Constitutions swept away all this by
introducing a section entitled `Of Regalia' which for the first time laid down
standard patterns for a complete range of aprons and jewels which were little
different from those of today ‑ an innovation one hundred years after the
founding of Grand Lodge which must surely make misplaced the ingenuity of
those who see hidden meanings in everything masonic, however practical and
mundane, even to the tassels of our aprons.
An
alteration made at this time in officers' jewels was the changing of the
Deacons' j ewel from the previously generally used (but nowhere ordained)
figure `IT IS NOT IN THE POWER OF ANY MAN 165 of Mercury to a dove bearing an
olive branch, but just why this change was made was not recorded nor had it
ever been satisfactorily explained.
THE
NINETEENTH CENTURY With `perfect reconciliation' and unity `happily restored
to the English Craft'‑or nearly so ‑ the years following 1815 consolidated the
position and paved the way for the great expansion of the Order in this
country in the later years of the nineteenth century. The `no innovations'
principle (omitted from the Regulations in the 1815 Book of Constitutions but
reinstated in the 1827 edition, as already noted, as one of the clauses in the
`Summary of Antient Charges') had only one further real test to face. Not that
the process of development did not continue after 1815, for it did, but within
very much narrower limits as far as ritual and ceremonial were concerned.
The
ceremonies of Installation and of Consecration are cases in point. An attempt
was made in 1827 to 'tidy‑up' and standardise the ceremony of Installation,
but with limited success since the work of the Lodge or Board of Installed
Masters warranted for the purpose was promulgated to London lodges only. The
ceremony of Consecration on the other hand is an example of something new in
post‑Union practice ‑ although not in theory for it was not unknown in the
eighteenth century having been first described in Preston's Illustrations of
1772. There is indeed good reason to suppose that it may have been an
innovation of that worthy founder of this, the Prestonian Lecture. However the
ceremony appears to have been performed very little ‑ if at all ‑ in the late
eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. A prayer of consecration or
dedication was the most that might attend the formal constitution of a new
lodge. It was only from about the late 1830s or early 1840s onwards that the
ceremony of Consecration as we know it (and derived essentially from the
Preston model) really began to take on as an indispensible part of the ritual
formulary for constituting a new lodge. So much so that we today speak of the
Consecration of a new lodge rather than, as formerly, of its Constitution.
What
was, it is to be hoped, the last great test of the innovatory powers of Grand
Lodge came in the middle of the last century over the recognition of the Mark
Degree when Grand Lodge found itself confronted by a similar situation to that
which a century before had faced its predecessor, the premier Grand Lodge,
over the Royal Arch. The story is long and involved and need not detain us
here for we are interested only in its outcome. After much discussion and
investigation by a special Committee set up for the purpose Grand Lodge
adopted a resolution on 5 March 1856 (on the recommendation of the Committee)
`That the Degree of Mark Mason is not at variance with Craft masonry, and that
it be added thereto, under proper regulations.' But this was not to be the end
of the matter. At the next Quarterly Communication on 4 June 1856 when the
minutes of the previous meeting were put to Grand Lodge, a motion was proposed
by Brother John Henderson (a Past President of the Board of General Purposes
and Past Grand Registrar) that the portion relating to the Mark Degree be not
confirmed. In an impassioned speech to Grand Lodge (reported in the
Freemasons' Monthly Magazine, 1 July 1856): 166 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' He
called upon Grand Lodge not to consent to any innovation on their present
ceremonies, as, should they do so, the most disastrous consequences might
result. If Grand Lodge were to consent to the proposed innovation, they would
be laying the axe to their prosperity, and violating not only the letter but
the spirit of their Masonic Union. He trusted the day would never arrive when
Grand Lodge would give its sanction to so important an alteration in their
laws and disciplines as was then proposed. Indeed, he denied that they had the
power to make so great a constitutional change as that of adding a new Degree
to the Order. They were pledged against all false doctrines, all innovations
on their landmarks, and he contended that no man, nor body of men, could make
such innovations as that now proposed without endangering the stability of the
whole Institution.
Much
discussion ensued but the matter was finally clinched when the Grand Master,
the Earl of Zetland, declared (according to the same report) that `seeing that
the Book of Constitutions called upon all Masters to declare that no man, or
body of men, could make innovation in the tenets of Freemasonry, and that by
the Act of Union their Order was declared to consist of three degrees, and no
more, he could not do otherwise than record his vote in favour of the
non‑confirmation of the minutes'.
The
motion proposing this was then put and carried by a large majority. The Mark
Degree was not to be admitted part of pure Antient Masonry. The result, as we
know, was that a separate organisation, the Grand Lodge of Mark Master Masons,
then came into being to control the Mark Degree in much the same way that a
century previously the first Grand Chapter was formed because of the
non‑recognition of the Royal Arch by the premier Grand Lodge. Masonic history
had repeated itself and once again on this point of the definition of `pure
Antient Masonry'.
IN
CONCLUSION By its decision over the Mark Degree, Grand Lodge had finally
divested itself of the wider power it had originally reserved to itself in
1723. So today our Book of Constitutions defines the powers of Grand Lodge
within the more limited field of organisation and administration. `The Grand
Lodge', states Rule 4, `possesses the supreme superintending authority, and
alone has the inherent power of enacting laws and regulations for the
government of the Craft, and of altering, repealing, and abrogating them
always taking care that the antient Landmarks of the Order be observed.'
There, in that last phrase, is the heart of the matter and the real `Body of
Masonry' is seen to be `the antient Landmarks of the Order' ‑ that corpus of
the lore and custom of the fraternity, undefined and undefinable, which
subjectively rather than objectively forms the ethos of freemasonry.
We
hear much today about permissiveness and we quite rightly see our Order as a
bastion against the insidious nihilism which seeks to set aside accepted
scales of values without offering anything in their place. But this does not
mean that in our approach to the craft we need remain rigidly uncomprehending
so that innovation comes to mean anything to which we are not accustomed or,
worse still, something with which we merely do not happen to agree. For we
have seen how, over the years since the emergence of speculative freemasonry
and its growth as an organised Society, the `body of Masonry' did not remain
unalter‑ `IT IS NOT IN THE POWER OF ANY MAN . . . 167 able. Fundamental
innovations there have been such as the three‑degree system and the Royal
Arch, alteration and additions in ritual and ceremonies as these grew in scope
and significance, and changes without number in routine matters such as are
inevitable in any developing organisation.
In
1813, after sixty years of dissension and division, English freemasonry was
given an opportunity to pause and take stock, to redefine and re‑establish
itself. The processes of innovation, alteration and development that have
given us our system of speculative freemasonry were slowed down, almost
halted; the challenge of 1856 showed they were virtually complete. Grand Lodge
had, in effect, acknowledged that not even it had any longer the power to make
further innovations in the body of masonry. In a century and a quarter the
wheel had come full circle.
IN
SEARCH OF RITUAL UNIFORMITY A General Examination of the Regulation and
Development of Craft Ritual Proceedings after 1823 THE PRESTONIAN LECTURE FOR
1973 C. F. W. DYER From Illustrations of Masonry by William Preston
(1742‑1818) The Attentive ear receives the sound from the Instructive tongue
and the sacred mysteries are safely lodged in the repository of faithful
breasts.
From
the Articles of Union of the two former Grand Lodges, 1813 III. There shall be
the most perfect unity of obligation, of discipline, of working the lodges, of
making, passing and raising, instructing and clothing Brothers; so that but
one pure unsullied system, according to the genuine landmarks, laws and
traditions of the Craft, shall be maintained, upheld and practised, throughout
the Masonic World, from the day and date of the said union until time shall be
no more.
From
the Book of Constitutions current in 1973 132. No Lodge of Instruction shall
be holden unless under the sanction of a regular warranted Lodge, or by the
licence and authority of the Grand Master. The Lodge giving its sanction, or
the Brethren to whom such licence is granted, shall be responsible for seeing
that the proceedings are in accordance with the Antient Charges, Landmarks,
and Regulations of the Order as established by the Grand Lodge.
155.
The members present at any Lodge duly summoned have an undoubted right to,
regulate their own proceedings, provided they are consistent with the general
laws and regulations of the Craft; but a protest against any resolution or
proceeding, based on the ground of its being contrary to the laws and usages
of the Craft, and for the purpose of complaining or appealing to a higher
Masonic authority, may be made, and such protest shall be entered in the
Minute Book if the Brother making the protest shall so request.
1
INTRODUCTION A GREAT DEAL of my masonic experience has been in connection with
matters of ritual and Lodges of Instruction. Ritual practice is an emotive
subject with most masons and they tend to view with the gravest suspicion any
practices which they themselves are not used to. We have reached a stage in
the English Craft where, between different lodges and areas, a great deal of
variety is found in the detailed working of the Degree Ceremonies and, as all
the varieties continue without complaint or censure from any authority, it
cannot be a matter of some being right 168 IN SEARCH OF RITUAL UNIFORMITY 169
and some wrong. Most of us learn the basic Ritual from suitable books, but in
teaching the detail and the finer points, Lodges of Instruction play an
important part. Some Lodges of Instruction restrict membership to brethren
belonging to one lodge or to a specified group of lodges, while others admit
any properly qualified Brother. In the latter case such lodges can become so
general in nature as to become a separate body, controlled only by its own
members. I have had occasion to ponder on the relationship on Ritual matters
between such a Lodge of Instruction and its sanctioning lodge, as well as on
rules 132‑35 of the current Book of Constitutions which govern Lodges of
Instruction. It seems to me that there could be difficulties in strict
compliance with the rules.
I had
earlier taken some comfort from `Points of Procedure' printed in the back of
the Year Book. These are also included, with Aims and Relationships and Basic
Principles in a separate booklet, for which the Authorities have recently
taken steps to secure a much wider circulation. For some years the following
decision of the Board of General Purposes appeared: Ritual in Lodge Is a
Master entitled to decide what Rule 155 B of C lays it down that the ritual
shall be practised during his majority of a Lodge shall regulate the year of
office? proceedings.
Without this direct reference to Ritual in the Board's decision, it is likely
that many brethren might not have considered that Rule 155 (reproduced above)
covered that aspect of lodge procedure. I was surprised to find that in the
Year Book for 1965 the word `procedure' had been substituted for `ritual'.
This new form was contained in later editions of the separate booklet and in
subsequent Year Books (1973 at page 820). This small change could mean one of
two things ‑ either the rule must be taken as no longer applying to Ritual
procedure, or the word `procedure' must be taken to include Ritual, although
in this latter case no alteration seemed necessary. I was unable to satisfy
myself, but did find that the Board considered Ritual to be outside its
jurisdiction and had in consequence sought for some years to avoid any
question of taking decisions on matters involving Ritual. This did not supply
an answer but left me more confused when I considered that other authorities
under Grand Lodge, such as Provinces and Districts, found no difficulty, Rule
155 or no, in giving direction on Ritual matters.
It was
these experiences in the interpretation and application of these rules which
caused me to look into their origins and into the history of Ritual
differences and the control of Lodges of Instruction. The basic Ritual which
we use in the English Craft for the three Degree Ceremonies dates from the
Union of the two former Grand Lodges in 1813. Shortly after that date a new
Ritual, definitely different in some respects from the practices of either of
the former bodies, was promulgated for the use of the Craft. I therefore
referred to the terms of the Union and it seemed quite clear to me that when
this new Ritual was taken into use it was the intention that all Ritual
working was to be done in exactly the same way, without any variations,
throughout the United Grand Lodge of England. The Duke of Sussex was Grand
Master at the Union and I became interested to 170 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES'
see if, in the thirty years he held that office, he succeeded in ensuring that
uniformity of Ritual working prevailed and what steps he took. I was also
concerned to try to ascertain what he would consider Ritual to be, for no copy
of the post‑Union Ritual was officially kept. As additional issues, I was
interested to see if this doctrine of complete uniformity was new or had been
practised prior to the Union, and further, if complete uniformity had been
considered important at the time of the Union when our present Ritual was
formulated, how there come to be so many variations today.
2
PRE‑UNION AND WILLIAM PRESTON There had no doubt been attempts at various
times before the Union to secure uniformity of working but it seems unlikely
that they were particularly successful. In the Grand Lodge under the Duke of
Atholl, the Nine Worthies were appointed to ensure general uniformity but
their employment seemed to die out. In considering control under the premier
Grand Lodge, the work of William Preston, after whom this Lecture is named,
very quickly commands the attention. His Illustrations of Masonry indicates
his intense interest in instruction in Craft Ritual procedures. In the 1790s,
after his reinstatement in the Craft by the premier Grand Lodge, it is more
than probable that the Ritual procedures which he taught, as well as the
system of teaching them, were to some degree of his own devising. By the early
1800s his medium for instruction was a Lodge of Instruction associated with
the Lodge of Antiquity and his method was through Lectures in question and
answer form. There was a separate Lecture for each Degree, with set questions
in a particular sequence and standard answers, and some part of each Lecture
described the Ritual of the Degree Ceremony in detail and contained some of
the wording to be used.
The
use of catechsml Lectures as a means of teaching and controlling Ritual
practices developed during the second half of the eighteenth century from the
testing catechisms of earlier years and by 1800 was the accepted method of
instruction. The public nights of the Stewards' Lodge (later Grand Stewards'
Lodge) had been started in order to demonstrate and so apply a measure of
control on the authorised working of the premier Grand Lodge, and the work was
done in this way.' Other systems were developed and we read of Dunckerley's,
Browne's and Finch's by the early 1800s, but Preston's was the most
sophisticated. Despite the Grand Stewards' Lodge public nights, there was not
complete uniformity, although most lodges probably did not work according to
Preston's system and in the manner of the Lodge of Antiquity.
THE
LODGES OF PROMULGATION AND RECONCILIATION In 1810 the premier Grand Lodge,
through the Lodge of Promulgation specially formed for the purpose, adopted
alterations designed to reverse changes made some seventy years before. The
change back was made to facilitate a union with t Freemasons' Magazine, 1858,
p 917: `Those who like ourselves have been many years in Freemasonry may
remember that in their younger days they were informed that the Grand
Stewards' Lodge . . . was established for preserving the authorised mode of
working and public nights were specially set aside to enable the Brethren to
attend and see what the working was.' For method of working at public nights,
see p 148 under The Grand Stewards' Lodge Public Nights.
IN
SEARCH OF RITUAL UNIFORMITY the rival (Atholl) Grand Lodge and at the same
time the Ritual work was generally overhauled with the same end in view. The
Lodge of Promulgation was very much influenced by the system of the Lodge of
Antiquity and a number of Brethren who were members of Antiquity were
appointed members of Promulgation, including the Duke of Sussex, who took part
in the deliberations (the Duke was permanent Master of Antiquity from 1809
until his death).' The fact that Antiquity did not work according to the
earlier changes made by the premier Grand Lodge; that its system followed a
number of points of the Ritual used by the Atholl Grand Lodge under which
Preston had been initiated; and that it had, in Preston's Lectures, a
ready‑made method of instruction, must have made the task of the Lodge of
Promulgation much easier and it reached agreement surprisingly quickly.
The
Secretary of the Lodge of Promulgation was Charles Bonnor, also of the Lodge
of Antiquity. He described, as a pattern, the `Ancient practice' as used in
his lodge, and also presented a scheme for obtaining `one uniform mode of
practice' and an improvement in the `relaxed state' of Ritual discipline of
the times. Although his proposal was not officially adopted, it seemed to have
some effect in the next few years and may even have been the starting point of
the attempt at complete uniformity which the Duke of Sussex made at the Union
four years later. The whole of the forms settled by the Lodge of Promulgation
were incorporated in Preston's Lectures, slight adjustments being made in the
Lectures where Promulgation did not follow exactly the Antiquity procedures
and a new edition of Preston's Syllabus, containing an aide memoire of the set
questions, was put into print. In 1810 and after, Preston's Lectures came into
more general use in Lodges of Instruction. 3 They represented a standard of
the work of the premier Grand Lodge as settled by the Lodge of Promulgation.
When
the Union of the two former Grand Lodges took place in 1813 the task of
settling the Ritual forms for use in the lodges under the new United Grand
Lodge was given to another lodge specially formed for the purpose, the Lodge
of Reconciliation. The Ritual which was ultimately settled by this lodge,
probably by the end of 1814, and which was approved by the United Grand Lodge
in 1816, was different in a number of respects from that which had been
settled by the Lodge of Promulgation.░
If Preston's Lectures were to be of use in this new situation, they must be
amended again. Preston was by this time a sick and old man and he died in 1818
at the age of seventy‑six. It is probable that he did some revision, or that
someone did it for him with his connivance, 5 but it is likely that they were
never adjusted to conform fully to the new forms and so may not have been
generally acceptable. For the short period between the taking into use of the
revisions made by the Lodge of Promulgation in 1810 and the Union in December
1813, Preston's t For further details of the Duke of Sussex, see P. R. James.
'The Grand‑Mastership of H.R.H. the Duke of Sussex, 1813‑1843' (The Prestonian
Lecture for 1962), Sponsored by the Lodge of Antiquity and drawn up by H. J.
da Costa. They were published in 1812 (the First and Second Lectures) and 1813
(the Third Lecture) when de Costa was Acting Master of the lodge, see Capt C.
W. Firebrace, Records of the Lodge of Antiquity. No 2, vol 11.
'For
example, the Burlington Lodge of Instruction whose minutes from 1810 are in
the Grand Lodge Library and whose members from that time include several
members of the Lodge of Anti9mty.
For
details of the Lodge of Promulgation, see W. B. Hextall,'The Special Lodge of
Promulgation. 1809‑11 '. A QC.23, p 37.
5 See
comments on a manuscript, attributed to John Turk, of Preston's Third Lecture:
mentioned by P. R. James, 'William Preston's Third Lecture of Freemasonry'.
AQC, 85.
172
`THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' system provided a control aimed at uniformity in the
procedures of the lodges under the premier Grand Lodge.
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PRESTONIAN LECTURE Henry George Warren, when giving the
Prestonian Lecture in 1861, said in his introduction, `Upon his death,
believing he would leave behind him a complete and orthodox formulary, Brother
Preston bequeathed a sum of ú300, the interest of which was to be devoted to
the establishment of an annual Lecture in order to preserve the work of his
hands and the result of his labours to the Craft.' This annual Lecture was to
be of part of Preston's system and was first given under the terms of
Preston's bequest in 1820. Such an annual rendering might well have formed a
point of reference in Ritual practice after the Union, if given publicly, and
if the content followed the new forms. By 1820 other systems of instruction
were established; the Lecture was given privately in the Lodge of Antiquity
and differed in some respects from the new accepted forms, so that its purpose
was not achieved. For the next thirty years and more it continued to be given
privately, usually in the Lodge of Antiquity. In 1858 the Lecture was given to
a wider audience but, because of its difference from the working then current,
it did not prove popular.' The Lecture was given in conjunction with the Grand
Stewards' Lodge public nights until 1862, after which the appointment lapsed.
(The appointment was revived in 1924 in its present form, the Lecturer
delivering a paper on a masonic subject of his own choice.) 3 THE ARTICLES OF
UNION The Union of the Grand Lodges was achieved in 1813 by the signing and
ratification of Articles of Union. Article III, which is set out at the head
of this paper, refers to `the most perfect unity in most aspects of Ritual
procedure. This, if achieved, could leave no room for any alternatives and
this desired unity extended, not only to `working' and the three Degrees, but
also to 'instructing'which in 1813 could only mean a system of Lectures, the
standard method of the time. Articles IV and V provided for the obligations,
forms, rules and ancient traditions to be agreed with deputations from the
Grand Lodges of Ireland and Scotland before being promulgated; and this
desired uniformity was to be secured through a Lodge of Reconciliation
consisting of `nine worthy and expert Master Masons or Past Masters', along
with some Grand Officers, from each of the former Grand Lodges. The task of
promulgation after the Union was also laid as a duty on the Lodge of
Reconciliation by Article XV: XV. After the day of Re‑union, as aforesaid, and
when it shall be ascertained what are the obligations, forms, regulations,
working, and instruction, to be universally established, speedy and effectual
steps shall be taken to obligate all the members of each Lodge in all the
degrees, according to the form taken and recognised by the Grand Master, Past
Grand Masters, Grand Officers, and Representatives of Lodges, on the day of
the Re‑union; and for this purpose the worthy and expert Master Masons
appointed, as aforesaid, shall visit and attend the several Lodges, within the
Bills of Mortality, in rotation, dividing themselves into quorums of not less
than three each, for the greater ' H. G. Warren makes this statement in the
introduction to the Prestonian Lecture in 1861; the manuscript of his
introductory speech is in the Grand Lodge Library.
IN
SEARCH OF RITUAL UNIFORMITY 173 expedition, and they shall assist the Master
and Wardens to promulgate and enjoin the pure and unsullied system, that
perfect reconciliation, unity of obligation, law, working, language, and
dress, may be happily restored to the English Craft.
`Instruction' is also included in this Article, while unity of language is to
be restored as well. Everyone must work in precisely the same way and the duty
of ensuring this was first placed on the Lodge of Reconciliation.
4 THE
RULE OF THE DUKE OF SUSSEX The Union of Grand Lodges had hung fire from 1810,
in which year the premier Grand Lodge had put its house in order so far as the
Ritual of the Degree Ceremonies was concerned and the Atholl Grand Lodge had
gone some way to meet the situation by making conciliatory changes also.
Little real progress seems to have been made in the next three years. The Duke
of Sussex became Grand Master of the premier Grand Lodge in April 1813 and by
December of that year the Union was an established fact. Its achievement,
including the principle of complete uniformity so strongly set out in the
Articles, had become a personal challenge for the Duke. The success of a
United Grand Lodge in the years following 1813 was a matter of personal
prestige and finally of personal triumph for him; it was not achieved without
a great deal of careful and patient diplomacy by the Grand Master himself.
The
Duke of Sussex was a Grand Master who was very much involved in masonry.'
After the manner of his times he tended to be autocratic, although he appeared
ready to consider opinion put forward in a democratic manner. He was quite
prepared to allow the Craft to be governed by the majority decision of Grand
Lodge but, if he made proposals he expected them to be passed, democratic rule
or not. His interest in Ritual matters first showed in his taking part in the
deliberations of the Lodge of Promulgation; this interest continued not only
in the early years of the United Grand Lodge, but right through the rest of
his life, and much that happened in the sphere of control of Ritual practice
and instruction can be traced to him. He even suggested to the Grand Lodges of
Ireland and Scotland that they should consider following the English
post‑union forms; he probably felt that his position in the Royal family when
Ireland and Scotland were subject to the same rule as England allowed him to
make such a suggestion, for he had no other authority in those sovereign Grand
Lodges.
THE
LODGE OF RECONCILIATION With some ad hoc adjustments, matters proceeded very
much as planned. The Union took place, but the Representatives from Ireland
and Scotland were not able to be present at such short notice. 2 They did come
to London at the end of June 1814 3 and approved the forms put forward as a
result of the work of the Lodge of Reconciliation. The lodge then commenced,
in August 1814, to promulgate the new forms by giving demonstrations. Its
members also visited lodges t See Prestonian Lecture for 1962, mentioned ante.
2
Minutes of the meeting on 27 December 1813 for the Union of the two former
Grand Lodges.
3 This
meeting resulted in the signing of the International Compact which still
regulates relations with these two Grand Lodgese .
W.
Wonnacott, `The Lodge of Reconciliation (1813‑1816)', AQC, 23.
174
`THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' as the Articles of Union required, though not always
in threes.' In 1814 and the early part of 1815, by this demonstration and
visiting, it attempted to carry out its duty of ensuring uniformity in Ritual
working. By the later months of 1815 there was some concern that this desired
uniformity was not being achieved. The minutes for December 1815 of the
General Committee, which met in the week before each Quarterly Communication
of Grand Lodge to settle the agenda, contain a comment by Rev Henry 1. Knapp,
one of the Grand Chaplains, `that something ought to be done for the sake of
uniformity and also that he should move that the mode recommended by the Lodge
of Reconciliation should be adopted'. Knapp withdrew this notice of motion,
but Peter Gilkes2 then said that he would put forward a petition to the Grand
Master in similar terms. When his motion for the petition was not taken at the
December Communication, Gilkes angrily put forward a motion for March 1816:
That the Lodge do sanction the System as promulgated by the Lodge of
Reconciliation of initiating passing and raising with the exception of the
obligations which have already received its Sanction.
Gilkes
finally withdrew this motion, but the Grand Master had decided to place the
whole of the new `forms' before Grand Lodge for approval. They were put before
Grand Lodge in May and approved in June 1816, but the Lodge of Reconciliation
was not called to meet again although the work given to it under the Articles
of Union was not completed .3 NEW LECTURES Although `instruction' is mentioned
in connection with the duties of the Lodge of Reconciliation and their
surviving records contain occasional references to the subject, and to a
reprimand for printing `information on the subject of Masonic Instruction',░
there is no direct reference to the complication of Lectures nor to working by
that method. The minutes of the lodge which are in the Grand Lodge Library
refer mainly to those meetings to which members of the Craft were invited in
order to witness demonstrations of Ceremonies, and no records remain of other
meetings held to compile and agree the new Ritual forms. The Master of the
Lodge was Rev Samuel Hemming and he did compile a Lecture in the first Degree.
Several writers (including A. F. A. Woodford, R. F. Gould, W. Wonnacott, Dr
Oliver and Henry Sadler, the last when reporting a speech by Thomas Fenn)5
have said that Hemming did not complete the other two and so the task was
given to William Williams, who abandoned Hemming's work and started afresh.
Known delays in the Lodge of Reconciliation after 1814 may have accounted for
Hemming not completing his Lectures and for the Lodge of Reconciliation giving
no formal guide on instruction as its brief required it to ' AQC, 23, p 258
gives a note of some of these.
2 For
details of the life of Peter Gilkes, see A QC, 84, p 260.
s
Apart from the responsibilities placed on them by the Articles of Union. see
letters written by Philip Broadfoot to the Lodge of Probity. No 61, in
Halifax, and quoted in their History.
See
AQC, 23, p 243.
5
Woodford, Notes on the English Ritual: Gould, History of Freemasonry‑although
he infers that this relates to Ritual and not Lectures: Wonnacott, in AQC, 23,
p 260, disputes this on the ground that the Ritual was settled and approved by
Grand lodge: the speech by Fenn was made at the Festival of the Emulation
Lodge of Improvement on 24 February 1893 and the proceedings are reported at
length, with comments, in Sadler. Illustrated History of the Emulation Lodge
of Improvement, pp 103‑16.
IN
SEARCH OF RITUAL UNIFORMITY do.' If the Duke of Sussex was anxious to get
instruction by Lectures started as soon as possible and there were delays by
Hemming and the Lodge of Reconciliation, then his only course was to give the
task of preparing a system to someone else. Williams was extremely prominent
in masonic matters at that time. He was the Provincial Grand Master for
Dorsetshire; the new Book of Constitutions in 1815 was published in his name;
he was a member of the Lodge of Reconciliation and a prominent member of the
Grand Stewards' Lodge. It was under the aegis of the Grand Stewards' Lodge
that the system of Lectures compiled by Williams was ultimately promulgated.
THE
GRAND STEWARDS' LODGE PUBLIC NIGHTS The Grand Stewards' Lodge enjoyed
considerable standing, including that as a reference point on Ritual matters.
In the premier Grand Lodge, which was the bigger in numbers at the time of the
Union, for many years no Brother could be appointed a Grand Officer unless he
had first served as a Grand Steward. This placed the lodge in a special
position of influence. For many years their two public nights in the year had
provided a semi‑official demonstration of Ritual forms by means of Lectures.'
When the Lodge of Promulgation had been formed in 1809 to revise the Ritual,
the Brother selected as Master was James Earnshaw, then and for two further
years, Master of the Grand Stewards' Lodge. The Lectures which Williams
compiled, based largely, but not completely, on those of Preston, 3 were
brought into use by the Grand Stewards' Lodge at their public nights and so,
from the very start of what became known as the Grand Stewards' Lodge System,
it had the authority which came from the standing and reputation of that
lodge. It is not recorded whether the Grand Master had in mind that the
sponsorship of the Grand Stewards' Lodge should also be given to the new
system compiled by Williams, but, if he had to abandon Hemming, he could
hardly have done better in the alternative he chose.
The
Lectures were compiled during 1815 and 1816. At the public night in December
1815 the Lecture in the first Degree was worked ‑ in the new form consisting
of seven sections ‑ William Shadbolt, the Master, being in the Chair. 4
Shadbolt was also the Junior Warden of the Lodge of Reconciliation and was in
his second year as Master of Grand Stewards'. William Williams was elected
Master of Grand Stewards' Lodge for 1816 and in March of that year the Lecture
of the first Degree was again the work at the public night with Williams in
the Chair. He was also in the Chair at the ensuing December public night when
the new Lectures of the second and third Degrees, consisting of five and three
sections respectively, were worked for the first time. Williams was re‑elected
as Master for 1817 and presided at the two public nights in that year. For
nearly fifty t Article XV of Articles of Union, quoted ante.
Z See
note from Freemasons' Magazine, 1858, quoted ante.
3
Since the Lecture was written a book originally presented to the Lodge of All
Souls. Weymouth, in August 1816, by William Williams. has come to light. This
book contains a set of Lectures based on post‑Union Ritual, but obviously
using the system set out in Browne's Master Key, rather than Preston, as a
source. The book will be the subject of a Paper to the lodge in 1974.
A
closer study of the minutes of the Grand Stewards' Lodge shows that the first
mention of the number of sections in each Lecture was in 1817. Although the
new form of Lecture was worked in December 1815 and at both Public Nights in
1816, it is probable that the rearrangement into sections took place at the
end of 1816. The system in Browne's Master Key, on which the new Lectures were
based, was not divided into sections in quite the same way as the seven, five,
three system found shortly after. I am grateful to Brother F. J. Cooper for
pointing this out to me.
175
176 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' years these Lectures were worked at Grand
Stewards' Lodge public nights until long after the work of Lodges of
Instruction in teaching the Ritual had changed to rehearsal of the
Ceremonies.' The public nights eventually ceased as much from having outlived
their usefulness as from any other cause.
A
summary of the work and attendances at the public nights illustrate the
interest which the Craft in London took in the new Lectures after they became
established .2 At the eleven public nights from March 1807 to March 1812, the
highest attendance was sixty‑five, the lowest thirty‑seven, and the average
fifty; the work on all occasions was described as `the usual Lectures'.
December 1812: `a most excellent Lecture in the Third Degree'‑ seventy‑one
present. This was about the time of the publication of the first known
syllabus of any part of Preston's third Lecture (containing the opening and
closing and the basic Ceremony). After the work of the Lodge of Promulgation,
this represented the orthodox working. This work was repeated in March and
December 1813 when the attendance was seventy‑three and sixty‑three
respectively.
March
1814: `Lodge opened in the First Degree. R.W.M. and his Warden favoured the
Lodge with a most excellent Lecture in that Degree'. Fifty‑two present. This
was in the waiting period between the Union and the beginning of demonstration
by the Lodge of Reconciliation.
December 1814: `Mode of initiating passing and raising Masons according to the
plan laid down by the Lodge of Reconciliation'. Fifty‑two present, William
Shadbolt in the Chair.
December 1815 (March not held): First working of the new first Lecture of the
Grand Stewards' System. Fifty‑nine present.
From
1816 the work was consistently the new first Lecture at the March meeting and
the new second and third Lectures in December. Attendances were: When
considering these figures one must have in mind that there were probably not
more than seven or eight hundred active masons living near the centre of
London where the Public Nights were held .3 1816 March 112 1822 March 168
December 69 December 164 1817 March 69 1823 March 159 December 67 December
120 1818 March 109 1824 March 169 December 94 December, no record 1819
March 118 1825 March 174 December 143 December 159 1820 March 146 1826 March
134 December 155 December 172 1821 March 162 1827 March 177 December 166
December 153 ' The Grand Stewards' Lodge public nights ceased in 1867. The
work of Lodges of Instruction for the teaching of the CeÇemonies had become
rehearsal of Ceremonies, certainly by the early 1840s.
The
details of the work and attendances at Grand Stewards' Lodge public nights are
extracted from the minute books of thS lodge.
For
details on lodges meeting to central London, see a note with a map contained
in C. F. W. Dyer. Emulation ‑A Ritual to Remember. (1973).
IN
SEARCH OF RITUAL UNIFORMITY 177 Although no system of instruction by Lectures
was ever given official sanction by Grand Lodge, the Grand Stewards' Lodge
System and Lectures had a sort of official acceptance. This system became a
standard for Ritual working in London and a means by which instruction in the
new Ritual could be given and the Public Nights for some years provided a
point of reference as to what that standard was. There are several references
to the use of this system in Lodges of Instruction of that time.' The System
of the Grand Stewards' Lodge provided a solution to one half of the problems
of the Grand Master. He had a standardised means of instruction and had only
to ensure that it was used. It would have been simple to have printed the
whole thing in book form as a record and a reference, but the printing of
anything purporting to give any clue to the Ritual was considered an extremely
serious offence. 2 The teaching was done by oral means, although many
manuscript notes have survived. The twice yearly Public Nights were not
sufficient in themselves to provide all the instruction that was required and
Lodges of Instruction were formed to meet the need, while instruction was also
given privately by Brethren who had made a study of the new forms.
Lodge
membership at this time was small and many lodges did not have anyone
sufficiently expert to instruct them, so that a lodge was not normally able to
support a Lodge of Instruction restricted to its own members. This gave rise
to the formation of `General' Lodges of Instruction organised by keen experts
and which any Brother seeking instruction might join. General Lodges of
Instruction were promoted by groups of Brethren or by Lodges, although in the
latter case quick change of membership could mean that within a year or two
the Lodge of Instruction had lost identity with the Lodge which originally
promoted it. In this spate of teaching there had to be some control of those
who taught. Where there was any sort of formal gathering for this purpose
responsibility for teaching and practice could be placed firmly on the
officers of a regular Lodge, for pressures could be employed to make Lodges
conform. These controls were set out in the regulations for the government of
the Craft.
THE
BOOK OF CONSTITUTIONS OF 1815 New rules were necessary for the government of
the United Craft and speed in approving them was of vital importance. A
complete draft was stated to be ready at the Quarterly Communication in
September 1814, just over eight months after the Union, but it was not
immediately put forward so as to give more time for mature consideration. It
was laid before a special Grand Lodge on 1 February 1815, and finally approved
on 23 August. This new Book of Constitutions was to remain in force for a
limited period of three years from 1 November 1815 so that revisions could be
considered after some experience. The new Ritual forms had been promulgated
for the first time in August 1814 in the Lodge of Reconciliation. Even by
August 1815 it would not have been possible to assess the need for t For
example, in the minutes of the Lodge of Emulation, No 21, and in the Memorial
sent to the Grand Master in 1830 by zthe Emulation Lodge of Improvement.
For
example, the case of Laurence Thompson in the Lodge of Reconciliation ‑ see
AQC, 23, p 243.
178
`THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' control of instruction, particularly as no formal
system had yet been devised in connection with the new forms. As a
consequence, the 1815 Book of Constitutions contains no regulations about
Ritual working other than one very mild in form: All Lodges being particularly
bound to observe the same usages and customs, it is recommended that some
members of every lodge shall be deputed to visit the other lodges as often as
shall be found convenient, in order to preserve uniformity, and to cultivate a
good understanding among freemasons.
THE
BOOK OF CONSTITUTIONS PUBLISHED IN 1819 The Board of General Purposes of
1817‑18 undertook the revising of the Book of Constitutions, and reported with
proposals for amendment at the Quarterly Communication on 3 June 1818. The
revisions were ordered to be considered at a special Grand Lodge convened for
the purpose on 29 July 1818; they were approved at that meeting and were
effective from 1 November 1818. Some of these new regulations were aimed at
the control of Lodges of Instruction. The provision regarding visiting in the
1815 rules was included in the rules relating to lodges, but with an important
addition: If any Lodge shall give its sanction for a lodge of instruction
being holden under its warrant, such lodge shall be responsible that the
proceedings in the lodge of instruction are correct and regular, and that the
mode of working there adopted, has received the sanction of the grand lodge.
There
was also a completely new section: LODGES OF INSTRUCTION No general lodge of
instruction shall be holden unless under the sanction of a regular warranted
lodge, or by the special licence and authority of the grand master. The lodge
giving their sanction, or the brethren to whom such licence is granted, shall
be answerable for the proceedings of such lodge of instruction, and
responsible that the mode of working there adopted has received the sanction
of the grand lodge.
Notice
of the times and places of meeting of the lodges of instruction, within the
London district, shall be given to the grand secretary.
The
minutes kept of the proceedings of the Board at this time are not very full
and, except for the proposals for revision actually put before Grand Lodge,
the only records of consideration of these revisions are: (i) an entry in
December 1817 that lodges were circularised about possible alterations ‑ and
this action was reported to Grand Lodge on 4 March 1818, and (ii) a cryptic
note under February 1818 about replies to the circular ‑ none of which
referred to Lodges of Instruction. It is not possible, therefore, to say what
circumstances had been found in the running of Lodges of Instruction between
1815 and 1818 to make such control necessary. There is equally no record of
who put forward the proposals, except that they were not made by lodges in
response to the circular. In view of his later activity in this respect, the
Grand Master himself may have put them forward.
The
1815 Book of Constitutions as revised in 1818 was republished in February
1819. The method of titling ‑ still showing it as the 1815 Book of
Constitutions ‑ has given rise to some confusion because of the ease with
which the 1819 revised edition can be mistaken for the original of 1815. In
the Prestonian Lecture for 1950 Brother Ivor Grantham states that the earliest
mention of the control of IN SEARCH OF RITUAL UNIFORMITY 179 Lodges of
Instruction by means of rules in the Book of Constitutions was in that of
1815. 1 have had an opportunity of discussing the matter with him and he told
me that it was not until after the publication of his Prestonian Lecture that
he had appreciated that these regulations were among the amendments passed in
1818 and were printed for the first time in the revised edition published in
1819. The 1815 Book of Constitutions, as originally passed and published,
contains no reference to the control of Lodges of Instruction.
The
new regulations of 1818, although imposing control on all Lodges of
Instruction, makes a special point of responsibility for general Lodges of
Instruction. The mode of working must be one approved by Grand Lodge. In 1818
this meant the Ritual formulated by the Lodge of Reconciliation which had been
approved by Grand Lodge in 1816; there was no other. It is not clear from the
second part of the new rule on Lodges of Instruction whether the requirement
to give notice to the Grand Secretary applied to all Lodges of Instruction in
London. The requirement to register within the London district is
understandable in relation to general Lodges of Instruction. In the years
following the Union there were just over one hundred regular lodges meeting in
the newly‑defined London district of ten miles radius around Freemasons' Hall
in Great Queen Street. More than half of these met in the central area ‑ on
the north of the river Thames in a band about a mile wide and stretching about
two miles each side of Freemasons' Hall. 1 No other centre of population in
the country had such a density of lodges; in fact, with the possible exception
of Manchester which may have had up to ten, few cities had as many as five
lodges, so that the problem of the general Lodge of Instruction and what it
taught was essentially one related to London. 2 These regulations meant that a
record of some sort had to be kept by the Grand Secretary from 1818. A book
has survived which contains the information, apparently from the start; it is
very roughly kept, but it seems likely that it was the actual register. The
record is in the back of a book used for notes on other matters relating to
the administration of Grand Lodge which take up in all ninety‑six pages, then
after fifty blank pages, six pages of details of Lodges of Instruction,
entered in various handwritings and obviously at different times. The front
label states that the book contains the particulars of Grand Officers, Grand
Stewards and lodges, 1820 to 1824, but the last entry in the Lodge of
Instruction register is dated `15 Septr. 1832'. No other entry is dated,
although other evidence can give approximate dates. It is also clear that all
lodges which should have registered did not do so 3, while the record contains
several mistakes and some duplicate entries which are merely changes of
meeting place. It is interesting to note that nearly half of the entries show
meetings on a Sunday, which had for some years already been a popular day for
Lodge of Instruction meetings. It was not until forty years later that such
formal Sunday meetings were frowned on.
THE
1819 COMPLAINT ABOUT LECTURES The making of regular lodges responsible for
what was taught in Lodges of Instruction was no sooner settled than the matter
of a system of instruction came ' For a map with lodge meeting places in 1826,
see C. F. W. Dyer, Emulation ‑ A Ritual to Remember. (1973). a The details of
lodges at this nme have been extracted from Lane's Masonic Records.
3 See
Post. One notable absentee was the well known Stability Lodge of Instruction.
180
`THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' up again. On 2 June 1819, Peter Gilkes proposed in
Grand Lodge `that a Committee be appointed to investigate the manner in which
the Lectures of Masonry are now worked'. This proposal was not carried. The
probable reason for such a proposal in Grand Lodge is shown in complaints
contained in two Memorials to the Board of General Purposes about the same
time. They were in relation to a new and unauthorised Lecture being worked in
general Lodges of Instruction by Philip Broadfoot, Thomas Satterly and James
McEvoy in which, among other things, `subjects which belong to one degree are
introduced into others'. The Memorial asked the Board `to put a stop to such
proceedings'. The complaints were investigated and the Board reported to Grand
Lodge on 1 September 1819: That the Board are of the opinion that the charges
stated in the said Memorials are not made out although they must at the same
time state their deliberate judgement that no Individuals have any right to
make a new Lecture and promulgate the same to the Craft as authorised without
receiving the authority of the Grand Master or Grand Lodge for such a Lecture,
but they also feel that the Individuals complained of had no improper motives.
and
later in the same report: the Board are of Opinion that the Lecture complained
of should not be further promulgated in any General Lodge of Instruction at
this time and that the Grand Lodge be requested at the meeting in December to
adopt measures in order to have Lectures established for the three Degrees
under the sanction of the Craft.
Philip
Broadfoot and Thomas Satterly were leading members of the Stability Lodge of
Instruction which they had established in December 1817.1 They had both been
members of the Lodge of Reconciliation, although they were not appointed to
fill vacancies until December 1814 2 ‑ by which time, or very shortly after,
it is probable that Rev Samuel Hemming, its Master, had given up his work on
Lectures and the task had been transferred to William Williams. From later
records of the Stability Lodge of Instruction, we know that the Lecture in the
first Degree which they consistently worked was compiled by Hemming. 3 It
seems likely that, if other Lectures were compiled as the complaint implies,
they were dropped as a result of the Board's comments, for the records of
Stability Lodge of Instruction show that, through the 1820s, the Lecture in
the first Degree was the only one worked.
The
Duke of Sussex was not present at the September meeting at which this report
of the Board was presented, although several were, including Hemming, who
might have been aware of the situation. If measures were adopted to establish
officially sanctioned Lectures, the semi‑official system of the Grand
Stewards' Lodge might have to be re‑examined, with further bickering of the
sort that had occurred at the time of trying to settle the Ritual only five
years before. The day was saved by a resolution being carried that it was
unnecessary to adopt the recommendation of the Board on sanctioned Lectures as
the motion for a Committee had been negatived at the previous Grand Lodge.
This episode reflects the feeling about uniformity in those who attended Grand
Lodge at that time, although some adopted a more rigid approach than others.
Those who felt ' See F. W. Golby, A Century of Masonic Working. (1921). 2 See
A QC, 23,p 233.
3 See
F. W. Golby. A Century of Masonic Working, p 62.
IN
SEARCH OF RITUAL UNIFORMITY 181 that a formally sanctioned system was the best
way of achieving complete uniformity made a further attempt at the next
Quarterly Communication on 1 December 1819. They were, however, unsuccessful
in seeking to restore the Board's recommendation for sanctioned Lectures. The
Grand Master was in the Chair at this December meeting and he made a
pronouncement on the subject which was quite uncharacteristic of his known
wish for complete uniformity, but which diplomatically reflected the obvious
feeling of the majority: The M.W. Grand Master then addressed the Brethren on
the subject of the Lectures when he stated that it was his opinion that so
long as the Master of any Lodge observed exactly the Land Marks of the Craft
he was at liberty to give the Lectures in the Language best suited to the
Character of the Lodge over which he presided; That however no person was
permitted to practise as an Itinerant Lecturer to other Lodges which was
decidedly against the Rules and regulations of the Craft and that Brethren of
different Lodges convening themselves for the purpose of a Lecture without a
regular Warrant or other Sanction from the Grand Master were likewise guilty
of dereliction of their duty towards the Grand Lodge, and which of course if
known would be noticed and proceeded against accordingly . . .
Brethren from different lodges meeting to work a Lecture is a fair description
of a general Lodge of Instruction and shows the Grand Master's interest in the
recently passed rules. His pronouncement about freedom to use suitable
language gave no authority for any different Lectures, nor for any change in
the basic illustrations and symbolism contained in the generally accepted
Lectures of the time. His pronouncement has been interpreted, particularly
when read in later years with the present rule 155, to mean that the Ritual
could be worked using any words at the Master's discretion. When it is
considered that the Duke had gone to some trouble a few years before to have
certain parts of the Ceremonies approved in detail, Obligations being a
particular example, and with his known efforts for a high degree of
uniformity, I think such complete freedom puts too wide an interpretation on
the Duke's words. It is of interest to note that Philip Broadfoot was a member
of the Board of General Purposes which dealt with the 1818 revisions and that
Thomas Satterly was a member in the year that the complaints were dealt with;
yet their Stability Lodge of Instruction does not appear to have given notice
to the Grand Secretary in terms of the 1818 rule, for its name is not in the
register which contains the record up to 1832.
THE
1819 BOOK OF CONSTITUTIONS IN PRACTICE With rules and a system of instruction,
everything was now made water‑tight so far as Authority was concerned, but it
is to be wondered if the average Brother‑inthe‑Lodge realised fully that the
regulations existed, or what they meant. Initiates did not receive a copy of
the Book of Constitutions for themselves and there was probably only one in
the lodge ‑if the Secretary had bothered to get it. A circular was issued to
lodges in October 1819, over a year after the new rules were passed: Those
Lodges which have not yet provided themselves with the present Code of LAWS
AND REGULATIONS OF THE SOCIETY are hereby reminded of the Necessity of being
possessed of a copy. The Expense is Twenty Shillings. Such Lodges as may not
yet have sent up their books to have the Sheets, containing the revised Laws,
inserted, are 182 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' again requested to transmit them
to the Grand Secretary free of Expense and they will be returned without
additional charge.
Lodge
Secretaries were casual about getting copies at all and the new regulations,
although summarised in the circulated report of the Quarterly Communication of
September 1818, were not likely to be well known and appreciated. With the
turnover of members and officers, the rules regarding the sanctioning of
Lodges of Instruction could well go out of mind without constant reminder.
Even where they were remembered, there could be doubt as to who, as a person,
was responsible if it was the Lodge that was answerable‑and the most obvious
answer was the Master for the time being. Although the situation might be
appreciated at the time the sanction for a Lodge of Instruction was given, no
thought might be given to the position a few years later when the officers had
changed and there was no longer any real connection between the members of the
Lodge of Instruction and its sanctioning lodge, whose then members might not
even be aware of any responsibility. As an example, this is demonstrated in
the records of the Castle Lodge and its Lodge of Instruction, the minute books
for that period of both bodies being in the Grand Lodge Library. In October
1819 the minutes of the Lodge of Instruction: observe with the greatest regret
the Neglect of the Master & Officers of the Regular Castle Lodge No. 39 in
totally absenting themselves from their duty to the Lodge of Instruction.
The
Lodge of Instruction had originally been promoted by the lodge, probably
before the 1818 revisions had become known. Because of this neglect, the Lodge
of Instruction decided to change its meeting place to an address more
convenient to those members who attended. The Master of the lodge at its
meeting on 6 December announced that the Lodge of Instruction were meeting
only to instruct themselves and not under the sanction of the Castle Lodge.
The lodge minutes contain no reference to this but a full report is recorded
in the minutes of the Lodge of Instruction for 12 December. The Lodge of
Instruction then resolved: This Lodge of Instruction will feel happy to hold
their future meetings under the sanction of the Castle Lodge of Freemasons No
39, it appearing by the resolutions of the Grand Lodge that the sanction of a
Master of a regular Lodge is necessary has (sic) if such sanction is necessary
will forthwith place themselves under the sanction of the Lodge of Felicity No
75 Bro. Walmsley the Master of that Lodge having most handsomely offered his
sanction to our meeting in case such sanction be withheld by the Castle Lodge
No 39.
The
brethren present on that occasion seem to have the impression that it was the
Master's sanction which mattered. This Lodge of Instruction is the subject of
the second entry in the register kept by the Grand Secretaries of the meeting
places notified to them. It is one of those entries carelessly made, for it
has been entered as Castle Lodge of Harmony which was No 29 in those days.
The
question also arises as to whether sanction was always given by a lodge with a
due sense of responsibility. The Lodge of Hope gave its sanction for the
meeting of the Emulation Lodge of Instruction (later called `Lodge of
Improvement') in 1823 when Joseph Dennis, the Master of Hope, was the only
member to join the Lodge of Instruction. The lodge minutes even give the wrong
name to the meeting IN SEARCH OF RITUAL UNIFORMITY 183 place. During the next
three years only two other members of the lodge joined the Lodge of
Instruction and during the six and a half years that the Lodge of Hope
maintained the sanction, only eight of its members joined. In 1830 only one
was in regular attendance.
THE
GM's COMMUNICATION AND COMMAND IN 1830 In 1827 a new edition of the Book of
Constitutions was published but no change was made in the rules governing
Lodges of Instruction. At the Quarterly Communication in March 1830, the Grand
Master was not present, but he sent a `Communication and Command' which was
read in Grand Lodge. He directed that in future, at meetings of Lodges of
Instruction, the Chair must be taken by the Master or a Past Master of the
sanctioning regular lodge. There are records of the reaction to this direction
in the St Michael's Lodge of Instruction and in the Emulation Lodge of
Improvement. In both cases they could not comply because the membership did
not include enough Past Masters of the sanctioning Lodge to enable them to
continue meeting and so in both cases the Lodge of Instruction sought the help
of the lodge which provided the most members of the Lodge of Instruction and
asked to be sanctioned by that lodge; in both cases they were successful.
Lodges of Instruction, and particularly general Lodges of Instruction, tended
in those days to be separate organisations from their sanctioning lodges; the
connection was slight and could be changed at will. This may or may not have
been what the Grand Master wanted, but his direction reminded the Lodges of
Instruction where they stood. The work was at that time largely controlled
from the Chair in Lodges of Instruction and it was important that adequately
skilled brethren should be available if a Lodge of Instruction was to
flourish.
The
minutes of Grand Lodge for 3 March 1830 do not make any reference at all to
the Communication and Command and no further action seems to have been taken
over the Grand Master's proposal, although its very reading in Grand Lodge had
had some effect. It is likely that control over the teaching of Lodges of
Instruction was not what the Grand Master had in mind on that occasion.
Shortly before this meeting of Grand Lodge it had been reported to the Board
of General Purposes that Candidates who had been regularly initiated were
being passed and raised at meetings which were merely Lodges of Instruction
and it was probably this sort of irregularity the Grand Master wished to deal
with. In May 1830 the Masters of Royal Athelstan, Mount Moriah, Royal Jubilee
and Percy Lodges were summoned to attend the Board to answer such complaints.
The Grand Master seems to have settled the matter with some diplomacy and
without drastic action and this may account for the Communication and Command
being omitted from the Grand Lodge minutes and for there being no follow up to
the proposal.
THE
GRAND MASTER'S LICENCE Ever since November 1818 the Book of Constitutions has
included, in the rules governing Lodges of Instruction, provision for such
lodges to be held under licence direct from the Grand Master. Emulation Lodge
of Improvement was one of the general Lodges of Instruction affected by the
Grand Master's Communication and Command in 1830, but before it took the
course of finding another 184 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' regular lodge to
sanction its meeting, it petitioned the Grand Master for such a licence direct
from him.' This was refused; whether the result might have been different had
not the Grand Master withdrawn the provisions of his Communication and Command
it is not possible to say. It was practically one hundred years before the
only other recorded instance of invoking this provision. This was in
connection with a Lodge of Instruction held in the China Fleet in 1929, when
the Lodge of Instruction might be held in any one of several masonic
districts. In this case the licence was granted, the Grand Secretary's letter
dated 24 May 1929 to the District Grand Secretary of Northern China, reading:
The conditions are of course exceptional. I think the position might be met by
the Grand Master giving authority for the holding of the Lodge of Instruction
if the District Grand Master will undertake the necessary supervision.
In
that event, this letter will act as authority to proceed.
THE
1838 AMENDMENTS During the 1830s the Duke of Sussex was for a time virtually
blind and his activities were reduced. It is possible that the neglect to keep
up the register of meeting places of Lodges of Instruction after 1832 was a
result of this. After an operation his sight was partially restored and he
returned to something approaching his former powers. In 1838 he personally put
forward further amendments to the Book of Constitutions to improve the
supervision of Lodges of Instruction. 2 These amendments were the addition of
two paragraphs to that already in force: 2. Lodges of Instruction shall keep a
minute of all Brethren present at each meeting and of Brethren appointed to
hold office, and such minutes shall be produced when called for by the grand
master, board of general purposes, or the lodge granting the sanction and the
minutes shall be submitted. to the worshipful master of the lodge giving its
sanction.
3. If
a lodge which has given its sanction for a lodge of instruction being held
under its warrant shall see fit, it may at any regular meeting withdraw that
sanction by a resolution of the lodge, to be communicated to the lodge of
instruction. Provided notice of the intention to withdraw the sanction be
inserted in the summons for the meeting.
Most
Lodges of Instruction seem to have kept minutes, but the provision for them to
be submitted as a matter of routine to the Master of the sanctioning lodge
would be an effective control if carried out. It is probable that it did not
work, for it was deleted in the 1853 edition. It is not clear from the new
rule 3 itself whether the withdrawing of sanction constituted any real
penalty. Lodges of Instruction had previously been able to seek new sponsors
if they wished, so that it may have been the Grand Master's intention that a
Lodge of Instruction was closed down if its sanction was withdrawn; the rules
did not make this completely clear for another one hundred years. 3 These 1838
amendments were included in the 1841 edition of the Book of Constitutions
(with minor adjustments to the wording of the old rules). In that 'For details
of the Memorial to the Grand Master and the reply, see C. F. W. Dyer,
Emulation ‑A Ritual to Remember. (1973) For further details of the China Fleet
Lodge of Instruction, see Ivor Grantham, Lodges of Instruction, their origin
and development, the Prestonian Lecture for 1950, and The China Fleet Lodge of
Instruction, a paper presented by A. H. Carter to the Paul Chater Lodge of
Installed Masters, No 5391, in Hong Kong. (A copy of the paper is m the Grand
Lodge Li~rary.) The proceedings state that the proposals were put forward by
the Duke. 3 See Rule 135, B of C which was first included m the 1940 edition.
IN
SEARCH OF RITUAL UNIFORMITY 185 same year the official Calendar, for the first
time since the passing of the 1818 regulations, contained particulars of
`Lodges of Instruction which have given notice of their meetings in conformity
with the laws of the Grand Lodge' so reviving the register which had not been
kept up after 1832. Only three such lodges were included; the fact that they
were listed in the name of the sanctioning lodge stresses that that was where
it was considered the responsibility lay. There were many more than three
Lodges of Instruction in London at that time, but this publication at least
shows that after the passing of the additional rules in 1838, someone was
showing concern, and in the 1842 and 1843 Calendars the number of entries
increased to nine. This still did not reflect all the Lodges of Instruction
which should have made a return.
The
Duke of Sussex died at the age of seventy in 1843. There had been some
challenge to his rule in the last five or six years of his life and some of
the regulations he had been instrumental in putting into the Book of
Constitutions had not always been kept to the letter. But his firm and
personally involved rule during most of his thirty years as Grand Master had
been for the good of the Craft. He had seen the Union through and established
the United Grand Lodge with a success that few others of his time could have
achieved. His insistence on uniformity, particularly in the sphere of Ritual
practice, had a very material effect, for the 1830s ended with still virtually
one uniform system of working, at least so far as London and its environs were
concerned. I have taken considerable space over the efforts he made to
maintain this uniformity in Ritual forms, but as the forms which he sought to
impose were only promulgated after the Union, it was natural that such efforts
needed to be strongest immediately after their introduction and that the Duke,
as the sponsor, should be concerned all his life to try to keep the forms
unchanged.
5 THE
ERA OF INNOVATION In the years immediately following the Union there had been
considerable masonic activity but lodges tended to be small and membership
changed very quickly. In the consolidation which happened naturally after
about 1820, activity slowed and the weakest lodges either closed down or
amalgamated with others. This tendency to consolidate continued still further
in the 1830s, so that by the end of that decade there were many fewer lodges
working, both in London and the Provinces, than there had been twenty‑five
years earlier. A revival of interest started about 1840 and gained steady
momentum over the next fifteen years. After that it developed into the
tremendous expansion in masonry reflected in the increase in the number of
active lodges in the 1860s and 1870s. This revival of interest also brought
pressures for change which caused the next fifty years to become an era of
innovation.
OFFICIAL CONTROLS Control, so far as Lodges of Instruction were concerned, was
nominally maintained in the rules of the Book of Constitutions and, except for
the deletion of the requirement for minutes to be submitted to the Master of
the sanctioning lodge, the rules remained completely unaltered, other than for
slight rearrangements of 186 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' words, until 1884. The
register which was now published in the Calendar continued to be maintained
and the number of lodges shown increased; in 1850 there were twenty‑one on the
list, but although the rule referred only to London, the list included a
Liverpool lodge. Many lodges did keep control over the Lodges of Instruction
which they sanctioned, even those which were of a general nature, by retaining
the appointment of the `directors', as preceptors were than called, in their
own hands, but as the rules had no bite, they did not necessarily prevent
changes in the forms. In 1895, Victorian influence had an effect, for the
Board of General Purposes ruled that Lodges of Instruction meeting on Sundays
should not be included in the Calendar.
THE
TUG‑OF‑WAR The death of the Duke of Sussex removed a strong control. The Earl
of Zetland was Grand Master for the next twenty‑seven years; with his more
withdrawn attitude and with some slackness in the Grand Lodge administration
as W. H. White, the Grand Secretary, got older, there was less restraint on
those who might not wish to conform completely to what had been laid down
thirty years before. The masonic press of the 1840s and 1850s contains
references which lead me to believe that a tug‑of‑war took place between those
who wished to embellish and innovate and those who wished to preserve the
forms of the Union unaltered. That some still felt that the forms were
sacrosanct is shown by a reaction to the Grand Master's own proposal in
September 1847 that `free born' should no longer apply and that all who were
free should be eligible. It was pointed out to him in Grand Lodge that this
was contrary to the Lectures ‑ to which he replied that the Lectures must be
altered.' During his lifetime the Duke of Sussex, although nominally
interested, had succeeded in playing down the many additional degrees which
flourished prior to the Union in association with Craft lodges. He was
committed to a Craft of `three degrees and no more'; he had his hands full in
achieving a complete union in that sphere and additional degrees had to be
outside the Craft. There were stirrings in the additional degrees in the last
few years of the Duke's rule which culminated in the re‑establishment of the
Ancient and Accepted Rite and the Mark Degree. Other degrees also
flourished‑to an extent that in 1884 the Grand Council for the Allied Degrees
was formed to provide an organisation. It is difficult now, and was probably
equally difficult then, for the average mason to separate completely in his
mind the multiplicity of Ritual forms as he acquired additional degrees. In
some lodges today, forms are used which patently have been borrowed from other
degrees; this tendency, along with the revival of pre‑union practices which
had been arbitrarily dropped by the Lodge of Reconciliation, and the
borrowings from Irish, Scottish and probably Bristol workings, affected the
detailed work of individual English lodges. A correspondent complained in the
Freemasons' Magazine in 1859 of the adoption of practices from other
Constitutions in the working of English lodges situated overseas.
In
1848 the masons of Birmingham were concerned about lack of uniformity and
asked Emulation Lodge of Improvement in London to send someone 1 Minutes of
Grand Lodge, 1 September 11147.
IN
SEARCH OF RITUAL UNIFORMITY 187 to instruct them; as a result William Honey of
Royal Athelstan Lodge spent a month in Birmingham holding instruction
classes.' In 1849 the Freemasons' Quarterly Review derided Peter Thomson and
Henry Muggeridge, the leading lights of Stability Lodge of Instruction, for
teaching exactly what they had themselves been taught. At the same time it
applauded S. B. Wilson, President of Emulation for his liberal attitude. In
1858 the Freemasons' Magazine, successor to the Quarterly, took a completely
opposite view and in an article on `Uniformity of Working' was urging
Stability and Emulation to keep their promises to get together and work to the
same Ritual and pointing out in detail how small were the differences between
them; 2 at the same time they upbraided the Grand Stewards' Lodge for its loss
of authority, prestige and leadership in its Public Nights, and the Grand
Master for not ensuring that the Prestonian Lecture was given ably and
publicly. In 1861 the Grand Stewards' Lodge formed a Committee to revise the
Lectures. Ultimately Grand Lodge took note and in 1869 appointed a committee
of thirty‑nine brethren to go into the whole question of uniformity of Ritual.
John Havers, who had been trying since 1857 to bring just Stability and
Emulation together, pointed out the impossibility of the task, particularly
with a committee of thirty‑nine, and the matter was dropped. Change won as it
always will, and with the rise by the 1870s of the various differing systems
into recognisably different workings, it is unlikely that any one of those
systems retained in its entirety the forms which the Duke of Sussex tried so
hard to perpetuate.
GRAND
STEWARDS' LODGE PUBLIC NIGHTS Although through the 1830s and 1840s the Public
Nights continued to attract many visitors, the attendance was not on the scale
of the 1820s, while it became increasingly difficult to find members of the
lodge prepared to support the demonstrations. Typical attendances were
thirteen members and seventy visitors in 1847 and nine members and sixty‑six
visitors in 1852.3 By 1857 the numbers had fallen drastically, total
attendances at the two meetings being twenty‑six and forty. As lodges were by
then working to systems containing differences from that explained in the
Grand Stewards' Lodge Lectures, the Public Nights lost their appeal. In March
1867 only five members attended ‑ one working four of the seven sections ‑
along with twenty visitors. After this the Public Nights were discontinued.
An
important matter in the 1870s was the implied relaxing of the complete ban,
which had existed since before the Union, on the printing and publishing of
anything purporting to give information on Ritual forms. There had been
printed books before this, but these had been either exposures, which had had
no authority; or publications by such men as George Claret, who were under
approbrium; or anonymous publications where the author could not be traced.
About the end of 1870, John Hogg, a member of Oak Lodge No 190, published The
2 Freemasons' Quarterly Review, 1848, pp 369‑70.
n2
These were stated to be (a) position of WM when communicating the secrets of
I' and 2'; (b) 1░
working tools; (c) explanation and derivation of FC sn; (d) giving of MM
badge; (e) some unimportant verbal distinctions ‑ altogether efligible
differences when considered in the context of the complete Ritual of the three
Degrees.
Freemasons' Quarterly Magazine. 1850, p 70, offers a comment on the public
nights: `It is our firm conviction that the Lectures as delivered in the Grand
Stewards' Lodge, though differing frequently from the same lectures as taught
in one or two of the London Lodges of Instruction, as far as regards the exact
words, yet adhering to the same landmarks, must ever prove eminently useful to
the Craft . . .' 188 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' Perfect Ceremonies of Craft
Masonry and publicised it freely. He did not at that time give his name to the
publication but issued it as `A Lewis', giving his private address in Raven
Villas, Hammersmith. In 1874, still a member of the Craft and trading under
his own name in Paternoster Row, London, he used this new business address for
further editions of the book so that he was readily identifiable. No action
was taken by Authority against him. As a result Ritual systems could be made
openly available in printed form for all who wished to follow them. After the
collapse of the 1869 attempt to restore uniformity, some brethren took the
opportunity to compile revised versions of the Ritual, either to vary the
grammar of the traditional workings, or to render the illustrations nearer to
Holy Writ, or just to give rein to their own particular or local preferences
and otherwise to bring the Ritual `up‑to‑date'. This further placed beyond all
hope the prospect of the uniformity which the Duke of Sussex tried so hard to
bring about and came so near to achieving during his rule.
PRINTED RITUAL BOOKS The effect of the printed word cannot be over‑emphasised
in its controlling influence on Ritual practice. The average mason looks for
help of this nature and has always done so, as the popularity of the use of
`exposures' as Ritual books showed before the Union, when no other such source
was available. In more modern days the average mason has come to regard
anything that gets into print as being unquestionably right and he makes no
enquiry as to its authenticity. Richard Carlile printed in The Republican in
1825 an exposure of Craft Ritual.' This was reprinted in booklet form in 1831,
with some revisions. Carlile published the first edition himself but a number
of later editions, expanded to include additional degrees, came to the market
through other publishers. 2 Carlile was not a mason. It is probable that the
publication of Carlile's book and its use as a Ritual aid caused George Claret
to start to publish masonic booklets and in 1838 he produced a Ritual book. It
went through four editions in the first ten years and continued through other
editions at least until 1873, even after Claret himself had disappeared from
the scene. 2 Claret, who had been prominent in Ritual teaching, stated quite
freely that he introduced alternatives and variations of his own, and
succeeding editions tend to show the progress of change from the 1840s to the
1860s. Claret was not proceeded against by any Authority; by the time he
published the book he had been so often the subject of various complaints that
he was no longer an active mason. The only action taken in the early years was
to attempt to discourage the use of his books, a policy which was quite
ineffective. In the 1840s his book was noted to be in use but still no action
was taken, although in 1859 J. Mott Thurle, a bookseller, was brought before
the Board of General Purposes for obtaining the book privately for known
masons.
In
1847 George Bradshaw of St Swithin's Lane, London offered a Ritual book for
sale. 2 The address given was, during the whole of the time that Bradshaw used
it, a public house, 3 so that it was likely that it was no more than an
address of t For details of Richard Carlile, see S. J. Fenton, `Richard
Carlile: his life and Masonic writings', AQC, 49, pp 83‑121. z See Appendix.
3 The
Bay Tree Tavern.
IN
SEARCH OF RITUAL UNIFORMITY 189 convenience, similar to that used by later
publishers of Carlile's book. Bradshaw offered for sale in 1851 a completely
new publication containing the Ritual of the three Degrees.' This book
appeared during the 1860s in a different binding as a private printing with no
printer's or publisher's name, but with the addition of the legend that the
contents were as taught by the late Peter Gilkes'. When Hogg's Perfect
Ceremonies were first published about 1870 it was almost exactly similar to
the later private editions of Bradshaw and it is probable that Hogg, who came
to London in 1858,2 used it as his source. Whether or not the work contained
in these books reflected the system in general use, the opposite must have
been true‑ that the lodges began to work according to the systems which the
various books gave, so that, where they were used, they had a considerable
influence on Ritual and its instruction. In 1864, H. T. Baldwin wrote from
Manchester to the Grand Secretary asking if Lodges of Instruction were
permitted to use books in instruction and quoted a lodge which `publicly
instructed from books' and another where he had been informed `that the Grand
Lodge were about to sanction their use'. The Grand Secretary, after referring
Baldwin to his Provincial Grand Master, commented that Grand Lodge had not
directly or indirectly authorised any such thing.
In
addition to those mentioned several other printed books appeared after the
1850s in small private editions, although the anonymous Text Book of
Freemasonry (1870)3 achieved a fairly wide use in Birmingham. In the next
thirty years, Oxford, Logic (following John Maclean's revisions), West End
(which seems to adopt most of Claret), Complete, Durham, Revised, Bottomley
(N.W. England), Common Sense (Plymouth), Taylor's and a number of others made
their appearance, some privately and some commercially produced. Hogg's
Perfect Ceremonies, which purported to give Emulation, went into several
editions and, just after the turn of the century, Stability also arranged for
John Hogg to publish its old Ritual commercially (calling it Standard, or
Muggeridge). A number of private lodge Rituals, in many cases containing
unique features, were also being used.
The
ultimate in innovation in a published Ritual for Craft use was reached in 1888
with the appearance of The Revised Ritual of Craft Freemasonry compiled by
Franklin Thomas. Thomas was initiated in the Royal Kent Lodge of Antiquity at
Chatham in 1841 at the age of 23. He may have been in the Chair of a lodge by
1846, although in that year he moved to Oxford. There he joined Alfred Lodge,
now No 340, and was Master in 1850. In the 1850s he lived for a few years in
Torquay where he was Master of St John's Lodge, now No 328, in 1856‑57. Just
afterwards he moved to east Lancashire and joined Perseverance Lodge No 345 at
Blackburn in 1861. He was active in masonry wherever he was and became a
Provincial Grand Officer in Kent, Oxford and Lancashire (Eastern Division); in
the last he was made PPSGW in 1887. There is no doubt he was very experienced,
and his opinions were listened to; he also wrote The Etiquette of Freemasonry,
published in 1890. In his travels he developed curious views about the Ritual
and `was a great stickler for the old fashioned form of Installation Ceremony'
‑ now t See Appendix.
2 A
note on James Hogg and Son and John Hogg & Co., and particular reference to
the Perfect Ceremonies, is in C. F. W. Dyer, Emulation ‑ A Ritual to Remember.
(1973) pp 212‑14.
3
Printed in Birmingham by Corns and Bartleet, Union Street, and published by
Reeves and Turner, 196, Strand, London (who had nine years before started to
publish Carlile's Manual of Freemasonry ‑ see Appendix).
190
`THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' known as the extended form. He died in 1907 at the
age of ninety. His system involved considerable change from traditional
practice in the Degree Ceremonies, not just in grammar and word variation, but
in fundamental structure, without much concern that English Craft Ritual in
general use was based on the approved forms of the Lodge of Reconciliation. He
included copious footnotes in his book, stating in categorical terms why his
methods were right and more usual forms wrong. His book was published by John
Hogg, who had previously published the Perfect Ceremonies. The present owner
of the business has kindly permitted me to see some of the correspondence with
Thomas with reference to this book. His letters are written in the same
forthright terms as the footnotes in his book. He also included the extended
working of Installation in his own version ‑ in a manner which constituted
that Ceremony into the conferment of a further degree and it was the use of
this which triggered off the start of the reactionary trend.
6 THE
PERIOD OF REACTION AND THE PRESENT POSITION The only public effort at further
control in the 1880s was contained in the new edition of the Book of
Constitutions in 1884. This extended the requirement that the meeting places
of Lodges of Instruction should be registered, to those in Provinces and
Districts. Early in 1889 the newly appointed Provincial Grand Master for
Staffordshire, Colonel A. C. Foster Gough, queried with the Grand Secretary
the orthodoxy of the extended working of the Installation Ceremony which was
used in parts of his Province. As a result, a circular was sent by the Grand
Secretary to all Provinces indicating that this particular Ceremony was not
permitted and many Provinces carried out his direction quite strenuously.'
This was not the end of Foster Gough's efforts, for he had been initiated in
the Lodge of Honour in Wolverhampton in 1856 and had learnt, as his Ritual,
that taught by William Honey on his visit to Birmingham in 1848. Gough was
concerned at the amount of innovation of different sorts which had crept into
the working of lodges in his Province. He issued a circular urging a return to
the simpler forms of earlier times and encouraging the formation of Lodges of
Instruction to that end.2 He died in February 1892 and so did not see the
matter through, but he sparked off a movement of reaction which still has
echoes in the 1970s.
Where
the Duke of Sussex had tried to control from a central point and had tended to
concentrate on London, the new control arising from this movement was by
direction from Provincial Grand Masters. This effectively halted
indiscriminate innovation when it was adopted in any locality but put in its
place Ritual forms peculiar to an area, much at the whim of successive
Provincial or District Grand Masters. Since the 1890s the actions of
Provincial and District Grand Masters have varied between extremes in dealing
with the matter. There have been examples of the imposition of a particular
form of Ritual, either specially ' See W. Read, `The "Extended" Working in the
Board of Installed Masters', A QC, 84, from page 26, and, in particular,
comments on pp 60‑63.
The
letter is dated 2 February 1891 and was circulated as a 13 pp pamphlet,
printed by John Steen & Co, Ltd, Wolverhampton. It contains the following
passage on the possibility of his insisting on Ritual practices which he might
personally prefer and might publish: . . . I feel it would be eminently unfair
on my part to practically say to them "I am right". Upon this ground I decline
the refponsibility and I may add that such a ritual would not in any way bind
my successors, or the ruler of any other Province, and its publication under
my authority alone, could not be expected to obtain any sanction from the
Grand Lodge . . .' IN SEARCH OF RITUAL UNIFORMITY compiled to include personal
views or of a particular standard working. Some have attempted to secure
agreement on a uniform working by discussion in such bodies as their Stewards'
Lodge. Some, in an effort to prevent the spread of innovation without being
too rigid, merely try to persuade lodges to work to one of the more generally
recognised workings in its entirety. Circumstances differ and there may in
some cases be a need for a directed answer, particularly where there is free
association with lodges of other Constitutions. This new form of control arose
gradually over a long period and in some places innovation continued at the
same time. W. J. Hughan wrote in 1910 (AQC, 23, p 304): `At the present time
there are to be found Lodges openly violating what may be considered
Ritualistic Landmarks, and all because there is no recognised authority to set
matters straight.' Grand Lodge took action in another direction in 1916, to
restrict the amount of religious music which was becoming incorporated as part
of the Ceremonies.
As in
the earlier innovation era, when reaction came, there was a tendency for some
to try to carry it too far. This showed itself in an attempt over a period to
gain complete uniformity of Ritual by imposing one particular working on the
whole Craft. Those who put this view forward claimed that the working they
used was the only sanctioned or approved Ritual. Naturally this claim was
disputed by others; complete uniformity was not a viable solution and these
attempts merely brought a legacy of ill‑will towards the Working concerned.
A
revised Book of Constitutions in 1940 produced the regulations on Lodges of
Instruction which are in force today ‑ including making it clear that a Lodge
of Instruction ceases to exist if the sanctioning lodge withdraws its
sanction. It also carried a significant change in the description of the
proper proceedings of a Lodge of Instruction. Previously it was the
responsibility of the sanctioning lodge `that the mode of working adopted has
received the sanction of the grand lodge'; it is now `seeing that the
proceedings are in accordance with the Antient Charges, Landmarks, and
Regulations of the Order as established by the Grand Lodge'. One wonders to
what extent the change of wording was influenced by the claims and
counterclaims of the preceding twenty‑five years to have the only Ritual
sanctioned by Grand Lodge.
Since
the 1939‑45 war other events have shown that the tug‑of‑war still goes on. In
1963, Grand Lodge, after consultation between the Board of General Purposes
and Provincial and District Grand Masters, thought it necessary to re‑state,
in slightly revised terms, the edict of 1916 with regard to music in
Ceremonies. In 1964 came the decision by Grand Lodge to permit the use of
alternative forms of Obligation in relation to the penalties. This represented
the control of important change from the centre and only came about after very
full discussion. Its aftermath tended to show how great is the feeling among
many responsible masons that there should be some control of Ritual change.
Grand Lodge settled only the wording of the Obligations themselves and the
Ritual teaching bodies were officially left to work out the necessary
consequential adjustments in other parts of the Ceremonies. An attempt in
London to find out who these teaching bodies were, showed that many of the
generally used Workings were taken from printed books originally published
many years ago and with no responsible 192 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES'
headquarters. Three such headquarters which could be found co‑operated to
produce recommendations which were given wide publicity, and undoubtedly
helped to prevent a number of different versions coming into practice. A
further effect was to bring together brethren using some of the `book'
Workings to form Ritual Associations and try to arrive at common practice.
This also made possible some control over reprinting of Ritual books, the
decision on the content of which had previously been entirely a matter for
publishers. Another noticeable feature of the last few years has been a
renewed interest in Provinces and Districts in the control of differences in
Ritual practice. The change in the Board of General Purposes' decision,
mentioned earlier, also happened in this period.
7
CONCLUSIONS We tend to regard the illustrations of symbolism, charges, and
explanations and lectures, which are customarily given, as parts of the
complete Degree Ceremonies. It is doubtful if all this was intended to be
treated as truly Ritual; there is no official record, but all that seems to
have been truly regarded as Ritual in the period after the Union were the
essential rites of testing, obligating and entrusting a Candidate. I do not
believe that this Ritual was intended to consist of just a set form of words.
Rather, I believe that it consists of a series of Ritual acts in a particular
sequence; words are used as part of those Ritual acts in order to convey a
particular sense and to emphasise a particular point and in certain cases
certain specific words should be used, but the precise words may not in every
case be important in themselves. If every word were of such importance, then
every slip in lodge must be corrected or the Ceremony must be treated as not
having been properly conducted and the Candidate must repeat it ‑ which is
nonsense. At the same time the true sense must be preserved or the Ceremonies
would take on a different meaning as time went by. There must be some standard
and some control, even if, as a living thing, our Ritual tends to be affected
by the changing ways of life.
It
seems to me that the use of the rules in the Book of Constitutions, the
history of which I have tried to trace, no longer really exercises the control
that was intended. Those relating to Lodges of Instruction include, basically,
the provisions originally passed in 1818. They have outlived the original need
for them and now serve quite a different purpose. Lodges of Instruction must
still be registered with the appropriate authority by the regular lodges which
sanction them. Registers are kept by the authority and information can be
given to enquirers. I have enquired as to the register of London lodges and a
selection of Provincial and District Grand Lodges. Interpretation of the rules
differs and in some areas there are officially no Lodges of Instruction, only
rehearsals of lodge Ceremonies and Classes of Instruction. The original
purpose of these rules was to locate responsibility for Ritual teaching and to
place it on a regular lodge. Where a lodge rehearsal takes place, the
responsibility is clear, but meeting together for the purpose of instruction
as a Class for which no lodge has given sanction is still technically a breach
of the rules ‑ yet how many such bodies are deliberately called Classes in the
belief that the mere use of the name takes the matter outside the rules.
Examination shows that general Lodges of Instruction still lose touch with
their sanctioning lodges and although the sanction is not withdrawn they are
not officially recorded because the onus to make the return is on the
sanctioning lodge. Sanction is often given in these days to show to the
members of a regular lodge an interest in the Lodge of Instruction which they
are recommended to attend. I have found Lodges of Instruction which proudly
announce that they have the sanction of as many as ten regular lodges.
Sanction implies responsibility for what is done; if a lodge withdraws its
sanction, officially the Lodge of Instruction ceases to exist. With multiple
sanction, someone might have a busy time sorting the situation out.
In
some other Constitutions control of Ritual practice is exercised by publishing
an official Ritual book only obtainable from the Grand Secretary. Such a
degree of uniformity is no longer possible ‑ or perhaps desirable ‑ in the
English Constitution, but even with us the printed word has come to stay. In
the Ritual essentials, most of the printed workings are remarkably similar,
even if the language used and the non‑essentials differ a great deal. In these
days of almost complete reliance on a printed book, following one of the
standard workings already in use seems to me to be the best answer to ensuring
a lodge keeps to the landmarks.
The
reluctance of the Board of General Purposes to rule on Ritual matters, and the
tremendous interest and objection which seems to arise whenever such matters
come before Grand Lodge, will probably mean that we cannot look for any
resumption of control from the centre. So far as nearly two thousand lodges in
London are concerned, there is no intermediate authority. As to the
responsibility of Provincial or District Grand Masters with respect to
permitted Ritual practice, it is difficult in the present circumstances to
suggest a more reasonable area of control. This will only remain reasonable
while the matter is handled with proper discretion and not made the
opportunity merely to impose the views of one person. Without some central
authority, the differences in practice between areas will be perpetuated and
will probably increase. The import of Rule 155 so far as a Lodge's
responsibility for its own working is concerned ‑ and therefore, incidentally,
its resistance to direction ‑ is still not clear. I hope that, at least, some
attempt may be made, while preserving all we have, to control any further
inadvertent or deliberate change without due authority, and to place some
check on the printing and issuing of any further different forms.
APPENDIX In the Grand Lodge Library there is a number of copies of Ritual
books of the 1830‑70 period. Those stemming from Richard Carlile, George
Claret and George Bradshaw are noted below. There may be other printings or
editions of which there is no copy in the Grand Lodge Library.
RICHARD CARLILE An Exposure of Freemasonry or a Mason's Printed Manual,
published by R. Carlile, 62, Fleet Street, London, 1831 (5s).
Second
edition, renamed on the cover Carlile's Manual of Freemasonry, and on the
title page Freemasonry, Part I. A Manual of the First Three Degrees. Printed
and published by Alfred Carlile, 183, Fleet Street, London, 1836.
Freemasonry, Part III, dealing with some additional Degrees. Published by
Alfred Carlile, IN SEARCH OF RITUAL UNIFORMITY 193 194 'THE PRESTONIAN
LECTURES' Water Lane, Fleet Street, London, 1837 (5s). Although the title page
stated that it was printed by Carlile, it has at the end the name of
Cunningham and Salmon, Printers, Crown Court, 72, Fleet Street.
Freemasonry, Part II, dealing with Craft Installation, Royal Arch and K.T.,
published by Bruce and Wyld, 84, Farringdon Street, London, undated (5s).
There is no separate printer's name.
A
further printing of the Second edition of Part I, published by N. Bruce‑, 84,
Farringdon Street, 1843, and printed by him at Peterborough Court, Fleet
Street.
All
three parts in one volume, marked `now first collected in one volume'. This
was merely a binding in one volume of the three separate Parts previously
published‑ Part I, as in 1843 by Bruce, Part II, the Bruce and Wyld printing,
Part III, as in 1837 by A. Carlile. From this date all books contain the three
Parts in one volume.
Manual
of Freemasonry, `printed and published by R. Carlile, Fleet Street, re‑printed
and published by W. Dugdale, Holywell Street,' London. Third edition, revised
and enlarged, 1845. This appears to be a complete reprinting of all three
Parts and bears throughout Dugdale's name as printer. It is also headed `The
genuine edition', perhaps implying that there were other, pirate editions, on
offer, as appears likely from later printings. There is another version
bearing throughout Dugdale's name as printer in the same way. This is undated
and bears R. Carlile's name as publisher on Parts 1 and III.
An
edition dated 1853, repeating the claim of Bruce's 1843 edition to be `now
first collected in one volume'. This is stated to be published by R. Carlile,
Fleet Street, and was printed by J. O. Clarke, 3, Raquet Court and 121, Fleet
Street, London.
1855;
published by Andrew Vickers, 37, Holywell Street, Strand, London, and printed
by.l. Turner, Holywell Street. It is possible that these were successors to
Dugdale.
1858;
A reprinting by J. O. Clark, whose address had changed to 107, Dorset Street,
Fleet Street, and published by R. Carlile, Fleet Street. Fourth edition,
undated, published by Richard Carlile, 2, Lovell's Court, Paternoster Row,
London and Murrey Street, Hoxton and printed by Johnston, Red Lion Court,
Charterhouse Lane, London. The copy in the Grand Lodge Library is wrongly made
up, some pages of Part 1 having been interchanged with similarly numbered
pages from Part II and with the title page and early pages of Part II at the
front of the book.
1861;
A reprinting of the 1855 Andrew Vickers version.
1861;
An edition published by Reeves and Turner, 238, Strand, London and J. W.
Bouton & Co., 87, Walker Street, New York and printed by Bowden and Brawn, 13,
Princes Street, Little Queen Street, London W.C.
All
editions after this are undated and published by William Reeves, or by Reeves
and Turner (which was the same firm) from sundry addresses in London: 238,
Strand some with no printer's name and some with Bowden and Brawn as above.
100,
Chancery Lane printed by W. Bowden, 23, Red Lion Street, Holborn, London.
196,
Strand no printer's name.
5,
Wellington Street printed by New Temple Press, 185, Fleet Street.
185,
Fleet Street printed by New Temple Press, 185, Fleet Street.
83,
Charing Cross Road some with no printer's name and some printed by New Temple
Press (17, Grant Road) Croydon.
How
authentic the publishers' names and addresses were probably cannot now be
established, but a fairly recent enquiry showed the Charing Cross Road address
to be one of accommodation and not a place of business.
GEORGE
CLARET.
The
Ceremonies of Initiation, Passing & Raising, with copious notes, as regards
the duties of the Master, Wardens, Deacons, &c. G. Claret, 5, Queen Square,
Eldon Street, Finsbury Circus, London, 1838 (21s).
The
Ceremonies of Initiation Passing & Raising. Opening and Closing, Installation.
Explanation of the_ Tracing Boards &c. G. Claret, Printer, Queen Square,
Finsbury Circus, 1840 (21s). This was a completely revised book.
IN
SEARCH OF RITUAL UNIFORMITY 195 The Whole of Craft Masonry in three parts,
1840, from the same address, was a reprint of the other 1840 Ritual along with
other, former separate, publications as the other two partsthe Lectures and
Illustrations.
The
Whole of Craft Masonry, Second edition, 1841, G. Claret, 28, Upper Clifton
Street, Finsbury.
Third
edition, 1847, from the same address.
Fourth
edition, `with very considerable improvements', ?1848, same address.
Fifth
edition, ?1850 with a possible reprinting ?1855. This and all subsequent
printings referred to very considerable improvements.
Sixth
edition. ?1866.
Seventh and probably last edition, ?1873 from 84, Clifton Street, Finsbury.
The
queried dates are those that are allotted as approximately correct in the
copies in the Grand Lodge Library. The copies are undated where these
approximations have been made.
GEORGE
BRADSHAW.
The
Ceremonies of Opening and Closing, Initiation, Passing and Raising
Installation, &c. Printed and sold by G. Bradshaw, 1847. No address.
Audi,
Vide, Tace, published by G. Bradshaw, 15, North Street, Westminster. One copy
is endorsed `Thomas Trollope May 1864'.
The
Ceremonies of Opening and Closing in the Three Degrees. Questions to
Candidates. Initiation Passing and Raising. Together with the whole of the
Lectures ... Published for the Compilers and sold by George Bradshaw & Co, 33,
St Swithen's Lane, Lombard Street, London, 1851.
Second
edition 1853. There was an additional heading above that stated: Works on
Freemasonry containing . . . This edition was stated to be `Published (for the
Compilers) by John Allen, No 22, Bromley Street, Commercial Road East.' There
is a stick‑on label `sold by Bro George Bradshaw & Co, 33, St Swithen's Lane .
. .' No trace has been found of a Brother George Bradshaw, nor is there any
record of a Bradshaw in connection with either of the addresses given.
Similarly, John Allen cannot be traced in connection with any of the
addresses.
DRAMA
AND CRAFT PRESTONIAN LECTURE FOR 1974 N. BARKER CRYER IT WAS PYTHAGORAS who
taught his followers not to linger on the well‑worn paths of knowledge but to
seek out less familiar ground. In regard to material for masonic research and
for one who is privileged to deliver the Prestonian Lecture in the 50th year
since the present series began this advice may seem wise, though
impracticable, since I would be foolhardy as well as presumptuous were I to
pretend that the subject of this lecture was original and its contents
uninfluenced by the devoted labours of those who have gone before. This
lecture is, in a real sense, the result of much reading and pondering on the
research work of the last two generations and without hesitation it will be as
well at the outset to acknowledge the debt that is due to those who, like
William Preston, and bearing in some sense his mantle, first furnished the
ideas and evidence that will reveal itself in the course of these pages.
That
said, it may be stated that the main thesis of this enquiry (and nothing more
positive is to be claimed for it) does represent an attempt to shed light on
an activity and an aspect of masonry which have been less considered than most
others. To that extent it might claim in some sense to follow the counsel of
Pythagoras ‑ surely a just aim for even a speculative mason ‑ and it will, I
trust, encourage a fresh appraisal of a whole section of our masonic
researches. If any substantial basis emerges for the conclusions to which I
shall eventually point the reader then I shall have achieved my dual purpose:
to have added something worthwhile to authentic masonic study and to have
reopened some avenues of investigation which might have been thought to be for
ever closed.
There
are, so far as I have been able to discover, only four masonic students of
note who have published writings directly related to the theme of this
Lecture. One of them, Bro Fred L. Pick, was himself a Prestonian Lecturer in
1948 when he took as his subject, `The Deluge', in which reference was made to
the medieval drama and about which he had already written more specifically
for the Manchester Association of Masonic Research, in `The Miracle Play'
(1942).
The
second distinguished author and student was Ed Conder Jnr who in the AQC
transactions XIV had written about Mystery Plays. Whilst the third and fourth
are Bro Robert Race and Ernest Thiemeyer to whose writings I was directed in
the recent study of Solomon's Temple by Alex Horne. I have read what these
knowledgeable brethren have written with the greatest interest. If, as things
transpire, I will be found to differ with them on several points, I hope that
this will not be regarded as in any way lessening my respect for their labours.
The debt we owe to our predecessors in research is always a special one‑it is
that they show us where to question and what to think about. Most of my
queries are of their making.
196
DRAMA AND CRAFT 197 In addition, however, and in particular regard to medieval
drama, it needs to be recorded that since the days of Bro Pick's Lecture there
has been an enormous wave of research into the origins and character, the
scripts and significance of the mystery and morality plays of the thirteenth
to seventeenth centuries. Anyone who embarks on this path of research will
soon discover a great output of modern material with which he needs to engage.
If I have found clues and eyed vistas that were apparently unknown to my
predecessors then the debt here is to a further range of literary scholars
since 1950 whose work is enthralling and well‑nigh exhaustive. To have had the
opportunity to read and use the material they have uncovered for this Lecture
means that this has been yet another privilege gained. Though the use of
footnotes has been avoided, all the evidence given can be provided at source
for any who ask for it, and a simple bibliography is appended at the close.
MORAL
TEACHING IN MASONRY We are all familiar with the time‑honoured description of
freemasonry which runs: `A peculiar system of morality, veiled in allegory and
illustrated by symbols'. As a description of our present practice and
standpoint it could not be bettered. What is borne in upon me the more I delve
into the background of our masonic ancestry, as it emerges in the fourteenth
to the seventeenth centuries, is that in every respect this is precisely a
description which would have fitted our brethren in those ages as well as our
own. Of course, there were specifically Christian dimensions to the morality
practised by our operative forbears but what we have to hand, recorded in the
Ancient Charges and, as I shall presently demonstrate, presented in dramatic
form by masons, is a strict attention to moral, as well as technical, practice
amongst the building craftsmen of the later Middle Ages. Maynard Smith in his
volume, Pre‑Reformation England, writes: A too great familiarity with sacred
things may cause men to be flippant and irreverent; and the holiest mysteries,
when explained in vulgar terms, may cease to inspire wonder, so that any real
sense of the supernatural is lost. It was entirely right to teach men to live
by means of allegories, and to teach men by symbols to grasp spiritual truths.
Allegories are analogies in action; and symbolism is a visible shorthand by
which we recognise truths that defy verbal definition. Both are justified by
the belief of the unity of all things in God.
It is
in such a context as this (and only space prevents one from elaborating it at
length) that one needs to view the continuing development of the craft of
masonry, a craft as well shall see below, which was inevitably at the heart of
public living and closely connected with that mainspring of medieval
experience ‑ the practice of the religious life. The Constitutions of masonry,
commonly called the Old or Ancient Charges, point to a recognisable continuity
of attitude, if not of ritual practice, as between the so‑called operative
period of the late fourteenth century (Regius MS) and the avowedly
`speculative' period (Anderson, 1723).
This
continuity is precisely of a moral nature, though I will hope to show in other
connections that symbol and legend, not to mention allegory, were also present
in the practice of masonry ‑ indeed were inseparable from it. About the moral
emphasis, however, there can be no question. Harry Carr, in his important
Prestonian Lecture for 1957, said: 198 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' One other
feature distinguishes the MS Constitutions . . . from the normal codes of
mediaeval craft ordinances, i.e. the inclusion of a number of items in the
regulations which were not trade matters at all but designed to preserve and
elevate the moral character of the craftsmen. It is this extraordinary
combination of `history', trade and moral regulations which makes these early
MSS unique among contemporary craft documents. (My italics.) Whilst it is true
that the Regius MS of 1390 is, of course, representative of its time in
advising the mason of his duty to his master, brethren and to Holy Church,
even containing the expression: `Pray we now to God almyght and to hys moder
Mary bryght', yet there is enough to reveal the bond of fellowship in right
living which permeates our ritual utterances today. Between the stress of 1390
on leading a moral life and respecting the chastity of a master's or fellow's
wife and daughter, and the First Charge with which we are, or ought to be,
familiar there is an undeniable link.
Let a
man's religion or mode of worship be what it may, he is not excluded from the
order, provided he believe in the glorious architect of heaven and earth and
practice the sacred duties of morality.
It
will not be irrelevant to add here one more brief extract from the 1390 Regius
MS. It closes with these words: `Amen! Amen! So mote it be So say we all for
charity.' Yet familiar as such a sentiment will appear to us today I wonder if
we are aware that this was just as pre‑eminently and familiarly to the fore in
the days when those words were first penned, `probably by a priest, himself a
master mason, or, at any rate, in close touch with the building fraternity'.
Whatever may be our understanding of the nature of the medieval Masons' Gild,
and something must be said about this in the next section, it yet remains true
that medieval masons, like any other association of craft‑workers, `no matter
for what special purpose they were founded, had the same general
characteristics of brotherly aid and social charity; and no guild was divorced
from the ordinary religious observances, commonly practiced by all such bodies
in those days'. A master employing an apprentice was not simply his technical
superior and instructor. He acted also in the capacity of his father, watching
over his morals, as well as his work, during the period of apprenticeship.
There was concern for the use of proper tools, and no member of the Gild was
allowed to possess tools `unless the same were testified to be good and honest
... It was specially forbidden, in the strongest terms, to mix inferior
materials with a better sort, to the detriment of the buyer, or to sell
patched‑up work as new . . . Thus, the statutes of the Whitawers directed the
Gild‑brothers to assist a member who did not know ho to go on with his work,
in order that it might not be spoiled. Such directions are specially frequent
among the Masons, from whom customers received special guarantees for the
proper completion of their work.' In his recent essay on the `Communal year at
Coventry, 1450‑1550' C. Phythian‑Adams has written, 'Exclusion from the
fellowships of building workers (for bad work or bad behaviour) automatically
meant the stigma of inferior status as only `comen laborers' or mere DRAMA AND
CRAFT 199 servants . . . When all masters and journeymen annually processed in
their respective companies at Corpus Christitide and on the eves of Midsummer
and St Peter, therefore, the community in its entirety was literally defining
itself for all to see'.
It is
against such a backcloth of public as well as trade morality that masonry in
the late Middle Ages has to be seen. What I now have to introduce is the
evidence which we have acquired, since the days of Pick and Conder, regarding
the involvement of those very medieval masons in `moral' plays. I am not here
referring to the Mystery, or biblical, productions as these will be dealt with
at a later stage. I refer particularly to what were, in fact, called `Morality
Plays' or simply `Moralities'.
Already, in the year 1389, we have evidence that shows how in York 'once upon
a time, a play setting forth the goodness of the Lord's Prayer was played in
the City of York; in which play all manner of vices and sins were held up to
scorn, and the virtues were held up to praise'. The play was called
appropriately, the Pater Noster play and an ancient tradition provided that
each of the seven petitions contained in that prayer was a means of salvation
from one of the Seven Deadly Sins. What we are told by the great expert on the
plays in York at this period, Lucy Toulmin Smith, is that this Pater Noster
play was probably played on separate stages, each provided by one trade,
albeit we do not yet have the evidence in York to determine how those scenes
were allocated. We do know that there were also such plays in two other places
not that far from York, viz. Beverley and Lincoln. Here we are able to gather
some further information, for in the Furnivall Miscellany by A. F. Leach we
learn that in 1469 there were eight scenes at Beverley, one for each of the
Deadly Sins, and an additional one called `Viciose'. We also know for certain
that the play was a processional one like the Corpus Christi plays here and
elsewhere and we also know that the craft guilds had a scene apportioned to
them individually or as groups of trades. Moreover the 'stations' where these
play‑scenes were presented were approximately those of the longer and more
frequent Corpus Christi Mysteries. Since we shall notice more similarities
between Beverley and York drama later, it is especially interesting to learn
that the masons in Beverley were responsible for presenting the play on
'Avarice', of which the contrasting virtue displayed was ‑ Charity! At Lincoln
we learn still more. We know that there was a Pater Noster play performed
there in 1397‑98, in 1410‑11, in 1424‑25 and in 1456‑57. What we also know is
that besides these alternatives to the otherwise annual mystery plays there
were other'saints plays' which all portray the conquest by their namesake of
some particular vice. Three of the saints named come interestingly on three
August days, the 10th, 1lth and 12th, and besides St Susanna and St Clara I am
fascinated to find ‑ St Laurence ‑ who conquered Avarice by his display of
Charity. Hardin Craig is of the strong opinion that here at last we begin to
see how this form of early 'morality‑cum‑saints' play of the Pater Noser was
made up. The search must continue but we are on a new track and our masonic
forbears are not inappropriately involved.
Here I
must draw attention to one other contemporary facet which had a very great
effect on both literature and drama . . . the 'danse macabre' or Dance of 200
Death. W. Seelman has gone a long way towards proving that the `dramatic'
versions of the Dance of Death in the fourteenth century were actually
morality plays. All they lack is an abstract virtue as a hero. The
performances took place in a church and were religious in spirit and purpose.
There was a door or grave into which the victims of Death disappeared and as
they did so the preacher would give warning of the certainty of death to all
and the necessity of preparation for the ordeal of death by the accumulation
of good works. Death, when he appears on the scene, is made to resemble a
corpse or skeleton. The development of the Dance of Death into a morality play
was very obvious and two of the best known English moralities of the fifteenth
century Everyman and The Pride of Life, were direct descendants of this theme
and pattern.
THE
MEDIEVAL MASON AND HIS CRAFT What I believe is all too easily forgotten in
much of our masonic research is the fact that we are dealing with human
beings. `As a man and a mason' is a phrase that our ritual has bequeathed to
us and it is a phrase that merits proper consideration. Masons today are
human, creatures of their time and subject to all the thought forms and
practices of the society in which they live. Indeed it is one of the first
reprieves that we receive after our obligation that we are dispensed from our
masonic responsibilities if they bring `detriment to ourselves and
connections'. As with us, so it was with our ancestors in the craft. It is for
this reason that some of us have to try and enable these ancestors to live
afresh, understanding their age and its customs, so that we shall lend proper
weight to the influence upon them of the practices in which they engaged and
the ideas with which they were familiar. Ideas and practices, let me at once
say, that I believe have left indelible marks upon our present, apparently
very altered, Brotherhood.
The
six aspects of mediaeval freemasonry which are particularly relevant are as
follows: 1. Masons were fallible men: Though it is customary and laudable to
look with pleasure and pride on the great masonic achievements in stone that
still so richly adorn our own and many other Continental countries and to
speak in somewhat exalted tones about the permanence of their construction
work and their immense beauty, it is also good for us to realise that like us
these men were also inadequate and incompetent at times, and there are not a
few occasions recorded in the documents still extant which show that buildings
were erected which fell down within a few years or were so unsatisfactorily
executed that the patrons of the building venture demanded that a new start or
a replacement should be executed. Galling as it may be to accept this it will
do us no good to ignore it. Nor will it do us any good to imagine that all
masons were highly dedicated persons who only undertook work as it pleased
them or as they saw in it the fulfilment of some noble concept. The men we are
dealing with were sometimes impressed by royal agents to work far from home on
tasks that they would never have sought and in places which they wished to
leave as soon as they might. They were men who overslept and were fined for
it, men who looked for short cuts to doing unpleasant chores and were
sometimes maimed through inadequate care, men who would tolerate no unproven
stranger on their work‑area and who might (even with their `THE PRESTONIAN
LECTURES' DRAMA AND CRAFT brethren) occasionally find fault and come to blows
or at least sharp words.
It was
these flesh and blood creatures, these men of hardiness and passion, of whom
we so often speak as `the masons of old'. For anyone who has unduly romantic
notions about the craft with which we are concerned these other words in a
recent book on Cathedral Architecture by Hugh Braun may prove salutary: Think
of (these men) particularly in the winter of their years. Living in shelters
of poles and mud thatched with heather. Wrapped in clothing of some coarse
material and hooded to keep out the winds howling at them while they perched
upon some wall‑top. One wonders how they were shod . . . possibly often with
straw bound round with rags from clothing worn out a generation or more
before.
Think
of them climbing the scaffolding a hundred feet in the air, while the months
pass into years as they lug stone after stone up and up to help the walls rise
while the spirit of the tower‑top beckons them upwards still and the
carpenters are waiting to begin their difficult task of assembling huge beams
to form a tall steeple.
Surely
the work of the builder . . . was verging upon the superhuman. Called from the
world of hovels, none more than a single storey in height, he found himself
having to raise a pair of walls eighty feet high and cover them with a roof.
When
in a little while we shall see these hardy and hardworking men involved in the
drama of the public place we shall need to remember that we are not talking
about the dilettante handymen of the age, but professional and hot‑blooded men
of their day who would stand for no nonsense and would think hard about what
occupied their time and energy.
2.
Masons were money‑conscious: Professional they certainly were, both
master‑mason designers and free‑stone carvers and moulders. They were, as a
result, amongst the more highly‑paid employees of the whole country and yet
the sums which were involved seem paltry by modern standards‑4d a day in 1400,
6d a day in 1500, 8d by 1550 and doubled to 16d a day by 1600, until by the
time of the rebuilding of London and the era of our first Grand Lodge a
working mason would receive 32d a day.
Though
the VSL tells us that `man does not live by bread alone', yet the truth is
that our masonic predecessors had to exist and to eat and it is instructive to
hear what Knoop and Jones have to say about the ratio of wages to the price of
food and drink.
Thus
in 1212, the mason's daily wage in London was fixed at 41/zd without food and
3d with food, i.e. the food was treated as worth 11hd, and the money wage
without food may be expressed as three times what the food cost. It was also
the case in 1495 that a mason's daily wage was equal to three times the cost
of providing him with `meat and drink'. In the second half of the sixteenth
century the money wage appears to have been equivalent to only twice the cost
of his `meat and drink'. During the seventeenth century the position appears
to have improved somewhat ‑ . . .
To
achieve or to maintain these standards the masons were far from unready to
take a stand. In the middle of the fourteenth century we have a London
ordinance which asserts that `the good folks of the City, rich and poor, have
suffered within the past year, by reason of masons, carpenters, plasterers,
tilers, and all manner of labourers, who take immeasureably more than they
have been wont to take' 201 202 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' Thus in 1360 a
Statute of Labourers increased the penalties to be imposed upon all those
`masons and carpenters' who were extortionate in their demands.
It is
also worth noting that at this time any workman taking more than he was
entitled to was liable to go to prison for 40 days, whilst anyone paying
higher wages than those authorised was to be fined 40s (or the equivalent of
120 men's pay for a day!). When in a little while we come to examine the costs
and fines levied in relation to the drama in which these 'pay‑minded' secular
workers were involved we shall, I think, be able to judge in a new way the
values they placed on the `play' which diverted them from their work.
3.
Masons were religious: Yet though these were secular men they were also
religious men. I find myself in full agreement with the opinion expressed by
Bro Roderick Baxter in the Prestonian Lecture for 1929 when he says, `It is
generally acknowledged now that the present‑day Speculative Freemasons are the
legitimate descendants of the mediaeval Operative craftsmen who built our
Gothic cathedrals, churches, castles and keeps and the theory which I want to
lay before you is that these old Masons being so closely in touch with all the
rites of the church, simply applied the gospel narrative to their trade in a
symbolical way, just as they moralised on their working tools and implements.'
Apart from the employment for certain urgent periods and in some areas of the
country by the Royal house of the time, the vast majority of masons were the
servants and dependants of the monks and clergy. No sooner had the great
Benedictine and Cluniac houses of the eleventh to thirteenth centuries been
completed than the Friars arrived and showed the need, not only for a whole
range of new Dominican and Franciscan convents, but also for great new
churches of fresh design and in new areas of the country. It will not be
surprising therefore if we observe in the interplay of masons and monastic, of
friar and freemason, a partnership which was not only productive but which was
so eminently harmonious.
During
the medieval period architecture provided a meeting‑place for science and art,
of reason and feeling, of the numinous and the severely practical in life. It
touched ‑ as it was intended to touch ‑ spirit, mind and body together. The
architect was not simply a master craftsman of a traditional manual skill but
one who sought to come very close `in his endeavours to imitate the Creator of
the natural environment. The Middle Ages symbolised this clearly in
representations of God the Father, as Creator of the Universe, measuring it
out, as in the Holkham Picture Bible Book, with the giant compasses of the
architectural or speculative master mason.' What was clearly required of the
Master Mason at this stage was a sensitive and also an informed religious
sense which would enable the mason not simply to know what to do but to know
what he was doing. To quote again from Braun: It seems that the exterior (of a
cathedral) might have been intended not as architecture but as scenery,
similar to a stage setting for a pageant . . . Was this piling up of turrets,
buttresses and pinnacles . . . more like a rocky hillside than a building ‑
could this have been, perhaps unconsciously, a tribute not only to God, but to
the inescapable glory of his Works, ever before the eyes of mediaeval man?
DRAMA AND CRAFT 203 Whatever may have been the case in earlier ages I would
assert that in the latter fourteenth century, and after, this was certainly
the case.
For
this reason. Mention has already been made of the impact of the Black Death on
the provision of labour in England, as indeed on many countries of Western
Europe. Yet it was not only in its economic or social impact that this
phenomenon was significant. It had, as Philip Ziegler has made very clear, a
religious and psychological effect of profound dimension.
Mediaeval man in 1350 and 1351 believed without question that the Black Death
was God's punishment for his wickedness. This time he had been spared but he
could hardly hope for such indulgence to be renewed if his contumacious
failure to mend his ways stung God into a second onslaught. The situation,
with sin provoking plague and plague generating yet more sin, seemed to have
all the makings of a uniquely vicious circle, a circle from which he could
only hope to escape by a drastic mending of his ways. Yet, undeterred, he
continued on his wicked course against a background of apocalyptic mutterings
prophesying every kind of doom.
The
practical effect for masonry was a spate of chantry chapels in which the dead
might be regularly prayed for, saints might be asked to save those in
purgatory and God's house might be further honoured. There was a veritable
stampede towards altars and processions, and the hell‑fire preaching of the
Friars was given a new lease of life and called for new expression in
roof‑boss and wall‑decoration, in painted glass and stone‑tracery. The sombre
and the tragic, the emphasis on the necromantic (the cult of the dead) and of
Hell; above all, the awareness of the violence in life ‑ all these came to the
fore for 'no‑one can live through a catastrophe so devastating and so
inexplicable without retaining for ever the scars of his experience'.
Such,
I am sure, was the natural air the mason of the day breathed and such the
backcloth to his involvement in society. What is remarkable and fascinating is
that when you see the setting in which men are, in and around 1370, you begin
to understand why it was that at this very moment there emerged a whole
succession of events that are significant for the Craft. The first recorded
articles and charges of masons are seen to appear, a vast new spate of parish
church building develops, the new style of architecture, Perpendicular, begins
to flourish and the towers of Worcester, the West front of Beverley or the
nave of Canterbury come into existence, the friars need new accoutrements for
their popular instruction and with the decimation of the monastery population
(almost half the monks and nuns died, over 8,000 of them) plays which had
hitherto been almost entirely regarded as their preserve are taken over by the
local community of which the masons are far from being unimportant members. It
was not coincidence ‑ it was a stage in a new development.
4.
Masons were visually acute: As the rich gave eagerly for the beautifying of
those earthly temples which might stay the return of the pestilence that had
been endured so the masonic artificers were faced with a new task of
ecclesiastical workmanship ‑ the production of fresh symbolic design.
Medieval writers were perfectly well aware that the function of design was
then performed by men who were members of the relevant building trades,
masons, carpenters and the like. Thus Lydgate in his Troy Book written in
1412‑20, 204 'THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' describes how King Priam, desiring to
build a new city on a clear site, sent out to seek: For such workmen as were
curious, Of wit inventive, of casting marvellous; Or such as could craft of
geometry Or were subtle in their fantasy; And for everyone that was good
deviser, Mason, hewer, or crafty quarrier; For every wright and passing
carpenter That may be found . . .
The
combination in this passage of the craft of geometry, mathematical knowledge,
the function of 'deviser', with such types of craftsmen as masons and
carpenters is significant. The mention of skilled quarrymen is also of
interest because there is a good deal of evidence that areas of stone
quarrying were one of the main sources of the most highly trained types of
mason.
For my
present thesis this mention of the quarry is also very germane for there is
evidence to show that either the quarry was a natural 'theatre' for the
performing of plays or at any rate formed one of the stations in which part of
the medieval procession or 'play' took place. Thus, in Shrewsbury, from which
we have recovered fragments of the plays which show how an individual player
was 'prompted' or 'cued in' for his part, we know that in 1494 ú5.6s.9d was
paid for wine 'given to Prince Arthur at the play in the Quarrell' and in 1516
there was presented 'the play and show of the Martydom of Feliciana and Sabina
in the Whitsun week in the Quarry behind the town walls . . .'. In Wakefield
also we learn how, following the much older custom of the Corpus Christi
procession, the later series of craft plays ended their sequence of stopping
places at Goodybower, once a small open place, then, as now, a narrow lane
running from the North East part of the parish, now Cathedral, churchyard and
leading from the local quarry to the town centre. In his history of Wakefield
J. W. Walker says of the name, Goodybower, that it was 'in allusion to the
place where the Mystery plays were performed', hence 'God i'th bower', and
certainly in the mystery play of Cain and Abel, a play which could well have
been that performed by the masons locally, there occurs the following couplet,
'Whan I am dede,' bery me in Gudeboure at the Quarrell hede.' When, as may
well have been the case, the quarry was the place for the careful choice of
stone and its first squaring or 'quarrying' (both of which words, like
,quarrelling', have a link with 'quatuor', the Latin word for 'four') and also
a spot in which much preliminary carving took place it is obvious that this
was where the mason exercised his skill of sight and imagination. It was not
simply a case of knowing the line of the stone and its suitability for this or
that decoration. It was also a case of knowing which decoration to adopt and
for what purpose. Whilst it is often recognised that the masons were good
constructors it is, I think, still not sufficiently recognised that they were
the servants of the church as teachers and symbolical communicators. Anyone
who begins to study carefully the masonic masterpieces of the twelfth to the
fifteenth centuries in Britain will be struck not DRAMA AND CRAFT 205 so much
by their grandeur as by their detail. The masons were men with a very
perceptive and retentive eye. To them the minutiae of symbolic representation
was not merely something required by their employers or patrons: it was
clearly something in which they themselves were expressing all they knew and
all that they, and they alone, could convey to their unlettered as well as
their educated contemporaries, not to mention those who in future ages, like
us, would, they would be sure, understand without language the truths which
they portrayed.
Though
one cannot pursue this matter at more length here it is, I am sure, important
for us to try and discern why the masons did in fact represent in their work
the same objects in identical or near‑identical fashion, viz, the Temple, a
Palace, a Jewish priest, an Angel, some Saint, Prophet or Apostle. To quote
John Harvey again: `A church was the House of God, a shelter for worshippers,
and a picture book of religious doctrine. Statuary, paintings, and stained
glass told their stories in the manner of the strip‑cartoon. . .' The problem
that faces us is not, why did the masons engage in drama, but why they engage
as they did? For men of the kind of sure sight and wide experience that they
were in the matter of architectural symbolism and allegory it cannot have been
by chance that they took up their `part' in the drama of their day without a
full awareness of what they were doing. Yet to this we shall come very shortly
and in more detail.
5.
Masons were community men of their time: We must first consider another aspect
of the medieval masons' life as real human beings and that is their community
sense. Without at this stage entering into the important and still open‑ended
debate as to what was, and what was not, the real nature of the masons'
associations, such as we can know them from the fourteenth century onwards,
the fact still stands that masons were regarded, and were apparently happy to
be regarded, as genuine members of the local society. For our present purpose
and whilst recognising the questions left unanswered and unresolved it will be
enough to record here the unmistakable impression that two years of careful
reading of municipal documents has left upon me. In no instance am I aware
that when the masons are mentioned there is any suggestion that they are a
race apart or that their participation in the city life was unusual or
peculiar.
As one
example of the early inclusion of the masons in their community life I would
especially mention their presence in the town or city processions which
developed in this country long before there was any suggestion of their being
associated with public plays. Between 1311, when the official authorisation in
England of the public Corpus Christi festival occurred, and the certain
emergence of the mystery plays c 1370, it is known that the religious
procession, an act involving both church and municipal officials, was steadily
developed as a principal feature of the day's activities. The outline of the
day's activity was simple enough but its components were clearly the
launching‑pad for something much more ambitious as time went on. After a
solemn high‑mass, the clergy and their acolytes would leave the church
building with candles, robes and incense and with the sacrament of the
`sacrificed Master' borne under a panoply by the chief cleric present. This
would be followed by the principal town officers and then the crafts in their
precise order of precedence, also bearing candles and their own banners, 206
`THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' the latter specially and newly designed. The first
of such banners, as Conder has informed us, was that chosen and displayed in
London by the masons‑ `3 Castles with a chevron between bearing an open pair
of compasses', the very motif which is displayed to this day on every Grand
Lodge certificate that a new mason receives.
It is,
I believe, because the craftsmen were accustomed to sharing in this kind of
religious ceremony and to taking an increasingly `visible' part in the
proceedings that we should be less surprised at their eventual and total
participation in the plays which emerged. It is here that a significant
passage from Glynne Wickham's Early English Stages (vol I) needs quoting:
Since the distinguishing feature of the Corpus Christi celebrations was a
procession of the most formal kind, it is reasonable to suppose that the
livery companies would carry with them not only the obligatory 'lights' or
torches and banners, but more material symbols of their calling, as they were
wont to do at civic celebrations. What could be more appropriate to the
occasion than banners depicting a scriptural scene with which the craft guild
had professional affinities? And if the symbol was on a banner, why not
three‑dimensionally as a model on a small, portable rostrum or platform? The
thirty years between the general adoption of the Festival and the first
onslaught of the Black Death was quite long enough for this practice to have
become universal and for the same trades to have become firmly associated with
the same scenes in many cities. . . . Once thus attached, it is an easy step
for the guilds to claim as `their own' a particular scene or story when called
upon by the clergy to participate in the performance of the plays. If they
offered to pay the costs in order to secure `their scene', the claim would be
hard to resist.
It is
tempting to quote more but enough has been said to show that we are dealing
here with a communal activity in which masons, like their contemporaries in
other crafts, were caught up in a developing process. Whether it be the
mention of individuals (like Johannus Hardere, freemason, in the Corpus
Christi Guild at York) or the mention of the masons generally in Norwich in
1453 as amongst those crafts which, unlike the majority, bore two banners in
the city procession for Corpus Christi instead of one; or yet again the
stipulation in Edinburgh in 1475 that `the Masons and Wrights should always
have place in all public processions, as they haf in the towne of Bruges'‑ the
impression seems undeniable that many of our masonic predecessors were rooted
and grounded in the life of their localities. In 17591 read that the Builders'
Company of Kendal (which we know to have included the masons) made the
following contribution to the public procession: Builders about 100 in number
will be preceded by 2 Hewers of wood on Horseback, followed by King David
playing on his harp, after him will be carried on men's shoulders a model of
Solomon's Temple, followed by King Solomon with proper Guards, next the
Journeymen and Apprentices in sashes and caps with the Armes of the Trade,
beautifully painted on the Front, followed by the Masters in sashes and
cockades, richly embroidered. . . .
The
public expression of more intimate ceremonial seems to be still at work and
the community's awareness of its building craftsmen unquestioned.
6.
Masons were men with special insights: Before we come to the principal section
of this Lecture, however, there is still need for us to consider one further
aspect of the masonic craftsmen's make‑up. Countless writers have referred to
the DRAMA AND CRAFT 207 fact that the medieval masons appear to have had
secrets, not only of a technical, but also of an esoteric, nature. (For the
technical `secrets' see the Prestonian Lecture for 1931.) Bro Harry Carr, in
his recent paper on the relationship of the Craft and the Royal Arch, writes,
`The present writer has always believed that there must be some kind of
legend, not necessarily Hiramic, to explain the F.P.O.F.', and in his latest
book, King Solomon's Temple in the Masonic Tradition, Alex Horne makes a
similar point at various stages throughout that work. On page 26 he suggests
that the underlying masonic legend seems to go back to the fifteenth century
according to written records and possibly much later by `oral tradition'; and
on page 46 he repeats the words of Professor Johnston, who concluded that the
Temple legends `were not taken wholesale into our system from an outside
source' but were indigenous to the genius of the masonic institution itself.
As
with contemporary manorial customs it is suggested that there could well have
been, among masons, `customs, and perhaps traditions, which had been orally
transmitted from generation to generation' and this is the less difficult to
conceive when we recall that it was in such a manner that the so‑called
'geometrical secrets' were communicated. Moreover Alex Horne is not the only
writer to suggest that there grew up a tradition in thirteenth‑century
churches and cathedrals of `mutilation, sacrifice and death' such as is
recounted of the transept window of Lincoln Cathedral.
It is
on p 330 of Horne's book that material very relevant to my present thesis
appears. Reference is made to Robert Race's view (BMM, ix) that analysis of
the Hiramic Drama confirms that it is in reality `nothing more than the
libretto of a religious drama ‑ one of those Mystery or Miracle plays that we
know to have been in the habit of being enacted in the Middle Ages'. Whatever
may or may not be the truth of this suggestion it does provoke Alex Horne into
postulating the idea of `a Masonic play (which) may well have been of an
esoteric character, meant for inner circles only, and transmitted purely by
oral tradition and therefore not available in written form'. Even after giving
due weight to Ernest E. Thiemeyer's attack on the Race theory I find it most
instructive to note that Alex Horne's recent study comes to the following
conclusion: `It would seem obvious, however, that Thiemeyer's ‑folk‑lore
theory and Robert Race's Morality Play theory are not mutually exclusive, but
that, if some elements of the Hiramic Myth are indeed `a product of the
thought processes of a social group', preserved from more primitive times
through the instrumentality of popular folk‑lore and mythology, these elements
could very well have incarnated themselves in the body of a folk‑drama, on the
one hand, as well as in a ritual, on the other, and in these two forms may
have passed on to a time when, as now, both the drama and the ritual are found
incorporated in a single rite.' With this thought uppermost we are ready to
move to another stage of the argument.
THE
MASONS AND THE MYSTERY PLAYS We now come to what is the principal section of
this Lecture. Its argument may be simply stated. Contrary to what has been
previous opinion on the subject I 208 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' believe that
the surviving evidence regarding the involvement of local masons in the
medieval Mystery dramas sufficiently proves that this involvement was
determinate and not haphazard, was specifically related to certain biblical
and hence typological events, was widespread and continued for long periods,
and, above all, does seem to have had some connection with the emergence of
our current rituals. As R. J. Meekren once remarked in a related, albeit a
different, context (AQC, lxxii), `it would take a treatise of considerable
length to set out (the argument) in a coherent form'. All I can hope to do
here is to give an outline of the argument and to suggest where more evidence
can be found.
In AQC,
xxxvii R. I. Clegg ‑ in his discussion of Herbert Poole's paper, Masonic
Ritual and Secrets before 1717 ‑ points to `the early ceremonies of the Church
and particularly those spectacles which have been associated with the period
of Easter' as being a possible origin for the later Hiramic drama. Let us
therefore consider just what it was, that the masons who were so continuously
at work on the slowly constructed church buildings could have seen and heard
taking place around the stone sepulchres which they had erected at the North
East part of the church sanctuary (sanctum sanctorum) from the thirteenth
century onwards.
The
following extracts are from the Sepulchrum or Easter liturgical drama written
for use in Salisbury Cathedral in the fourteenth century and also belonging to
the parish of St John the Evangelist, Dublin, in the fifteenth century. The
original text is, of course, in Latin.
Three
persons enter in surplices . . . (The first approaches the sepulchre) Alas!
the good shepherd is slain, Whom no guilt stained, O lamentable death! (The
third duly adds) Alas! the true teacher is dead (A) who gave life to the dead.
O lamentable fact! (The second Mary duly says) Alas! our Consolation, Why did
he suffer death? (After coming close to the altar, the third Mary says) But
this we cannot accomplish without assistance. who shall roll away the stone
for us ... ? (The angel, leaning on the tomb, says) What seek ye at the
sepulchre, O followers of Christ? (After the Maries' answer the angel adds) He
is risen; he is not here ...
Come
and see the place where he was laid. (The Maries having looked around, cry) He
is risen, the powerful, the strong ... (First Mary says to the congregation
after John and Peter have arrived) . . . Death and Life have fought in a
wonderful duel; The Prince of Life, having died, reigns living.' In case
anyone imagines that my use of italics is by way of special pleading it DRAMA
AND CRAFT 209 might be worth noting that in other variations of this
particular church drama there are variations which still more strongly enhance
a phraseology not unfamiliar to present‑day masons. In a version used in
Orleans in the thirteenth century we find . . .
instead of (A) above, `who gave life to the upright'; and the first Mary adds
the words: Why condemned ye to an impious death The Holy One with savage hate?
O Direful rage! and the third Mary's refrain is then Alas! what are we
wretched ones to do, Bereft of our sweet Master? ...
Moreover the angel sits at the head of the grave with an evergreen or palm,
and a candelabra or lights in his hand.
Whilst
there are many more details which could be quoted from the exhaustive studies
by Chambers and Young enough has been given here to show that following the
allegorisation of the Mass in the ninth century there exists by the fourteenth
century a pattern of liturgical representation at the great Festivals which
would have been very familiar to all loyal churchmen and not least to those
whose very livelihood compelled them to be intimately related to the church
building and its activity. When to the dialogue already reported we add the
fact that the three clerics who played Mary, the Mother of Jesus, Mary
Magdalene and Mary Salome, `did not proceed in formal liturgical order, but
went slowly and wanderingly, as though searching for something' we are I think
bound to be struck with a further ritual similarity.
The
next interesting fact is that by the thirteenth century there is also a
well‑established and documented Christmas play which echoes in striking
fashion the features already pointed out in the Easter sequence. It starts
with three shepherds searching for something and their being asked the
question, `what do you seek?', to which they answer, `The Saviour, Christ the
Lord: we do not know where they have laid him'. The baby is then pointed out
to them. This dialogue is clearly analogous to the Easter event and is exactly
parallel in its religious meaning, save that the one refers to the event of
`rising' and the other to that of `being born'.
Yet
this is not the end of the story. Not only was the play of the Shepherds, at
Christmas, sometimes, and in some places often, replaced by a sequence called
the `Ordo Prophetarum' (or Play of the Prophets) in which David and Solomon,
amongst others, foretell the coming of the final Master or Messiah, but there
is also a further variation which involved an extended play at Epiphanytide,12
days after Christmas, when the three shepherds, leaving the manger, are met by
the Three Kings who have left the East to search for someone and who are led
by a light, a star, because that will guide them to where this new‑born King
and Master is laid.
There
was even one more elaboration of which we have firm evidence by the twelfth
century. We know that in some places on the Continent the play of the 210 `THE
PRESTONIAN LECTURES' shepherds and of the Kings was still further lengthened
to include what was called the `Ordo Rachaelis' (or play of the Massacre of
the Innocents) in which, following the visit of the three Kings, or Wise men
(Magi), to Bethlehem, Herod ordered the death of all children in the city who
were two years old or under. In some cases, but not all, this contained one
section called Rachel's Lament for the children ‑ a feature which again links
up the whole with the original Easter theme.
Such
plays as these were known to have been played in the course of the cathedral
worship, even whilst the building of these cathedrals progressed, at York,
Lincoln, Lichfield and Norwich, and of these only Lichfield was too small a
town to support the kind of public plays which developed in the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries. It is clear, in general, that the liturgical drama
provided an authoritative model for the mystery cycles whilst in no sense
giving way to them, for whereas the liturgical drama was performed inside the
church building at certain specific seasons of the year, the plays to which we
must now turn were performed outside in the summer period and on one, two or
at the most three, consecutive days during which crowds of people could be
gathered together. Contrary to earlier Victorian and Edwardian literary
opinion we now know that both church liturgical, and public Mystery, plays
were in existence concurrently.
In one
respect, and one far from irrelevant to our present purpose, the two
presentations were quite distinct. In the liturgical plays the figure of
Christ was never portrayed. Instead, his presence was symbolically,
demonstrated by the clergy carrying the cross and candles, or tapers, and also
by processing with the consecrated Host, or bread specially appointed for the
Mass. It is, I believe, significant that in no play‑sequence in which the
masons were ever engaged was there any event which involved the physical
presence of `the Master'. Since in any series of Corpus Christi plays there
were many parts in which Jesus appeared I am bound to remark that I do not
think that this was a mere coincidence. Combined with the other features which
I shall shortly illustrate I suggest that this was of determinate and
considered choice. It also says a good deal about the place of symbolic
illustration and the veil of allegory.
We
must come now to the crucial question (clearly not one to be argued at length
in this lecture) as to how and why there developed a public `spectacle' such
as the summer Mystery plays proved to be. What needs to be remarked on here is
the astonishing fact, and one that I myself had never previously grasped, that
the plays with which we are dealing were played in some form and in some parts
of the British Isles, and in some parts continuously, for 250 years! When we
recall that our own Craft has only recently celebrated such a passage of time
it is well to recognise that for a similar period there were in this realm
‑from about 1370 until 1620 ‑ plays of a biblical and religious nature which
drew audiences that have had no equal and no similar affection, even in the
days of Shakespeare. One passage from Mysteries End by Gardiner (1946) will
illustrate the point: (After 1570) the old religious drama in the North still
held the people's hearts, and when the long story of God's dealings with his
children, which had been set before the people of York since at least the year
1378, ceased to teach the Christian Faith and a love of DRAMA AND CRAFT
pageantry and acting to the Northerners, it was not because the people wished
to see them go, but because under an atmosphere of suspicion that had been
still more troubled by the (Northern) rebellion, the plays had been fairly
`perused, amended and corrected' out of existence.
Yet
that was not the end, for in 1575 the guild ordinances of York were totally
revised and still included the regulation that `the guilds shall be ready to
set forth their play, among the rest of the Corpus Christi plays ‑ whenever
the whole plays of the town shall proceed' and in 1581 the masons themselves
have a regulation which endorses this particular point. In 1591 on 19 May the
Corporation of Coventry are making plans for a new play to be given on `the
Pagens on Midsomer daye and St Peter's daye' so that these Coventry dramas
were still very much in evidence all through Shakespeare's young manhood. In
Chester the last copying of the plays took place in 1601. In Kendal, as we
have earlier mentioned, the plays continued until James I's reign and it was
outside Ely House, Holborn, that the last recorded performance of a medieval
Mystery play took place in the presence of a crowd of thousands! We are here
dealing, then, with a social phenomenon of no small magnitude. To dismiss
these plays as if they were a mere irrelevance to contemporary living and to
reach the conclusion that, whilst regrettable, the involvement of the masons
of the day was not in any way significant for them or, by inference, for us,
simply will not do. I submit, with respect yet also with confidence, that
neither brothers Conder nor Pick had really searched far enough before they
came to the conclusions which they offered. Let us, however, recall what their
conclusions were before we pass on to some further considerations.
In
1945 Fred Pick wrote an article in the proceedings of the Manchester
Association of Masonic Research (XXXV) entitled The Influence of the Gilds. On
page 64 of that issue he wrote as follows: . . . There is no conclusive
evidence of the existence of the Hiramic legend before 1730 and among the few
plays preserved is none connected with the Temple or any story bearing on our
ritual. On the other hand we have preserved in certain ceremonies dramatic
episodes that may well have had their germ in some long‑forgotten series of
miracle plays, and it must be remembered that the plays were still being
produced in the reign of James I, by which time speculative masonry was
beginning to develop. When Bro Conder's paper was discussed ... the consensus
of opinion was that no case could be made out for a connection between the
miracle play and masonic ritual and no more satisfactory case can be
established today.... (My italics.) The paper of Ed Conder Jnr to which he
refers was presented in 1901(A QC, XIV) and was entitled simply The Miracle
Play. Having done a good deal of research he admits to there being plays by
the close of the fourteenth century from Newcastle upon Tyne to Penairth (?)
in Cornwall, wherever the craft guilds had their centres, but he does not seem
to have had knowledge of the Cornish Guary plays in their full form, he
asserts that there was no special play with which the masons were generally
connected, and whilst apparently stating that there is `no trace' of any story
which might have a bearing on the ritual of the Craft he makes the point
obviously taken up by Bro Pick, that the MM and Royal Arch may have had the
source of their ceremonies from the plays. Finally, on page 79, he writes as
follows: 212 'THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' . . . as drama representation was
evidently a great factor in the hands of the clergy in bringing home to an
unlettered people the truths of the Scripture, such a means of procedure must
have forced itself upon the pre‑Reformation Masons as a suitable channel for
instilling any special tradition they may have thought necessary to keep alive
in their craft; and further, such realistic plays as the 'Burial of Christ'
and the 'Raising of Lazarus', so well known to them, may have had a
considerable effect in the formation of any private Craft play, mystery or
legend they wished to perpetuate, always supposing that at that date such a
legend existed.
I have
only one conclusion to draw from the work which my notable and assiduous
predecessors did in this field. I believe that they were so single‑minded in
their endeavour to find the kind of link that most reluctantly they could not
find that they stopped looking again at the material which even they had
unearthed and which is still there to be examined. Had they had the time and
the further literary research which is now available I am certain that they
would have come to somewhat different conclusions. One commentator on Bro
Conder's paper remarked that it was now impossible 'to resuscitate these dry
bones and clothe the body in its proper garments'. I suggest that that was too
pessimistic an opinion and I have endeavoured to respond to Bro Hughan's
remarks that same evening ‑ '. . . the data supplied will enable students so
desirous, to continue their researches.' We shall best continue our research
by first reminding ourselves of the plays in which the masons actually took
part. At first sight it is quite true that the impression you receive is of a
motley array of plays for which the masons assumed responsibility. Before we
look at the actual titles, therefore, we shall need to remind ourselves of one
or two factors which applied to all the crafts of the day, set as they were in
the communal context of their age. A moment's reflection on the reality of the
human situation in which we have already tried to set our ancestors will make
plain that in every local community in Britain there were different trades
which stood out as pre‑eminent and others which took their place as of greater
or lesser importance according to who were the principal citizens of any
particular town or city. The application of this fact to the Mystery plays is
of paramount importance. In Chester and Norwich, for example, the most
important persons were the Drapers, Haberdashers and Hosiers, whereas in York
and Wakefield it was the Barbers. The significance of this fact for the
performance of what were now plays which were a charge and responsibility,
before God and Holy Church, on the Town and City Corporation, was that those
who were the most eminent in the town were usually invited to perform the
first or last plays of the day, and so far as I have been able to discover,
that is exactly what happened. This at once meant a shift in the allocation of
all the other plays and gives anyone who sets out in order the known
performers of all the plays we are aware of a kaleidoscope of appointments
which at first sight have neither shape nor reason. Hence you find the play
The Flight into Egypt being performed in York by the Marshalls (or Veterinary
surgeons), in Coventry by the Shearmen and Taylors, in Newcastle by the
Bricklayers and Plasterers, and in Beverley by the Coopers. On the other hand,
the Barbers alone present the Baptism of Christ in York, Norwich, Newcastle
and Beverley. In case all this seems confusing let me try to explain why it is
not so confusing after all.
In a
previous part of this Lecture I drew attention to the fact that the original
method of commemorating the Corpus Christi festival was the holding of a
public procession in which, following an ecclestiastical vanguard, the crafts
in due sequence paraded with their appropriate banners and/or craft symbols,
most of which demonstrated either the tools of their trade, the symbol of
their patron saint or some combination of both. I also showed that wherever
possible the trade in question would later seek to secure for itself as `its
own', the play which most naturally demonstrated either the craft which was
responsible for it or some event which might allegorically refer to its patron
saint. All these factors now come into play as the proper order of each local
Corpus Christi programme is finally arranged. To put it more simply ‑a
craft‑guild would be allocated a play according to (i) its importance in the
town hierarchy, (ii) the appropriateness of the play's content in relation to
that trade, or (iii) the connection of this biblical incident with a
particular patron saint. In looking at the plays allocated above we can see
just that pattern at work.
The
reason why the Barbers were so consistently awarded the play of The Baptism of
Christ was because the presentation of this play required a great deal of hair
and its special arrangement, eg St John the Baptist was clothed in `camel's
hair', was heavily bearded by tradition, and was visited at the Jordan by the
bearded representatives of the priests in Jerusalem. When you learn that the
Patron Saint of the Barbers was John the Baptist because he was decapitated
and they were also medieval surgeons (!) the explanation is even more obvious.
When
we come to the variegated performers of the Flight into Egypt play there are
the same logical explanations. No play is taken up `by chance'. A play which
showed an ass or donkey stoutly carrying Mary on a journey was a trade
advertisement for the York Marshalls, whilst in Coventry the Shearmen and
Taylors had a monopoly of all the Nativity sequences, including this one,
because Christ the Lamb was their patron and they had ample opportunity for
displaying their trade qualities with fabricated animal skins, shepherds'
garments, the robes of Mary, Joseph and the Three Kings, etc. The undertaking
of this play by plasterers and bricklayers in Newcastle seems less obvious
until you learn that the medieval presentation included the overturning of
idols and the destruction of a building during the stay in Egypt of the Holy
Family.
Fascinating as you may now see this enquiry to be we must, because of our main
purpose here, leave further such investigation and concentrate on what all
this could mean for the masons' trade. Apart from Aberdeen, where the masons
are thrice mentioned as occupying the honoured processional place at Corpus
Christi of marching next to the `Sacramental Host' (the focus of the
occasion), our trade ancestors were not usually amongst the most prominent of
a municipality's inhabitants. Hence they were not amongst those first able to
choose or claim the plays which they would regard as especially their own. The
result, in so far as my present, though I am sure still incomplete, researches
have taken me, was as follows: Aberdeen Beverley DRAMA AND CRAFT 213 The Three
Knights play (or Massacre of Innocents) The Pinnacle of the Temple temptation?
214 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' Chester Coventry Dublin Newcastle upon Tyne
Norwich Wakefield York 1415 1431 14? Massacre of the Innocents play The Three
Maries at the Tomb play Pharaoh and his host at the Red Sea (Dumb Show?) The
Burial of the Virgin (or Fergus) play Cain and Abel play (Either the
Presentation in the Temple or Cain & Abel play) The Burial of the Virgin play
The Herod (Searching by Magi) play (Transfer) The Purification play also
added.
At
first view there again seems to be no discernible pattern in this list of
plays from across the whole of Britain and the earlier conclusions referred to
would seem to be fully justified. Let us, however, consider further.
The
same play is mentioned in Newcastle upon Tyne and the first presentation
recorded for the masons in York: the Burial of the Virgin. Though Conder was
aware of the two play presentations he did not comment further upon this
information save to remark, that `these plays must have exercised a beneficial
effect upon the populace whenever and wherever a representation took place'.
What he does not investigate nor answer is the surely proper question why the
masons were separately invited, and accepted, as the performers of such a
drama. A study of this example will, I believe, provide valuable pointers to
the other plays yet to be considered.
The
play called Fergus, or The Burial of the Blessed Virgin Mary, was one of the
Corpus Christi plays which was entirely based on the legendary material
provided in the books of what are now called The Apocryphal New Testament.
There are many versions of the story behind this event concerning Mary, the
mother of Jesus, and it is regrettably not possible in this lecture to enter
into too much detail. The outline on which all agree is as follows: The
Apostles are summoned from all the four corners of the world to which they had
been sent and they arrive at the house of the Virgin whose body has duly to be
prepared for burial in Jerusalem. The body was to be carried by Peter at the
head and John at the feet with three palms from paradise, and three branches
of the olive tree which Noah's dove had brought, laid on the corpse. On the
way to the valley of Jehoshaphat men selected by the Jewish priests in
Jerusalem were sent against the procession and one of them, who is variously
called Jephonias, Yophana, Ruben (or in the very early Irish forms of this
play ‑ Fergus), attacks the bier and then finds that `his hands dry up from
the elbows' and come away from his arms and cleave to the bier. When Peter
asks him whether he believes that this is the Mother of the Lord and commands
him to show his b9lief by embracing the body, which the man does, the hands
are restored to him and the darkness which had descended upon all the Jews
present is removed. The Virgin is laid in a stone coffin `which was shut like
Noah's Ark' and in due course is ,assumed' into heaven.
This
general story, which had many other very striking features that must be
pursued at more length elsewhere, was both well known and much appreciated
DRAMA AND CRAFT 215 by the medieval believer. It was, of course, the very
first of the Mary plays to be discontinued as soon as the Reformers in England
could exercise censorship of the Corpus Christi cycle, and its legendary
content and unusual facets sufficiently explain any such treatment. That the
masons were the principal performers of this play when it was included, and
this was not often the case, does demand explanation or consideration, and not
least in the light of what happened in York.
In his
reflective study of the whole Corpus Christi cycle‑event, V. A. Kolve has
written this: Mediaeval writers who used laughter as a technique of teaching
were, at the same time, rarely asleep to its possible dangers. . . . An
incident in the history of the York cycle can illustrate (this) concern on the
part of the drama. Among the plays lost from that cycle is the play of
'Fergus', once the charge of the Masons. We know it was a source of great
embarrassment to them, for they complained to the civic authority in 1431 that
it caused more laughter and clamour than devotion. They were given 'Herod' to
perform instead. The guild itself sought the change ‑ the lay people too
wanted a dignified and useful entertainment. Anyone reading the description of
the lost play from Burton's list of 1415 would be hard put to say why it was
found objectionable: `Quatuor Apostoli portantes feretrum Marie, et Fergus
pendens super feretrum, cum ij aliis Judeis (cum uno Angelo)' (ie Four
Apostles carrying the bier of Mary, and Fergus hanging upon the bier, with two
other Jews (and one angel).... ) A drama that offered `game' equivalents for
reality would not have hesitated to dramatise this incident in detail ... so
Fergus' arms come off at the elbow and stick to the bier. But this last
action, in real life so horrible, would translate into a game‑version
undoubtedly comic: its literalness would make it ludicrous, and attention
would be focused far more on the costuming and the trick, and on Fergus'
humiliation, than on the serious miracle it was supposedly enacting.
Whether or not this last conclusion is altogether the right one the important
matter for our present consideration is that the masons were concerned that
their play should be treated with respect and reverence and that there would
need to be a change when these elements were lacking. The impression which I
get, and which I commend to your attention, is not that the masons were
unconcerned about what play they presented but that they were very concerned.
If what they had first chosen was ill‑received or wrongly interpreted then it
were better to turn to something else. The content, and the effect of the
content, of their play mattered as much to them as devout Catholics as it did
to all their fellowcraftsmen in other guilds.
Yet
even to say all this does not answer the previous question as to why the
Fergus play was chosen and accepted in York and Newcastle in the first place.
I believe that there are six reasons.
1. It
was a play which reflected the widespread, but particularly masonic, concern
with the necromantic feeling of the age of which mention has already been
made. The mason was a man who at this date was absorbed with tombs, chantries
for the dead, sepulchres and grave stones. Chapels and even whole churches
were erected in profusion as a result of the Black Death and a play which was
not concerned with the fact of burial would hardly be a true reflection of the
craft at that time.
2.
There is, however, the element of life through death, in that all who 216 `THE
PRESTONIAN LECTURES' listened to the teaching of the Church, and especially
the teaching of the Friars, knew that this Mother of the Lord was not only
herself to be `raised' but could restore the believer to new life. In the
Greek narrative of the Burial it states categorically that as she lay on her
deathbed sick people who touched the Wall of the room where she lay were
restored to health again.
3. The
procession of the cortege was a perfect opportunity for showing in religious
form some of the patrons of the masons, the Quatuor Coronati, or Four Crowned
Martyrs (see AQC, 72, 66, et al.), and saints such as Thomas and John.
4.
This is even more borne out by the facet of the play which showed that the
cortege was preceded by those who bore the evergreens of martyrdom, the palm
and the olive, as John had been instructed (and here we note again that John
the Apostle was one of the patrons of the masons).
5.
There is the very strange and most distinctive feature of the `slipped' hands
which appear in every picture of this apocryphal legend which I have been able
to trace in English stained glass. That the masons, whom we know to have
shared signs and tokens at this very period for the purposes of recognition,
were oblivious to the singular appropriateness of this play seems to me very
unlikely, though I am equally sure that it was when this feature brought
ridicule and mirth instead of reverence and attention that they quickly asked
to be permitted, not to drop that feature, but to move to another play
sequence altogether. The 'hand‑incident' and the Burial were too closely
related to be divided, especially as they also involved the further act of
embracing and acceptance.
6. The
play was, like the one to which they asked leave to move, a play about the
Blessed Virgin Mary, yet another of the patrons of the masons. If they could
not perform one Virgin play effectively then they would move to another and in
due course they were to be granted the chance to add yet another Virgin
incident to the ones already accepted. One further possible example of this
close symbolic attachment to the Virgin will be provided later.
For
all these reasons, and for others of which space prevents full mention at this
stage, I am convinced that we have here a reasonable and adequate basis for
understanding why the masons were involved in this particular play. The same
is in many ways true of the plays with similar content which they undertook in
York later, in Chester and in Aberdeen. Let us now consider these.
I have
already referred in this lecture to the `Ordo Rachaelis' or that sequence of
liturgical plays which developed on the Continent of Europe as a part of the
more familiar Christmas events. Whilst there is little evidence of such a
liturgical sequence developing in Britain for Church use, especially as the
chronological arrangement of days of observation would have made this awkward,
the presence of this sequence in the public Corpus Christi plays is quite
normal. In six of the eight more complete lists of public plays in Britain
this sequence is specifically mentioned and apart from the three cases where
the masons were involved the only participants noted are the Shearmen and
Taylors in Coventry (see above) and the Shoemakers of Beverley whose patron
saints, Crispin and Crispianus, were perfect examplars of martyred innocence
sufficient to warrant the adoption of this play by them. The question
therefore remains, why the masons DRAMA *AND CRAFT 217 should be so
specifically involved with this dramatic presentation. I suggest that there
are again six possible reasons.
1.
Again we meet the unquestioned necromantic nature of the event, the wholesale
slaughter of a new male generation in order to remove the possibility of a
rival King to Herod and his house. Death is a major aspect of this particular
interlude, and sudden and tragic death at that. The death of the babes of two
years old or younger in their mothers' arms, and the anger, conflict and wild
lament which the texts of the plays express all emphasise in the vernacular,
as opposed to the liturgical, plays the grief and terror that was uppermost in
many minds when these plays were first composed.
2. Yet
the preoccupation with death is also attended by the element of sacrifice. To
quote V. A. Kolve again: While the knights skewer the children with swords,
the mothers make strange and ironic lament, as in this plea, Thatt Babe thatt
ys borne in Bedlem, so meke, He saue my child and me from velany! There is
irony because the villainy they are about to suffer is for His sake, because
of Him; He has come to save them, but in a different time and way from what
they now suppose. To the Fathers of the Church it seemed no mere coincidence
that Cain and Abel, Abraham and Isaac, and the Slaughter of the Innocents were
all stories of murder and sacrifice, since they were all understood to
prefigure the death of Christ; neither is it coincidence that all five cycle
lists should feature them. The figures of sacrifice are of the first priority.
3. It
is noteworthy that we have here an act of murder carried out by three knights
or villains whose task as expressed in the extant play texts is to take
revenge upon these innocents because the secret of which child is the future
King has not been vouchsafed by the Three Wise Men or Magi. What is also
striking is that, being the dramatic sequence on the apocryphal, rather than
the canonical, scriptures we have in each case the sad event of the murder of
Herod's own son, since he is being nursed in the town by one of the women
there. We thus have an additional element of tragedy in the medieval
representation and one which clearly involves the masons in presenting the
murder of a King's son.
4. It
is not without significance, I believe, that we have here the emphasis on
innocence or the new‑born. This is not only the result of presenting a play
related to the infancy of the Saviour but is also an allegorical reference to
the innocence of those who are martyred. It needs to be remembered that the
death of the martyred was at this date regarded as the beginning of their new
life and the dates on which the martyred are commemorated is described as
their `birthday'. For the masons who, like their contemporaries, had martyrs
as their patrons, such a play had very obvious attraction.
5. In
the course of preparing for this Lecture I have made it my business to witness
as many of the re‑presentations of the Mystery Plays as has been possible in
the last two years and must here give testimony that such an experience has
materially assisted in a fresh understanding of the material available. In
York in 1973 the very play chose for reproduction in its original 218 `THE
PRESTONIAN LECTURES' form as a `pageant' or `waggon‑play' was 'Herod and the
Three Kings' which was originally staged by the masons and goldsmiths there.
The programme issued on that occasion read as follows: The Masons may have
been allotted the Herod play as they might reasonably be supposed to have been
expert in what may be judged to have been an architectural setting; whereas
the Goldsmiths on the other hand, would find the provision of rich gifts and
crowns for the Kings particularly within their `mistery'. (My italics).
As the
waggon appeared before the West Front of York Minster it was seen to be
adorned with a curtained framework which ran along the centre of the cart
lengthwise, and above the framework there was at one end a stylised
representation of the city of Jerusalem, including the Temple and the Palace
of Herod, whilst at the other end there was a symbolic thatch roof portraying
the stable. It will, I believe, be of some little interest to my hearers (or
readers) if we pause for a short while and consider this latter feature.
I have
already remarked on the use of symbolic models by the craft and gild members
when moving in procession either on their Saints' days or on the great
festival of Corpus Christi. I have even mentioned the eventual parading of the
Masons' Gild at Kendal with a model of Solomon's Temple. What I now venture to
suggest is that prior to that date and certainly at the time of the Corpus
Christi plays the masons already had a symbolic feature, or combined features,
which enabled them to be readily identified whenever they appeared in public.
This was the representation of a stone edifice with both a castellated and a
pointed roof. Let me explain further.
In the
well‑known and justly famed Holkham Bible Picture Book of the fourteenth
century we find recorded the stylised forms used, and hence recognised, by
illiterate church members for whom this kind of manuscript teaching aid was
produced. The Book is in fact a kind of paper reflection of the stained glass
or wall‑paintings with which contemporary congregations were familiar. In that
book the Temple of Jerusalem is always shown as a threefold combination of
sentry‑box‑type erections, and the Palace of Herod is always shown as a stone,
three‑course erection with a crenellated superstructure. In the plays the same
idealised backcloth or outline would immediately convey to the audience the
location and the association desired. For the masons, and surely how
appropriate this was for their normal life, the audience would think of those
who built `holy places' and castles.
Nor is
this all. In his fascinating book, The Hole Craft and Fellowship of Masons,
Ed. Conder has particularly put us in his debt by the careful and scholarly
way in which he has traced the first development of the masons' arms from
their adoption as the oldest Gild Arms in London in 1472. In addition, and on
p 79 of his work, Conder draws our attention to the fact that the masons in
London were tenants, for their Gildhall, in the Ward of Bassishaw, of the
Prior of Holy Trinity. In 1665 they carried a banner or streamer of the Holy
Trinity in their procession, a banner mentioned in their goods inventory at
that period. What that banner looked like we are not explicitly told but it
could only have been one of two designs ‑ either that of the Priory Seal
showing `the Blessed Saviour seated on a Rainbow, and having in his left hand
a book resting on his DRAMA AND CRAFT 219 knee, the other hand elevated'; or
that described by Hone in his `Ancient Mysteries' (1823) and showing the
chevron‑linked representation of three circles symbolising the three persons
of the Trinity in exactly the same lay‑out as the present successor of the
Moderns' coat of arms. Both designs are of the greatest interest to any
present‑day freemason.
It
only remains here to mention the further point made on p 94 of Conder's book,
viz that though in later forms of the masons's arms we have three edifices
which resemble towers the originals were castles and when so shown they were
always triple‑crowned or pointed. This symbolic form was manifestly that which
was customarily used by medieval masons and painters in representing at once
the Temple and a Royal House ‑ and yet it was also something more.
6. We
have already seen that in York earlier, and elsewhere, the masons were ready
to take up a play about the Mother of Jesus, whom they would know
allegorically as the Lily of the Valley or the Rose of Sharon, both terms
being culled from the biblical passage known as the Song of Solomon. In
addition, Mary is considered to be `the castle into which Christ entered at
his incarnation' and from a much‑used homiletic manual called `Mirk's Festial'
we should consider the following: Mary was strong as a castle and withstood
the assaults of the fiend . . . for right as a castle wall hath a deep ditch .
. . so hath Our Lady a ditch of meekness so deep down into the earth of her
heart that there might never no man go over it . . .
This
work tells us that the CASTLE which was Mary had a double ward, the front part
low to signify her patience and her wedlock, while the inner ward was high to
symbolise her virginity, and the gate in this wall betokened Faith.
Such a
double ward is often seen (as by me on a Norwich misericord only recently)
and, even more, the inner ward is topped by a roof with a clear
chevron‑marking, like the frame of a leaded church spire, apparently to remind
men that the Virgin also signified for medieval men the Church upon earth. All
this, which to a modern mind and eye may seem no more than the simplified
representation of a stylised medieval fortress or walled town, was also
reminiscent to the medieval preacher and exponent of that other verse in the
Song of Solomon applied to the Virgin, 'A garden enclosed is my sister, my
spouse . . .
There
is little doubt left in my mind that such a combination of images and
associations was far from fortuitous. Here were earthy men of pious
disposition, closely associated, as few other trades than the carpenters were,
with the clergy and monks, and themselves constantly engaged in reproducing
the very artefacts, furniture and designs that needed and bore special
symbolic significance.
We can
now pass so much more easily to the other plays that we know to have been
performed by the mason in other places. Foremost amongst these is the later
play produced at York, the story of the Purification of the Virgin, or, the
Presentation in the Temple. It is because this is perhaps the best known of
all the masons' plays for those who know anything about their association with
the drama that I have from the start been surprised at the unswerving
assertion of Fred Pick and Conder that there is no evidence whatsoever of any
play in which 220 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' the masons and the temple were
associated. Doubtless they were meaning that there appears to be no medieval
play which directly or unequivocally links them with the building of King
Solomon's Temple and in that narrow sense their statement is of course quite
correct. Even this, however, has yet to be wholly disproved and as I shall
show in a little while there is enough written material to justify continuing
researches into possible masonic links in Cornwall and across the Channel.
Here,
however, we have a direct combination of several interesting factors. In a
sequence of plays in which there is no other opportunity for demonstrating a
direct link with the Temple, the Virgin Mary, the figure of the Church, is
seen present in that shrine, approaching the altar of sacrifice with her two
pigeons, or doves, (and the correspondence with Noah and his Ark is not
accidental in fifteenth‑century church teaching) and attended by two brothers,
the sons of Simeon, the priest. . . with Joseph and Anna and a nurse, seven
persons in all. It also needs to be remembered that in one sequence of plays,
ie, in Coventry, the Virgin has already appeared earlier the same day, and on
this occasion was herself brought as a young innocent girl to the Temple and
there made the traditional entry of mounting 15 steps towards the High Priest
sitting on the throne of the inner Temple, and reciting the appropriate
Gradual (gradus‑ degree‑ step) Psalms on the way. In some pictures of this
event the steps are even divided into three, five and seven divisions.
In his
book, The Blessed Virgin Mary in the mediaeval drama of England, J. Vriend has
this to say about this latter incident: `In the oldest records the reason why
people marvelled at Mary mounting the Temple steps is that she did so without
once looking back to her parents . . . Pseudo‑Matthew adds as a further reason
the fact of her not even stumbling on the steps. This latter reason is the
only one given in Ludus Coventriae where . . . the maiden reaches the top
without any mishap and is there welcomed by the High Priest, who then proceeds
to instruct her briefly in the ten commandments and the duties of the life
awaiting her ... she is to "serve God with prayer, devote some of her time to
manual labour", and also take "a resonable tyme to fede".' An interesting
charge before her admittance into the inner chambers of the Temple itself!
Moreover, we have recorded for us the Coventry play verses which were recited
as the girl moved in three stages up the stairway. They are, I believe, worth
recording in full as they have a remarkable similarity to the main objects of
the present day degrees: The fyrst degre, gostly applyed, It is holy desyre
with God to be. In trobyl to God I have cryed, And in sped that lord hat herde
me . . .
Ad
Dominum cum tribularer clamavi, et exaudivit me.
The
secunde is stody, with meke inquyssyon veryly How I shall have knowynge of
Gods wylle.
To the
mownteynes of hefne I have lyfte myn ey, From gwens shall comyn helpe me tylle,
Levavi oculos meos in montes, unde veniat auxilium mihi.
DRAMA
AND CRAFT 221 The thrydde is gladnes in mende in hope to be That we shall be
savyd all thus.
I am
glad of these tydyngys ben seyd to me Now shall we go in to Goddys hous.
Letatus sum in hijs que dicta sunt mihi: in domum Domini ibimus.
It is
also not insignificant that the Feast of the Purification was only officially
accepted in the Church at the very time the Corpus Christi plays were
inaugurated ‑ 1372! I am bound at this point to re‑direct attention to what I
have already tried to show in the earlier part of this Lecture, viz that we
are dealing here with real people who had actual convictions about what they
were doing, and whose activity in this field was far from unrelated to their
own craft and religious affiliations. If we proceed from an assumption that
nothing they did outside the lodge room had any relevance to the Craft at all,
and in particular to the speculative aspects of their working and ritual, then
of course nothing in this dramatic material will be of very much weight. I
suggest, on the contrary, that we should credit our progenitors with more real
and complex a humanity and allow the evidence to point us to something more
substantial than has hitherto been envisaged. As William Waples, that not
unimportant masonic scholar from Tyneside, once remarked in a published paper
on the Old Charges and Ancient Landmarks written for the Wear Masonic Study
Circle, ` . . . 40,000 religious and trade societies and guilds are listed in
the reign of Edward III (1327‑77) ... These gilds on great festivals presented
miracle plays, mystery plays, and religious dramas. It is possible that the
drama of the Third degree may be a survival of this custom for the one
conspicuous survival of the gild system is freemasonry.' It is for this reason
that, before coming to the known masons' plays of Norwich and Dublin, I want
to suggest a further connection with the Temple in the Beverley sequence. We
know that from the fourteenth century the masons were involved in dramatic
presentations in this town and Gayley has written as follows: ... It was then
(1390) ordered by the whole community that all craftsmen (artificers) of
Beverley, viz. Mercers, Tanners, Masons and the 33 other companies of trades
or mysteries (ministeria, misteria, trades) shall have their plays and
pageants ready henceforth on every Corpus Christi Day in fashion and form
according to the ancient customs of the town of Beverely, to play in honour of
the Body of Christ....
We
have, of course, mentioned the involvement of the masons in a play there about
`Charity' but no one so far has been able to suggest which play exactly they
undertook in the Corpus Christi cycle. In the light of what has already been
said, and bearing in mind the other plays not yet discussed, let us see what
this might have been.
As in
York and Wakefield, somewhat neighbouring towns, the Glovers present the Cain
and Abel play, and again, as in York, the Goldsmiths collaborated to present
the Visit of the Three Kings to Bethlehem. There was an Innocents play but
this was presented in Beverley, as I said earlier, by the Shoemakers, whose
Gethsemane play in York was not part of the stated 222 programme here. Neither
the Red Sea nor the Burial of the Blessed Virgin Mary were presented either.
We know that the masons were involved regularly ‑ their sheer building prowess
and programme in this town would require it ‑ but all the plays seem taken.
Only one possibility remains.
In
York the play latterly given by the masons was the Purification of Mary in the
Temple and they collaborated in presenting this with the Hatters, and also the
masons' building associates, the Labourers. In the light of the evidently
close connection between the York and Beverley productions (12 plays of which
are by identical trades!) I suggest that the masons' involvement was either
with the Hatters or the Labourers. There were no Hatters in Beverley so that
it did not at all surprise me to discover that the other trade, the Labourers,
displayed its (masonic?) skill in offering the play in which Jesus was being
tempted as he stood on the pinnacle of the Temple. As one who knows something
about Jerusalem I can tell you that that meant standing on the topmost section
of the Temple Wall! The links with the Temple are surely there if we will but
search for them ‑ and searching has always seemed to me to be one of the
earliest masonic lessons I was taught.
It
only remains in this part of my survey to consider the possible masonic
reasons for accepting and presenting the Cain and Abel play at Norwich, and
the play of Pharaoh and his host at the Red Sea in Dublin. I have already
quoted a passing reference to the former of these Old Testament plays in which
Kolve pointed out that the Cain incident prefigured the death of Christ, but,
even more, was `shown as taking place in a highly organised medieval
community' in which individual gain at any price was discouraged and
maltreatment or violence against a `brother' was a heinous crime. Again, we
have the same emphasis on martyrdom with Abel as the first who suffers that
fate, and `medieval simplicity of stage setting and the confined space in
which the action was played suggest that in many performances Abel fell dead
in the very place that had previously served as an altar, thus becoming
himself the sacrifice'. (It was staged this way in the Mermaid Theatre
production of the Towneley Play cycle, and the theological meaning was simply
and powerfully established). In the much more restricted range of plays at
Norwich it is surely significant that masons shared in displaying the
fratricidal murder of an innocent craftsman whose work had been accepted by
the Almighty Creator and whose place of burial it was attempted to conceal. I
suggest that a basic `legend' is once more revealing itself.
The
same is also true in the Dublin presentation of The Red Sea or Pharaoh and his
host, or, to be more precise, the destruction of the Egyptians during the
Exodus of the Israelites. Whilst we do not possess any text of this
presentation in Ireland and recognise that it included a form of silent
tableau as the players moved from and to the `platea', or playing arena, yet
the knowledge we have of other Exodus plays elsewhere may be a pointer. Kolve
again describes how in the production `at York Minster in 1957, the Red Sea
was a long linen cloth, painted with waves, and held facing the audience while
Moses and the Israelites walked behind it; when Pharaoh and his men came in
pursuit, it was thrown up and over them, and they lay "drowned" beneath. The
Israelites rejoiced in song as the wagon was pulled away. The action, strong,
clear and delightful, probably `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' DRAMA AND CRAFT 223
represented something very close to medieval practice; records from Coventry
specify, with no sense of incongruity, "it.p'd for halfe a yard of rede sea
vjd." ' Though it is again impossible in the space of this lecture to extend
an explanation, familiar to me, as it was to any medieval Christian from an
early age, of how this incident prefigured baptism and Christ's leading men in
a new Exodus from sin and death, it is worth noting that for our medieval
ancestors the rite of baptism was one of initiation as well as of purification
‑ and a rite of a violent kind. It was meant to signify a sudden death, like
that of the Egyptians, and yet, as St Ambrose of Milan once wrote, `. . . he
who passes through the font does not die, but rises again'. Moreover, this
play was at once linked with the other play event which ranked higher in the
list of favourites for medieval Corpus Christi audiences ‑ the Harrowing of
Hell, in which a transfigured Christ, with his banner, descended to the
traditional Hell's Mouth and, striking three times upon its entrance then led
forth triumphant the great figures of the Old Testament, Moses, David and
Solomon among others. (I cannot forebear mentioning here that seeing this
incident in York in 1972, with smoke gushing forth through the leather lattice
across the way to Hell, alone explained why in York, Coventry and Newcastle
the leather Saddlers claimed this play whereas in Chester and Beverley it was
the Cooks and Innkeepers!) When to all this representation of death and
release from death, of incipient initiation, and restoration of the dead to
their fellows, we add the known fact that as a backcloth to the Exodus there
were painted the two pillars of fire and cloud which led the Israelites safely
on their pilgrimage you may find it hard as I do, to accept the theory of
others hitherto that there is nothing in these plays which remotely connects
with our present ritual. I sometimes wonder just how far they looked, or
enquired.
Having
tried to show at some, though by no means complete, length how very
appropriate and meaningful the participation of the masons was in the plays
which, albeit officially accorded, they voluntarily accepted, and, on at least
one occasion, changed, there yet remain certain features of the plays'
performances which are also germane to my thesis and which will be of interest
to the curious mason.
Foremost among these is the mundane matter of the cost of presenting any play
in the Corpus Christi cycle. The masons who received 4d a day with victuals
supplied, and argued hard, and even went on strike, regarding unpaid holidays,
were the same men who paid half‑a‑day's pay a year to the 'bringing‑out' of a
religious performance on one of those disputed unpaid holy‑days of the year.
Even if they had been irreligious, and that, I am sure, most of them were not,
yet the mere cost of production must have mightily concentrated their
attention on what their hard‑earned money was to effect.
The
facts are that the page ant‑waggons, eg in Chester, were large, ornate and
expensive, an an expert on this city's drama, F. M. Salter, has estimated that
it cost about ú4,000 (in 1967 money values) to stage the play of the Chester
Smiths in 1554 and this did not include the hiring, fitting, moving and
repairing of the basic waggon or cart. Of the Coventry Smiths Sidney Clarke
records that their pageant was `solidly and carefully built of wood and iron'
with platforms, steps 224 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' and trapdoors, and in 1462
they reported in their minutes `Item, expende at the fest of Corpus Christi yn
reparation of the pagent, that ys to say, a peyre of new whelys, the price
viij s; item, for naylys and ij hokys for the sayd pagiente, iiij d.'. Since
the masons were performing in the same year and the same play at York as that
here referred to for Chester (ie the Purification) the figures involved above
are not to be ignored.
Miss
Prosser also points out that casting for parts was rigorously controlled and
fines for the irresponsible portrayal of parts by players were severe. `A
"star" role might warrant payment equal to 40 times the daily wage of an
average journeyman, and this type of fine was increased as wages rose so that
even when, as in the mid‑sixteenth century, some professional players were
hired the crafts responsible were still liable to penalties for the poor, or
non‑production of the assigned play. Sidney Clarke points out that on 21
November 1517, the Skinners and Vestmentmakers of York were ordered to pay
such fines for their inadequately presented plays punctually and in Coventry
we read that on non‑production of a play as planned there shall be a levy of
"100s, to be raised of four masters of the Craft that so offend." It should be
remembered that a Master Mason was at this time in receipt of 6d a day.' Every
member of a craft was therefore levied for the upkeep of the play and its
properties so that in 1479 the York Mariners Guild (which appropriately
offered Noah and his Ark) were levied `a master with freeman, 2d a day, and a
fellow pay a 1d' to the `sustentation and upholding, as well of the pageant of
Noah, as of the bringing forth and burning of certain torches before the
shrine of Corpus Christi yearly', and we also know that in 1536 the tailors of
Newcastle agreed that every person made free of their craft should on
admission pay 8d towards the play. This pageant‑money, incidentally, was
levied long after the original purpose of it had passed into oblivion. All
craft members were liable and `foreigners', which might mean people only just
outside the city walls, paid twice as much as admitted craftsmen. In York in
1771 (sic), almost two hundred years after the plays had been last regularly
presented there, this contribution was still being made, and was looked after,
as it had been throughout, by two Pageant Masters who, like all good
treasurers, had to account for every penny spent.
On 3
April 1476, we also read that in York yearly in the time of Lent there shall
be called before the Mayor . . . four of the most cunning, discreet and able
players . . . to search, hear and examine all the players and plays and
pageants throughout all the artificers belonging to the Corpus Christi play.
And all such as they shall find sufficient in personne and cunning, to the
honour of the City, and worship of the said crafts for to admit and able: and
all other insufficient persons either in cunnine, voice or person to
discharge, remove and avoid. . . .
We
also note, both here and elsewhere that since performers from the crafts were
paid, and provided with food and drink `in fair abundance', eg `Item Payd at
the second Reherse in Whyttson weke, in brede, ale and Ketchyn, its iiijd', it
was forbidden for any one performer to appear more than twice in any one day's
play‑sequence. Here it will be of interest to note that the players were
remunerated on the strictly commercial basis of `length of part' and not on
account of the parts' religious significance. Hence, in Coventry, in 1490
Pilate was DRAMA AND CRAFT 225 the most highly paid (4s), Herod and Caiaphas
(3s 4d), and Jesus and Pilate's wife (only 2s). At Hull in 1447 `God received
6d', but in 1484, Sd, in 1487, 10d and in 1520, 1s. A `Jack of all Trades' or
props man was particularly well remunerated, so that in Coventry a certain
Fawston received 4d for hanging Judas, 4d for cock‑crowing and 5d for `setting
the world on fire in the last scene . . .' We also saw that payment was made
not only for the actual performance but for rehearsals, and in 1584, when some
would have us believe that the plays were waning, the requirements for
rehearsal in Coventry were: the Smiths rehearsed the Crucifixion six times,
the Cappers rehearsed the Resurrection five times, whilst twice was considered
enough for all the other well‑known episodes. Thus we have the craft guild
item for that year, `Paid for Sent Marye Hall to reherse there, ijd'. It is
also not unimportant for us to know that one item appears constantly in all
the extant records ‑'Item paid for gloves to the pleyares, xixd; Item paid for
a pair of gloves for God . . .' Although this by no means exhausts the details
of the expense laid upon a craft and its members for the production of an
annual play it surely provides enough evidence to underline the point about
masonic engagement in this activity. It was not an incidental or trivial
expense but a considered and considerable one, and those who were charged with
it were highly sensible of all that was involved in the undertaking. It had ‑
it had to have ‑ some meaning for them or else it is very difficult to
understand why they spent time and energy on it. To say that it was ,simply' a
religious or social requirement itself tells us something about the attitude
of our forbears. To note how they in fact discharged their `duty' goes further
and reveals something of their outlook and later `traditions'. In one thing at
least they and we would have been in complete agreement. Their drama, and our
ritual, are not a religion. Both were and are the means whereby symbolic and
allegorical lessons of a moral and religious kind can be given‑ but they were,
as they are, no more than that. No medieval craftsman would ever substitute a
dramatic representation for the real thing.
It is
at this point that I must direct your attention to three further areas of
study which cannot be separated from the main thrust of this Lecture. I refer
to (a) the opportunity provided by the drama for instructing the public in the
Christian faith; (b) the inevitable link for the masons between this and the
other artistic forms with which they were regularly and professionally
engaged; and (c) the forms, symbolism and allegory employed in connection with
the plays, which have interesting echoes in subsequent masonic practice.
(a)
That the drama was primarily approved and encouraged as a didactic, and only
secondarily promoted as an entertainment, medium, now appears to be
unquestioned by qualified students of the medieval stage. Though two of the
latest works on the subject (by Woolf and Davies) still differ in their view
as to how closely, or how progressively, the Corpus Christi plays were related
to the preceding liturgical plays, the fact remains that both were initiated
for one purpose ‑ to inform and strengthen the onlooker in the Catholic Faith.
As one rubric of an early continental Corpus Christi cycle (1931) states:
'Incipit Indus utilis pro devotione simplicium intimandus et peragendus, die
Corporis Christi, vel infra octavos, de fide katholica.' (My italics) 226 `THE
PRESTONIAN LECTURES' These plays, then, that called forth `the money, the
energy, and the devoted enthusiasm of over ten generations of hard‑headed,
beef‑eating Englishmen', farmers, drapers, clerks and masons, were not mere
formless, primitive and crude festivities for one, two or sometimes three
summer days. `To the citizen of York what he saw was a revealed truth about
his own life made plain in the fall of his forefather, Adam, and the
restoration, through death, to new life brought about by the coming of
Christ'. In 1644 John Shaw, who was in spiritual charge of the parish of
Cartmel, Lancashire, wrote of an old man of near 50 whose only reminiscence of
being told of `salvation' was what he recalled of the Crucifixion scene in the
Corpus Christi plays presented at Kendal: and one of the rare mentions of the
plays in London is the petition by the clerks and choristers of St Paul's in
1378 to Richard II to prohibit some ignorant and inexpert persons from acting
`The History of the Old Testament'. One would like to think that concern for
the faith and its presentation predominated over professional jealousy about
who should present a certain drama.
(b)
Yet this acquaintance with biblical stories was not the result of familiarity
with the translated biblical text. The average medieval man was aware of Cain
and Abel, Mary and Herod and the three Kings as they were presented in sermon
and stained glass; in sculpture and wall‑painting. For this was the period of
a new development in instructional methods, and as was said by E. Prosser in
1961, `it has never before been noted that the development of the mysteries
closely parallels this (new) campaign of education', due largely to the
Friars. It was, after all, one of the most prominent of all the Friars, Thomas
Aquinas, who compiled the new church ritual for Corpus Christi and we can see
by comparing the Douai Bible translation version of that office with the
medieval drama, how close in actual wording some parts of them are.
We can
learn a great deal in this connection from an acquaintance with the material
mentioned in Owst's work, `Literature and Pulpit in Mediaeval England' in
which the author refers specifically, and in detail, to the reciprocal
influence of pulpit and pageant. Kraus, Braun and Anderson, and especially the
latter in her book, `Drama and Imagery in English Mediaeval Churches', have
now provided us with a mass of evidence which portrays the same kind of
interplay between pageant and church decoration at the same period ‑
decoration, be it noted, that had of necessity to involve the mason in his
full professional capacity.
Space
again prevents any extended treatment of this point but a few examples from
each area will begin to make the point.
Anyone
who is prepared to spend time with a pair of binoculars looking carefully at
the newly painted bosses which run the whole length of the interior roof of
Norwich Cathedral will be struck by two things. The first is the beauty of the
workmanship, but the second is the obvious detail of the representations. Why,
one might well ask, did the masons who carved them bother to reproduce such
intricate scenes when, even as they reappear today in full medieval colour,
they are still hard to distinguish with the naked eye from ground level? More
than this, why did they choose to carve the scenes and characters which we now
discern? Miss Anderson says this: DRAMA AND CRAFT 227 the subjects illustrated
in each bay and perhaps the general lay‑out were probably dictated by a
monastic official but the designs of the bosses and more particularly those of
smaller or less conspicuous ones seem to have been left to the carvers who
drew upon their memories of plays. In the transepts where the very small
bosses are indistinguishable from ground level only the general theme can have
been ordered by the monks, and the copying of ACTUAL PLAY SCENES is extensive
and unmistakable! This parallelism she then proceeds to explain in great
detail showing, eg that in the roof boss dedicated to the story of Noah the
scene depicted is one which only contemporary painting and the drama could
have suggested ‑a young man, one of Noah's sons, pleads with a woman of
rigid‑looking mien, his mother, begging her not to be left behind and thus
drowned. Nothing in the VSL describes any such incident but in every mystery
cycle text known in England this is one of the occasions which attracted the
great attention of the audience and special interest in the action. (It
displayed, by the way, a medieval view of Eve's perverse female offspring,
rather than a desire to be comic!) In the fourteenth to the sixteenth
centuries one of the most sought‑for exports from this country were
specially‑carved alabaster panels for churches all over Europe. Since these
panels were to be placed in certain appointed parts of church buildings to
teach the faithful about biblical events and characters there was a need for
them to be faithful to commonly accepted teaching and preaching. In every
extant panel involving John the Baptist there is a scene represented which
reveals the close connection of contemporary instruction and the masonic art:
John the Baptist's head is shown as lying on the dish in Herod's palace with a
wound on its forehead since common tradition and the public drama portrayed an
apocryphal `striking of John the Baptist's forehead by Herodias'. It is a
scene which I have myself recently seen in the medieval church glass at
Gresford, Denbighshire.
Owst
draws attention to the fact that at this time there were provided for what one
bishop called his `dumb dogs' of clergy who led people into the ditch of
error, a whole range of pulpit and other manuals from which material could be
drawn for a regular code of instruction to be used in congregations. The
Cursor Mundi, a book on penance, and the Legenda Aurea (the latter a
comprehensive `Lives of the Saints', first printed in English by Caxton), are
examples of such material and a consideration of these will provide a reader
with just the material which reveals how the plays came to include incidents
that appear prominently in both the plays and medieval masonic carving. Thus
it is often remarked by modern commentators on the Mystery plays that despite
the passage of time between the birth in Bethlehem and the arrival of the Wise
Men from the East, sculptured and dramatic representations of the event show
the Wise Men reaching Bethlehem just as the shepherds are leaving. In a
much‑quoted sermon by Isidore Ethymologius these Magi were said to use
dromedaries which could cover 100 miles a day, thus enabling them to reach the
Holy Land from their distant destinations in only 14 days! In the Chester play
of the visit of the Magi this explanation is actually quoted. `That artists
imitated drama', writes Rosemary Woolf, `but that the authors and organisers
of plays took their own wayward course without reference to iconographical
tradition is beyond the bounds of 228 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' credibility .
. . For if one postulates the following series, religious painting, tableau of
the same subject, mime, play, it is unclear at what point one would want to
cry halt and draw the line between a difference of degree and a difference in
kind.' (c) Though there is again much more that could be quoted yet I believe
that enough has been said to emphasise the point that when we speak of a
masonic relationship to medieval drama we are not simply concerned with the
restricted area of the Corpus Christi performances, but with the whole range
of dramatic communication in which the masons necessarily play a very
prominent role. `Medieval single‑mindedness in visual expression encourages us
to correlate almost any artist's image, in whatever medium, with that of
playwrights and audiences of the same period.' The masons were those who
collectively had the mind to conceive, the eye to retain and the hands to
create what the church desired to convey, and what the ordinary laymen,
unsophisticated and yet inquisitive, could comprehend. The evocative, concise
and significant stroke of the hammer and chisel, which fashioned this gesture
or that, this symbol or some other, was an important raison d'etre of the
mason's craft. The point of his art was that it could speak whilst retaining
silence, without words, and yet, when and as appropriate, expressive of what
whose who did speak in churches were talking about. The language of symbolism
and allegory was by the fourteenth century, if not earlier, already part and
parcel of the mason craft. What happens later, as we shall briefly see, is
that somewhat different interpretations may be given to traditional symbols.
What is clear to me is that symbolic masonry was not an eighteenth‑century, or
even a seventeenth‑century, innovation.
Evidence for this occurs in connection with the Corpus Christi plays to which
we have devoted so much attention already. Figures of Scripture are recognised,
not because of the individual person playing the part, for there might be
several different Herods, Marys or Christs in any one sequence of pageants.
The method of identifying people, as with locations, was by employing specific
symbolic items, dress or gestures. We know, for example, both from play
instructions and from the boss in Norwich Cathedral, that Solomon frequently
appeared with a small model of the Temple in his hand, and in the Coventry
play he actually figured in the Prophet's sequence speaking the words.
I am
Solomon, the second King, And that worthy Temple forsooth made I, Which that
is figure of that maid young That shall be mother of great Messy.
In
view of what has already been said above, it is of further interest to note
that Temple equals the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Normally a crown symbolised a king, a bishop's mitre one of the Jewish High
Priests, a cluster of candles a star, a Gothic pulpit the synagogue, and a
large pair of compasses the Almighty Creator. Many episodes which we today
might regard as simplistic or jejeune would have had for the contemporary
onlooker a significance far deeper than that which we in this more material
age would attach to them. What was true of the fifteenth‑century audience was
also true of those DRAMA AND CRAFT who took part in the drama. The plays were
`quike bookes', living accounts, that spoke and moved and illustrated reality
under the guise of a sacred tale, play or game ‑ hence the use of the Latin
term `ludus' in the title of one sequence, the Ludus Coventriae. The play was
a corporate activity with no profit motive and organised according to fixed
rules. The style of presentation was in rhyme and dialogue of a formal nature
with no attempt at characterisation and no endeavour to create the modern form
of theatrical illusion. To quote R. T. Davies.
...
the mediaeval people must have enjoyed in their repeated performance a
reassuring satisfaction which we who crave novelty, originality and
stimulation can hardly appreciate. Moreover, it was oneself and one's friends
who were retelling the tale, whether by watching or taking part, and in so
doing bringing within compass and making manageable in one's own town and in
one's own being the whole mysterious and eternal process of God's marvellous
dealings with men.
I
would suggest that there is much here which instinctively relates to, and
explains, the ritualistic attraction of present and past masonic activity.
Here we have the amateur presentation by sincere individuals of religious and
ethical instruction in a well‑defined manner, employing traditional phrases,
known symbols, agreed actions and a confined playing area. The residue of that
kind of influence over two and half centuries was not easily eradicated ‑ I
would claim that the effects of it are present with us still.
THE
MASON AND OTHER DRAMA From this consideration of the pageants or play cycles
in which masons are known to have taken part we must now for all too brief a
space turn to certain other mediaeval dramatic presentations which might be
seen to be relevant to our general theme. In particular we shall need to
consider the content of these plays as forming a context within which certain
medieval concepts not unconnected with masonry were developed.
I
refer above all to the sequence of plays known as the Cornish Guary miracles.
The name Guary in itself is interesting as being related to the English words
,quarry', `square' and `on the level'. We cannot here spend time explaining
these plays in detail for two American scholars (Markham Harris and Longsworth)
have recently provided all that any student of these texts could require, and
those who would wish to research further will have to go to them. What I would
highlight are three things. First, that we have in these plays, and especially
in the first sequence ‑ `Origo Mundi' (the Creation of the World) ‑ certain
features which relate significantly to masonic ideas. Second, that this was a
different form of play presentation which favoured a more static audience and
symbolic stations; and thirdly, that it demonstrates the spread of medieval
dramatic practice over a wider area than is often imagined.
1. I
am fully aware that Pick and Conder, not to mention Alex Horne, have
considered the Guary cycle and found it to be largely, if not wholly,
irrelevant to masonic study. I wonder why? It contains the first explicit
British excerpt describing the building of the Tower of Babel by Nemroth (sic)
and his masons, and in due course we meet the masons of King Solomon himself.
It is true that the incidents recorded do not refer explicitly to the Hiramic
legend and perhaps this is 229 230 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' the reason for
their unsympathetic conclusion. Let us, however, continue to remember that we
have here a specifically Christian drama in which the fulfilment lay in the
death and raising again of the Master, and to that end all the previous action
of the plays is related. Within this context we may note certain interesting
features.
Masons
as well as carpenters are seen as having a decidedly necessary role in the
unfolding of the whole Bible story. Simply stated the theme of the Cornish
Cycle is the `tree‑motif' ‑the story of how man fell by the fruit of a tree,
how the wood of Noah's Ark established afresh the covenant with God, how Moses
came to the burning bush, and later planted three rods in Mount Tabor, the
fruit of which was the Rose of Sharon (or Lily of the Valley), from whose
human counterpart, Mary, was born him who by the wood of the cross wrought
man's full salvation. Granted such a framework for the plays it might well be
asked why there was any need for the representation of the stone‑masons' work
under Nimrod (as mentioned in the Ancient Masonic Constitutions) or under
Solomon. The answer, I believe, is that in the building operations here
dramatised we are shown the futility of man's building without the key to
God's design or plan. This is graphically demonstrated in the Solomon sequence
when the work of the masons and carpenters is held up for want of a beam which
shall hold the rafters in firm line. Such a beam is unable to be found for
however much they try to shape it to the right size it will not fit. At last
the Second Carpenter says, Let us come to the king to declare The beam will
not come to the square.
Symbolically this is very apt ‑the true beam of the Temple can only come for
these medieval people when Christ's cross is at the centre of the true Temple.
One
would wish again to deal in more detail with the text of these plays but that
must be done elsewhere. It will have to suffice to point out certain
distinctive portions of the text. The first of these is that section in which
Solomon summons `Masons and Tilers' to assist so `that the Temple may be fully
built'. The counsellor so addressed by the King replies: `Sire, Lord, by holy
(or Saint) Gilmyn . . .' In the 1859 edition of these plays E. Norris here
adds an interesting note: `I do not know a St Gilmyn, unless St Columbanus is
intended. Perhaps the name is made expressly "gyl myn", worker of stones, as
appropriate to the occasion'. Appropriate indeed, and even more fitting when
one realises that by the quite normal processes of language mutation and
metathesis in Celtic languages GILMYN was a form of GILBYN, whence GIBLYN or
GIBLYM! ‑ with the meaning remaining exactly the same. In the appendix to his
work E. Norris adds (p 474) `Was this "St Workstone" ‑ a sobriquet of St
Thomas who was the patron saint of builders and architects?' Another feature
of these plays to which we might direct attention is the sequence that follows
the building of Solomon's Temple and the failure to discover the
rightly‑squared timber. Solomon now appoints a `bishop' for the temple, `the
law to maintain' and significantly it is his earlier close counsellor who now
puts on clerical dress (a prototype of Thomas a Becket?). In ceremonial terms
the `bishop' now puts on a mitre and moves across from the Palace‑station to
the one recognised as that of the Temple. There he is joined by one, Maximilla,
who, sitting upon a stove, is badly scorched and cries to Christ for help. The
bishop rebukes her with the words: I have the law of Moses, And in all that
same His name is not written.
The
bishop's crozier ‑bearer then recommends the woman's death by stoning and
executioners are sent for to whom the bishop says: Go, drag the wretched
woman, Who is making false gods, Out of our temple.
The
second executioner says: `It is our design to strike hard . . .' upon which
the third follows with the words: Soon let me strike, With mallet, a terrible
blow to the vile strumpet on the forehead, That she may never eat, But stink
and rot. . . .
The
First Executioner also mentions striking her on the breast, and another speaks
of `on the cheek to smite her'. Maximilla dies and the Third Executioner,
reporting to the bishop, says: Now is the jade dead, At length she is lying.
Although suffering death, She did not retract her words, At first nor at last.
Whilst
there is nothing here which could in any direct sense be said to relate to
masonic ritual I cannot help but record the incident since it comes in such
evident juxtaposition to one of the `masonic' sections of the play and then
bears some unmistakable features of an activity‑sequence which is not
unfamiliar to us. The added fact that Maximilla was one of the Montanist
martyrs in the early Church period is not without significance, though it is
not possible at this point to elaborate on that in detail. What one would very
much like to know is who performed both this and the previous section of the
Cornish cycle. If it were the Masons, Carpenters, Joiners and Labourers then a
great deal would be explained. It is again not without interest that at the
close of this section, when Maximilla's body has been removed, the Bishop
reminds the audience of the main thrust and context of the whole `Origo Mundi'
(or first day's play of the three‑day cycle) by saying to the builders: Come
away, thou Gebals (stone‑workers), Carry the tree outside with a will . . .
cast
it . . . into Bethsaida very completely As in pit Cafalek.
`Cafalek'
means a stagnant pit or pool.
DRAMA
AND CRAFT 231 232 `THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' 2. Though there is much more that
could be considered in detail here we ought now to turn to that fact about the
Cornish plays which introduces a new feature into the presentation of the
medieval cycles. Whereas we may have had the idea so far that medieval
presentations were mainly presented on moveable `pageants' or wagons we here
meet a play‑setting which was more fixed and formal. So formal that in his
commentary Norris is able to reproduce the lay‑out left for us by the original
documents. Here we find a large, circular earthwork with ascending rows of
seats for the spectators on all sides of the `plen' or acting area in the
centre (hence the name `Plenanguare' for some places in Cornwall where the
plays were probably held) and also, around the perimeter, `loci', stations or
boxes, in which certain characters or their residences were located, eg
Pharoah, Solomon, Pilate, Herod. What may be of special interest was that
Heaven was always in the East, Hell was always in the North, a monarch always
in the West (David, Solomon, Herod, or Caesar at the Last Judgement), whilst
in the South were the residences of Abraham, Caiaphas and Nicodemus
respectively in the three days' plays. When the play featured those mentioned
they either spoke from, or descended from, their locations and thus
dramatically turned the attention of the audience in their direction.
Moreover, it gave a sense of movement and time‑span to the production and in
the case of the Passion naturally developed a sense of the main character
being `led' round the amphitheatre from one experience to another. The further
similarity with our own practice will be obvious. Anyone who wishes to follow
this out in more details will need to consult R. Southern in his `Mediaeval
Theatre in the Round' but one comment that cannot be omitted is that of
Thurstan Peter, who writes: It was not that our ancestors were more ignorant
than ourselves that they found beauty and instruction in such (simple
settings) as these; it was because the hurry of life had not killed their
imagination.
What
is certain is that we have in these plays a clear indication of the widespread
fascination and popularity of the medieval drama with the ordinary man of the
late Middle Ages. Whilst it is true, as one recent commentator has said, that
there is very little evidence to indicate just how, or even whether, these
plays were in fact produced the presence of the `Rounds' or playing‑areas, as
at Perranzabuloe to this day, and the strong tradition that the plays were
known and remembered well into the seventeenth century does suggest that we
are dealing here with a further extension of the medieval dramatic influence
through the monks and friars, with their task of teaching the faith.
In
1575, certainly, the Borough Records of St Ives contain the following entry:
`Item, spent upon the carpenter that made heaven, 4d.' and Robert Longsworth
records one enthusiastic cleric who proclaimed that `what the ancient Attic
drama was to the Athenian workman, the old Cornish religious drama was to the
mediaeval Cornish tinner ‑ a mighty teacher'.
Whether, as some contend, the Cornish plays were local variants of the English
counterparts or much more distinctive and original Celtic productions, the
resemblances, if not actual connections, with French contemporary drama
require us to examine the masonic plays and connection in this latter country,
though space is not available for a full discussion here. I would only add
that DRAMA AND CRAFT such investigation as has been possible serves to
encourage research in this direction.
BREAK
OR BRIDGE IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY? We have now reached the point at which
our considerations of the drama coincides with the first definite emergence of
the known masonic rituals, the closing years of the sixteenth and the opening
years of the seventeenth century. There are four matters which ought at this
point to occupy us. First, the altered circumstances of the mason craft;
secondly, the state of the drama in general and the religious drama in
particular; thirdly, the development of new attitudes to religious thought and
practice, and lastly, the rise of so‑called `speculative' masonry.
(i)
After 200 years of regulation under the precepts of the Old Constitutions the
craft in the latter part of Elizabeth's reign was bound to suffer many severe
limitations. The New palace at Hampton Court showed all the signs of the new
brick industry, and it is noticeable that in Durham and elsewhere the masons
who continue as a Guild are joined by these craftsmen working in the new
material. The Abbeys and Priories, the convents and cathedral churches which
had kept the masons fully stretched for centuries were 'finished' in one sense
or the other, and the ones that remained in existence with much depleted
out‑buildings were able to be maintained by a vastly reduced number of masons.
From a guild point of view, too, the masons began to disappear and nowadays
only the extant records of the London Company in England remain as a
continuing reminder of what once was.
Yet
this was surely not the only body that would persist. As the guild
organisation broke up, individual members or groups would still cherish and
recall their guild traditions and would seek to keep them alive. We know that
in Scotland the lodge was still an active unit at this very time, and whilst
we have no evidence for the English scene until the second quarter of the
seventeenth century, it is, I suggest, inconceivable that some of those who
possessed copies of the MS Constitutions were not willing or able, as
political or religious circumstances permitted, to claim their immemorial
right to open `occasional' or 'private' lodges and admit new members to what
they had known and enjoyed. The gap we are talking about is at the most one of
40 years ‑ not long enough for men of that day to forget or forego the
privileges which they had known and enjoyed as free‑masons up to the 1580s.
Even if they did not continue as religious craft guildsmen the individual
masons would be only too aware of the other guilds still in existence around
them. It is worth remembering that many of the other more shop‑centred and
municipal trades went on almost unchanged save that in the place of Mass there
was simply the hearing of a sermon, and instead of processions there would be
some more secular festivity, as well as the continuing banquet.
What
did happen to the mystery drama? Examples of it continue to appear in one
place or another for the next fifty years until Charles I is on the throne.
Yet what in fact happened to it, in another sense than its eventual demise, is
also important: and this leads us into the whole field of drama generally.
(ii)
The first effect of the Reformation upon the religious drama was to 233 234
`THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' require that all texts which were annually employed
should be submitted to some local or ecclesiastical authority for censorship.
Such was the awareness of the Church of the teaching possibilities of this
drama that no attempt was made in the middle of the sixteenth century to
remove the plays altogether: though it is interesting to note that in France
from 1541 the plays were generally discouraged for the dual reason that whilst
for the Catholics the plays now seemed to give too much exposure to the Bible,
for the Protestants it gave the wrong picture of the Bible. Since the feeling
of the authorities, both secular and ecclesiastical, in England was
anti‑Catholic on the whole the plays that were permitted to be performed were
those which were shorn of their apocryphal, and especially their Marian,
contents. Texts that were too far from, or obviously in contrast to, the
received and newly‑translated biblical record were excised or forbidden. It is
4t this point that a further comment by Alex Horne is of significance: . . .
it is only necessary to point out (but perhaps as coincidence only) that this
royal suppression of Miracle plays . . . came shortly after the time of 1551
suppression of the Taverner Bible, with its last mention of the untranslated
double name of Hiram Abiff, after which this double name disappeared from
public view in that particular form, in the later English translations of the
Bible. The double name, and the Miracle Play surrounding it, may have both
gone underground at about the same time, generally speaking, and for the same
reason, to be preserved henceforth only as an esoteric Masonic tradition.
Having
dismantled the monasteries, and their communities; purged the religious guilds
and acquired their pious foundations; severely limited the preaching 1 orders
and taken over places of education; the State and its Church were not eager to
have any public rivals in the popular eye. By a steady process of replacement
and repression the dramatic interest of the nation was directed into other
channels. It is to these that we must briefly turn our attention.
`Between about 1520 and the end of Elizabeth's reign, we know of about 50 new
plays based on scriptural stories which were either produced or offered for
acting on the English stage. About half of these survive.' So writes one of
the new experts on Tudor drama, Ruth H. Blackburn, and she adds this: `. . .
in the seventeenth century the impulse to dramatise the Bible was much less
strong and worked itself out in neo‑mysteries and occasional closet plays,
quite outside the main development of English drama.' Meanwhile she shows us
that the cycles lasted long enough in her opinion to influence deeply a
militant Protestant like Bishop John Bale, who had Thomas Cromwell as his
one‑time protege, other writers of popular biblical drama, and even the
exponents of some drama I in the classical tongues.
It is
in 1560 that an adaptor of the play `Sapientia Salomonis' (The Wisdom of
Solomon) adds the allegorical figures, Wisdom, Justice and Peace, to what is
already a very much more impersonal Solomon than the one portrayed in previous
medieval drama. Solomon here is one who prays for an understanding heart,
settles the dispute over the child, negotiates with Tyre about the purchase of
Temple building materials, and welcomes the Queen of Sheba on its completion.
DRAMA
AND CRAFT 235 The new dramatists, too, who write for the London audiences,
whilst Kendal, Lancaster and Preston remain satisfied with their Mystery
pageants, are men like Heywood with his play, `Four Prentices of London'. Here
is a play full of moral and pious tags for the express benefit of the
contemporary apprentices. It is his plays in London which point out the virtue
of industry and benevolence, the idea of loyalty to the established order, the
absolute requirement of decency towards the other sex and the greatness of
both the Bible and individual freedom. Such were some of the continuing
dramatic influences that must have affected our masonic brethren as they
recovered in privacy and apparent silence from the hammer blows of Tudor
economic and religious policy.
Yet it
was not only influence. It is a significant trend at the present time that
more and more people are wanting to draw out the religious nature and content
of Shakespeare's own work. Intrigued as I have been to read Dodd's book,
`Shakespeare, Creator of Freemasonry', I cannot accept his all too facile
conclusions and yet I believe that he has done a service in showing that
whether we will recognise it or not Shakespeare is drawing on antiquity in
order to present the material which pours from his head and heart. If there
are features in `Love's Labour's Lost' which seem to suggest an esoteric
acquaintance with masonic knowledge I would want to say that this is because
Shakespeare was indeed a man of his time and for some reason took all that he
had received from the past and conveyed it in the one medium of which he was a
master. To quote his own words: the story, for those with eyes to see, ears to
hear and hearts to feel, has several meanings. Besides the letter of my
narrative, there is what is signified by the letter; and in this significance
lies my art. (My italics.) For whatever reason, however, Shakespeare does not
use Bible events as the channel for his human narratives. It may be that they
had already been used too often; it may be that the Court dissuaded him; it
may be that Puritanism was already so evident that to portray the Bible events
on the stage was a production hazard that a good play‑manager did not wish to
risk. Whether Shakespeare were ever a speculative mason or no is an open
question. That he reproduces in certain passages a knowledge which creates
certain familiar echoes seems undoubted. We can, I think, say no more, in this
lecture.
If,
however, Shakespeare represents a largely self‑imposed restriction on the
development of biblical drama in late‑Tudor and Jacobean days it is not true
to say that the composition of biblical plays altogether ceased. In the north
west of England between the years 1609 and 1625 there were written, almost
certainly for stage presentation, the Stonyhurst Pageants, which were
obviously an attempt to provide a more modern version of those cycles which
had only just ceased to be performed in England. Most significantly of all,
they are all plays about events in the Old Testament. It is with this latter
point that I believe we must stay for a moment.
For
our present purpose we should note that despite the loss of some plays which
must have preceded the present manuscript ‑ plays such as those of Creation,
Temptation, Cain and Abel and Noah ‑ we have the eighth Pageant 236 `THE
PRESTONIAN LECTURES' `of Moyses', another of Gedeon, another of Jephthe, and
the sixteenth `Pageant of Solomon'. In this latter, as in all the plays, we
encounter the player called `Nuncius' or `Chorus' who reproduces exactly the
Prologue or Interval commentator in Shakespeare's plays and the `Doctor' in
the earlier Mysteries ‑ a type of narrator or even Director of Ceremonies. In
addition we here meet the two women with their disputed child, the Queen of
Sheba, God, and King Hiram of Tyre. The assistance of the latter is fully
displayed but there is not one mention of another Hiram or indeed of any such
special artificer, and yet the phrases used in their speeches are clearly a
close copy of the English Bible version employed. The Queen of Sheba's visit
is similarly restrained and limited to the Bible story.
Whilst
unable in this paper to develop that fascinating sidelight on the
seventeenth‑century background of our own masonic scene, the puppet shows, we
note that constantly in the air, and visibly on the ground, in the vicinity of
all the major towns, there were dramatic presentations which must have
commanded public support and popular attendance for them to continue unabated
as they did. By these means the vestiges of folk‑story and miracle play or
Morality were continued ‑ and they were not all that persisted. Henry Morley,
the historian of Bartholomew Fair, tells us that in Oliver Cromwell's time
`there was much secret connivance at dramatic entertainment. Private
performances were held now at one place, now at another ... Of the secret
performances at Holland House there is special recollection.' One particular
feature of Conder's history of the Company of Masons which attracted my
attention during the period of preparing this lecture was the fact that from
the time of 1665 when there began to be regular inventories of the Hall's
goods there is significant attention paid to `One book called Sebastian Serlio'
(pp 179, 95, 250). It is, I believe, not unimportant that we should note this
interest, especially when the book at one point is missing. Serlio was one of
the best known architectural guides for the period of neo‑classical styling,
though his name tends to be overshadowed by Vitruvius and Palladio in the
common mind. However, the main contribution of Serlio's work was in the design
and presentation of dramatic performances and the planning and preparation of
stage sets for the new kind of `perspective theatre' that took its rise in the
seventeenth century. I therefore found myself drawn by this fact to look again
at the link of the Masons' Company with the whole field of dramatic production
and began to notice the particular part played in its affairs by Inigo Jones
and Nicholas Stone, both of whom were members and of which the latter was even
Master in 1633.
During
the period of this lecture's preparation we have witnessed in London a very
marked acknowledgement of the work of Inigo Jones, clearly a person of
considerable note and influence in his own day. About this `architect' and his
extant work one feature becomes increasingly obvious: his concept of building
was theatrical and pragmatic, and some of his greatest contributions to
English art were not continuing structures of stone but the Court Masques
which showed remarkable ingenuity and invention. Even the great Banqueting
Hall in Whitehall was conceived with the Royal entertainments in view. Not
only so, DRAMA AND CRAFT but as Glynne Wickham says perceptively in his Early
English Stages (vol 1), `it is a singular and all too frequently unnoticed
fact that Jones, a painter and architect, and his Court Amateurs (the lord and
lady maskers) were able to set their ideas up in competition with the leading
professional actors and managers of the day and beat them at their own game.'
For it is a fact that in Restoration England, after what Jones achieves, the
Court Mask (like Solomon and the Queen of Sheba performed in 1607) was
preferred to the public theatrical presentations. `Where,' continues Wickham,
`in 1605 and after, did Inigo Jones find the craftsmen and technicians to
execute and operate his elaborate stage sets' for Royal entertainment? The
answer would appear to be obvious. From those men and their sons and
apprentices who were already familiar with the intricacies of Miracle and
Morality play productions in which casts of 50‑100 actors might be engaged, in
which many hundreds of pounds were involved, and at which audiences of many
thousands expectantly awaited a figure to ascend from the earth, rain to
deluge, a temple to go up in flames as in the Digby plays, or an earthquake to
occur, as in the latter Coventry play, The Destruction of Jerusalem. When to
all that experience you add the increasingly welldocumented Street Pageants'
history in which public constructions and presentations were needed around
fountains, archways, fronts of buildings and bridges, the link of dramatic
spectacle and it symbolism, even after the High Middle Age, becomes more and
more obvious. In 1501, for example, the City authorities pay the masons and
carpenters `xiis and iiid for work done' in connection with a Street Pageant.
Space alone prevents one from pursuing this matter in more detail.
(iii)
It is now necessary to turn to the development of new attitudes in religious
thought and practice. Up to the time of the Reformation the Hebraic section of
the Bible was regarded mainly as a series of cyclical prophecies pointing to
the Christian Messiah. Thus Noah was depicted on a pillar of the Doge's Palace
in Venice posed against a vine, as Jesus on a parallel pillar was posed
against the Cross, or, at Canterbury, as experiencing in the Flood the Baptism
of Jesus. Of this I have already written enough. What might be interestingly
added here was that when Luther sought a translation of the Bible into German
it was not in order to change this method of interpretation but so as to
weaken the hold one Church had upon it. The Geneva Version of 1560, a
translation beloved by the Calvanist Protestants, was heavily embedded in this
medieval type of interpretation, having a preface to each chapter in the form
of a `key' to the typological cypher. Yet this style of Bible approach was
soon to change. As far as the dramatist is concerned we are to pass from the
saintly otherworldliness of the New Testament to the martial vigour of the
Old. In the place of the mainly New Testament Mystery plays we see the
appearance of those Hebrew stories which reflect the excitement and stimulus
of the Renaissance ‑ the vindication of Susanna, the rebellion of Absalom, and
the heroism of Judith. The typology of the Old Testament diminished as the
study of Hebrew developed, and eight new English translations of the Bible
between 1535 and 1611 meant that a great deal of new understanding about the
`facts' of the Scriptures emerged. To quote Murray Roston once more: 237 238
`THE PRESTONIAN LECTURES' . . . the biblical drama of the Renaissance
preserved beneath its classical exterior that concern with a religious message
which had animated the mediaeval mysteries. The religious message was,
however, a very different one: it was a new insistence upon divine justice
visible in the pattern of human affairs.
The
effect of this upon the way in which a Luther, for instance, would regard
religious plays as important for instruction ‑ and he did ‑ is noteworthy for
our purpose. It gave the Old Testament stories a new archetypal goal. `As he
read the biblical tales of the patriarchs, prophets and kings, and of their
struggle for moral probity in the midst of worldly temptation, the Protestant
looked for their true meaning in his own spiritual and even political
exertions. He began to see himself in biblical terms, re‑enacting or
"post‑figuring" in his life leading incidents from the lives of the scriptural
heroes.' (My italics.) To take one example. The Pilgrim Fathers no longer
looked upon the escape of the Israelites across the Red Sea as a prefiguring
of the release of the first Christians from sin by Christ but rather saw this
event as a post‑figuring of their own escape by sea to a NEW England, to God's
own country. Vice versa: the victorious destiny and example of the biblical
hero was likely to be the destiny of the post‑figurer too. You can see the
obvious masonic implications.
One
thing more. the shift from a definitely Catholic exegesis of the Bible text to
something other required new insight and fresh stimulus that was to be found
only among the rabbinic, and specifically, the Cabbalistic writers. It is here
that we are naturally, and admittedly, nearer to previously‑known influences
on our seventeenth‑century masonic development. We are here, not because of
any theoretical progression, but from the obvious dramatic guidelines that we
have followed throughout. The passionate identification of Milton with his
tragic figures could only be achieved when the mild disdain for the Jews which
is evident in medieval drama was replaced through knowledge and respect for
them as men closer to the purity of divine revelation than even the saints and
martyrs of the older Church. At this very point the public biblical drama
ceases for two centuries and what we have been pleased to describe as
`Speculative Freemasonry' emerges. By now, however, the conflux of paths
leading to a seventeenth‑century bridge is surely evident. Only one more
factor needs to be added.
(iv)
If, as Harry Carr stated in his 1957 Prestonian Lecture, the present‑day sense
of the word `speculative' as applied to the craft means `a peculiar system of
morality, veiled in allegory, and illustrated by symbols' then it will by now
be readily understood that such a term cannot be restricted to the later
developments of the Craft as if there were no speculative elements at the
earlier stages. If, however, we can agree that the term is one which can
profitably be used to describe, in a kind of shorthand, the seventeenth
century and later developments so that we emerge in the early nineteenth
century With a freemasonry much more obviously like that of the present, then
so be it. The time may be coming, however, when we need to revalue our
hitherto effective terminology.
The
Rev Keith Bennett writing in the Scottish Grand Lodge Year Book for 1968
suggests that as the Guilds became defunct, and church or abbey DRAMA AND
CRAFT 239 construction diminished, so the masons turned in large measure to
wealthy patrons and engaged in the construction of those new homes from
derelict ecclesiastical sites which they or their fathers and `brothers' had
laboured on for so long. As they so laboured `they brought their wealth of
traditional lore and custom, imbibed from previous close association with
ecclesiastics and the Church. Many of their religious practices dropped away
but the heart of their philosophy remained, a philosophy still closely guarded
against outsiders.' Obviously the masons' method of life was its own
reference. Struck by its antiquity, attracted by its mystery . . .
antiquarians and scholars sought to examine their manuscripts and,
interestingly enough, they were not withheld. `Can we be masons?' they asked;
to be answered, `We cannot admit you as masons because you are not masons, but
although you are not, we will accept you as though you were.' Hence the
traditions were open to be shared and commented on.
It is
at this point that we may properly consider, again all too briefly, the
indications stemming from the seventeenth‑century Scottish workings that
something of what we have already noticed in dramatic productions is embedded
in the earliest masonic Catechisms which we possess. What do they show? First:
that there is much more to the ceremonies than words, and most certainly more
than the words which we possess. The Edinburgh Register House MS 1969 records
how `after a great many ceremonies to frighten' the candidate `you make him
take up the Bible'. In much the same way it is clear to anyone who is
acquainted with the medieval plays that the words are but one element in an
activity which can only be fully appreciated in its live performance. Later on
the same point is again emphasised as we read that `after he has taken the
oath he is removed out of the company, with the youngest mason, where after he
is sufficiently frightened with 1,000 ridiculous postures and grimmaces, He is
to learn . . .' The scenario is the same; the activity and the characters
change their meaning. Another play, another drama, has to be produced.
Second: we are clear that there are precise and peculiar (the documents say,
,ridiculous, foolish') ways of doing things. Standing with the hands, bowing,
taking off the hat, communicating with each other. The activity may be less
formal than we imagine to be the case today but it is still in a fixed manner
and there is no question that it must be done correctly ‑ it is dramatic
ritual. Third: the specifically Christian element is still noticeable even
though allusions to the Temple are also present. The candidate speaks of
swearing by `God and St John' and when we encounter the dialogue in the Sloane
MS of c 1700 we read, Q. from whome do you derive your principalls A. from a
greater than you.
Q. who
is that on earth that is greater than a A. he yt was caryed to ye highest
pinnicall of freemason the Temple of Jerusalem, or, in some variants, Q. where
was the word first given A. at the Tower of Babylon 240 `THE PRESTONIAN
LECTURES' Q. where did they first call their Lodge Q. at the holy Chapell of
St John.
Yet
these replies are but pale reflections of the background against which we have
been looking at late mediaeval masonic life as compared with the contents of
the Dumfries No 4 MS of c 1710. In that document we encounter the following:
`The almighty father of holiness the wisdom of the glorius jesus through the
grace of the holy ghost these three persons in one godhead . . .' as a Prayer
of Admittance, and then later, in the question Propounded and Answered we
have, Q. what was ye greatest wonder yt seen or heard about the temple A. god
was man & man was god mary was a mother & yet a maid ... Q. what is meant by
ye brassen see yt Hiram framed ...
A. . .
. But now we finde it was tipe of Christs blood whose blood was to purge sin
and to wash ye elect ...
Q.
what meant ye golden dore of ye temple Or they went in to sanctum sanctorum A.
it was nother type of Christ who is ye door ye way and the truth & ye life by
whome and in whom all ye elect entreth into heaven.
It
need only be said here that for anyone who has any further desire to search
the documents they are all available. When you discover, as I have, a mention
of our contact 'Fergus' in a record of 1724, and the comment in 1740 that
there is light `far surpassing Sun or Moon . . . The Light of the Gospel' you
may indeed wonder how we could ever have overlooked the earlier connections
adumbrated here.
CONCLUSION We have now reached that point where, in time‑honoured fashion,
`these words must be the last'. What I have hoped to present in this Lecture
is a still further comment on the same search carried out by Edward Conder
over seventy years ago when he investigated the claims of medieval drama as `a
possible source for some of the essential portions in the ritual of the craft
at the present day'. I would be the first to admit that this Lecture has
probably raised more questions than those that is has attempted to answer. As
I said at the beginning of this ,enquiry', I believe that much more work
remains to be done and I would perhaps contribute by showing the kinds of
areas in which more research was required. I would invoke the words of Bro
Speth, the first Secretary of the Quatuor Coronati Lodge, `Let us, by all
means, make a distinction between what is proved up to the hilt and what is
highly probable, but let us cease to assert that nothing is possible which is
not capable of Euclidian demonstration.' What I hope that I have sufficiently
shown is that what we now possess in contemporary freemasonry is a dramatic
practice which has links with, and echoes of, the past of a much more
persistent nature than we might previously have been aware. What we now enjoy,
despite its exclusive Christian origins, is a refashioned esoteric experience
that bears the marks of almost every age through which it has passed from the
time of the first Masonic Constitutions until now. We have, I become more and
more convinced, a ritual procedure that carries within it dramatic emphases
that are the lasting imprints of an earlier DRAMA AND CRAFT masonic age which
no amount of refining and redesigning in the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries could erase, because this is the very stuff that masonry is made of
‑ a system of moral instruction and practical fellowship, framed in given
allegorical forms and enlightened by deep, folk‑laden symbols. Moreover it is
now, happily, a fellowship in which men of every creed and race can freely
meet and engage. It is not ‑ because it never was or was intended to be ‑ a
religion or the practice of a religion. And yet . . .
For
those who have eyes to see and ears to hear with, not least those who continue
to wonder what is meant by this or that facet of our ceremonies and who ask in
our study circles, `Why do we do or say these things?', I can only close with
one word from one who, if never a member of the Craft, at least was alive to
drama: There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy.
241
BIBLIOGRAPHY The Miracle Play Manchester Assocn. Mas. Research. 1942.
`The
Miracle Play' AQC. 1901, vol. XIV, pp. 60ff. The Legend of the Third Degree
Brit. Mas, Misc. ix Hiramic Legend and the Mediaeval Stage. The Builder. 1926.
English Religious Drama Oxford University Press. The English Mystery Plays
Routledge. 1972 Early English Stages Routledge. 1963.
The
Play called Corpus Christi E. Arnold. 1966. Biblical Drama under the Tudors
Mouton. 1971. The Corpus Christi Play of the Eng. Middle Ages 1972.
Drama
and Imagery in English Med. Churches CUP. 1963 The Imagery of British Churches
Murray. 1955. Mediaeval Plays in Scotland OUP. 1927.
Early
Irish Stage OUP. 1955.
Norris, E. (editor) The Ancient Cornish Drama Oxford. 1859. Longsworth, Robert
The Cornish Ordinalia Harvard. 1967.
Harris, Markham The Cornish Ordinalia Washington. 1969. Les Mysteres Geneva.
1968 (2 vols) Le Mistere du Viel Testament Paris. 1882.
The
Mediaeval French Drama OUP. 1954. (edn. 1972). The Mediaeval Architect Wayland
Pubs. 1972.
Theatre of the World Routledge. 1969. John Dee Routledge. 1972.
Pick,
F. L.
Conder,
E. Race, Robert Thiemeyer, E. E.
Hardin
Craig Woolf, Rosemary Wickham, Glynne Kolve, V. A. Blackburn, Ruth Davies, R.
T.
Anderson, M. D. Anderson, M. D. Mill, Anna Jean Clark, Wm. Smith Julleville
Rothschild Frank, Grace Harvey, John Yates, Frances A. French, Peter J.
1955.
Faber.
242
![](images/Flourish.gif)