Origins

[jason]

So something has compelled me to look into how we started. Everyone has lore and opinions. The only thing I think that can be agreed upon is the 1717 official public "start" date. However, due to other things going on, I just have not had the time to do as much research as I would like. I do have some notes. While in no way these notes are perfect, or even clear, I felt like posting them for comment and to see if people can add to it.





------------------------------------------------
1717 offical public date.

Regius Poem / Manuscript - First known Masonic Text 64 pages in poetic form. Begins evoking Euclid and his invention of geometry in Egypt. Between 14th century and middle of

15th. Author may have been West England clergyman. First thought a poem of moral duties until article on Freemasonry by James Halliwell in 1840. States Masonry was brought

to England during reign of King Athelstan from 924-939.


Matthew Cooke Manuscript - about 100 documents known as Freemasonry's Gothic Constitutions. Includes an invocation, a mythical legend of ancient Masonry, list of charges and

regulations for Masons and obligation. Published by R. Spencer London in 1861 edited by Mr Matthew Cooke. Has been dated by Hugham at 1450. Book of Charges which is second

part is 14th century, the historical or first part is early 15th. It is a copy of parts of two older manuscripts which have not survived, indicated by a break in the text and

epetition of a portion. Most certainly in the hands of Mr. George Payne, when his second term as Grand Master in 1720 he compiled the General Regulations. Anderson included

his own version of the Constitutions published in 1723. Anderson said to have made use of lines 901-960 of the manuscript.

The wayfarer by Hieronymus Bosch. 1500-1502

Dr James Anderson. First Grand Lodge constitution 1723- States Masonry started 9th century - King Athelstan.

Possible no Masons Guild in 1356. Municipalities had their own laws/rules, no set guidelines.

Mr Batham - Quatuor Coronati Lodge of Research - dispossessed monks after dissolution of monasteries England 1536-1538.
------------------------------------------------

Side note: Lodges with stars for ceiling. Reference to groups that met at night under the stars?

 

[Winter]

The 1717 "Origin" is a myth. For one, we agree that four Lodges came together in 1717 to form the first Grand Lodge. Ergo, Freemasonry predates this time and it was only then that formal regulation over larger jurisdictions as opposed to a cell system began.

Also, there are Lodges, still meeting today, with minutes that go back over 400 years! It is likely that the system of our Order goes back further, but evidence becomes very sparse before this.

Oldest Masonic Lodge Minutes - July 31, 1599: Lodge of Edinburgh No. 1 has records to prove its long time existence as the Oldest Masonic Lodge. Most impressively, its first 5 pages of minutes incorporate the Schaw Statutes which are dated December 28, 1598. Six months later, on July 31, 1599, are to be found the minutes which confirm the lodge's claim as having the oldest existing Masonic minutes. It must be noted, however, that from these minutes there exists no conclusive evidence that the lodge was actually constituted on this date.

Schaw Statutes: The Schaw Statutes (part of the Old Charges) are named for William Schaw, who was Master of Work to His Majesty and General Warden of the Masonic craft. In these Statutes, he declared that theses ordinances issued by him for the regulation of lodges considered the lodge at Edinburgh to be for all time, the first and principal lodge in Scotland.

(And don't forget to look up Lodge #0 Killwining! I got a coin from them Even older? Too bad the records have since been lost.)

 

[jason]

I feel the 1717 date is incorrect too. But that is the date given to most people asking about the start of Freemasonry. I consider it the public start date.

Thank you for some further info though. I will have to look up the minutes thing, it sounds interested.

 

[removed12612]

Is 1717 what is considered the start of FM...or the modern era of FM?

 

[Windrider]

From what i understand, Freemasonry in it's purely Operative form dates back to King Solomon's time and before. After all, the Master already had that title when soloman and the other Hiram asked him to build the Temple. I think the 1717 date was the line in the sand that most of us use because of the existance of a Grand Lodge.

The question is not so much when Freemasonry started, it's when did the Operative Freemasons allow the Speculative Freemasons to join. If memory serves me from reading "The Builders" that was in the 16th century.

 

[Winter]

There is no hard evidence that stonemasons involved in the building of the Temple of Solomon were involved in, or created, an organized society. Nor is there evidence, that if such a society existed, that it was founded on such lofty principals as ours. The continuity (and evidence) just isn't there.

I also have always had a hard time swallowing the party line that we grew out of operative stonemasons who began to allow learned men into their ranks, evolving into our system today. I dare you to go join the Steamfitters Union and start telling them that their wrenches are symbols of fidelity. It just doesn't wash.

Somewhere, sometime, in the past, a group of men who obviously had some type of understanding of initiatic rites of the ancient world came together to form the early Lodge system. The fact that these individuals felt the need to remain hidden from the world at large until 1717 (most didn't even want to go public then) is evidence that they felt that what they were about would not have been recieved well.

My guess? Men during the early Church who had learning and did not agree with Catholicism banded together for support for the purpose of gathering and preserving knowledge. It is easy to see how a society like this would have attracted men. I still can't figure out why establish a cover story with so many obvious flaws.

I know it has been written about Ad Nauseum. But most only focus on the most tenuous relationship to the Templars. All you have to do is look at the Regius / Halowell Manuscript to see that it is more plausable that we pre-date the Templars. More likely, when they fell from grace with the Church they had a ready-made bolthole to go underground in.

These are just my ramblings while I'm eating dinner. But I do like the topic!

 

[Ashlar2006]

Winter , Great post .

 

[PatrickWilliams]

So many things to respond to and so little time!

There is no hard evidence that stonemasons involved in the building of the Temple of Solomon were involved in, or created, an organized society. Nor is there evidence, that if such a society existed, that it was founded on such lofty principals as ours. The continuity (and evidence) just isn't there.

Absolutely agreed. It is much more reasonable to assume that out fraternity arose with some connection, no matter how small, to the trade guilds of medieval England. More on that later.

I also have always had a hard time swallowing the party line that we grew out of operative stonemasons who began to allow learned men into their ranks, evolving into our system today. I dare you to go join the Steamfitters Union and start telling them that their wrenches are symbols of fidelity. It just doesn't wash.

In fact it does wash, depending on what time period you look at and what sources you read. Samuel Pepys, famous for his diaries, mentioned something about going to lodge and he lived from 23 February 1633 – 26 May 1703. In other words, he died before the formation of Grand Lodge in London and yet leaves intriguing evidence that he was a Mason (not operative). There are other citations extant, and indeed the Regius Poem (believed to have been transcribed around 1390) indicates that the King and other nobles were 'members' of Grand Lodge, at least, giving some small credence to the idea of a long history of speculative Masonry. Now these references prove nothing, but they give us clues that cannot be refuted or overlooked.

Somewhere, sometime, in the past, a group of men who obviously had some type of understanding of initiatic rites of the ancient world came together to form the early Lodge system. The fact that these individuals felt the need to remain hidden from the world at large until 1717 (most didn't even want to go public then) is evidence that they felt that what they were about would not have been recieved well.

Yes. We also must keep in mind Theatre History, particularly the Morality Plays of medieval Europe. Just about every trade guild "owned" a Morality Play that they would perform on holy days for the local population. It's amazing to me how much our 3rd degree resembles some of the Morality Plays that are extant. Now we know that the Master's Degree is a 'modern' innovation, that is, it was not performed as a degree until comparatively recently in Masonic history, BUT we have no idea whatever how long (or even if) the Masonic Guild system 'owned' or performed morality plays. We also have no idea of what ceremonies, if any, the Guilds performed for initiates or fellowcrafts. Unfortunately, any 'degrees' and most of the Morality Plays were closely held secrets of the Trade Guilds (where they existed at all). And indeed, as you so wisely typed, our predecessors "felt the need to remain hidden from the world at large". After all, one of the many things that happened in England in 1717 was that the populace was finally given the right to freedom of conscience. Before then, having religious beliefs that differed publicly from those of the State could (and sometimes did) get you killed. Whether comparatively modern members that formed the Lodges were familiar with the initiatic systems of the ancient world, or whether they were merely continuing a process that had been handed down from 'time immemorial' is something we will probably never know for sure, and your speculation is as good as mine.

My guess? Men during the early Church who had learning and did not agree with Catholicism banded together for support for the purpose of gathering and preserving knowledge. It is easy to see how a society like this would have attracted men. I still can't figure out why establish a cover story with so many obvious flaws.

Impossible to say that there are flaws in the history as handed down (although the great probability is that there are). That's a great guess and smacks of the theory that out fraternity actually sprang from the Comacines.

I know it has been written about Ad Nauseum. But most only focus on the most tenuous relationship to the Templars. All you have to do is look at the Regius / Halowell Manuscript to see that it is more plausable that we pre-date the Templars. More likely, when they fell from grace with the Church they had a ready-made bolthole to go underground in.

Even the Grand Encampment of the Knights Templar no longer claims any direct connection to the historical Templars. That's 'old news'. However, as to the bolthole ... one merely has to look at the social history of Europeans to refute that. There are many cases in history (even into the 1600's) where people would rather starve to death, be tortured, etc. than step outside of the class structure that society had at that time. As the Templar Knights (there were classes within the Templar organization, after all) were of noble birth (one of the prerequisites) it is extremely unlikely that, in the 1390's, they would deign to hang around with, and/or fraternize with, commoners or tradespeople. Indeed, the Templars did have class appropriate boltholes. Knightly Orders in Spain and Portugal (like, but not limited to, Alcantara) were formed specifically to receive Templar knights and would have been much more class appropriate. The Templars did, indeed, have options.

These are just my ramblings while I'm eating dinner. But I do like the topic!

Well, these are just my ramblings after breakfast and over another cup of coffee. I like the topic, too.

 

[Winter]

In fact it does wash, depending on what time period you look at and what sources you read. Samuel Pepys, famous for his diaries, mentioned something about going to lodge and he lived from 23 February 1633 – 26 May 1703. In other words, he died before the formation of Grand Lodge in London and yet leaves intriguing evidence that he was a Mason (not operative). There are other citations extant, and indeed the Regius Poem (believed to have been transcribed around 1390) indicates that the King and other nobles were 'members' of Grand Lodge, at least, giving some small credence to the idea of a long history of speculative Masonry. Now these references prove nothing, but they give us clues that cannot be refuted or overlooked.

But none of this points to an operative guild of stonemasons that was the base for a system of morality that kings and princes were proud to be a member of.

 

[PatrickWilliams]

But none of this points to an operative guild of stonemasons that was the base for a system of morality that kings and princes were proud to be a member of.

Twue, twue, how twue (thank you Peter Cook). You never said in your original post that that is what you were looking for the proof of. But we DO know that Freemasonry existed in some form before 1717. I think the initiatic rite part was an invention of the Post-1717 brothers, who for some reason were desperate to prove that we were ancient and extremely important. That, however, does not invalidate Masonry, nor does it mean that there was not some form of initiatic rite attached to it at any point in its history. Our history is lost in the fog of time ... we COULD have come from some ancient initiatic rite. I mean, it IS possible. I also think that it's extremely unlikely.

 

[jason]

There are many cases in history (even into the 1600's) where people would rather starve to death, be tortured, etc. than step outside of the class structure that society had at that time. As the Templar Knights (there were classes within the Templar organization, after all) were of noble birth (one of the prerequisites) it is extremely unlikely that, in the 1390's, they would deign to hang around with, and/or fraternize with, commoners or tradespeople. Indeed, the Templars did have class appropriate boltholes. Knightly Orders in Spain and Portugal (like, but not limited to, Alcantara) were formed specifically to receive Templar knights and would have been much more class appropriate. The Templars did, indeed, have options.

I just wanted to touch on something real quick before dinner.

When the Knights Templar were at their peak, there were 15,000 to 20,000 members involved with 10% of whom were actually knights. While being born of noble birth was a requirement for knighthood, it was not for other positions.

While I do not think Masonry was born from the Templars, I do feel there was some influence. Either from the masons they hired to build their cathedrals or other sources.

Also, there was a battle in Scotland along with Sweden after the Templars were disbanded where a group of knights dressed similar to the Templars. Not to mention Sweden's banking system.

Anyway, just a quick ramble, time to eat.

 

[PatrickWilliams]

I just wanted to touch on something real quick before dinner.

When the Knights Templar were at their peak, there were 15,000 to 20,000 members involved with 10% of whom were actually knights. While being born of noble birth was a requirement for knighthood, it was not for other positions.

While I do not think Masonry was born from the Templars, I do feel there was some influence. Either from the masons they hired to build their cathedrals or other sources.

Also, there was a battle in Scotland along with Sweden after the Templars were disbanded where a group of knights dressed similar to the Templars. Not to mention Sweden's banking system.

Anyway, just a quick ramble, time to eat.

All the above is true. But it still doesn't mean that the Templar knights showed up in Scotland after their order was demolished. Yes, the largest contingent in Templarism were the clerks, and as they were the ones who really operated the banking, etc. It's far more likely that they ended up with the bucks (if there were any bucks to end up with). However, they (all the Templars, no matter what class) were staunch Catholics. It's also fairly unlikely that ANY of them took the money and ran with it.

The battles with others in Scotland where knights 'showed up' to help ... well that's legend and has never been proven. The Scots themselves claimed that camp followers dressed up and made lots of noise, giving the actual knights and soldiers on the ground a chance to reorganize. But nobody wants to believe that because it's just not as good of a story.

Was there Templar influence in Freemasonry? Very likely, assuming that Freemasonry existed at that point in history. The Templar organization, at its height, was spread all over Europe, and had lots of money and influence. It would be fair to say that there was heavy Templar influence in all phases of European life.

 

[Winter]

There is the curiosity of a lot of gravestones in Scotland in the Templar style, a plain slab bearing only the outline of a sword, that date to the correct period though.

And the senior archaeologist at Killmartin Museum said that there are extant charters showing land being granted in Argyle to the Templars by Robert the Bruce.

 

[Duncan1574]

All the above is true. But it still doesn't mean that the Templar knights showed up in Scotland after their order was demolished. Yes, the largest contingent in Templarism were the clerks, and as they were the ones who really operated the banking, etc. It's far more likely that they ended up with the bucks (if there were any bucks to end up with). However, they (all the Templars, no matter what class) were staunch Catholics. It's also fairly unlikely that ANY of them took the money and ran with it.

The battles with others in Scotland where knights 'showed up' to help ... well that's legend and has never been proven. The Scots themselves claimed that camp followers dressed up and made lots of noise, giving the actual knights and soldiers on the ground a chance to reorganize. But nobody wants to believe that because it's just not as good of a story.

Was there Templar influence in Freemasonry? Very likely, assuming that Freemasonry existed at that point in history. The Templar organization, at its height, was spread all over Europe, and had lots of money and influence. It would be fair to say that there was heavy Templar influence in all phases of European life.

But what about the portion of the Templar Treasure that each Lodge has in the underground vault...

(Does anyone know where and when the card game for the Grail is this year?)

 

[PatrickWilliams]

There is the curiosity of a lot of gravestones in Scotland in the Templar style, a plain slab bearing only the outline of a sword, that date to the correct period though.

And the senior archaeologist at Killmartin Museum said that there are extant charters showing land being granted in Argyle to the Templars by Robert the Bruce.

When you think about it, Winter, the gravestones are not such a big mystery. There were several Templar Preceptories in Scotland. There were Templar Preceptories everywhere in Europe. So there's also going to be Templar graves. Now, this isn't such a big mystery - one did not say "No" to the Templars when they were at the height of their power: Of course Bobby Bruce granted them land. Everyone granted them land; to refuse would have been an insult to the Church. That there are Templar-style graves in Scotland is to be expected - there were Templars around.

 

[PatrickWilliams]

But what about the portion of the Templar Treasure that each Lodge has in the underground vault...

(Does anyone know where and when the card game for the Grail is this year?)

SHHH!!! This forum isn't tyled, brother.

 

[PatrickWilliams]

When you think about it, Winter, the gravestones are not such a big mystery. There were several Templar Preceptories in Scotland. There were Templar Preceptories everywhere in Europe. So there's also going to be Templar graves. Now, this isn't such a big mystery - one did not say "No" to the Templars when they were at the height of their power: Of course Bobby Bruce granted them land. Everyone granted them land; to refuse would have been an insult to the Church. That there are Templar-style graves in Scotland is to be expected - there were Templars around.

More on this while I'm waiting for the caffeine to kick in: Winter, it's obvious that you've been reading "Born in Blood". Baignet's pet theory is that the Templars escaped to Scotland, and he says a lot (and doesn't say a lot) to prove his theory. He also says that the nation of Scotland was excommunicated from the Church. That's just absurd. Robert the Bruce had been excommunicated, true, but not the whole nation. And excommunication of a ruler was not such a rare thing. The Church used that as a tool to keep folks in line: excommunicate the ruler and the local Church and the people would put pressure on the king to get back in good graces with the Pope. I'm told that there are letters extant which demonstrate that Brucie was trying to do just that. Assuming that was the case, then why would he take in the Templars? That would really cheese Rome off.

Looking back on that long paragraph, I think the caffeine is finally doing its job.

 

[removed12612]

I am impressed..... you got your thinkin cap on early this morning.....

 

[PatrickWilliams]

I am impressed..... you got your thinkin cap on early this morning.....

You should see me when I really get going!

 

[Grant Myers]

Although I am hardly qualified on this subject, our information is that the modern Freemasons were "established" during the seventh minute, of the seventh hour, of the seventh day, of the seventh month, seventeen, seventeen. We have no idea if the word "modern" Freemasons pertains to anything. We also have no idea if established is different from founded. The Sea Masons, have no "official" connection to the Freemasons. As they have no "official" connection to us Cafuelarena. Though we are both aquatic, and lean to Atlantis rather than Egypt and Soloman. The Sea Masons, open to any male connected to the sea, were founded/established, on the seventh minute, of the seventh hour, of the seventh day, of the seventh month, seventy seven (1977). With the Sea Masons, who wear blue and white, even a bell or gong (possibly some sort of ships bell) was struck at the seventh second, of the seventh minute, of the seventh hour. There are conspiracy theories as to the real reason why the Freemasons appear to be extra generous to the lifeboats charity. But actual proof is thin. The stone mason idea maybe symbolic, the masons are builders, but builders of what? Grant Myers, Vice President Cafuelarena.