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

HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY

 

SIX HUNDRED YEARS OF CRAFT RITUAL

 

BRETHREN, MANY of you will know that I travel vast distances in the course of my lecture duties and the further I go the more astonished I am to see how many Brethren believe, quite genuinely, that our masonic ritual came down straight from heaven, directly into the hands of King Solomon. They are all quite certain that it was in English, of course, because that is the only language they speak up there. They are equally sure that it was all engraved on two tablets of stone, so that, heaven forbid, not one single word should ever be altered; and most of them believe that King Solomon, in his own lodge, practised the same ritual as they do in theirs.

 

But, it was not like that at all, and tonight I am going to try to sketch for you the history of our ritual from its very beginnings up to the point when it was virtually standardised, in 1813; but you must remember, while I am talking about English ritual 1 am also giving you the history of your own ritual as well. One thing is going to be unusual about tonight's talk. Tonight you are not going to get any fairy‑tales at all. Every word I utter will be based on documents which can be proved: and on the few rare occasions when, in spite of having the documents, we still have not got complete and perfect proof, I shall say loud and clear 'We think . . .' or 'We believe . . .'. Then you will know that we are, so‑to‑speak, on uncertain ground; but 1 will give you the best that we know. And since a talk of this kind must have a proper starting point, let me begin by saying that Freemasonry did not begin in Egypt, or Palestine, or Greece, or Rome.

 

BEGINNINGS OF MASON TRADE ORGANISATION

 

It all started in London, England, in the year 1356, a very important date, and it started as the result of a good old‑fashioned

 

2   HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY

 

demarcation dispute. Now, you all know what a demarcation dispute is. When the boys in a trade union cannot make up their minds who is going to knock the nails and who will screw the screws, that is a demarcation dispute. And that is how it started, in 1356, when there was a great row going on in London between the mason hewers, the men who cut the stone, and the mason layers and setters, the men who actually built the walls. The exact details of the quarrel are not known, but, as a result of this row, 12 skilled master masons, with some famous men among them, came before the mayor and aldermen at Guildhall in London, and, with official permission, drew up a simple code of trade regulations.

 

The opening words of that document, which still survives, say that these men had come together because their trade had never been regulated in such form as other trades were. So here, in this document, we have an official guarantee that this was the very first attempt at some sort of trade organisation for the masons and, as we go through the document, the very first rule that they drew up gives a clue to the demarcation dispute that I was talking about. They ruled, `That every man of the trade may work at any work touching the trade if he be perfectly skilled and knowing in the same.' Brethren, that was the wisdom of Solomon! If you knew the job, you could do the job, and nobody could stop you! If we only had that much common sense nowadays in England, how much better off we should be.

 

The organisation that was set up at that time became, within 20 years, the London Masons Company, the first trade guild of the masons and one of the direct ancestors of our Freemasonry of today. This was the real beginning. Now the London Masons Company was not a lodge; it was a trade guild and I ought to spend a lot of time trying to explain how lodges began, a difficult problem because we have no records of the actual foundation of the early operative lodges.

 

Briefly, the guilds were town organisations, greatly favoured by the towns because they helped in the management of municipal affairs. In London, for example, from 1376 onwards, each of the trades elected two representatives who became members of the Common Council, all together forming the city government. But the mason trade did not lend itself to town organisation at all. Most of their main work was outside the towns ‑ the castles, the abbeys, the monaster‑

 

SIX HUNDRED YEARS OF CRAFT RITUAL    3

 

ies, the defence works, the really big jobs of masonry were always far from the towns. And we believe that it was in those places, where there was no other kind of trade organisation, that the masons, who were engaged on those jobs for years on end, formed themselves into lodges, in imitation of the guilds, so that they had some form of self‑government on the job, while they were far away from all other forms of trade control.

 

The first actual information about lodges comes to us from a collection of documents which we know as the `Old Charges' or the Manuscript Constitutions' of masonry, a marvellous collection. They begin with the Regius Manuscript c1390; the next, the Cooke Manuscript is dated c1410 and we have 130 versions of these documents running right through to the eighteenth century.

 

The oldest version, the Regius Manuscript, is in rhyming verse and differs, in several respects, from the other texts, but, in their general shape and contents they are all very much alike. They begin with an Opening Prayer, Christian and Trinitarian, and then they go on with a history of the craft, starting in Bible times and in Bible lands, and tracing the rise of the craft and its spread right across Europe until it reached France and was then brought across the channel and finally established in England. Unbelievably bad history; any professor of history would drop dead if he were challenged to prove it; but the masons believed it. This was their guarantee of respectability as an ancient craft.

 

Then, after the history we find the regulations, the actual Charges, for masters, fellows and apprentices, including several rules of a purely moral character, and that is all. Occasionally, the name of one of the characters changes, or the wording of a regulation will be altered slightly, but all follow the same general pattern.

 

Apart from these three main sections, prayer, history and Charges, in most of them we find a few words which indicate the beginnings of masonic ceremony. I must add that we cannot find all the information in one single document; but when we study them as a collection, it is possible to reconstruct the outline of the admission ceremony of those days, the earliest ceremony of admission into the craft.

 

We know that the ceremony, such as it was, began with an opening prayer and then there was a `reading' of the history. (Many later documents refer to this `reading'.) In those days, 99 masons in 100 could not read, and we believe, therefore, that they selected

 

4   HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY

 

particular sections of the history which they memorised and recited from memory. To read the whole text, even if they could read, would have taken much too long. So the second part of the ceremony was the `reading'.

 

Then, we find an instruction, which appears regularly in practically every document, usually in Latin, and it says: `Then one of the elders holds out a book [sometimes "the book", sometimes the "Bible", and sometimes the "Holy Bible"] and he or they that are to be admitted shall place their hand thereon, and the following Charges shall be read.' In that position the regulations were read out to the candidate and he took the oath, a simple oath of fidelity to the king, to the master and to the craft, that he would obey the regulations and never bring the craft to shame. This was a direct lift from the guild oath, which was probably the only form that they knew; no frills, no penalties, a simple oath of fidelity to the king, the employer (the master) and to the trade.

 

From this point onwards, the oath becomes the heart and marrow, the crucial centre of every masonic ceremony. The Regius, which is the first of the versions to survive, emphasizes this and it is worth quoting here. After the reading of the Charges in the Regius Manuscript, we get these words: `And all the points hereinbefore To all of them he must be sworn, And all shall swear the same oath Of the masons, be they willing, be they loth' Whether they liked it or not, there was only one key that would open the door into the craft and that was the mason's oath. The importance, which the Regius attaches to it, we find repeated over and over again, not in the same words, but the emphasis is still there. The oath or obligation is the key to the admission ceremony.

 

So there I have described for you the earliest ceremony and now I can justify the title of my paper, Six Hundred Years of Craft Ritual. We have 1356 as the date of the beginnings of mason trade organisation, and around 1390 the earliest evidence which indicates a ceremony of admission. Split the difference. Somewhere between those two dates is when it all started. That is almost exactly 600 years of provable history and we can prove every stage of our development from then onwards.

 

SIX HUNDRED YEARS OF CRAFT RITUAL   5

 

Masonry, the art of building, began many thousands of years before this, but, for the antecedents of our own Freemasonry, we can only go back to the direct line of history that can be proved, and that is 1356, when it really began in Britain.

 

And now there is one other point that must be mentioned before I go any further. I have been speaking of a time when there was only one degree. The documents do not say that there is only one degree, they simply indicate only one ceremony, never more than one. But I believe it cannot have been for the apprentice, or entered apprentice; it must have been for the fellow of craft, the man who was fully trained. The Old Charges do not say this, but there is ample outside evidence from which we draw this conclusion. We have many law‑suits and legal decisions that show that in the 1400s an apprentice was the chattel of his master. An apprentice was a piece of equipment, that belonged to his master. He could be bought and sold in much the same way that the master would buy and sell a horse or a cow and, under such conditions, it is impossible that an apprentice had any status in the lodge. That came much later. So, if we can think ourselves back into the time when there was only one degree it must have been for the fully‑trained mason, the fellow of craft.

 

Almost 150 years were to pass before the authorities and parliament began to realise that maybe an apprentice was actually a human being as well. In the early 1500s we have in England a whole collection of labour statutes, labour laws, which begin to recognise the status of apprentices, and around that time we begin to find evidence of more than one degree.

 

From 1598 onwards we have minutes of two Scottish Lodges that were practising two degrees. I will come to that later. Before that date there is no evidence on degrees, except perhaps in one English document, the Harleian MS, No 2054, dated c1650, but believed to be a copy of a text of the late 1500s, now lost.

 

FIRST HINT OF TWO DEGREES The Harleian MS is a perfectly normal version of the Old Charges, but bound up with it is a note in the same handwriting containing a new version of the mason's oath, of particular importance because it shows a major change from all earlier forms of the oath. Here it is: There is seu'all words & signes of a free Mason to be revailed to yu w`h y░ will answ: before God at the Great & terrible day of Judgm` y░ keep secret

 

HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY

 

& not to revaile the same in the heares of any pson but to the M" & fellows of the said Society of free Masons so helpe me God xc.

 

Brethren, I know that I recited it too fast, but now I am going to read the first line again: There is several words and signs of a free mason to be revealed to you . . .' `Several words and signs . . .'plural, more than one degree. And here in a document that should have been dated 1550, we have the first hint of the expansion of the ceremonies into more than one degree. A few years later we have actual minutes that prove two degrees in practice. But notice, Brethren, that the ceremonies must also have been taking something of their modern shape.

 

They probably began with a prayer, a recital of part of the `history', the hand‑on‑book posture for the reading of the Charges, followed by an obligation and then the entrusting with secret words and signs, whatever they were. We do not know what they were, but we know that in both degrees the ceremonies were beginning to take the shape of our modern ceremonies. We have to wait quite a long while before we find the contents, the actual details, of those ceremonies, but we do find them at the end of the 1600s and that is my next theme. Remember, Brethren, we are still with only two degrees and I am going to deal now with the documents which actually describe those two ceremonies, as they first appeared on paper.

 

EARLIEST RITUAL FOR TWO DEGREES

 

The earliest evidence we have, is a document dated 1696, beautifully handwritten, and known as the Edinburgh Register House Manuscript, because it was found in the Public Record Office of Edinburgh. I deal first with that part of the text which describes the actual ceremonies. It is headed `THE FORME OF GIVING THE MASON WORD' which is one way of saying it is the manner of initiating a mason. It begins with the ceremony which made an apprentice into an 'entered‑ apprentice (usually about three years after the beginning of his indentures), followed by the ceremony for the admission of the ,master mason or fellow craft', the title of the second degree. The details are fascinating but I can only describe them very briefly, and wherever I can, I will use the original words, so that you can get the feel of the thing.  We are told that the candidate `was put to his knees' and `after a

 

SIX HUNDRED YEARS OF CRAFT RITUAL

 

great many ceremonies to frighten him' (rough stuff, horse‑play it you like; apparently they tried to scare the wits out of him) `after a great many ceremonies to frighten him', he was made to take up the book and in that position he took the oath, and here is the earliest version of the mason's oath described as part of a whole ceremony.

 

By god himself and you shall answer to god when you shall stand nakd before him, at the great day, you shall not reveal any pairt of what you shall hear or see at this time whither by word nor write nor put it in wryte at any time nor draw it with the point of a sword, or any other instrument upon the snow or sand, nor shall you speak of it but with an entered mason, so help you god.

 

Brethren, if you were listening very carefully, you have just heard the earliest version of the words 'Indite, carve, mark, engrave or otherwise them delineate'. The very first version is the one I have just read, `not write nor put it in wryte, nor draw it with a point of a sword or any other instrument upon the snow or sand.' Notice, Brethren, there was no penalty in the obligation, just a plain obligation of secrecy.

 

After he had finished the obligation the youngster was taken out of the lodge by the last previous candidate, the last person who had been initiated before him. Outside the door of the lodge he was taught the sign, postures and words of entry (we do not know what they are until he comes back). He came back, took off his hat and made `a ridiculous bow' and then he gave the words of entry, which included a greeting to the master and the brethren. It finished up with the words `under no less pain than cutting of my throat' and there is a sort of footnote which says `for you must make that sign when you say that'. This is the earliest appearance in any document of an entered apprentice's sign.

 

Now Brethren, forget all about your beautifully furnished lodges; I am speaking of operative masonry, when the lodge was either a little room at the back of a pub, or above a pub, or else a shed attached to a big building job; and if there were a dozen masons there, that would have been a good attendance. So, after the boy had given the sign, he was brought up to the Master for the `entrusting'. Here is the Master; here, nearby, is the candidate; here is the `instructor', and he, the instructor, whispers the word into the ear of his neighbour, who whispers the word to the next man and so on, all round the lodge, until it comes to the Master, and the Master gives the word to the

7   HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY

candidate. In this case, there is a kind of biblical footnote, which shows, beyond all doubt, that the word was not one word but two. B and J, two pillar names, for the entered apprentice. This is very important later, when we begin to study the evolution of three degrees. In the two‑degree system there were two pillars for the entered apprentice.

 

That was really the whole of the floorwork, but it was followed by a set of simple questions and answers headed 'SOME OUESTIONEs THAT MASONS USE TO PUT TO THOSE WHO HAVE YE WORD BEFORE THEY WILL ACKNOWLEDGE THEM'. It included a few questions for testing a stranger outside the lodge, and this text gives us the first and oldest version of the masonic catechism. Here are some of the fifteen questions. 'Are you a mason? How shall I know it? Where were you entered? What makes a true and perfect lodge? Where was the first lodge? Are there any lights in your lodge? Are there any jewels in your lodge?' the first faint beginnings of masonic symbolism. It is amazing how little there was at the beginning. There, Brethren, 15 questions and answers, which must have been answered for the candidate; he had not had time to learn the answers. And that was the whole of the entered apprentice ceremony.

 

Now remember, Brethren, we are speaking about operative masonry, in the days, when masons earned their living with hammer and chisel. Under those conditions the second degree was taken about seven years after the date of initiation when the candidate came back to be made 'master or fellow craft'. Inside the lodge those two grades were equal, both fully trained masons. Outside the lodge, one was an employer, the other an employee. If he was the son of a Freeman Burgess of the city, he could take his Freedom and set up as a master immediately. Otherwise, he had to pay for the privilege, and until then, the fellow craft remained an employee. But inside the lodge they both had the same second degree.

 

So, after the end of his indentures of apprenticeship, and serving another year or two for 'meat and fee', (ie board plus a wage) he came along then for the second degree. He was 'put to his knees and took the oath anew'. It was the same oath that he had taken as an apprentice, omitting only three words. Then he was taken out of the lodge by the youngest master, and there he was taught the signs, posture and words of entry (we still do not know what they were). He came back and he gave what is called the 'master sign', but it is not

 

SIX HUNDRED YEARS OF CRAFT RITUAL   9

 

described, so I cannot tell you about it. Then he was brought up for the entrusting. And now, the youngest master, the chap who had taken him outside, whispered the word to his neighbour, each in turn passing it all round the lodge, until it came to the Master, and the Master, on the five points of fellowship ‑ second degree, Brethren ‑ gave the word to the candidate. The five points in those days ‑ foot to foot, knee to knee, heart to heart, hand to hand, ear to ear, that is how it was at its first appearance. No Hiramic legend and no frills; only the FPOF and a word. But in this document the word is not mentioned. It appears very soon afterwards and I will deal with that later.

 

There were only two test questions for a fellowcraft degree, and that was the lot. Two degrees, beautifully described, not only in this document but in two other sister texts, the Chetwode Crawlev MS, dated about 1700 and the Kevan MS, quite recently discovered, dated about 1714. Three marvellous documents, all from the south of Scotland, all telling exactly the same story ‑ wonderful materials, if we dare to trust them. But, I am sorry to tell you Brethren that we, as scientists in masonry, dare not trust them, because they were written in violation of an oath. To put it at its simplest, the more they tell us the less they are to be trusted, unless, by some fluke or by some miracle, we can prove, as we must do, that these documents were actually used in a lodge; otherwise they are worthless. In this case, by a very happy fluke, we have got the proof and it makes a lovely story. That is what you are going to get now.

 

Remember, Brethren, our three documents are from 1696 to 1714. Right in the middle of this period, in the year 1702, a little group of Scottish gentlemen decided that they wanted to have a lodge in their own backyard so to speak. These were gentlemen who lived in the south of Scotland around Galashiels, some 30 miles S. E. of Edinburgh. They were all notable landowners in that area ‑ Sir John Pringle of Hoppringle, Sir James Pringle, his brother, Sir James Scott of Gala (Galashiels), their brother‑in‑law, plus another five neighbours came together and decided to form their own Lodge, in the village of Haughfoot near Galashiels. They chose a man who had a marvellous handwriting to be their scribe, and asked him to buy a minute book. He did. A lovely little leather‑bound book (octavo size), and he paid `fourteen shillings' Scots for it. I will not go into the difficulties of coinage now but today it would be about the equivalent

 

10   HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY

 

of twenty‑five cents. Being a Scotsman, he took very careful note of the amount and entered it in his minute book, to be repaid out of the first money due to the society. Then, in readiness for the first meeting of the lodge, he started off at what would have been page one with some notes, we do not know the details. But he went on and copied out the whole of one of these Scottish rituals, complete from beginning to end.

 

When he finished, he had filled ten pages, and his last twenty‑nine words of ritual were the first five lines at the top of page eleven. Now, this was a Scotsman, and I told you he had paid `fourteen shillings' for that book and the idea of leaving three‑quarters of a page empty offended against his native Scottish thrift. So, to save wasting it, underneath the twenty‑nine words, he put in a heading `The Same Day' and went straight on with the minutes of the first meeting of the Lodge. I hope you can imagine all this, Brethren, because I wrote the history of `The Lodge of Haughfoot', the first wholly non‑operative Lodge in Scotland, thirty‑four years older than the Grand Lodge of Scotland. The minutes were beautifully kept for sixty‑one years and eventually, in 1763, the Lodge was swallowed up by some of the larger surrounding lodges. The minute book went to the great Lodge of Selkirk and it came down from Selkirk to London for me to write the history.

 

We do not know when it happened but, sometime during those sixty‑one years, somebody, perhaps one of the later secretaries of the lodge, must have opened that minute book and caught sight of the opening pages and he must have had a fit! Ritual in a minute book! Out! And the first ten pages have disappeared; they are completely lost. That butcher would have taken page eleven as well but even he did not have the heart to destroy the minutes of the very first meeting of this wonderful lodge. So it was the minutes of the first meeting that saved those twenty‑nine golden words at the top of page eleven, and the twenty‑nine words are virtually identical with the corresponding portions of the Edinburgh Register House MS and its two sister texts. Those precious words are a guarantee that the other documents are to be trusted, and this gives us a marvellous starting point for the study of the ritual. Not only do we have the documents which describe the ceremonies; we also have a kind of yardstick, by which we can judge the quality of each new document as it arrives, and at this point they do begin to arrive.

 

SIX HUNDRED YEARS OF CRAFT RITUAL  11

 

Now Brethren, let me warn you that up to now we have been speaking of Scottish documents. Heaven bless the Scots! They took care of every scrap of paper, and if it were not for them we would have practically no history. Our earliest and finest material is nearly all Scottish. But, when the English documents begin to appear, they seem to fit. They not only harmonise, they often fill in the gaps in the Scottish texts. From here on, I will name the country of origin of those documents that are not English.

 

Within the next few years, we find a number of valuable ritual documents, including some of the highest importance. The first of these is the Sloane MS, dated c1700, an English text, in the British Library today. It gives various `gripes' which had not appeared in any document before. It gives a new form of the Mason's oath which contains the words `without Equivocation or mentall Resarvation'. That appears for the very first time in the Sloane MS, and Brethren, from this point onwards, every ritual detail I give you, will be a first‑timer. I shall not repeat the individual details as they reappear in the later texts, nor can I say precisely when a particular practice actually began. I shall simply say that this or that item appears for the first time, giving you the name and date of the document by which it can be proved.

 

If you are with me on this, you will realise ‑ and I beg you to think of it in this way ‑ that you are watching a little plant, a seedling of Freemasonry, and every word I utter will be a new shoot, a new leaf, a new flower, a new branch. You will be watching the ritual grow; and if you see it that way, Brethren, I shall know I am not wasting my time, because that is the only way to see it.

 

Now, back to the Sloane MS which does not attempt to describe a whole ceremony. It has a fantastic collection of `gripes' and other strange modes of recognition. It has a catechism of some twenty‑two Questions and Answers, many of them similar to those in the Scottish texts, and there is a note which seems to confirm two pillars for the EA.

 

A later paragraph speaks of a salutation (?) for the Master, a curious `hug' posture, with `the masters grip by their right hands and the top of their Left hand fingers thurst close on ye small of each others Backbone . . .'. Here, the word is given as `Maha ‑ Byn', half in one ear and half in the other, to be used as a test word.

 

That was its first appearance in any of our documents, and if you 12HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY were testing somebody, you would say 'Maha' and the other would have to say 'Byn'; and if he did not say 'Byn' you would have no business with him. (Demonstrate).

 

I shall talk about several other versions as they crop up later on, but I must emphasise that here is an English document filling the gaps in the three Scottish texts, and this sort of thing happens over and over again.

 

Now we have another Scottish document, the Dumfries No 4 MS, dated c1710. It contains a mass of new material, but I can only mention a few of the items. One of its questions runs: 'How were you brought in?' 'Shamfully, w' a rope about my neck'. This is the earliest cable‑tow; and a later answer says the rope 'is to hang me if I should betray my trust'. Dumfries also mentions that the candidate receives the 'Royal Secret' kneeling 'upon my left knee'.

 

Among many interesting Questions and Answers, it lists some of fhe unusual penalties of those days. 'My heart taken out alive, my head cut off, my body buried within ye sea‑mark.' 'Within ye sea‑mark' is the earliest version of the 'cable's length from the shore'. Brethren, there is so much more, even at this early date, but I have to be brief and I shall give you all the important items as we move forward into the next stage.

 

Meanwhile, this was the situation at the time when the first Grand Lodge was founded in 1717. We only had two degrees in England, one for the entered apprentice and the second was for the 'master or fellow craft'. Dr Anderson, who compiled the first English Book of Constitutions in 1723, actually described the English second degree as 'Masters and Fellow‑Craft'. The Scottish term had already invaded England.

 

The next big stage in the history of the ritual, is the evolution of the third degree. Actually, we know a great deal about the third degree, but there are some dreadful gaps. We do not know when it started or why it started, and we cannot be sure who started it! In the light of a lifetime of study, I am going to tell you what we know, and we will try to fill the gaps.

 

It would have been easy, of course, if one could stretch out a hand in a very good library and pull out a large minute‑book and say 'Well, there is the earliest third degree that ever happened;' but it does not work out that way. The minute‑books come much later.

 

SIX HUNDRED YEARS OF CRAFT RITUAL

 

HINTS OF THREE DEGREES

 

 The earliest hints of the third degree appear in documents like those that I have been talking about ‑ mainly documents that have been written out as aide‑inemoires for the men who owned them. But we have to use exposures as well, exposures printed for profit, or spite; and we get some useful hints of the third degree long before it actually appears in practice. And so, we start with one of the best, a lovely little text, a single sheet of paper known as the Trinity College, Dublin, Manuscript, dated 1711, found among the papers of a famous Irish doctor and scientist, Sir Thomas Molyneux. This document is headed with a kind of Triple Tau, and underneath it the words 'Under no less a penalty'. This is followed by a set of eleven O. and A. and we know straight away that something is wrong! We already have three perfect sets of fifteen questions, so eleven questions must be either bad memory or bad copying ‑ something is wrong! The questions are perfectly normal, only not enough of them. Then after the eleven questions we would expect the writer to give a description of the whole or part of the ceremony but, instead of that, he gives a kind of catalogue of the Freemason's words and signs.

 

He gives this sign (EA demonstrated) for the EA with the word B. He gives `knuckles, & sinues' as the sign for the 'fellow‑craftsman', with the word 'Jachquin'. The 'Master's sign is the back bone' and for him (ie the MM) the writer gives the world's worst description of the FPOF. (It seems clear that neither the author of this piece nor the writer of the Sloane MS, had ever heard of the Points of Fellowship, or knew how to describe them.) Here, as I demonstrate, are the exact words, no more and no less: Squeese the Master by ye back bone, put your knee between his, & say Matchpin.

 

That, Brethren, is our second version of the word of the third degree. We started with 'Mahabyn', and now 'Matchpin', horribly debased. Let me say now, loud and clear, nobody knows what the correct word was. It was probably Hebrew originally, but all the early versions are debased. We might work backwards, translating from the English, but we cannot be certain that our English words are correct. So, here in the Trinity College, Dublin, MS, we have, for the very first time, a document which has separate secrets for three separate degrees; the enterprentice, the fellowcraftsman and the 13 14HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY master. It is not proof of three degrees in practice, but it does show that somebody was playing with this idea in 1711.

 

The next piece of evidence on this theme comes from the first printed exposure, printed and published for entertainment or for spite, in a London newspaper, The Flying Post. The text is known as a `Mason's Examination'. By this time, 1723, the catechism was much longer and the text contained several pieces of rhyme, all interesting, but only one of particular importance to my present purpose and here it is: `An enter'd Mason 1 have been, Boaz and Jachin 1 have seen; A Fellow I was sworn most rare, And Know the Astler, Diamond, and Square: 1 know the Master's Part full well, As honest Maughbin will you tell.' Notice, Brethren, there are still two pillars for the EA, and once again somebody is dividing the Masonic secrets into three parts for three different categories of Masons. The idea of three degrees is in the air. We are still looking for minutes but they have not come yet.

 

Next, we have another priceless document, dated 1726, the Graham MS, a fascinating text which begins with a catechism of some thirty Questions and Answers, followed by a collection of legends, mainly about biblical characters, each story with a kind of Masonic twist in its tail. One legend tells how three sons went to their father's grave.

 

to try if they could find anything about him for to Lead them to the vertuable secret which this famieous preacher had ...

 

They opened the grave finding nothing save the dead body all most consumed away takeing a greip at a ffinger it came away so from Joynt to Joynt so to the wrest so to the Elbow so they Reared up the dead body and suported it setting ffoot to ffoot knee to knee Breast to breast Cheeck to cheeck and hand to back and cryed out help o ffather . . . so one said here is yet marow in this bone and the second said but a dry bone and the third said it stinketh so they agreed for to give it a name as is known to free masonry to this day ...  This is the earliest story of a raising in a Masonic context, apparently

 

SIX HUNDRED YEARS OF CRAFT RITUAL    15

 

a fragment of the Hiramic legend, but the old gentleman in the grave was Father Noah, not Hiram Abif.

 

Another legend concerns `Bazalliell', the wonderful craftsman who built the mobile Temple and the Ark of the Covenant for the Israelites during their wandering in the wilderness. The story goes that near to death, Bazalliell asked for a tombstone to be erected over his grave, with an inscription `according to his diserveing' and that was done as follows: Here Lys the flowr of masonry superiour of many other companion to a king and to two princes a brother Here Lys the heart all secrets could conceall Here lys the tongue that never did reveal The last two lines could not have been more apt if they had been specially written for Hiram Abif; they are virtually a summary of the Hiramic legend.

 

In the catechism, one answer speaks of those that . . . have obtained a trible Voice by being entered passed and raised and Conformed by 3 severall Lodges . . .

 

`Entered, passed and raised' is clear enough. `Three several lodges' means three separate degrees, three separate ceremonies. There is no doubt at all that this is a reference to three degrees being practised. But we still want minutes and we have not got them. And I am very sorry to tell you, that the earliest minutes we have recording a third degree, fascinating and interesting as they are, refer to a ceremony that never happened in a lodge at all; it took place in the confines of a London Musical Society. It is a lovely story and that is what you are going to get now.

 

In December 1724 there was a nice little lodge meeting at the Queen's Head Tavern, in Hollis Street, in the Strand, about three hundred yards from our present Freemasons' Hall. Nice people; the best of London's musical, architectural and cultural society were members of this lodge. On the particular night in which I am interested, His Grace, the Duke of Richmond was Master of the lodge. I should add that His Grace, the Duke of Richmond was also Grand Master at that time, and you might call him `nice people'. It is true that he was the descendant of a royal illegitimate, but nowadays even royal illegitimates are counted as nice people. A couple of

 

16   HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY

 

 months later, seven of the members of this lodge and one brother they had borrowed from another lodge decided that they wanted to found a musical and architectural society.

 

They gave themselves a Latin title a mile long ‑ Philo Musicae et Architecturae Societas Apollini ‑ which I translate, 'The Apollonian Society for the Lovers of Music and Architecture' and they drew up a rule book which is beautiful beyond words. Every word of it written by hand. It looks as though the most magnificent printer had printed and decorated it.

 

Now these people were very keen on their Masonry and for their musical society they drew up an unusual code of rules. For example, one rule was that every one of the founders was to have his own coat‑of‑arms emblazoned in full colour in the opening pages of the minute book. How many lodges do you know, where every founder has his own coat‑of‑arms? This gives you an idea of the kind of boys they were. They loved their Masonry and they made another rule, that anybody could come along to their architectural lectures or to their musical evenings ‑ the finest conductors were members of the society ‑ anybody could come, but if he was not a Mason, he had to be made a Mason before they would let him in; and because they were so keen about the Masonic status of their members, they kept Masonic biographical notes of each member as he joined. It is from these notes that we are able to see what actually happened. I could talk about them all night, but for our present purposes, we need only follow the career of one of their members, Charles Cotton.

 

In the records of the Musical Society we read that on 22 December 1724 'Charles Cotton Esq'. was made a Mason by the said Grand Master' [ie His Grace The Duke of Richmond] in the Lodge at the Queen's Head. It could not be more regular than that. Then, on 18 February 1725 '. . . before We Founded This Society A Lodge was held . . . In Order to Pass Charles Cotton Esq`. . . .' and because it was on the day the society was founded, we cannot be sure whether Cotton was passed FC in the Lodge or in the Musical Society. Three months later, on 12 May 1725 'Brother Charles Cotton Esq'. Broth`. Papillion Ball Were regularly passed Masters'.

 

Now we have the date of Cotton's initiation, his passing and his raising; there is no doubt that he received three degrees. But 'regularly passed Masters' ‑ No! It could not have been more irregular! This was a Musical Society ‑ not a lodge! But I told you

 

SIX HUNDRED YEARS OF CRAFT RITUAL   17

 

they were nice people, and they had some very distinguished visitors. First, the Senior Grand Warden came to see them. Then the Junior Grand Warden. And then, they got a nasty letter from the Grand Secretary and, in 1727, the society disappeared. Nothing now remains except their minute book in the British Library. If you ever go to London and go to Freemasons' Hall you will see a marvellous facsimile of that book. It is worth a journey to London just to see it. And that is the record of the earliest third degree. I wish we could produce a more respectable first‑timer, but that was the earliest.

 

I must tell you, Brethren, that Gould, the great Masonic historian believed, all his life, that this was the earliest third degree of which there was any record at all. But just before he died he wrote a brilliant article in the Transactions of the Quatuor Coronati Lodge, and he changed his mind. He said, `No, the minutes are open to wide interpretation, and we ought not to accept this as a record of the third degree.' Frankly, I do not believe that he proved his case, and on this point I dare to quarrel with Gould. Watch me carefully, Brethren, because I stand a chance of being struck down at this moment. Nobody argues with Gould! But I dispute this because, within ten months of this date, we have incontrovertible evidence of the third degree in practice. As you might expect, bless them, it comes from Scotland.

 

Lodge Dumbarton Kilwinning, now No 18 on the register of the Grand Lodge of Scotland, was founded in January 1726. At the foundation meeting there was the Master, with seven master masons, six fellowcrafts and three entered apprentices; some of them were operative masons, some non‑operative. Two months later, in March 1726, we have this minute: Gabriel Porterfield who appeared in the January meeting as a Fellow Craft was unanimously admitted and received a Master of the Fraternity and renewed his oath and gave in his entry money.

 

Now, notice Brethren, here was a Scotsman, who started in January as a fellowcraft, a founding fellowcraft of a new Lodge. Then he came along in March, and he renewed his oath, which means he took another ceremony; and he gave in his entry money, which means he paid for it. Brethren, if a Scotsman paid for it you bet your life he got it! There is no doubt about that. And there is the earliest 100 per cent gilt‑edged record of a third degree.

 

18   HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY

 

Two years later, in December 1728, another new Lodge, Greenock Kilwinning, at its very first meeting, prescribed separate fees for entering, passing, and raising.

 

PRICHARD'S MASONRY DISSECTED

 

From then on we have ample evidence of the three degrees in practice and then in 1730 we have the earliest printed exposure which claimed to describe all three degrees, Masonry Dissected, published by Samuel Prichard in October 1730. It was the most valuable ritual work that had appeared until that time, all in the form of question and answer (apart from a brief introduction) and it had enormous influence in the stabilisation of our English ritual.

 

Its `Enter'd Prentice's Degree' ‑ by this time ninety‑two questions ‑ gave two pillar words to the EA, and the first of them was 'lettered'. Prichard managed to squeeze a lot of floor‑work into his EA questions and answers. Here is one question for the candidate: 'How did he make you a mason?' Listen to his answer: With my bare‑bended Knee and Body within the Square, the Compass extended to my naked Left Breast, my naked Right Hand on the Holy Bible: there I took the Obligation (or Oath) of a Mason.

 

All that information in one answer! And the next question was, 'Can you repeat that obligation?' with the answer, 'I'll do my endeavor', and Prichard followed this with a magnificent obligation which contained three sets of penalties (throat cut, heart torn out, body severed and ashes burned and scattered). This is how they appeared in 1730. Documents of 1760 show them separated, and later developments do not concern us here.

 

Prichard's 'Fellow‑Craft's Degree' was very short, only 33 questions and answers. It gave J alone to the FC (not lettered) but now the second degree had a lot of new material relating to the pillars, the middle chamber, the winding stairs, and a long recitation on the letter G, which began with the meaning 'Geometry' and ended denoting 'The Grand Architect and Contriver of the Universe'.

 

Prichard's 'Master's Degree or Master's Part' was made up of thirty questions with some very long answers, containing the earliest version of the Hiramic legend, literally the whole story as it ran in those days. It included the murder by 'three Ruffians', the searchers, 'Fifteen Loving Brothers' who agreed among themselves 'that if they

 

SIX HUNDRED YEARS OF CRAFT RITUAL   19

 

did not find the Word in him or about him, the first Word should be the Master's Word'. Later, the discovery, `the Slip', the raising on the FPOF, and another new version of the MM word, which is said to mean `The Builder is smitten'.

 

There is no reason to believe that Prichard invented the Hiramic legend. As we read his story in conjunction with those collected by Thomas Graham in 1726 (quoted above), there can be little doubt that Prichard's version arose out of several streams of legend, probably an early result of speculative influence in those days.

 

But the third degree was not a new invention. It arose from a division of the original first degree into two parts, so that the original second degree with its FPOF and a word moved up into third place, both the second and third acquiring additional materials during the period of change. That was sometime between 1711 and 1725, but whether it started in England, Scotland, or Ireland is a mystery; we simply do not know.

 

Back now to Samuel Prichard and his Masonry Dissected. The book created a sensation; it sold three editions and one pirated edition in eleven days. It swept all other exposures off the market. For the next thirty years Prichard was being reprinted over and over again and nothing else could stand a chance; there was nothing fit to touch it. We lose something by this, because we have no records of any ritual developments in England during the next 30 years ‑ a great 30‑year gap. Only one new item appeared in all that time, the `Charge to the Initiate', a miniature of our modern version, in beautiful eighteenth‑century English. It was published in 1735, but we do not know who wrote it. For fresh information on the growth of the ritual, we have to go across the Channel, into France.

 

FURTHER EVIDENCE FROM FRANCE

 

The English planted Freemasonry in France in 1725, and it became an elegant pastime for the nobility and gentry. The Duke of So‑and‑So would hold a lodge in his house, where he was Master for ever and ever, and any time he invited a few friends round, they would open a lodge, and he would make a few more Masons. That was how it began, and it took about ten or twelve years before Masonry began to seep down, through to the lower levels. By that time lodges were beginning to meet in restaurants and taverns but around 1736, things were becoming difficult in France and it was

 

20   HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY

 

feared that the lodges were being used for plots and conspiracies against government.

 

At Paris, in particular, precautions were taken. An edict was issued by Rene Herault, Lieutenant‑General of Police, that tavern‑keepers and restaurant‑keepers were not to give accommodation to Masonic lodges at all, under penalty of being closed up for six months and a fine of 3,000 livres. We have two records, both in 1736‑37, of well‑known restaurants that were closed down by the Police for that reason. It did not work, and the reason was very simple. Masonry had started in private houses. The moment that the officials put the screw on the meetings in taverns and restaurants, it went back into private houses again; it went underground so‑to‑speak, and the Police were left helpless.

 

Eventually, Herault decided that he could do much more damage to the Craft if he could make it a laughing‑stock. If he could make it look ridiculous, he was sure he could put them out of business for all time, and he decided to try. He got in touch with one of his girl‑friends, a certain Madame Carton. Now, Brethren, I know what I am going to tell you sounds like our English News of the World, but I am giving you recorded history, and quite important history at that. So he got in touch with Madame Carton, who is always described as a dancer at the Paris opera. The plain fact is that she followed a much older profession. The best description that gives an idea of her status and her qualities, is that she slept in the best beds in Europe. She had a very special clientele. Now this was no youngster; she was fifty‑five years old at that time and she had a daughter who was also in the same interesting line of business. And I have to be very careful what I say, because it was believed that one of our own Grand Masters was entangled with either or both of them. All this was in the newspapers of those days.

 

Anyway, Herault got in touch with Madame Carton and asked her to obtain a copy of the Masonic ritual from one of her clients. He intended to publish it, and by making the Masons look ridiculous he was going to put them out of business. Well! She did, and he did. In other words, she got her copy of the ritual and passed it on to him. It was first published in France in 1737, under the title Reception d'un Frey‑Magon. Within a month it was translated in three London newspapers, but it failed to diminish the French zeal for Freemasonry and had no effect in England. I summarise briefly.

 

SIX HUNDRED YEARS OF CRAFT RITUAL   21

 

The text, in narrative form, described only a single two‑pillar ceremony, dealing mainly with the floor‑work and only fragments of ritual. The Candidate was deprived of metals, right knee bare, left shoe worn `as a slipper' and locked in a room alone in total darkness, to put him in the right frame of mind for the ceremony. His eyes were bandaged and his sponsor knocked three times on the Lodge door. After several questions, he was introduced and admitted in the care of a Warden (Surveillant). Still blindfolded, he was led three times round the floor‑drawing in the centre of the Lodge, and there were ,resin flares'. It was customary in the French lodges in those days to have a pan of live coals just inside the door of the lodge and at the moment the candidate was brought in, they would sprinkle powdered resin on the live coal, to make an enormous flare, which would frighten the wits out of the candidate, even if he was blindfolded. (In many cases they did not blindfold them until they came to the obligation.) Then, amid a circle of swords, we get the posture for the obligation with three lots of penalties, and details of Aprons and Gloves. This is followed by the signs, tokens and words relating to two pillars. The ceremony contained several features unknown in English practice, and some parts of the story appear to be told in the wrong sequence, so that as we read it, we suddenly realise that the gentleman who was dictating it had his mind on much more worldly matters. So Brethren, this was the earliest exposure from France, not very good, but it was the first of a really wonderful stream of documents. As before, I shall only discuss the important ones.

 

My next, is Le Secret des Francs‑Masons (The Secret of the Freemasons) 1742, published by the Abbe Perau, who was Prior at the Sorbonne, the University of Paris. A beautiful first degree, all in narrative form, and every word in favour of the Craft. His words for the EA and FC were in reverse order (and this became common practice in Europe) but he said practically nothing about the second degree. He described the Masonic drinking and toasting at great length, with a marvellous description of `Masonic Fire'. He mentioned that the Master's degree was `a great ceremonial lamentation over the death of Hiram' but he knew nothing about the third degree and said that Master Masons got only a new sign and that was all.

 

Our next work is Le Catechisme des Francs‑Masons (The Freemasons' Catechism) published in 1744, by Louis Travenol, a famous French journalist. He dedicates his book `To the Fair Sex', which he

 

22   HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY

 

adores, saying that he is deliberately publishing this exposure for their benefit, because the Masons have excluded them, and his tone is mildly anti‑Masonic. He continues with a note `To the Reader', criticising several items in Perau's work, but agreeing that Le Secret is generally correct. For that reason (and Perau was hopelessly ignorant of the third degree) he confines his exposure to the MM degree. But that is followed by a catechism which is a composite for all three degrees, undivided, though it is easy to see which questions belong to the Master Mason.

 

Le Catechisme also contains two excellent engravings of the Tracing Boards, or Floor‑drawings, one called `Plan of the Lodge for the Apprentice‑Fellow' combined , and the other for `The Master's Lodge'.

 

Travenol begins his third degree with `The History of Adoniram, Architect of the Temple of Solomon'. The French texts usually say Adoniram instead of Hiram, and the story is a splendid version of the Hiramic Legend. In the best French versions, the Master's word (Jehova) was not lost; the nine Masters who were sent by Solomon to search for him, decided to adopt a substitute word out of fear that the three assassins had compelled Adoniram to divulge it.

 

This is followed by a separate chapter which describes the layout of a Master's Lodge, including the 'Floor‑drawing', and the earliest ceremony of opening a Master's Lodge. That contains a curious `Master's sign' that begins with a hand at the side of the forehead (demonstrate) and ends with the thumb in the pit of the stomach. And now, Brethren, we get a magnificent description of the floorwork of the third degree, the whole ceremony, so beautifully described and in such fine detail, that any Preceptor could reconstruct it from beginning to end ‑ and every word of this whole chapter is new material that had never appeared before.

 

Of course there are many items that differ from the practices we know, but now you can see why I am excited about these French documents. They give marvellous details, at a time when we have no corresponding material in England. But before I leave Le Catechisme, I must say a few words about its picture of the third degree Tracing Board or Floor‑drawing which contains, as its central * This section is reproduced in full on pp 306.

 

SIX HUNDRED YEARS OF CRAFT RITUAL   23

 

theme, a coffin design, surrounded by tear drops, the tears which our ancient brethren shed over the death of our Master Adoniram.

 

On the coffin is a sprig of acacia and the word `JEHOVA', `ancien mot du Maitre, (the former word of a Master), but in the French degree it was not lost. It was the Ineffable Name, never to be uttered, and here, for the first time, the word Jehova is on the coffin. The diagram, in dots, shows how three zig‑zag steps over the coffin are to be made by the candidate in advancing from West to East, and many other interesting details too numerous to mention.

 

The catechism, which is the last main item in the book, is based (like all the early French catechisms) directly on Prichard's Masonry Dissected, but it contains a number of symbolic expansions and explanations, the result of speculative influence.

 

And so we come to the last of the French exposures that I must deal with today L'Ordre des Francs‑Magons Trahi (The Order of Freemasons Betrayed) published in 1745 by an anonymous writer, a thief! There was no law of copyright in those days and this man knew a good thing when he saw it. He took the best material he could find, collected it into one book, and added a few notes of his own. So, he stole Perau's book, 102 pages, the lot, and printed it as his own first degree. He said very little about the second degree (the second degree was always a bit of an orphan). He stole Travenol's lovely third degree and added a few notes including a few lines saying that before the Candidate's admission, the most junior MM in the Lodge lies down on the coffin, his face covered with a blood‑stained cloth, so that the Candidate will see him raised by the Master before he advances for his own part in the ceremony.

 

Of his own material, there is not very much; chapters on the Masonic Cipher, on the Signs, Grips and Words, and on Masonic customs. He also included two improved designs of the Floordrawings and two charming engravings illustrating the first and third degrees in progress. His catechism followed Travenol's version very closely but he did add four questions and answers (seemingly a minor contribution) but they are of high importance in our study of the ritual: Q.When a Mason finds himself in danger, what must he say and do to call the brethren to his aid? A.He must put his joined hands to his forehead, the fingers interlaced, and say `Help, ye Children (or Sons) of the Widow'.

 

24    HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY

 

Brethren, I do not know if the `interlaced fingers' were used in the USA or Canada; I will only say that they were well known in several European jurisdictions, and the `Sons of the Widow' appear in most versions of the Hiramic legend.

 

Three more new questions ran: Q.What is the Password of an Apprentice?Ans: T ....

 

Q.That of a Fellow?Ans: S . . . .

 

Q.And that of a Master?Ans: G ....

 

This was the first appearance of Passwords in print, but the author added an explanatory note: These three Passwords are scarcely used except in France and at Frankfurt on Main. They are in the nature of Watchwords, introduced as a surer safeguard (when dealing) with brethren whom they do not know.

 

Passwords had never been heard of before this date, 1745, and they appear for the first time, in France. You will have noticed, Brethren, that some of them appear to be in the wrong order, and, because of the 30‑year gap, we do not know whether they were being used in England at that time or if they were a French invention. On this pu

 

le we have a curious piece of indirect evidence, and I must digress for a moment.

 

In the year 1730, the Grand Lodge of England was greatly troubled by the exposures that were being published, especially Prichard's Masonry Dissected, which was officially condemned in Grand Lodge. Later, as a precautionary measure, certain words in the first two degrees were interchanged, a move which gave grounds in due course for the rise of a rival Grand Lodge. Le Secret, 1742, Le Catechisme, 1744 and the Trahi, 1745, all give those words in the new order, and in 1745, when the Passwords made their first appearance in France, they also appear in reverse order. Knowing how regularly France had adopted ‑ and improved ‑ on English ritual practices, there seems to be a strong probability that Passwords were already in use in England (perhaps in reverse order), but there is not a single English document to support that theory.

 

So Brethren, by 1745 most of the principal elements in the Craft degrees were already in existence, and when the new stream of English rituals began to appear in the 1760s the best of that material had been embodied in our English practice. But it was still very crude and a great deal of polishing needed to be done.

 

SIX HUNDRED YEARS OF CRAFT RITUAL   25

 

The polishing began in 1769 by three writers ‑ Wellins Calcutt and William Hutchinson, in 1769, and William Preston in 1772, but Preston towered over the others. He was the great expounder of Freemasonry and its symbolism, a born teacher, constantly writing and improving on his work. Around 1800, the ritual and the Lectures, (which were the original catechisms, now expanded and explained in beautiful detail) were all at their shining best. And then with typical English carelessness, we spoiled it.

 

You know, Brethren, that from 1751 up to 1813, we had two rival Grand Lodges in England (the original, founded in 1717, and the rival Grand Lodge, known as the `Antients', founded in 1751) and they hated each other with truly Masonic zeal. Their differences were mainly in minor matters of ritual and in their views on Installation and the Royal Arch. The bitterness continued until 1809 when the first steps were taken towards a reconciliation and a much‑desired union of the rivals.

 

In 1809, the original Grand Lodge, the `Moderns', ordered the necessary revisions, and the Lodge of Promulgation was formed to vet the ritual and bring it to a form that would be satisfactory to both sides. That had to be done, or we would still have had two Grand Lodges to this day! They did an excellent job, and many changes were made in ritual and procedural matters; but a great deal of material was discarded, and it might be fair to say that they threw away the baby with the bath‑water. The Beehive, the Hour‑glass, the Scythe, the Pot of Incense etc, which were in our Tracing Boards in the early nineteenth century have disappeared. We have to be thankful indeed for the splendid material they left behind.

 

A NOTE FOR BRETHREN IN THE USA

I must add a note here for Brethren in the USA. You will realise that until the changes which I have just described, I have been talking about your ritual as well as ours in England. After the War of Independence the States rapidly began to set up their own Grand Lodges, but your ritual, mainly of English origin ‑ whether Antients or Moderns ‑ was still basically. English. Your big changes began in and around 1796, when Thomas Smith Webb, of Albany, NY, teamed up with an English Mason, John Hanmer, who was well versed in Preston's Lecture system.

 

In 1797 Webb published his Freemason's Monitor or Illustrations of

 

26   HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY

 

Masonry, largely based on Preston's Illustrations. Webb's Monitor, adapted from our ritual when, as I said, it was at its shining best, became so popular, that the American Grand Lodges, mainly in the Eastern states at that time, did everything they could to preserve it in its original form; eventually by the appointment of Grand Lecturers, whose duty it was (and is) to ensure that the officially adopted forms remain unchanged.

 

I cannot go into details now, but from the Rituals and Monitors I have studied and the Ceremonies and Demonstrations I have seen, there is no doubt that your ritual is much fuller than ours, giving the candidate much more explanation, interpretation, and symbolism, than we normally give in England.

 

In effect, because of the changes we made in our work between 1809 and 1813, it is fair to say that in many respects your ritual is older than ours and better than ours.

 

2 PILLARS AND GLOBES, COLUMNS AND CANDLESTICKS IN THE QC Lodge summons, dated 22 December 1961, there was a brief note relating to the Wardens' Columns which attracted considerable attention and comment. As author of the note, and Secretary of the Lodge, I had to answer a number of letters on that subject and on several other topics closely allied to it. During the course of this work it became obvious that there is much confusion on the subject of Pillars, Globes, Columns and Candlesticks, on the dates and stages of their introduction into Craft usage, and most of all, perhaps, on the curious way in which some of these items (which originally had places in the ritual, or furnishings, in their own right) are now made to serve a dual purpose, thereby adding to the confusion as to their origins.

 

There are, apparently, two main reasons for these difficulties. First, we have grown so accustomed to seeing our present‑day Lodges all more or less uniformly furnished that we accept the furnishings and their symbolism without question. Secondly, the Lectures on the Tracing Boards are given rarely nowadays so that Brethren are unfamiliar with the subject, or with the problems that are involved.

 

This essay was compiled, therefore, not with the intention of answering all the questions that arise, if indeed that were possible, but in order to separate the various threads which are now so badly entangled.

 

As these various items appear in our modern procedure, there is an extraordinary mixture of ritual‑references with odd items of furniture, some of which had a purely practical origin, while others were purely symbolical. I have tried to deal with each of these features separately, showing, as far as possible, their first introduction into the Craft, and tracing the various stages through which they passed into our present usage.

 

27 28   HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY  

 

THE PILLARS

 

Extract from the Lecture on the Second Tracing Board: ... the two great pillars which were placed in the porchway entrance on the south side . . . they were formed hollow, the better to serve as archives to Freemasonry, for therein were deposited the constitutional Rolls . . . These pillars were adorned with two chapiters . . . [and] ... with two spheres on which were delineated maps of the celestial and terrestrial globes, pointing out 'Masonry universal'.

 

THE FIRST TWO PILLARS IN CRAFT TRADITION

 

The two earliest pillars in the literature of the Craft are those described in the legendary history which forms part of the Cooke MS c1410, and many later versions of the Old Charges. The story goes that they were made by the four children of Lamech, in readiness for the feared destruction of the world by fire or flood. One of the pillars was made of marble, the other of lacerus (ie lateres or burnt brick) because the first 'would not burn' and the other 'would not drown'. They were intended as a means of preserving 'all the sciences that they had found', which they had carved or engraved on the two pillars.

 

This legend dates back to the early apocryphal writings, and in the course of centuries a number of variations arose in which the story of the indestructible pillars remained fairly constant, although their erection was attributed to different heroes. Thus, Josephus ascribed them to Seth, while another apocryphal version says they were built by Enoch. * For some reason, not readily explained, the early MS Constitutions favour the children of Lamech as the principals in this ancient legend, which was embodied in the texts to show how all the then‑known sciences were preserved for mankind by this early piece of practical mason work.

 

The Old Charges were designed primarily to display the antiquity and high importance of the Craft, and it is highly significant that Solomon's two pillars do not appear in the early versions. David and Solomon are named among a long list of biblical and historical characters who '. . . loved masons well . . .', and gave or confirmed * For an excellent survey of pre‑Christian and other early versions and variations of this legend. see Knoop, Jones and Hamer, The Two Earliest Masonic MSS, pp 39‑44 and 162‑63.

 

PILLARS & GLOBES: COLUMNS & CANDLESTICKS  29

 

'their charges', but Solomon's Temple receives only a casual mention, and the pillars are not mentioned at all. It seems fairly certain, therefore, that in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries Solomon's two pillars had no special significance for the mason craft.

 

SOLOMON'S PILLARS IN THE RITUAL

 

The first appearance of Solomon's pillars in the Craft ritual is in the Edinburgh Register House MS, 1696, in a catechism associated with the 'Mason Word' ceremonies.

 

The earliest‑known reference to the 'Mason Word' appears in 1637, in a diary‑entry made by the Earl of Rothes, and although no kind of ceremony is described in that record, it is reasonable to assume that the 'Mason Word' ceremonies were already known and practised at that date. The Edinburgh Register House MS is the oldest surviving document which describes the actual procedure of the ceremonies. The text is in two parts. One section, headed 'The Forme of Giveing the Mason Word', describes the rather rough and ready procedure for the admission of an entered apprentice, including ceremonies to frighten the candidate, an oath, a form of 'greeting', and certain verbal and physical modes of recognition. There is also a separate and similar procedure for the 'master mason or fellow craft'. (Only two degrees were known at that time.) The second part of this text is a catechism of some seventeen questions and answers, fifteen for the EA and a further two for the master or FC. It is probable that these questions, with the obligation, entrusting and greeting, represent the whole of the 'spoken‑work' of the ceremonies at that time.

 

The questions are of two kinds: (a) Test questions for the purpose of recognition.

 

(b) Informative questions for the purpose of instruction and explanation.

 

Among these we find the first faint hints of the beginning of Masonic symbolism.

 

A question in the catechism of 1696, and in six of the texts that followed soon after, runs: Q. Where was the first lodge? A.In the porch of Solomon's Temple.

 

30   HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY

 

Now, the Edinburgh Register House MS is a complete text; no part of it has been lost or obliterated during the 290 years or so since it was written, in 1696. In fact, there are several related texts belonging to the next twenty years, which amply demonstrate its completeness. It is therefore noteworthy that in this whole group of texts the two earlier pillars, built by the children of Lamech, have virtually disappeared. Barely a hint of them remains in any of the ritual documents from 1696 onwards.

 

The Dumfries No 4 MS c1710, is a version of the Old Charges which has been greatly enlarged by a collection of ritual questions and answers, with many items of religious interpretation. In its first part, it has the expected reference to the four children of Lamech and their two pillars, but towards the end of the catechism the pillars are mentioned again: Q. Where [was] the noble art or science found when it was lost? A.It was found in two pillars of stone the one would not sink the other would not burn.

 

This is followed by a long passage of religious interpretation saying that Solomon named his own two pillars in reference to 'ye two churches of ye Jews & gentiles . . .' That need not concern us here, but Solomon's pillars are not normally mentioned in the Old Charges, and the appearance of both sets of pillars in the two parts of the Dumfries MS, suggests that when the ceremonies were shaped to contain Solomon's J and B, the earlier `indestructible' pair were abandoned.

 

There is, in fact, no evidence that they had ever formed any part of the admission ceremonies, but we know very little about the ceremonies in their earliest forms. It seems fairly certain, however, that Solomon's pillars had achieved a really important place in the Craft ritual in the early 1600s.

 

Soon after their first mention in the early ritual‑texts these two pillars became a regular part of the 'furnishings' of the lodge, and it is possible to trace them from their earliest introduction up to their present place in the lodge‑room, as follows: (1) Their first appearance as part of a question in the catechism, with much additional evidence that they then had some esoteric significance. The early catechisms are particularly interesting in this respect, because they indicate that both of PILLARS & GLOBES: COLUMNS & CANDLESTICKS Solomon's Pillar‑names belonged at one time to the EA ceremony.

 

(2) They were drawn on the floor of the lodge in chalk and charcoal, forming part of the earliest versions of our modern 'Tracing Boards'. In December, 1733, the minutes of the Old King's Arms Lodge, No 28, record the first step towards the purchase of a 'Floor Cloth'. (A QC, vol lxii, p 236.) `Drawings' on the floor of the lodge are recorded in the minutes of the Old Dundee Lodge, No 18, from 1748 onwards. The Herault Letter of 1737 describes the 'Drawing', and the later French exposures, from 1744 onwards, contain excellent engravings showing both pillars (marked J and B) on the combined EA and FC floor‑drawing.

 

Between c1760 and 1765 several English exposures of the period indicate that the Wardens each had a column representing one of the Pillars, as part of his personal equipment in the lodge. The following extract is typical: 'The senior and junior Warden have each of them a Column in their Hand, about Twenty Inches long, which represents the two Columns of the Porch at Solomon's Temple, Boaz and Jachin.

 

The Senior is Boaz, or Strength. The Junior is Jachin, or to establish.' (From Three Distinct Knocks, 1760) (4) Finally, the two pillars appear as handsome pieces of furniture, perhaps four to eight feet high, standing usually at the western end of the lodge room. The earliest descriptions of the lay‑out of the lodge in the 1700s show both Wardens in the west, facing the Master. The two pillars were generally placed near them, forming a kind of portal, so that the candidates passed between them on their admission, a custom which exists in many lodges to this day.

 

This was perhaps the last development of all, though some of the wealthier lodges may have possessed such pillars at a comparatively early date. When we consider how many lodge rooms (especially in the provinces) still use pairs of large pillars, it is surprising that the eighteenth‑ and nineteenth‑century inventories make no mention of them. Probably this was because they were part of the equipment of

 

31 32   HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY

 

 Masonic Halls, so that they belonged to the landlords and not to the various lodges that used the rooms.

 

So we trace the two pillars from their first appearance as part of a question in the ritual through various stages of development until they became a prominent feature of lodge furniture.

 

But modern practices are not uniform in regard to the pillars; in London, for example, there are very few lodges which have the tall pillars, but they are always depicted on the second T.B., and they appear in miniature on the Wardens' pedestals.

 

CHAPITERS, GLOBES AND BOWLS

 

The biblical descriptions of Solomon's pillars give rise to many problems, especially as regards their dimensions and ornamentation. For us, the chapiters, bowls or globes which surmounted them are of particular interest, because of ritual developments and expansions during the eighteenth century.

 

In this particular problem a great deal depends on the interpretation of the original Hebrew text. The chapiters appear in 1 Kings, VII, 16: `. . . and he made two chapiters . . . ' The word is Ko‑thor‑oth = chapiters, capitals or crowns. Later, in verse 41, without mention of any further works, the text speaks of `. . . the two pillars and the two bowls of the chapiters . . .' The Hebrew reads Gooloth Ha‑ko‑thor‑oth, and the word Gooloth is a problem. Goolah (singular) means a ball or globe; also, a bowl or vessel, and various forms of the same root are used quite loosely to describe something round or spherical.

 

Our regular contacts with modern lodge Tracing‑Boards and furnishings have accustomed us to the idea that Solomon's two pillars were surmounted by chapiters or capitals, with a globe resting on each, but that is not proven. The early translators and illustrators of the Bible were by no means unanimous on this point, and the various terms they used to describe the chapiters, etc, show that they were not at all certain as to the appearance of the pillars. To take one example, the Geneva Bible, of 1560, a very handsome and popular illustrated Bible, which provided the interpretation for some of the proper names and seems to have been much used by the men who framed the Masonic ritual.

 

At ! Kings, VII, v. 16, '. . . and he made two chapiters . . .', there is a marginal note, `Or pommels', ie globular features. At this stage PILLARS & GLOBES: COLUMNS & CANDLESTICKS33 the Geneva Bible clearly indicates that the chapiters were globes or spheres, and not the crown‑shaped heads to the pillars that we would understand them to be.

 

Among the illustrations to this chapter in the Geneva Bible there are several interesting engravings of the Temple and its equipment, including a sketch of a pillar, surmounted by a shallow capital, with an ornamental globe poised on top. A marginal note to this illustration speaks of 'The height of the chapiter or round bal upon the pillar of five cubites hight . . .' (My italics.) So the chapiter was a round ball.

 

At II Chron., IV, v. 12, the same Bible gives a new interpretation, . . . two pillars, and the bowies, and the chapiters on the top of the two pillars . . .' Here it is evident that the 'bowies' and the chapiters were two separate features.

 

Whether we incline to bowls or globes, there is yet another interpretation which would exclude both. The accounts in both Kings and Chronicles refer to the pomegranate decoration which was attached to the 'bowies' or bellies of the chapiters (I Kings, VII, v. 41, 42, and II Chron., IV, v. 12, 13), and from these passages it is a perfectly proper inference that the chapiters were themselves 'bowl‑shaped', and that there were neither bowls nor globes above them.

 

Although the globes were finally adopted in Masonic furniture and decoration as head‑pieces to Solomon's Pillars, they came in very slowly, and during a large part of the eighteenth century there was no uniformity of practice on this point. The Trahi, one of the early French exposures, contains several engravings purporting to be 'Plans' of a Loge de Reception; in effect they are Tracing Boards for the 1st and 2nd combined, and another for the 3rd degree. The Apprentice Plan contains illustrations of the two pillars, marked J and B, both conventional Corinthian pillars, with flat tops. There is also, among a huge collection of symbols, a sketch which is described in the Index as a 'sphere', a kind of lattice‑work globe (actually an armillary sphere) used in astronomy to demonstrate the courses of the stars and planets.

 

The Lodge of Probity, No 61, Halifax (founded in 1738), was in serious decline in 1829, and an inventory of its possessions was taken at that time. One item reads: 'Box with Globes and Stands'.

 

 

The Phoenix Lodge, No 94, Sunderland (founded in 1755), has a PILLARS & GLOBES: COLUMNS & CANDLESTICKS35

 

pair of eighteenth‑century globes, each mounted on three legs, standing left and right of the Master's pedestal. All Souls' Lodge, No 170 (founded in 1767), had until 1888 a handsome pair of globes, each mounted on a tripod base, clearly of eighteenth‑century style, similarly placed left and right of the WM. The Lodge of Peace and Unity, No 314, Preston (founded in 1797), in a recent sketch of its lodge‑room, shows a pair of globes on low, three‑legged stands, placed on the floor of the lodge, left and right, a yard or two in front of the SW.

 

Among the unique collection of lodge equipment known as the 'Bath Furniture' is a pair of globes, 'celestial and terrestrial', on low four‑legged stands, and the minutes show that they were presented to the Royal Cumberland Lodge in 1805. It is interesting to observe that the equipment also includes a handsome pair of brass pillars, each about 5ft 9in in height, standing as usual in the west, and each of them surmounted with a large brass bowl. These date from the late eighteenth century.

 

In this case especially, as in all the cases cited above, there is no evidence of globes on top of the BJ pillars; the globes formed a part of the lodge equipment entirely in their own right.

 

The frontispiece to Noorthouck's Constitutions of 1784 is a symbolical drawing in which the architectural portion represents the interior of the then Free Mason's Hall. At the foot of the picture, in the foreground, is a long table bearing several Masonic tools and symbols, with two globes on tripod stands, and the description of the picture refers to '. . . the Globes and other Masonic Furniture and Implements of the Lodge'.

 

All this suggests that the globes were beginning to play some part in the lodge, or in the ritual, although they were not yet associated with the pillars. But even after the globes or bowls had begun to appear on the pillars, there was still considerable doubt as to what was correct. This is particularly noticeable in early Tracing Boards and decorated aprons, some showing 'bowls', and others 'globes'. (See illustrations, pp 14(1‑41 in AQC, vol lxxiv, for pillars with bowls, and ibid, p 52, where the pillars are surmounted by profuse foliage, growing presumably from bowls.) To summarise: (1) In the period of our earliest ritual documents, 1696 to 1730, there is no evidence that the globes formed any part of the 36HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FRFFMASONRY catechism or ritual, and it is reasonably certain that they were unknown as 'designs' or as furnishings in the lodges.

 

(2) Around 1745 it is probable that the sphere or globe had been introduced as one of the symbols in the 'floor drawings' or Tracing Boards. There is no evidence to show that it appeared in the catechism. There are several highly‑detailed catechisms belonging to this period, 1744 and later, but globes are not mentioned in any of them. The appearance of the sphere in the 1745 exposure is the only evidence suggesting that it played some part in the more or less impromptu explanations of lodge symbolism which probably came into practice about this time, or shortly afterwards.

 

(3) In the 1760s and 1770s, Solomon's Pillars with globes appear frequently in illustrations of lodge equipment and on aprons, but there is no uniformity of practice. In some lodges (as we have seen and shall see below) the globes were already a recognised part of the lodge furniture; elsewhere they surmounted the pillars, and were probably being 'explained' in `lectures'. In other places the globes were virtually unknown.

 

MAPS: MASONRY UNIVERSAL The tradition that the globes on Solomon's Pillars were covered with celestial and terrestrial maps is certainly post‑biblical, and appears to be a piece of eighteenth‑century embroidery to the ritual. We may wonder how this interest in earthly and heavenly maps arose, and there seems to be no sure answer. The early catechisms, ('1700 to 1730, all indicate a growing interest in the subject, eg: Q.How high is your lodge? A.. . . it reaches to heaven.` ... the material heavens and the starry firmament.' Q.How deep?$ A.. . . to the Centre of the Earth.$ There are also the more frequent questions relating to the Sun, Moon and Master Mason, with subsequent variations and expansions.

 

* Sloane MS, ('1700; Knoop. Jones and Flamer. the Earlti Masonic Catechisms, IE.M.C.I. 2nd cdn.. 1963, p 48.

 

Dumfries No 4 MS, ('1710. ibid., p 62. Prichard's Masonry Dissected, 1730, ibid., p 162.

 

PILLARS k GLOBES: COLUMNS K CANDLESTICKS37 These questions may well be the first pointers towards the subsequent interest in maps, and the armillary sphere of 1745, noted above, carries the subject a stage further.

 

The Lodge Summons of the Old Dundee Lodge, dated c1750, showed three pillars, two of them surmounted by globes depicting maps of the world and the firmament. A certificate issued by the Lodge of Antiquity in 1777 displayed, inter alia, a similar pair of maps. The 1768 edition of J. and B. has an engraved frontispiece showing the furniture and symbols of the lodge, including two pillars surmounted by globes ‑ one with rather vague map markings, and the other clearly marked with stars.

 

The various sets of geographical globes in pairs, described above (not 'pillar‑globes'), all indicate a deep Masonic interest in the celestial and terrestrial globes during the eighteenth century.

 

Preston, in his Illustrations of Masonry, 1775 edition, in the section dealing with the Seven Liberal Arts and Sciences, dwelt at some length on the globes and on the importance of astronomy and, of course, on the spiritual and moral lessons to be learned from them.

 

All this seems to imply that the maps were beginning to appear at this time, in the verbal portions of the ritual. The introduction of maps, 'celestial and terrestrial', led to a further development which eventually gave the Craft a phrase that has become a kind of hall‑mark of Freemasonry everywhere. The first hint of that expression appeared in l'Orde des Francs‑Magons Trahi, 1745, which added a new question to those passages in the catechism: Q. And its depth'? A.From the Surface of the Earth to the Centre. Q. Why do you answer thus'? A. To indicate, that Free‑Masons are spread all over the Earth, and all together they form nevertheless only one Lodge.

 

In 1760, Three Distinct Knocks (Antient's ritual) altered the final answer very effectively: Q.Why is your Lodge said to be from the Surface to the Centre of the Earth? A. Because that Masonrv is Universal.

 

In 1762, J. & B. (Moderns' ritual) gave the same answer, word for word. That is how we acquired the catchphrase 'Masonry Universal'.

 

38   HARRY C'ARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY

 

THE PILLARS AS ARCHIVES

 

The biblical accounts of the casting of the pillars make no mention of their being cast hollow, although this may be inferred from the fact that, if they had been solid, their removal from Zeradatha and their final erection at Jerusalem would have been a quite exceptional feat of engineering. Jeremiah, Iii, v. 21, states that they were formed hollow, the metal being cast to a thickness of 'four‑fingers', but there is no suggestion that this was done so that the pillars might serve as `armoires', or containers of any kind, or that Solomon used them for ,storing the constitutional Rolls'.

 

Here again is a curious piece of eighteenth‑century `Masonic embroidery', and it seems possible that this was an attempt to link the pillars of Solomon with the two earlier pillars upon which `all the sciences' had been preserved. The earliest Masonic note I have been able to find on the subject is extremely vague. In 1769, Wellins Calcott wrote in his Candid Disquisition, p 66: ... neither are the reasons why they were made hollow known to any but those who are acquainted with the arcana of the society ...

 

This was undoubtedly intended to suggest that the hollow pillars were designed to serve some peculiarly Masonic purpose, but Calcott says nothing more on the subject, and I have been unable to trace any such reason for hollow pillars in eighteenth‑century Masonic ritual.

 

THREE LIGHTS: THREE PILLARS: THREE CANDLESTICKS Seventeen Masonic documents have survived, dated from 1696 to 1730, and they provide the foundation for our study of the evolution of the ritual. The earliest of them is the Edinburgh Register House MS (ERH), dated 1696, with a valuable description of the two‑degree system of those days. The last of that series is Samuel Prichard's Masonry Dissected (MD), which contains the oldest ritual of the three degrees, and the earliest version of the Hiramic legend. In all these early texts the ritual was mainly in the form of catechism, and we get some idea of its development during those thirty‑five years when we compare these two documents. The first contains fifteen questions and answers for the EA, and two for the `master or fellow‑craft'. Masonry Dissected has 155 Q and A in all, ie ninety‑two for the EA; thirty‑three for the FC; thirty for the MM.

 

PILLARS & GLOBES: COLUMNS & CANDLESTICKS39 THREE LIGHTS Twelve of the oldest rituals contain a question on the `lights of the lodge': Are there any lights in your lodge yes three ...

 

[ERH, 1696] The lights soon acquire a symbolic character, but originally they were probably candles or windows, with particular positions allocated to them, eg `NE, SW, and eastern passage', or `SE, S, and SW', etc, until we reach MD in 1730, which says the lights are three windows in the E, S and W and their purpose is `To light the Men to, at, and from their work'. MD distinguishes between symbolical lights and `fix'd lights', explaining that the latter are `large Candles placed on high Candlesticks'.

 

Symbolically, several texts say that the lights represent the Master, Warden and fellow‑craft. Four versions say `Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Three others say twelve lights, `Father, Son, Holy Ghost, Sun, Moon, Master‑Mason, Square, Rule, Plum, Line, Mell, Chi

 

el'. All these are of the period c1724‑26.

 

MD says `Sun, Moon and Master‑Mason' and after the question `Why so?' he answers `Sun to rule the Day, Moon the Night, and Master‑Mason his Lodge'. So we trace the lights from their first appearance in our ritual up to the point where they acquire their modern symbolism.

 

THREE PILLARS Extracts from the modern Lecture on the First Tracing Board: Our Lodges are supported by three great pillars. They are called Wisdom, Strength and Beauty. Wisdom to contrive, Strength to support, and Beauty to adorn . . . but as we have no noble orders in architecture known by the names of Wisdom, Strength and Beauty, we refer them to the three most celebrated, which are, the Ionic, Doric and Corinthian.

 

The problems relating to the furnishings of the lodge do not end with Solomon's two pillars. As early as 1710 an entirely different set of three pillars makes its appearance in the catechisms and exposures. They appear for the first time in the Dumfries No 4 MS, which is dated about 1710:

 

40   HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FRFFMASONRY

 

Q. How many pillars is in your lodge'? A. Three.

 

Q. What are these? A. Ye square the compass & ve Bible.

 

The three pillars do not appear again in the eleven versions of the catechisms between 1710 and 1730, but the question arises, with a new answer, in Prichard's Masonry Dissected: Q.What supports a Lodge? A. Three great Pillars.

 

Q. What are they called? A. Wisdom, Strength and Beauty.

 

Q. Why so? A. Wisdom to contrive, Strength to support, and Beauty to adorn.

 

Almost identical questions appeared in the Wilkinson MS c1727, and in a whole series of English and European exposures throughout the eighteenth century, invariably with the same answer, `Three. Wisdom to contrive, Strength to support, and Beauty to adorn'. But the descriptions of actual lodge furnishings in the early 1700s do not mention any sets of three, and it seems evident that these questions belong to a period long before there was any idea of turning them into actual pieces of furniture in the lodge‑room.

 

Early lodge inventories are too scarce to enable us to draw definite conclusions from the absence of references to any particular items of lodge furnishings or equipment. While it is fairly certain, therefore, that the early operative lodges were only sparsely furnished, it is evident, from surviving eighteenth‑century records, that in the 1750s there were already a number of lodges reasonably well equipped. A set of three pillars was mentioned in the records of the Nelson Lodge in 1757, and the Lodge of Relief, Bury, purchased a set of three pillars, for WM, SW and JW, in 1761. To this day, the ancient Lodge of Edinburgh (Mary's Chapel), No l, now nearly 400 years old, uses a set of three pillars, each about three feet tall. The Master's pillar stands on the Altar, almost in the centre of the Lodge; the other two stand on the floor at the right of the SW and JW respectively. (The three principal officers, there, do not have pedestals.) Masonry Dissected remained the principal stabilising influence on English ritual until 1760, when a whole new series of English PILLARS & GLOBES; COLUMNS & CANDLESTICKS41 exposures began to appear, all displaying substantial expansion in the floor‑work of the ceremonies, and in their speculative interpretation. Three Distinct Knocks appeared in 1760, and J. & B. in 1762, claiming to expose respectively the rituals of the rival Grand Lodges, `Antients' and `Moderns'. Both of them now included several new questions and answers on the `Three great Pillars' agreeing that `they represent . . . The Master in the East . . . The Senior Warden in the West . . . [and] The Junior Warden in the South', with identical full explanations of their individual duties in those positions.

 

It seems likely that these questions were originally intended only to mark the geographical positions of the pillars, but in that period of speculative development the explanations were almost inevitable.

 

THREE CANDLESTICKS

 

Apart from Prichard's note in the 1730s on `large Candles placed on high Candlesticks', the first evidence of a combination of these two sets of equipment (that I have been able to trace) is in the records of the Lodge of Felicity, No 58, founded in 1737, when the Lodge ordered `Three Candlesticks to be made according to the following orders Vizt. 1 Dorrick, 1 Ionick, 1 Corrinthian and of Mahogany . . .'. In the Lodge inventory for Insurance in 1812 they had multiplied and were listed as `Six Large Candlesticks. Mahogany with brass mountings and nossils, carv'd of the three orders'. In 1739, the Old Dundee Lodge ordered a similar set, still in use today.

 

The connection is perhaps not immediately obvious, but these were the architectural styles associated with the attributes of the three pillars belonging to the Master and Wardens, 'Wisdom, Strength and Beauty'. The Masonic symbolism of the three pillars had been explained by Prichard in 1730, and it is almost certain that these two Lodges were putting his words into practical shape when they had their candlesticks made up in those three styles.

 

These two early examples may serve as a pointer to what was happening, but it was not yet general practice, and early evidence of their combined use is scarce. But we can trace the sets of three pillars from their first appearance in the ritual as a purely symbolical question, in which they support the Lodge, and are called `Wisdom, Strength and Beauty'. Later, they represent the three principal Officers, in the East, South, and West. From the time when they were being explained in this fashion, c1730 to 1760, it is fairly safe to

 

42   HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY

 

assume that they were beginning to appear in the 'Drawings', Floor‑Cloths or Tracing Boards. We know, of course, that they appeared regularly in the later versions, but the general pattern of their evolution seems to indicate that they were almost certainly included in many of the early designs that have not survived.

 

In the 1750s, and the 1760s, we have definite evidence (meagre indeed), that sets of three pillars were already in use as furniture in several lodges, and this adds strong support to the view that they had formerly appeared in the Tracing Boards. When, towards the end of the eighteenth century, the lodge rooms and Masonic Halls were being furnished for frequent or continuous use, the three pillars became a regular part of the furnishings, occasionally in their own right, but more often as the ornamental bases for the three `lesser lights', thus combining the two separate features into the one so frequently seen today.

 

THE GROWTH OF MASONIC SYMBOLISM

 

The growth in the number of symbols, as illustrated in the French exposures of the 1740s, and in the English versions of the 1760s, deserves some comment. In the Grand Lodge Museum there is a collection of painted metal templates, belonging apparently to several different sets. There are pillars with globes, a set of two small pillars without globes, and a separate set of three pillars. There is also a set of templates of 'Chapiters and Globes', ie, headpieces only, clearly designed for adding the globes on to normal flat‑topped pillars. All these, with many other symbols, were used in drawing the 'designs' on the floor of the lodge. As early as 1737, when the 'floor‑drawing' showed only 'steps' and two pillars, it was a part of the Master's duty to explain the 'designs' to the candidate, immediately after he had taken the obligation.:. There appears to have been no set ritual for this purpose, and the explanations were doubtless given impromptu. From 1742 onwards there is substantial evidence that the number of symbols had vastly increased,t and this would seem to indicate a real expansion in the 'explanations', The Hernult Letter. 1737. See translation in Lcics. L. of Research Reprints. No xiv.

 

+ Le Carechisme des Francs‑rnatons. 1742. and L'Ordre des Francs‑ma(ons Trahi. 1745. and in the Frontispiece of a whole stream of English exposures that began to make their appearance from 1 762 onwards. All three texts are reproduced in English translation in The Earlc French Exposures. Published by the Quatuor Coronati Lodge. No 2076.

 

PILLARS & GLOBES; COLUMNS & CANDLESTICKS43 implying some sort of dissertation akin to the later `Lectures on the Tracing Boards'.

 

Many of these old symbols, which appear frequently on the later eighteenth‑century Tracing Boards and in contemporary engravings, etc, have now disappeared from our modern workings, among them the Trowel, Beehive, the Hour‑glass, etc, and it is interesting to notice that in the USA, where much of our late eighteenth‑century ritual has been preserved, these symbols, with many others, appear regularly on the Tracing Boards.

 

In this brief essay, I have confined myself only to a few symbolised items'of our present‑day furnishings whose origins are liable to be clouded because of standardisation, but there is a whole world of interest to be found in the remaining symbology of the Craft.

 

3 THE TRANSITION FROM OPERATIVE TO SPECULATIVE MASONRY

 

The Prestonian Lecture for 1957 I... WE ARE not operative, but free and accepted or speculative masons . . .' The implication of these words often passes un‑noticed by those who hear them. In fact, they summarise practically the whole history of the craft, and they are a direct link between the present and the past.

 

The story of the craft in Britain may be carried back safely to the middle of the fourteenth century, but the Freemasonry of today bears no resemblance to the craft organisation of the 1300s. During those 600 years, under the play of industrial, social and economic influences, the craft has suffered enormous changes, and it is the sum total of those changes which makes up the story of the transition from operative to speculative masonry.

 

To tell the story in detail is a well‑nigh impossible task. The masons in medieval England found their main employment at castles, abbeys, monasteries and defence works, far from the large towns, usually under circumstances which were not conducive to any kind of municipal or guild controls. The Fabric Rolls and building accounts which survive, yield much information on wages and working conditions, etc, but virtually no evidence of a stable organisation. Much of the early history of the craft is based upon brief scraps of evidence, valuable in themselves, but apparently unconnected with each other, like random pieces of a jig‑saw pu

 

le, and vital records, which would have made the story clear, have now disappeared. As an example, the earliest surviving records of the London Masons'

 

44 THE TRANSITION FROM OPERATIVE TO SPECULATIVE MASONRY  45

 

Company are dated 1620; yet there is definite proof that the Company was in existence in 1472, and a strong probability that the date may be carried back 100 years earlier still.

 

For these reasons the development of craft organisation, and the story of the 'Transition' in England, cannot be told as a continuous narrative, but rather as a series of glimpses of the craft in its different stages of growth and change. Happily, the story falls into two parts. In Scotland, where a number of early lodge records have miraculously survived, we are able to trace the changes more clearly and, despite important differences in the development of the craft in the two countries, the Scottish records help to throw valuable light on English practice.

 

THE BEGINNINGS OF MASON CRAFT ORGANISATION IN ENGLAND

 

In 1356, following a demarcation dispute between the mason hewers and the `setters or layers', twelve skilled masters, representing both branches of the craft, came before the Mayor and Aldermen at Guildhall in London and, with the sanction of the municipal authorities, drew up a simple code of trade regulations.

 

The preamble to this early code states that `. . . their trade has not been regulated in due manner by the government of folks of their trade, in such form as other trades are'. Here is a clear statement that this was the first attempt to set up a proper governing body for the mason trade, and the first rule in the new code provides the clue to the demarcation dispute. They ordered: 1. . . . that every man of the trade may work at any work touching the trade, if he be perfectly skilled and knowing in the same.

 

Only seven further rules were made at this time: 2. Sworn masters were to be chosen as overseers, to ensure that no mason undertook work unless he was fully qualified to complete it.

 

3. No mason was to take contract work 'in gross' unless he could provide four or six men of the trade as sureties, they being responsible for the completion of the work if the original contractor failed.

 

4. Apprentices and journeymen were to work only in the presence of their masters, until they had been perfectly instructed in their calling.

 

5. Apprentices were not to be taken for less than seven years.

 

8. Enticement of apprentices was forbidden, under penalty of a fine for each offence.

 

46   HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY

 

Although the text contains no elaborate machinery for government of the craft, such as we find in later codes, the appointment of sworn masters with special duties as overseers shows that this was not going to be an outside committee of management, but an organisation for direct control of the masons and their work. The full extent of this development is not clear at this stage but twenty years later, in 1376, the Guildhall records show that the masons were now one of the 47 ,sufficient misteries' (ie recognised guilds) of the City of London, when they were called upon to elect four men of the trade to serve on the Common Council, sworn to give counsel for the common weal, and `preserving for each mistery its reasonable customs'.' No comparable mason regulations or records have been traced in Britain before the late fifteenth century, and we are therefore justified in dating the beginning of mason trade organisation in England at some time between 1356 and 1376.

 

In 1389, there is record of a bequest of 12d to the `Fraternity of Masons, London', and in a will dated 1418, a London mason made provision for a legacy of 6/8d `. . . to the fraternity of my art . . .' and bequeathed `. . . the livery cloak of my old and free mistery . . .' to a colleague. These two items are of interest as evidence of continuity, and there can be little doubt that the `Hole Crafte and felawship of Masons', which was given a Grant of Arms in 1472, was directly descended from the craft guild whose beginnings we have traced back to c1356.

 

In 1481 a new code of ordinances was published. The Fellowship had been a livery company since 1418 at least, and the new code included regulations for the livery, annual assemblies, election of wardens with powers of search for false work, restrictions against outsiders or `foreigners', payment of quarterages, and the maintenance of a `Common Box'; in fact, all the machinery of management for an established craft guild.

 

Apprentices were 'presented' and booked in the Company's records at the beginning of their terms of service; in some trades, apprentices were `sworn', and that may have been customary among masons. Access to the freedom was a matter of right to those who had completed their terms, and time‑served men were presented before * E. Conder Jr The Hole Craft and Fellowship of Masons, 1894, pp 63‑5.

 

TRANSITION FROM OPERATIVE TO SPECULATIVE MASONRY  47

 

the `Wardens' of the Company and by them `enabled', ie examined and certified as craftsmen sufficiently skilled to set up as masters. New freemen took an oath of loyalty to the trade, the town and the Crown, but there is no evidence at this time of any kind of secrets, or degrees, or lodge, in connection with the London Masons' Company.

 

At Norwich there is evidence of some kind of craft organisation amongst masons during the fifteenth century, but elsewhere in the provinces there are no mason guild ordinances until the sixteenth century and even these are so rare as to suggest that the conditions of their employment prevented the masons from setting up the normal type of guild organisation which exercised its powers under municipal sanction.

 

The guilds were greatly favoured by municipal authorities because they facilitated the management of the towns in matters of wages, prices, taxation and defence. But the really important building works, the castles, abbeys, monasteries and defence works, were usually far from the towns, and masons travelled, often long distances, to find work. When they found it, they would stay on the job for long periods until their work was finished, and they travelled again. This necessary mobility made the guilds unsuitable for the masons, and it explains the dearth of evidence on mason guilds. Instead, they formed themselves into lodges, more or less temporary bodies, governing themselves by long‑established craft customs.

 

THE LODGE In its primary masonic sense, the word `lodge' appears in documents of the thirteenth century and later, to describe the workshop or hut, common to all sizeable building works, in which the masons worked, stored their tools, ate their meals and rested.

 

At places where building works were continuously in progress the lodge acquired a more permanent character. At York Minster, in 1370, an elaborate code of ordinances was drawn up by the Chapter regulating times of work and refreshment in the `lodge', etc, and new men were sworn to obey the regulations, and not to depart from the work without leave. Probably it was this continuity of employment in one place which gave rise to an extended meaning of `the lodge' so that it began to imply a group of masons permanently attached to a particular undertaking. Thus, at Canterbury in 1429, we find reference in the Prior's accounts to the `masons of the lodge,'

 

48   HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY

 

(Lathami de la Lo ygge) with lists of their names; but no regulations for this particular body have survived.

 

Generally, it would appear that these and similar groups of 'attached' masons, which are known to have existed in the middle ages, were wholly under the control of the authorities whom they served. There is no evidence that they exercised any trade controls; they were governed, not governing bodies. The question whether such groups of 'attached' masons might have tended to form themselves into lodges (in our modern sense) is discussed more fully later.

 

The word 'lodge' appears in a third, and more advanced sense, in Scotland in the sixteenth century, where it is used to describe the working masons of a particular town or district, organised to regulate the affairs of their trade, and having jurisdiction usually within town or city limits, but occasionally over a wider area. In their earliest form these lodges, best described as operative lodges, were intended primarily for purposes of trade control, and for the protection of the masters and craftsmen who came under their jurisdiction; and, in these functions, the aims of the operative lodge were broadly similar to those of the trade companies, such as the London Masons' Company, described above.* There was one peculiarity, however, which later distinguished the lodges from the craft guilds or companies. The members of the lodge shared a secret mode of recognition, which was communicated to them in the course of some sort of brief admission ceremony, under an oath of secrecy. In Scotland this system of recognition was generally known as 'the Mason Word', and there is good reason to believe that it consisted of something more than a mere verbal means of identification.

 

The 'Mason Word' as an operative institution probably came into use in the mid‑sixteenth century; and there are a number of references to it irv documents from 1637 onwards, sufficient to show that its existence was widely known in Scotland (where several operative lodges can be traced to the sixteenth century). In England, apart from the Old Charges, there is no comparable evidence of any similar organisation amongst operative masons until the early eighteenth century.

 

D. Knoop R G. P. Jones, The Scottish Mason and The Mason Word. (Manchcstcr Universitv Press, 1939) pp 6(I‑63.

 

THE TRANSITION FROM OPERATIVE TO SPECULATIVE MASONRY   49

 

Throughout the remainder of this essay, unless there is some special qualifying note in the text, the word 'lodge' is to be defined as an association of masons (operative or otherwise) who are bound together for their common good, and who share a secret mode of recognition to which they are sworn on admission.

 

THE MS CONSTITUTIONS OR OLD CHARGES' Our next evidence of development in mason lodge organisation in England, is derived from the MS Constitutions, a collection of some 130 texts beginning \'1390, and running right through to the eighteenth century. Many of them are closely related to each other, and it is possible to group them into some eight distinct 'families', with a number of unclassified versions. Their general pattern, however, is the same all through, and broadly speaking they each consist of three parts: (1) A opening prayer.

 

(ii) A fabricated history of the mason craft, in which various biblical and historical characters are all supposed to have had a great love for masons and for the 'science' of masonry. Many of these characters gave the masons 'charges', and the history purports to show how the 'science' was handed down until it was finally established in England. It is probable that this 'history' was compiled in order to provide a kind of traditional background for longstanding craft customs that were embodied in the texts.

 

(iii) A code of regulations for masters, fellows (ie qualified craftsmen), and apprentices. The texts usually contain vague arrangements for large‑scale 'assemblies' of masons, implying a widespread territorial organisation; but there is no evidence at all to show whether any such assemblies took place.

 

Some of the texts contain substantial additions and variations which need not concern us for the present. The two earliest versions are the Regius MS, \'1390 and the Cooke MS, \'1410, and the latter contains textual evidence which suggests that its regulations may have been copied from an 'original' text of the 1350s.

 

' D. Knoop. G. P. Jones & D. Ilamer. The 7 no Earliest Masonic MSS. (Manchester Universitv Press. 1938) for transcripts and e valuable stud\' of the oldest versions. For an excellent studv of the historical sections, see Die Genesis of Ereernasonre. by Knoop & Jones, 1947. pp 62_85. This chapter is largely based on the above. and on the numerous transcripts of the MS Constitutions published in the Transactions of the Qnaluor Coronati Lodge, No 2076. London.

 

5O   HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY

 

The actual Charges or regulations form a lengthy and interesting collection. The `Charges General' related mainly to personal conduct. The `Charges Singular' were chiefly concerned with trade matters. The following are a few selected items, to give some idea of their contents: Charges General. Masons were to be true to God and Holy Church, to the King, to their `Lord' (ie their employer) or Master, to be respectful and true to each other and to respect their womenfolk.

 

Charges Singular. No Master or fellow should take any work unless he was able and skilful enough to complete it. Masters should take work at reasonable pay, paying their fellows according to trade custom. No apprentice was to be taken for less than seven years, and only if the Master had enough work for two or three fellows at least. Masters were to pay fellows no more than they deserved, so that they were not cheated by false workmen. The Warden was to be a true mediator between Master and fellow. Itinerant masons coming in search of work were to be `cherished' and given work for two weeks at least; but if there was no work for them, they were to be `refreshed' with money to the next lodge.

 

The regulations are addressed to masters and fellows. Where they relate to apprentices, they are usually identical with the kind of conditions that were customarily embodied in apprentices' indentures. Despite these similarities, however, it is important to stress that the regulations in the MS Constitutions are not guild ordinances, because they lack certain provisions which were an essential feature of all such codes, ie.

 

(a) Arrangements for election of administrative officers and overseers with powers of `search'.

 

(b) Arrangements for annual assembly (and other meetings at specified dates).

 

(c) Sanction of the municipal authorities, which gave craft ordinances the force of law.

 

One other feature distinguishes the MS Constitutions or `Ancient Charges' from the normal codes of medieval craft ordinances, ie 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

 

THE TRANSITION FROM OPERATIVE TO SPECULATIVE MASONRY   51

 

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.

 

THE MS CONSTITUTIONS IN USE

 

We have already noted that the texts lack certain distinguishing features which would characterise normal codes of ordinances. In addition to this negative evidence, there are passages in the texts which indicate that the documents were not, originally, designed for use by established bodies of masons permanently located in towns or cities. The infrequent references to `the lodge' are almost certainly intended to mean `workshop'; the instruction to the steward that all craftsmen were to be served willingly, and to be charged equally for their food; the instruction to the warden to mediate between masters and fellows; all these points suggest that the documents were primarily intended for those semi‑permanent groups of masons who were brought together for a time in the course of their work, and who were, for that very reason, out of reach of established trade organisations in the towns.

 

At the building of Eton College, c1400‑60, and many other great undertakings in the thirteenth to sixteenth centuries where records survive, it is evident that large numbers of masons were in continuous employment for several years on end, and the MS Constitutions may well have been designed for use by such groups. It is equally possible that the documents were used by masons attached to ecclesiastical undertakings such as those at York and Canterbury (mentioned above) where, despite proximity to the towns, the masons came wholly under the control of the Church authorities.

 

It is impossible now to say whether any of these semi‑permanent groups of masons did in fact form themselves into lodges. The existence of such lodges in England at any time before the seventeenth century is a matter of pure speculation, for there is no evidence by which we could prove that they existed. Yet we may envisage the probability that, in places where there was no kind of trade guild or fellowship, lodges would arise to serve the masons as places of meeting and recreation, where they could discuss trade matters, air their grievances, and settle their disputes. It would be under such conditions that we might expect to see the rise of the English operative lodges.

 

52    HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY

 

The texts make provision for an oath of obedience to be taken by new men 'that were never charged before'. This suggests some kind of 'admission ceremony' for newcomers. It would have been a very brief affair consisting of a recital of the opening prayer, with which all versions of the MS Constitutions begin, followed by the oath, and a reading of the appropriate 'charges' or regulations, ie a procedure roughly similar to that for admission into a craft company or fellowship.

 

In some of the later texts, however (and in other contemporary documents) we find a posture for the obligation and evidence of some kind of secret 'words and signes' to which the newcomers were sworn, implying that the MS Constitutions were indeed used in 'operative lodges'.

 

THE RISE AND POWER OF THE OPERATIVE LODGES

 

Our best evidence on the rise and powers of the operative lodges comes from Scotland where a fine collection of documents relating to the mason trade has survived. The first of these is the 'Seal of Cause','granted by the Edinburgh authorities in 1475, when the masons and wrights combined to form the Masons and Wrights Incorporation, a single guild for both trades. That document prescribed the rules by which the trades were to be governed, but there were powers to make additional rules, subject to official approval. Each of the trades was to choose two of 'the best and worthiest of their craft' who were sworn 'to search and see' that the craftsmen's work was 'lawfully and truly' done. Apprentices, at the end of their terms of training, were to be examined by the 'four men' to ensure that they were qualified to become fellow craft. If found worthy, they paid the requisite fee and could enjoy their new status. The 'Seal of Cause' does not mention a lodge and there is no evidence of a lodge in Edinburgh at this period.

 

The Lodge of Edinburgh probably came into being in c1500, but its earliest surviving minutes begin in 1599, when it was certainly the head Lodge of Scotland. There we find that the guild's duty of passing EAs as fellow crafts had been taken over by the Lodge. 'f A magnificent set of town and guild records has survived, and from * J. R. Dashwood & liarr7 Curr, tllirnutee ol tltc Ledge of Edinburgh (Matv's Chapel) No l. (OC Lodgc. 1962) pp 8‑11.

 

+ Ibid, p 46 et passim.

 

T11E TRANSITION FROM OPFRATIVE TO SPFCTLATIVE MASONRY   53

 

these together with Lodge minutes, it is possible to trace the careers of hundreds of masons in the four main stages of their working lives.* Apprentices, at the beginning of their indentures, had to be 'booked' in the town's Register of Apprentices. About three years later, they were admitted into the Lodge as 'entered apprentices'. At the end of their terms, if found qualified, they were passed fellow craft in the Lodge. They were now fully‑trained craftsmen, and in the smaller places, where there were no controls beyond those imposed by the Lodge, their status was in all respects equal to that of Master, and the titles of 'Master or fellow craft' were often used jointly and synonymously.

 

In the larger towns or burghs, the FC had to pass the fourth stage of Freeman‑Burgess, before he could set up as Master. That was open to all qualified 'indwellers of Edinburgh' on undertaking the duties of 'watch and ward', provision of a weapon for defence, and payment of the requisite fees. Broadly, the Incorporation controlled the mason trade in their duties to the town and to the public at large, eg price‑fixing, wage scales and the 'search for false work', while the Lodge controlled the day‑to‑day internal business of the craft.

 

In addition to the splendid run of Lodge minutes at Edinburgh, Kilwinning and other Scottish Lodges, there are two codes of regulations, the Schaw Statutes of 1598 and 1599, promulgated by William Schaw, Warden‑general of the Mason Craft and Master of Works to the Crown of Scotland. The first was addressed to the Masters of the Lodge of Edinburgh 'and all the maister maissounis within this realme'; the second, to the Lodge of Kilwinning, then described as 'second ludge' of Scotland. From all these sources we can see how the operative lodges exercised their powers.

 

They dealt with the admission of entered‑apprentices and passing fellow crafts. To restrict the supply of cheap labour, they controlled the number of apprentices that could be taken, no more than three in a Master's life‑time without special permission. Runaway apprentices were not to be employed and the enticement of apprentices was a crime. No mason was to take work under a man of another trade (eg under a carpenter) who had undertaken work that belonged to the mason trade. No Master was to take over another Master's work after * Harry Carr, The Mason and the Burgh. AQC. 67, pp 38‑43.

 

D. Murray Lyon, Hi.storv of the Lodge of Edinburgh (Mary's Chapel) No l, Tcrcem. edn. 1903, pp 9‑14.

 

54    HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY

 

a price had been agreed with the owner, under penalty of ú40. All disputes were to be reported to the Warden or Deacon (=WM) within twenty‑four hours, under penalty of ú10. All faults or defective works were to be reported, under penalty of ú10 against the 'concealers'.

 

Two cases from the minutes of the Lodge of Edinburgh may serve to show how the Lodge dealt with offenders. In 1600, Alex' Schiell, `servand' to Adam Walker, was accused by his master and several members, of . . . the taking of certain works from the ground to the completing thereof . . . over the free masters heads as he confessed by having taken a deposit thereupon . . . [Quoted in modern English].

 

As a 'servand' Schiell may have been a 'stranger' working as journeyman for Walker, or at best he would have been a time‑served entered‑apprentice who had not yet passed FC. In the latter status, he was only entitled to take one job of work up to ú10 in value, and no more without permission of the 'masters or Warden where they dwell', under penalty of ú20.

 

Schiell had undertaken a complete contract 'over the free masters heads', ie work which belonged only to masters. When charged, he gave a saucy answer, boasting that he had taken a money deposit on the work, and that he would rather quit Edinburgh than submit to their laws. It is virtually certain that he had finished the work. But, as a 'servand' he was in no position to pay a substantial fine, and the Lodge ordered that no master in Edinburgh was to give him employment, under penalty of ú40 (approximately three months wages of a skilled craftsman). That was the end of Schiell.* At the other end of the scale, on 27 December 1679, in the presence of the Deacon, Warden and Brethren of the Lodge, John Fulton, master mason, and Freeman Burgess of Edinburgh, was charged with 'seducing (=enticing) two entered‑apprentices belonging to our Lodge . . .'. The Lodge ordered . . . that he shall receive no benefit from this place nor no converse with any brother and likewise, his servants (= employees) to be discharged from serving him in his employment . . . until he give the deacon and the masters satisfaction.

 

* Dashwood & Carr. Milts of the L of Edr, pp 52‑3.

 

THE TRANSITION FROM OPERATIVE TO SPECULATIVE MASONRY55 They literally closed him down! Nothing more was heard of Fulton until 12 April 1680. He attended that meeting and on his `humble petition' in which he acknowledged `his former fault . . . promised to behave as a brother and never to commit such a fault again in all time coming', he was reinstated. But still he paid a fine of ú40, equal to about eight weeks' wages of a Master Mason.

 

There were restrictions against the employment of `strangers'; if labour was scarce and a Master had to employ a `stranger', he paid a stiff fine for every day the outsider worked for him. There were severe penalties for working with `cowans', who had never been apprenticed to the trade. At Kilwinning in 1647 the penalty for this offence was ú40 Scots, but it varied from time to time, according to the supply of labour. In 1705, the Lodge ordered that.

 

. . . if there be one mason to be found within fifteen miles he is not to employ a cowan under penalty of forty shillings Scots (ie only f2), One more item may be selected from the many that deserve mention. All Masters were ordered to take special care about the security of their scaffolding and `walkways', so that their men could work in the utmost safety. That was the Master's personal responsibility. If any man suffered hurt or damage as a result of his Master's carelessness, that Master could never take work again as a Master as long as he lived.'+ Breaches of the regulations were usually punished by fines, which were often doubled if they were not paid at the next meeting; but the lodge had much wider powers. For a serious offence by an employee, the lodge could order that nobody was to give him work. If a Master offended, the lodge could put him out of business by ordering that nobody was to work for him.

 

It must be remembered that every operative lodge was the lodge in charge of all the masons within its own territory and under the system of strict controls they were powerful and they flourished.

 

OPERATIVE LODGES IN ENGLAND In England, the Lodge at Alnwick (Northumberland) is the earliest operative lodge whose records survive. They begin with a curious code of operative and `moral' regulations drawn up in 1701, followed * /bid, pp 182‑3.

 

Harry Carr. Lodge Mother Kilwinning No 0. (QC Lodge 1961); pp 39‑43. D. Murray Lyon, op. cit p 11.

 

56]LARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY by the minutes up to 1757. There is nothing in the text to indicate whether the lodge was newly erected in 1701, or if it had been in existence before that time. So far as can be ascertained, all the men who were admitted during the period of its earliest records were operative masons.

 

Although they styled themselves 'The Company and Fellowship of Free Masons', they met as a lodge, made operative regulations, ,admitted masons', and made them 'free'. Apprentices were 'given their charge' at the time of their entry, and as we know that the lodge possessed a copy of the MS Constitutions, we may assume that some part of their ceremonial was based upon a reading of the Charges. The minutes, however, yield no evidence on the subject of ceremonies.

 

The records of early operative lodges in England are so scarce that it would have been difficult to say whether the Alnwick Lodge is to be considered typical. Fortunately, the minutes survive of another operative lodge, at SwalwelK in Durham, and their general contents are sufficiently similar to those of Alnwick to confirm that these lodges are indeed representative of their time.

 

In so far as we can compare them with the Scottish operative lodges, they performed a few limited functions of a similar nature, but if they had ever had the range of powers enjoyed by operative lodges north of the Border, they had certainly lost or relinquished them by the early 1700s, when their minutes begin.

 

At the time of their earliest surviving records, both Alnwick and Swalwell apparently had one rare characteristic in common, ie they were purely operative lodges; so far as can be ascertained, there is no evidence to show that either of them had any non‑operative members at this stage.

 

I have been at some pains to establish the probable nature of the earliest English operative lodges, because a starting point ‑ even a hypothetical one ‑ is essential, if we are to assess the extent of the changes which were involved in the transition from operative to speculative masonry.

 

* W. Ii. Rylands, 'The Alnwick Lodge Minutes', AQC, Id. pp 4‑26.

 

W. WapleS. 'The Swalwell Lodge', AQC, 62, pp 89‑90. The oldest minute is dated 1725, but there is little doubt that the Lodge was in existence before that date.

 

THE TRANSITION FROM OPERATIVE TO SPECULATIVE MASONRY57 LODGES IN COURSE OF TRANSITION Primarily Operative Lodges The earliest evidence as to lodges in the transition stage appears in Scotland, where lodges which were purely operative in character began to admit non‑operatives, that is to say men who had no connection with the trade at all, as members. They were usually drawn from the local gentry, and occasionally distinguished visitors to the district were also admitted. Generally their status in the lodges was that of honoured guests, and there is no reason to believe that their coming had any immediate effect on the functions or the character of the lodges.

 

At first, admissions of non‑operatives were very rare. At a meeting of the Lodge of Edinburgh (Mary's Chapel) in 1600, John Boswell of Auchinleck attended with William Schaw, Warden General and Master of Works to the Crown of Scotland, but that was not a normal Lodge meeting. It was called for the trial of Johne Broune, `wairden of ye lodge' who had committed a serious but unspecified offence. They must both have been there in an official capacity; they were not members of the Lodge. (The penalty should have been ú40, but moved by 'certain considerations', it was reduced to ú10.) There are no records of non‑operative admissions into the lodge until 3 July 1634, when Lord Alexander and his brother Sir Anthony Alexander, sons of the Earl of Stirling, with Sir Alexander Strachan, Bart, were separately admitted fellow crafts, presumably receiving the elements of the EA and FC degrees in a single session.

 

Later, the minute‑book gives us all the information we need to enable us to compare the steady admission of working masons with the infrequent records of non‑operative entrants.

 

Despite its non‑operative members, the lodge continued to exercise its functions as an operative lodge right up to the 1700s, making trade regulations for apprentices, journeymen and masters, collecting quarterages and punishing offenders.

 

At Aitchison's Haven, where lodge minutes begin in 1598, there are records of non‑operative admissions in 1672, 1677 and 1693. At Kilwinning (minutes from 1642) there are several records of admissions of nobility and gentry from 1672 onwards. 'I At Aberdeen, Dashwood & Carr, Mins. of the L. of Edr.. pp 99‑102.

 

+ There are occasional minutes recording non‑operatives who received both EA and FC in a single session (eg Carr. Kilwinning, pp 86, 89) but thev are comparatively rare.

 

58HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY where the earliest surviving lodge records are dated 1670, a list of members shows that there were 10 operative master‑masons or fellowcrafts on the roll, against 39 non‑operatives, drawn from the nobility and gentry, professional men, merchants, and tradesmen.

 

Like Mary's Chapel all these lodges were,~~till conducting themselves as operative lodges, though there can be little doubt that the Lodge of Aberdeen was already substantially affected by its overwhelming non‑operative membership; indeed it made special regulations in 1670 for its gentlemen members. The character of the lodge was beginning to change.

 

Such lodges as these, during the transition stage, may well be described as 'primarily‑operative lodges'.

 

NON‑OPERATIVE LODGES AND ACCEPTED MASONS In England another stage in the Transition appears during the seventeenth century when we find the first evidence relating to lodges which had nothing to do with the trade at all ‑ purely non‑operative lodges.

 

Perhaps the most interesting of these was the lodge which arose in connection with the London Masons' Company. The Company's early records are lost, but an old account‑book survives with entries from 1620. At that time it was a trade‑controlling body, governed by a Master and Warden, with a Court of Assistants. Apprentices to the trade, having completed their terms, took up their freedom, paid various fees amounting to 23/10d in all, and came `on the Yeomanry'; in due course they paid a further ú9 and were advanced to `the Livery'; and the general body of the Company's membership was made up of these two grades.

 

The first hint of a lodge in connection with this trade organisation appears in the Company's accounts for 1621: Att the making Masons, viz. John Hince, John Browne, Rowland Everett, Evan Lloyde, James ffrench, John Clarke, Thomas Rose. Rd. of them as apereth by the Quartge booke ... ú9. 6s. 8d.

 

ie an entry for money received from these men, showing an average of 26s. 8d. from each.

 

At first glance it might appear that they were paying some part of their Company‑fees, but the accounts (for 1620) show that three of them were already on the Livery, and another had been on the THE TRANSITION FROM OPERATIVE TO SPECULATIVE MASONRY59 Yeomanry for seven years at least. Those men had been masons by trade for years, and it is clear that this business of `making Masons' was something quite separate from normal trade routine.

 

Membership of this separate body was open to the Yeomanry and the Livery, but it was purely optional, and there were working masons of both grades in the Company who were never `made masons' in this special sense. On the other hand, the records reveal that a number of men were `made masons' who were not members of the Company at all, and who in fact were not connected with the mason trade in any way! It was perhaps for these entrants from outside the trade that the word `accepted' came to be used. It appears first in some special sense in 1631 when the accounts show that 6/6 was paid `. . . in goeing abroad and att a meeteing att the hall about ye Masons yt were to bee accepted'. In 1650 an entry shows two men paying the balance of their `fines . . . for coming on the Liuerie and admission uppon Acceptance of Masonry'; the Acception then cost 20/‑; and later, two strangers who had no connection with the Company paid 40/‑ each for `coming on the accepcon'. It should be stressed that when they joined the Acception these two had been `made masons' but they still had nothing to do with the Masons' Company, and for that reason they paid twice the normal feet Dr Plot described the business of becoming an Accepted Mason in his Natural History of Staffordshire which was written in 1686. After stating that one of the customs of the county was that of admitting men into the Society of Free‑Masons, a custom spread more‑or‑less all over the Nation, he adds that `persons of the most eminent quality . . . did not disdain to be of this Fellowship'. Plot's description of the admission ceremony and the purpose of the Society is fiery brief.

 

. . . they proceed to the admission of them, which chiefly consists in the communication of certain secret signs, whereby they are known to one another all over the Nation, by which means they have maintenance whither ever they travel: for if any man appear though altogether unknown that can shew any of these signes to a Fellow of the Society, whom they " Conder. op. cit pp 146. 155. 170.

 

> Under precise definition the title 'Accepted Masons' is used for men admitted into the 'Acception'. or into wholly non‑operative lodges. The term 'non‑operative masons' is reserved for those unconnected with the mason trade. who were admitted into operative lodges.

 

60HARRY CARR's WORLD OF FREEMASONRY otherwise call an accepted mason, he is obliged presently to come to him . . . if he want work he is bound to find him some; or if he cannot doe that, to give him mony, or otherwise support him till work can be had; which is one of their Articles.

 

Plot has more to say about the Free‑Masons, but the extracts above, with other scraps of contemporary information help to show what the 'Accepcon' was doing. It was a Society for 'making Masons', an adjunct of the London Masons' Company. It made 'accepted Masons' out of men who were already masons by trade and members of the Company; it also made 'accepted masons out of men who had no connection with either the trade or the Company.

 

Financially, the 'Accepcon' was in the Company's pocket, and its whole income from admission‑fees went into the Company's coffers; but from first to last it had no connection with trade affairs. The accounts suggest that its meetings were infrequent, but we cannot be sure of this. The Company's accounts are void of all reference to entertainment expenses for the 'Accepcon' which implies that such charges were defrayed by a whip‑round or 'club'. In that case it is possible that meetings were held at frequent or regular intervals, and only admissions were rare.

 

How long the 'Accepcon' had been in existence before 1620 is a matter of pure speculation. As late as 1677 a minute in the Court Books of the Company ordered the disposal of ú6, '. . . which was left of the last accepted masons money . . .' and Ashmole visited the Lodge in 1682, showing that the 'Accepcon' had a continuous and lengthy (if erratic) existence, and may well have served as a pattern for similar organisations elsewhere.

 

A point of major importance, which seems to have escaped notice, is that the Company and the 'Accepcon' jointly were exercising practically the same functions as those 'primarily operative lodges' (described ante) of which we have several contemporary examples in Scotland. It seems highly probable that the London organisation in two parts and the Scottish Lodge in its 'merged' form represent two alternative lines of development.

 

Early evidence relating to other non‑operative lodges is very scarce. One of the best known cases was the meeting held on 16 Mcekren, 'Grand Lodge'. A QC, 69, was inclined to treat the 'Accepcon' as a series of ad /roc or occasional lodges, but this view does not seem to give due weight to the records.

 

im. TRANSITION FROM OPERAlIVE TO SPECULATIVE MASONRY61 October 1646, at Warrington, at which Elias Ashmole and another gentleman were fnade Free‑Masons. The lodge on this occasion consisted of only seven men who were apparently all non‑operatives. Apart from the brief reference to this meeting in Ashmole's diary, all contemporary records of this lodge have disappeared. The fact that Ashmole described one of the gentlemen as 'warden', suggests that this was an established lodge, having a continuous existence; but we must envisage the possibility that it was an 'occasional' lodge, ie an assembly of five or six masons, met by inherent right, for the purpose of admitting new masons, and then disbanding without further trace.` Among the collected papers of the third Randle Holme there is a page of notes giving evidence of the existence of a non‑operative lodge at Chester, (‑1672‑75. It had some 26 members at least (including Holme himself) mainly belonging to the building trades, but there were other tradesmen, and merchants and gentlemen as well. Little is known of the Lodge at that time, but the fact that all the members appear to have been Chester men, with Holme's known interest in the Fellowship of the Masons, suggests that this was a 'continuous' non‑operative lodge whose records are now lost.

 

There are records of a non‑operative lodge at York, with details of admissions from 1712. The gentry were strongly represented in its membership, but Francis Drake in a speech to the Lodge in 1726, addressed himself to the 'working masons', men of other trades, and the gentry, a mixed membership similar to that at Chester.

 

Unfortunately, we know nothing about the beginnings of all these Lodges; we cannot be sure whether they were operative or non‑operative in origin, or how far they had changed before they make their first appearance in our old records. In Scotland, in 1702, a new Lodge was founded at Haughfoot (near Galashiels) and it occupies a unique place in the history of the Transition for it was the first wholly non‑operative Lodge, non‑operative at its foundation, and throughout its existence.

 

THE STAGES IN THE TRANSITION In the preceeding pages I have sketched very briefly the evolution * In Scotland. 'out‑entries' tic the admission of EA's or FC's awav from the lodge) were not uncommon, and quite legal, provided there was a quorum of five or six members (usually including an officer of the lodge) and the 'entries' were reported at the next meeting of the lodge, when the requisite fees had to be paid. Carr. KiAvinnin, pp 121‑27.

 

62HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY of mason trade and lodge organisation up to the stage at which the lodges were beginning to lose their strictly operative purpose. Conditions were not uniform everywhere, and the lines of development varied considerably in different places but, so far as we can follow the stages generally, their sequence seems to have been as follows: (1) The formation of mason guilds or companies, scarce in England.

 

(2) The evolution of operative lodges in places where there were no official trade organisations. These would have been contemporaneous with (1).

 

(3) Operative lodges taking over the internal management of the craft and working side by side with the Incorporations, which controlled the external functions of the trade in relation to wages, prices, and the protection of the customer and the public at large from `false work' and faulty materials.

 

(4) The admission of non‑operatives into operative lodges.

 

(5) The transition from wholly operative to non‑operative status, by an actual change in the character and composition of the lodge. There were two contributory causes: (a) diminishing powers of trade control: (b) the admission of non‑operatives. (6) The rise of wholly non‑operative lodges, having secret `words and signes', but being mainly associations for social, and convivial purposes.

 

(7) In the eighteenth century, the rise of the `speculative' influence in the lodges, and the gradual evolution of `speculative' freemasonry.

 

In Scotland, perhaps because of the close connection between the crafts organisations and the municipal authorities, the minute‑books of several old lodges have survived, and it is possible to trace the various stages in the transition, as recorded by the participants. Perhaps the best example for our purpose is the Lodge of Edinburgh, Mary's Chapel, whose minutes run virtually unbroken from 1599 to the present day.

 

THE REASONS FOR THE TRANSITION The Transition in Edinburgh The attendance records of the three gentlemen who were admitted (honorary) members of the Lodge of Edinburgh, and of the very few THE TRANSITION FROM OPERATIVE TO SPECULATIVE MASONRY63 non‑operatives who were admitted in the later 1600s, indicate that their interest in the Lodge was of brief duration; they were present at a few meetings and then disappeared. This implies that they probably played no part in any structural changes in the character of the lodge, although we know that the admission‑ceremonies were modified for their benefit.

 

At no time during the seventeenth century was the non‑operative membership high enough to `swamp' the lodge, and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that they were trying to make any changes. On the contrary, there is good evidence that the changes were largely due to economic causes.

 

The first evidence of decline appears c1650 when the town records reveal that a large proportion of the apprentices who were being entered in the lodge had never been `Booked' in the Register of Apprentices. This is even more noticeable in the period 1671‑90 when there was an enormous increase in the number of apprentices ,entered', without any corresponding rise in `Bookings'. Municipal regulations required all Apprentices to be `Booked' as an essential preliminary to their ultimate freedom, and the frequent breaches of this rule indicate that craftsmen were able to find ample employment outside the jurisdiction of the town.

 

During the same period 1676‑90 the Lodge records show a marked reluctance on the part of its 'entered‑apprentices' to take on their full responsibilities as craftsmen, by passing as Fellow‑Crafts. In 1677, following a series of disastrous fires, the Edinburgh Town Council ordered that all ruined buildings should be rebuilt in stone. As a result, there was plenty of work available, and apprentices who had finished their terms of service were able to make a living as journeymen, without having to bear the financial burdens of becoming `Fellowcraft or Master'. In effect, the Lodge was losing men who should have been its `full members', and who were its main source of income.

 

In 1681, The Lodge ordained that any master who employed EAs who remained `unpassed' for more than two years after they had completed their terms of service, was to pay a fine of 20/‑ per day, a very stiff penalty. This, and similar edicts in the succeeding years, helped to check the decline.

 

* Dashwood & Carr, Edinburgh, pp 192‑3.

 

64HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY But the whole idea of compulsory passing was out of keeping with the basis of craft organisation, which had centred on the principle of trained apprentices earning their promotion to the rank of FC by proving their qualifications in an essay, or test of practical skill. If entered apprentices were compelled to pass FC within two years of their discharge, there could be no question of a real qualifying test. From about this time, the 1680s, we may date the gradual change in the character of the Lodge, from a 'closed‑shop' association of skilled craftsmen to a trade association of `members', ie, a society in which actual numbers and Lodge income were to become more important than technical skill.

 

There were many other difficulties with which the Lodge had to contend. From 1673 onwards, the minutes show that the Edinburgh masons were greatly troubled by the intrusion of itinerant labour from outside the city. Severe penalties were ordained against masters who employed these `inhibited men' but with little avail." In 1677 a new Lodge was founded in the Canongate, which was a separate burgh adjoining the eastern part of the city of Edinburgh. The Canongate had had its own Incorporation of Wrights, Coopers, and Masons, since 1585, and the new Lodge t was outside the jurisdiction of the Lodge of Edinburgh. A rival Lodge on their doorstep! In 1688 yet another Lodge was founded, this time by masons seceding from Mary's Chapel.* Despite protests and the threat of penalties, only one of the seceders ever returned to Mary's Chapel, and the new Lodge continued to flourish. The enormity of this blow can only be judged when we remember that up to this time every operative lodge was the lodge of its own district, and had full control over all the masons in its own area. No operative lodge could function properly if it had a rival in its own territory, and the very existence of these rivals was proof that Mary's Chapel was losing the strong local trade control which it had formerly exercised.

 

In 1682, the Lodge of Edinburgh ordained that a fee of 12/‑ per annum was to be paid by all journeymen‑masons who did not belong to the Lodge, the income to be used for benevolent purposes, and, from 1688 onwards the minutes reveal an ever‑increasing interest in * Ibid, pp 172‑3, 198‑9.

 

+ Now Lodge Canongate Kilwinning No 2 (SC).

 

Now Lodge Canongate and Leith. Leith and Canongate. No 5 (SC).

 

THE TRANSITION FROM OPERATIVE TO SPECULATIVE MASONRY65 financial matters, with much time devoted to the lending of idle money, collection of debts and inspection of accounts. The Lodge was acquiring some of the characteristics of a benefit society.

 

In 1708 the Lodge ran into difficulties with its own journeymen, who complained that they had not got a proper oversight of the Lodge accounts and funds. It was a prolonged dispute which ended in the Law Courts in 1715, when the journeymen won the right to maintain a Lodge that they had set up in Edinburgh,` and to confer the `Mason Word'. This was yet another blow to the power and status of the mother Lodge, but the final stage in the Transition was still to come.

 

In December 1726, one of the members, James Mack, reported that a number of 'creditable tradesmen' in the city were anxious to join the Lodge, and were each of them willing to give 'a guinea in gold for the use of the poor'. The proposed candidates were all men from other trades, and although the golden guineas were very tempting, the diehard operatives in the Lodge rejected the proposal.

 

A month later, Mack returned to the attack at a meeting of seven masters (mainly friends of his) which he had apparently called without permission of the Master of the Lodge. The question of the proposed admissions was re‑opened, and there was a thundering row. The Master and Warden 'walked out', and the remaining five proceeded to elect new officers, choosing Mack as 'preses' or Master. The Lodge then admitted the Deacon of the Wrights as a joining FC; three 'entered‑apprentices' from other lodges, all non‑operative, were admitted and passed FC; and seven burgesses, none of them masons, were received 'entered apprentices and fellow crafts'.' In February 1727 another eight non‑operatives were admitted, and the operative character of the Lodge was completely lost. The extent of the change may be judged from the fact that in 1736, when the Lodge compiled its first code of Bye‑laws, not a single regulation was made which concerned the mason trade. The 'Transition' was complete! In the few Scottish lodges where adequate records survive,? the changes followed much the same pattern as at Mary's Chapel, and * Now the Lodge of Journeymen. No 8 (SC).

 

+ These men of other trades who received both degrees in one evening, were treated much better than the masons themselves, who waited approx. seven years hetwcen the grades of 'Entered Apprentice' and 'Fellow Craft'. Dashwood X Carr. Edinburgh. pp 278‑382.

 

$ eg Lodge Mother Kilwinning No 0 and the Lodge of Aberdeen No I"`.

 

66HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY generally it is clear that the main reasons for the changes were purely economic. The rapid growth of the towns, and the ability of craftsmen to find employment readily outside the jurisdiction of Lodge and Incorporation, led to a decline in the trade‑controlling powers of the lodges, so that they began to pay more attention to social and charitable works than to their old functions of trade control. The unrestricted admission of non‑operatives was an additional factor in helping to develop the social and convivial aspects of the lodges which, when their trade functions had faded altogether, were ready for those 'speculative' influences which began, very gradually, to come in.

 

THE TRANSITION IN ENGLAND In England, however, the reasons for the changes are not so easily explained, chiefly because of the absence of early lodge records. We premise that here, as in Scotland, the purest or most perfect type of operative lodge combined two functions, ie, trade control, and the communication of 'secrets'. Thus we may treat the Lodges at Alnwick and Mary's Chapel as virtually identical organisations, and the London Masons' Company in conjunction with the 'Accepcon' as a similar type of organisation at a different stage of development. There is no evidence that the Acception had been a part of the London Masons' Company in the earlier stages of the Company's history. On the contrary, the manner in which Acception items appear in the Company's account‑book suggests that it was a sort of side‑line probably intended at first for members of the Company alone.

 

Next we observe that the 'Accepcon' was beginning to admit non‑operatives though their fees still went into the Company's box. Unlike the arrangements in the Scottish lodges, the situation here was such that when economic pressures began to play a part, it was the Trade Company that was affected, while the Acception probably remained untouched.

 

As regards English masons, the strongest economic forces came into play after the Great Fire of London in 1666, when it became necessary to encourage alien and 'foreign' builders from outside London to come into the city. In four days 13,000 houses, 400 streets and 89 churches had been destroyed by the fire. All sorts of privileges were offered to newcomers. The old restrictions against `intruders' THE TRANSITION FROM OPERATIVE TO SPECULATIVE MASONRY67 and the customary requirements in regard to apprenticeship and `freedom' were all discarded. All incoming labourers in the building trades were to have the same rights as full freemen of the Crafts for seven years, (and more if necessary), until the city was rebuilt. By this Act of 1667, Parliament practically deprived the Company of its chief trade‑controlling powers.* From about this time we may date the multiplication of lodges in London, for there can be little doubt that the immigrants brought their own particular customs and practices. It may be from this period that we can date the curious mixture of Scottish and English practices which appear to have been embodied in early versions of the masonic ritual.

 

It may be noted that whatever lodges there were in London at that time (including the `Accepcon') were practically void of any real connection with trade affairs. Just as the rapid growth of Edinburgh had brought about a diminution in the trade‑controlling powers of Mary's Chapel, so in London the urgent need for builders had deprived the Masons' Company of its influence; and the lodges, ephemeral at first, and having no anchorage in the way of trade functions, tended to become mere social and convivial clubs of masons, of mixed membership, t still practising the procedure of ,making masons', but with little or no interest in the trade. Unfortunately, no records survive of these early lodges save those relating to the four (at least) which were in existence in London when the first Grand Lodge was founded in 1717.

 

THE SOCIAL OR CONVIVIAL PHASE Feasting and drinking was no novelty in masonic life, and the term .convivial masonry' (for lack of a better description) does not imply a decadent period in craft history. In the days of the earliest social and religious guilds, and later in the trade guilds and livery companies, ale‑drinkings, dinners and feasts were an important adjunct to the regular business of each meeting.

 

At Edinburgh in the late fifteenth century there are many records of new burgesses paying for their freedom with `spices and wine', a banquet, and in England the records of the trade companies in all the larger cities show that the provision of a breakfast, dinner or banquet ` Conder. op cit pp 183‑6 and 192. t :e, operative and non‑operative.

 

68HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY' was one of the recognised expenses of the freedom. In Scotland generally there are numerous regulations as to the banquets to be provided by masons when they became fellows‑of‑craft, and occasionally by apprentices at their `entry', and it is probable that similar practices were customary amongst English masons.

 

The Scottish lodge minutes show that with the gradual diminution of their authority and power in trade matters, the lodges began to acquire the characteristics of social and benevolent clubs, collecting funds for their `poor', lending money at interest, and meeting annually (if not more frequently) for their feasts. Despite the lack of records, there can be no doubt that English operative masonry followed a somewhat similar pattern in the course of the Transition.

 

It is impossible to date this phase of convivial masonry with any degree of accuracy. We must first of all discard our present‑day notion of all lodges under the control of a Grand Lodge, all working under the same regulations, and all practising the same rites. Up to the early eighteenth century each lodge was virtually a law unto itself; generally it made its own regulations, and it was subject only to the changing conditions of the trade in its own locality.

 

For these reasons the symptoms of decline and change did not make their appearance simultaneously. In England the evolution of `convivial masonry' probably began in the mid‑seventeenth century, and the Acception in the 1620s may be a good example of this type of Lodge without any operative `raison dWre.' In Scotland, where the lodges generally were still exercising operative controls in the late seventeenth century, the convivial phase seems to have begun in the early 1700s, but the whole business was a very gradual one. The lodges, slowly bereft of their original purpose and functions, and having no specific aims, continued as social clubs throughout a period of decline, until the Speculative renaissance gave them a new sense of direction.

 

THE ADVENT OF SPECULATIVE MASONRY In the course of this essay, some care has been taken to avoid the use of the adjective `speculative' in relation either to lodges or their members. In our present‑day sense of the word as applied to the Craft, it means `a peculiar system of morality, veiled in allegory, and illustrated by symbols'. If this definition be adopted, it is highly improbable that the word could be used in relation to any of the THE TRANSITION FROM OPERATIVE TO SPECULATIVE MASONRY69 seventeenth century lodges, either in England or Scotland.

 

The advent of 'Speculative' Masonry is a problem directly connected with the subject of early Masonic ritual. The origins or sources of the ritual are unknown. We assume that at some early date, perhaps before the fourteenth century, the masons as a craft possessed a body of customs, craft‑lore and, at a later stage, 'secrets', from which the earliest elementary masonic ceremonies ultimately evolved. There is little doubt that they were known in Scotland before 1600, and in England before 1620.

 

Our earliest evidence as to the actual contents of the craft ritual is drawn from a series of masonic aide‑memoires compiled c1696‑c1714, all having a distinctly Scottish flavour. Despite their dubious origin it has been shown that these texts do represent the ceremonies as practised at that time, and perhaps even a century earlier." They depict a rite of two degrees, 'entered apprentice', and 'master or fellow craft', each containing an obligation, entrusting with 'secrets' and a series of questions and answers. t The texts contain nothing that might be described as speculative masonry, and on these documents alone there would be no grounds to infer that they are the same ceremonies as were practised in England generally, or in the London Acception.

 

Nevertheless, it seems likely that both English and Scottish ritual drew their inspiration from the same sources. There is a whole series of later texts c1700‑30, including several of non‑Scottish origin, and it is possible to trace in them a nucleus of ritual that seems to have been common to both countries. This nucleus of `catechism and esoteric matter' was probably the basis of the masonic ceremonies throughout the stages of operative, non‑operative and accepted masonry.", Since we cannot set a precise date to the period of so‑called 'convivial' masonry, which preceded the speculative reformation, the next question arises, 'when and how did the reformation begin'? In Scotland, the trade functions of the lodges helped to prevent any rapid changes, and it is possible that there were no real speculative developments until the 1730s. In all Scottish lodges where early minutes survive, this reluctance to change is a marked characteristic.

 

Carr. 600 Years of Craft Ritual, AQC, 81 pp 158‑9. + EMC, pp 31‑43.

 

Ibid, pp 71‑5 for the first printed exposure. 1723. All the texts collected in this work are interesting, and Prichard's Masonry Dissected, ibid. pp 157‑70, shows useful evidence of early speculative expansion.

 

70HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY The same is true of Alnwick, where the Lodge functioned as an operative lodge until 1748, when it was virtually re‑constituted as a speculative body.

 

In England, it seems likely that the changes began in the Acception, which was (so far as is known) the only Lodge completely void of any trade functions, and it was perhaps the first lodge in England to admit non‑operative masons. If it did in fact practise a ceremony related to the `nucleus', we know that the questions and answers, very simple in themselves, were such as would lend themselves readily to Speculative expansion.

 

In this connection, we have to consider the kind of men who were beginning to take an interest in the society. As early as 1646, when Ashmole was made a Freemason in a Lodge composed mainly of gentlemen‑masons, the craft in England was already attracting men of quality and learning; indeed all the seventeenth century commentators on the craft confirm this, either directly or by implication.

 

The reasons for this widespread interest are not known, but if the gentry were seeking anything more than mere companionship and conviviality they must have been sadly disappointed. The `words and signes', which had formed an additional bond for men who were already united in service to an ancient craft, must have been almost meaningless when they were divorced from their operative roots and purposes.

 

We can only speculate as to whether these seventeenth century accepted (or non‑operative) masons were in any way responsible for the changes which subsequently arose in the ritual practices, and in the aims of the craft. At the end of the century however, and in the first two decades of the eighteenth century, there was another revival of interest in the craft, which resulted in the formation of the first Grand Lodge. Its original and expressed objects were very modest, ie, to constitute an organisation under a Grand Master, to revive (?) or hold Quarterly Communications and an annual feast. The new body apparently neither claimed nor hoped for any wider jurisdiction th4n the few lodges in London and Westminster. But within a few years the Grand Lodge had gained adherents far and wide and the men who had been in the forefront of the movement had the requisite machinery to hand for propagating the ideas and ideals which were at the root of the Speculative transformation.

 

The earliest evidence from which we can infer some kind of THE TRANSITION FROM OPERATIVE TO SPECULATIVE MASONRY71 modification of the ceremonies appears in Scotland in the 1600s,* and it was a change which could never have come naturally in a purely operative lodge. We have no textual evidence of subsequent changes until the eighteenth century. In these later texts, side by side with the evidence of re‑arrangement, we also find a certain amount of Speculative expansion, innovation and embellishment, which gives some sort of hint of what was taking place.

 

Undoubtedly, the formation of the Grand Lodge in 1717 was a decisive step towards the Speculative revival, but it was a slow process. The convivial phase did not disappear instantly; indeed smoking and drinking inside the lodge were quite customary throughout the eighteenth century.

 

But a new meaning and purpose was given to the ceremonies as the Craft gradually emerged from its aimless phase. From about 1730, largely as a result of the publication of `Exposures', there is evidence of a certain amount of standardisation of the ritual, but it was not until the 1760s and 1770s that the Craft began to acquire that unique combination of symbolism with the teaching of religious and moral principles, which have helped to make it a real `centre of union between good men and true'.

 

*Non‑operatives were admitted in a kind of 'combined' ceremony, to the status of FC. whereas masons waited some seven years between EA and FC.

 

4 LODGE MOTHER KILWINNING, No 0 This essay. reproduced by courtesv of the Leicester Lodge of Research, No 2429, from its Transactions for 1960‑61. is a prccis of the full‑length history, Mother Lodge Kilivinning, No 0, 1642‑1842. by the same author. which was published by the Quatuor Coronati Lodge. No 2076. It is now out of print.

 

KILWINNING AND THE SCHAW STATUTES, 1599 KILWiNNING, IN Ayrshire, on the right bank of the Garnock, about 24 miles SW of Glasgow, is today a town of some 7,000 inhabitants. In 1755 its population was 2,541, and in the 1600s, the period with which we are mainly concerned, it can have been little more than a village. It took its name after St Winnin who lived there in the eighth century, and the great glory of this little place was the Abbey of Kilwinning, founded probably between 1140 and 1190. When it was completed it must have been one of the noblest structures on the west coast of Scotland.

 

The abbey and monastery, however, did not play any great part in Scottish history, and its chief interest for us in our present study lies in the ancient tradition that it was the birthplace of Freemasonry in Scotland and that the Lodge, supposed to have been founded by the monastery builders, was the Mother Lodge of the Craft in the west of Scotland. Unfortunately, no documentary evidence has survived to support this theory.

 

The earliest surviving document which relates to the mason trade at Kilwinning‑ is the code of regulations known as the Schaw Statutes of 1599. They were promulgated by William Schaw, Master of Works to the Crown under James VI and Warden General of the Mason Craft. They show that at this date, 1599, the mason lodge at Kilwinning was of such standing as to be described by him as the `. . . heid and second ludge of Scotland . . .', and that it was then vested with substantial trade‑controlling powers over a wide area.

 

It granted Charters to some 34 new lodges, and claimed allegiance 72 LODGE MOTHER KILWINNING NO 073 from them; it enjoyed a nationwide respect amounting almost to reverence, and it was, masonically, a law unto itself for more than two centuries.

 

William Schaw issued two main codes of regulations. The first, dated 28 December 1598, consisted of `. . . statutis and ordinanceis to be obseruit be all the maister maissounis within this realme . . .' [of Scotland]. It was directed to the mason craft throughout Scotland; its regulations were deemed to apply to all masons in that kingdom, and no single lodge is specifically mentioned in this code.

 

The second code of regulations was dated 28 December 1599, and that document was clearly addressed to the Lodge of Kilwinning alone. It contained regulations and provisions which may have held good in mason communities all over Scotland; it defined the relationship of the Lodge of Kilwinning to other masonic bodies, but essentially it was intended for Kilwinning.

 

It is not merely the oldest document relating to the Lodge, but is of special importance in regard to its authenticity and impartiality, because the regulations which it contains were not drawn up by the Lodge itself but were promulgated for the Lodge under the authority of an officer of the Scottish crown.

 

Broadly the regulations fall into three distinct groups: (a) Regulations which define the status of the Lodge in relation to the whole craft in Scotland.

 

(b) Regulations which define the status and powers of the Lodge in relation to other Lodges within its own territory.

 

Briefly, Kilwinning was given powers over all the Lodges in an area of roughly 1,000 square miles, with the right to have her representatives present at the elections of all Deacons and Wardens, to convene them when needed, and to make whatever regulations were required to preserve good order in the Craft.

 

It should be noted, however, that no contemporary records have survived of any of these lodges which were `subject to' Kilwinning, and it is extremely doubtful whether any such widespread organisation really existed. The earlier Kilwinning minutes show that the Lodge regularly appointed its own quartermasters in places far distant from Kilwinning, but there is no hint (in the early records) of any lodges subject to the Mother Lodge.

 

(c) Regulations for the proper management and `guid ordor' of the Lodge 74HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY They included provisions for the admission of Apprentices and Fellows of Craft, fees of entry, the imposition of `essays', annual examinations with power to fine any who failed their test. Kilwinning was to hold an Annual Court `to take trial of offences' with powers to expel the disobedient and punish offenders.

 

It is not easy to appraise the accuracy of this code of 1599 in regard to some of its provisions (eg banquets, examinations, etc) because the Lodge Minutes afford no evidence on those practices. The main importance of this text lies in the confirmation which it gives of the existence of the Lodge in 1599 as a headquarters of mason trade‑control on the west coast of Scotland, exercising its powers by sanction of the highest authority, while the frequent references to ancient acts and statutes, apparently so well known that they did not need to be repeated, suggest a high degree of organisation within the craft at Kilwinning, though it must be admitted that no evidence of such organisation prior to 1599 has survived.

 

That a mason Lodge existed here before 1599 is certain beyond reasonable doubt; but it is likely that we shall never know when the Lodge came into being, or whether it had any kind of continuity of existence before 1599.

 

Reg. 3 places Edinburgh as the `first and principall ludge in Scotland', with Kilwinning second, and Stirling third.

 

There is no suggestion here that Kilwinning or Stirling were in any way subservient to Edinburgh, and it is evident that the regulation deals here with three `head' lodges, each supreme in its own territory. Thus, although Kilwinning is frequently described as the `second Ludge of Scotland', the first regulation puts the situation more accurately with the phrase `. . . the heid and second Ludge of Scotland . . .'.

 

THE OLDEST MINUTES, 1642 Re‑organisation or Revival? The oldest surviving minutes of the Lodge are dated 20 December 1642, and there is no indication of its activities during the 43 years which had elapsed since the Schaw Statutes were published in 1599. From 1642 onwards, with few exceptions, the minutes were kept regularly, and despite the religious and other troubles which afflicted the country the old Lodge books provide practically an unbroken record of one of the oldest and most famous lodges in the world.

 

LODGE MOTHER KILWINNING NO 0'I5 The first minute poses a problem, because it only needs a glance at the subsequent minutes to see that this assembly in 1642 was not an ordinary lodge meeting. The minute runs: xx December 1642 In the Ludge of Kilwinning convenit of the maissoun craft the persons following and Inrollit thame selffis in the said Ludge and submittit thame selffis thairunto and to the actis and statutis thairof . . .

 

followed by the names of 26 apprentices and fellows‑of‑craft, all with their marks attached. No other business was recorded. These men convened, enrolled themselves in the lodge, and promised to submit to its rules and regulations ‑ and that was all they did.

 

If we were not sure that the Lodge had been in existence since 1599, we might well believe that this was the foundation of a new lodge, but it was not. The only interpretation of the minute is that this meeting was called either to revive a dormant lodge, or to reorganise it after a period of internal trouble. There is valuable evidence on this question in the minutes of 1644 when John Smithe, who was present as a fellow‑craft in 1642, paid the balance of his fees for admission as a fellow‑craft, which had taken place some time before 1642.

 

Several other arguments might be added, but John Smithe's payment in 1644 makes it certain that the 1642 meeting was a reorganisation.

 

THE SECOND MEETING The next recorded meeting was held on 20 December 1643, and 20 December became the regular date for the Annual Meetings.

 

The Court of the Ludge . . . holdin in the vpper chamber of the Duelling hous of hew smithe . . .

 

From 1643 onwards and for many years afterwards the Kilwinning meetings were held in Hew Smithe's upper chamber. Incidentally, his name does not appear in any of the early rolls of those present at meetings, and it is highly probable that he was not a mason. In that case his house was probably chosen for its size, its accessibility `at the Cross of Kilwinning' and perhaps for the quality of the liquid refreshment which was doubtless available in his, as in many other Scottish 'dwelling‑houses' at that time.

 

The unusual nature of the business transacted by the brethren at 76HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY this meeting, tends to confirm that the Lodge was being reorganised. There was a restatement of the old powers for excluding the disobedient and procedure for the admission of 'fellow‑crafts or masters'. They fixed a new scale of quarterage, imposed fees‑ofhonour to be paid by the principal officers, and made arrangements for an annual meeting in July at Kilbarchan, a village about 15 miles north of Kilwinning, in addition to the regular meeting on 20 December.

 

The Kilbarchan meeting was designed to provide for the masons living in Kilwinning's northern territory, and fines for absence were fixed at 20/‑ or 40/‑, according to distance, apprentices paying only half those sums. As 40/‑ represented more than one‑third of a skilled mason's weekly wage, the penalties for non‑attendance were quite severe! All sums quoted in this paper are reproduced from the original minutes in Scots money. To arrive at the Sterling equivalents divide by twelve, ie ú1 Scots equals 1/8d Sterling. One Merk Scots, ie 13/4 Scots, equals 1/1 1/2d Sterling at that time.

 

The best rough guide however is to compare these sums with the mason's wages. In summer (ie at the period of highest earnings), a skilled mason in Scotland received ú5 6s 8d Scots per week, ie 8/l Id Sterling.

 

In addition to all this, there was the ordinary annual business, ie the election of Deacon and Warden (corresponding roughly to our Master and Treasurer), the appointment of Quartermasters as representatives of the Lodge in its outlying districts (whose main duty was the collection of Quarterage) and the appointment of a local lawyer to serve as Clerk.

 

It was indeed an enormous day's work, the only meeting of its kind in the whole history of the lodge, and after this date the minutes take on a more normal character, recording the routine proceedings of an Operative Lodge.

 

AN OPERATIVE LODGE IN ACTION We may imagine the Lodge meetings held in the first‑floor room of a house in a little Scottish village in the depths of winter. Attendances were small, ten or fifteen men, including apprentices, and several of them had travelled many miles, on dreadful roads, in order to be present.

 

LODGE MOTHER KILWINNING NO U77 The early minutes describe the lodge as: The Court of the Mason Trade of the Lodge of Kilwinning ...

 

The Court was 'lawfully affirmed' and proceedings began with a Roll‑call and fines for absentees. The lists of names of those present and absent during the 1640s indicate a total membership of about 40, ie about 25 'fellows of craft or masters', and 15 apprentices. Fines were collected and recorded. Men owing money for previous absence would pay up on the spot, or furnish guarantors for payment in future.

 

There would be the usual entry of apprentices, and admission of fellows‑of‑craft. A typical minute of this kind appears on 19 December 1646.

 

The qlk day the wardane deacone & remanint brethrein of the Maissoun tred within the forsaid ludge presentis ressauit and acceptit Hew Miller maissoun in Paisley, William Craufurd in Braidstaine, John Miller in Air, Robert Cauldwell fellow brethrein to ye said tred quha hes sworne to ye standart of ye said ludge ad vitam. As also hes ressauit ye persones following enter prenteiss to ve said craft Robert Corruithe, John Cauldwell. Allane Cauldwell Jon Craufurd & Andro Hart.

 

and there is no hint of ceremony except that the fellow‑craft swore the oath ad vitam.

 

Then there would be the election of Officers, a democratic affair with a `leet' of two or three candidates for each office, and quite often all the votes for each candidate were carefully recorded. After this the Lodge would settle down to its business as a 'Court' dealing with offenders. The early minutes afford many examples.

 

xx December 1645 Item they have ordainit that no man sal tak in wark Patrik Greir Robert Cauldwell & John Corruithe nor geve them ony service till they have satisfiet ye craft for thair saids unlaues [= fines] and dissobedienc nayther sall ony wark to thame till they have satisfiet as said is Vnder ye paine of ten merkis of Vnlaw for ilk contravener.

 

In this case three men had incurred the Lodge's displeasure. According to the minutes of 1644 their crime was a modest one; they had been absent from an appointed meeting, and they were duly fined. Normal procedure in such cases was to pay, or to promise payment, but these three men must have put up an argument, with 78HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY disastrous results, and we see the full power of the Lodge in action. No man was to employ the culprits or render them any service, and no man was to work for them until they had made amends. The Lodge could decide whether a mason would work or not and it could deprive him of his livelihood.

 

A year later (19 December 1646) . . . Heu Mure in Kilmarnok wes decernit to pay to the box ten merkis money of vnlaw for wirking with cowanes contrair to ye actis & ordinances of the said ludge . . .

 

The Lodge was being generous. `Ten merks' was only ú6 13s 4d, and Mure had already been threatened with a fine of ú40.

 

The first official ban against cowans is one of the regulations in the Schaw Statutes of 1598, here given in modern spelling: Item: that no master or fellow of craft receive any cowans to work in his society or company, nor send any of his servants to work with cowans, under the penalty of twenty pounds for each offence under this rule.

 

The word `cowan' is defined as `One who builds dry stone walls (ie without mortar); a dry‑stone‑diker; applied derogatorily to one who does the work of a mason, but has not been regularly apprenticed or bred to the trade.' ‑ (OED). From our point of view, a better definition is to be found in the minutes of Mother Kilwinning for 1705, probably the most‑quoted minute in the whole body of masonic literature: the same day by consent of the meeting his aggried that no meason shall imploy no cowan which is to say without the word to work if ther be one masson to be found within ffifftin mylls he is not to imploy one cowan under the paine of fortie Shilling Scots. (‑20th December, 1705, folio 103).

 

In order to clarify this regulation it is transcribed here in modern spelling with the addition of three words and modern punctuation: The same day by consent of the meeting [it] is agreed that no mason shall employ a cowan, which is to say [one] without the [mason] word, to work. If there be one mason to be found within fifteen miles, he is not to employ a cowan, under the penalty of forty shillings Scots.

 

`Without the word', ie the `Mason Word', which was conferred upon entered apprentices upon their first admission into the Lodge. By inference therefore a cowan was an untrained 'worker in stone, LODGE MOTHER KILWINNING NO 079 who had not been apprenticed, and who was not connected with a mason Lodge.

 

It is often difficult to understand how this Scottish prejudice against cowans arose, especially as there must have been innumerable unskilled jobs for which these men would have been well suited. Perhaps the main reason is revealed in that phrase in the Kilwinning minute giving a 15 mile limit, ie the employment of cowans was forbidden because it was bad for the trade as a whole, and it was only to be tolerated in extreme cases when no qualified employees were available within a fifteen mile radius, a great distance in those days.

 

At Kilwinning, where the authority of the Lodge extended over a wide area, cowans were a fairly constant source of trouble, and the Lodge regulations prohibiting their employment were frequently enforced.

 

Apart from the records relating to cowans, the Kilwinning minutes are curiously silent as to the actual details of the offences which were judged and punished during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The names of the offenders and the penalties were recorded, usually a substantial fine and disbarment from all employment until it was paid.

 

As the story of the Lodge unfolds itself in the pages of the minute‑book there is ample evidence of the difficulties which it encountered in the administration of the craft over a vast area, and it is strange to see how the larger towns, Ayr, Irvine, Renfrew, Paisley, Kilmarnock, etc, all accepted the masonic domination of the Mother Lodge in this little Ayrshire village. From c1687 onwards the custom of appointing Quartermasters was abandoned, but the territories which had formerly been under Kilwinning's direction were ever ready to acknowledge their allegiance, and most of the early Charters issued.by the Mother Lodge were granted in those districts which had originally been under her own care.

 

BILLS AND BONDS. THE LODGE AS MONEY‑LENDER The study of our old Lodge records often reveals curious and unexpected facets of Masonic history, and at Kilwinning, most surprising of all perhaps, is the revelation that (apart from admission fees) the most steady and continuous source of income was derived, quite simply, from money‑lending! The earliest minutes afford little or no evidence on the subject and 80HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY most of the entrants apparently paid cash for their admission fees. In December 1655, John Hammiltoun upon his admission as FC gave `bond' for ú8, and Wm Cowane who was also made FC, `promised to pay 40/‑ Scots . . . at the next meeting'. From this time onwards it became a fairly regular practice to pay admission fees by bill, bond, or promissory‑note. These documents were duly deposited in the Lodge `Box', and debtors were called upon to pay interest at the December meeting. The sums involved were not large, even when (as .often happened) they included accumulated fines for absence.

 

The system probably started by the Lodge giving credit terms for admission fees, but it soon developed into a regular business of money‑lending.

 

A minute of 1653 leaves no doubt on the subject of loans. `. . . Jon Cowane has paid this last year interest of twenty‑five merks he is owing to the box of borrowed money and is to pay the sum (ie the principal), and a year's interest at the next Court, 1654.' It is almost possible to trace the stages by which the system developed. At first, the granting of credit facilities for the payment of admission fees. Then, when funds permitted, the lending of sums ranging from ten to eighty merks (ú6 to ú50 Scots) to members of the Lodge, perhaps for the purchase of materials and equipment when they needed it for a particular job.

 

The loans were not only for Masters. Entered Apprentices were also eligible, and they were even able to negotiate the loans before they entered the Lodge, eg in 1674: . . . John Smith at the Kirk of Stewartoune was admitted and entered prentise and has paid to the box and his booking money, and is hereby discharged thereof, except his bond of twentie merks which is not hereby discharged . . .

 

The minute is quite explicit. Smith paid all his admission fee and booking money but he still owed the Lodge 20 merks for a loan which must have been granted to him on the day of his admission, if not earlier. When funds became plentiful the Lodge began to lend money to non‑members, and very soon the Lodge began to have troubles with debt‑collection. All sorts of precautions were taken to ensure that the monies were safe.

 

LODGE MOTHER KILWINNING NO 081 12 January 1728: . . . it is enacted that when any money is to be lent out of the box, that the borrower shall give an Cautioner which is not entered in with the Lodge, and if the Cautioner [ie a guarantor] shall enter with the Lodge the borrower shall be obliged at the first term to give a new Cautioner that is not entered.

 

These were not all simple transactions, in which the borrower took his loan, gave his bill and paid his interest annually. There are all sorts of, complicated minutes which indicate that the bonds were passed round among the members of the Lodge for purposes of negotiation.

 

The Loan and Bill transactions continued to be recorded in the minutes for about 140 years, punctuated by regular instructions to various officers and members to take legal proceedings for collection ‑ and the practice did not end until the 1770s.

 

THE TRANSITION AT KILWINNING The Kilwinning version of the Schaw Statutes, 1599, prescribed that the Lodge was to obtain the services of a notary to act as `clark & scryb' or secretary, and the minutes of 1643 show that the instruction was observed.

 

The early minutes of the Lodge of Mary's Chapel, Edinburgh, were also signed by a notary, serving in the same capacity.

 

It is inconceivable that these gentlemen could have discharged their duties unless they were actually present in the Lodge‑room during the meetings, and they were, in fact, non‑operative members, who received some payment for their services from admission fees and from the preparation of apprentices' indentures, discharges, and other legal documents.

 

It was not until the early 1670s, however, that the Lodge at Kilwinning began to admit non‑operatives as ordinary members, and the minutes of the years from 1672 to 1678 may be said to mark the first stage in the transition of the Lodge from a purely operative or trade‑controlling body, towards the kind of speculative Lodge that exists today.

 

In 1672, the minutes read: Eodem die Lord John Kennedie Earle off Cassells wes chosen to be Deacon. [Note. Deacon then was equivalent to WM today.] 82HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY The Earl of Cassillis, a local landowner, was not present. He was not a member of the Lodge, and had never previously visited there; indeed it is extremely doubtful if he was ever made a Mason. There is no hint in the preceding minutes of any reason why he should have been selected for this office, and he never visited the Lodge after his election.

 

Immediately after this extraordinary entry, William Cowan, an operative mason, was chosen as `Deput‑Deacon'. This was the first‑ever appointment of a Deput‑Deacon, and it seems to imply that the Lodge did not expect the noble Lord to attend very regularly, and was merely seeking his patronage. It is probable that he was formally invited to take the Office after his election, and that he rejected the invitation, for if he had accepted, he would doubtless have been re‑elected year after year, whether he attended or not.

 

At the next meeting, in December, 1673, several gentlemen were admitted as fellows of craft, among them Sir Alexander Cunynghame of Corshill. That night the list of names for the election of Deacon contained six names, three men of gentle birth and three operatives. Cassillis ‑ still absent ‑ got only I vote. Cunynghame received 9 votes and was elected, choosing an operative mason as Deput‑Deacon ‑ and two operatives were elected as Wardens.

 

About four weeks later, Sir Alex` Cunynghame presided at a special meeting of the Lodge, and The said day Alex` Earle of Eglintoune and Lawrence Wallace brother to the Laird of Sewaltoune were admitted prentises and fellows of Croft within the Lodge of Kilwinning and payed . . .

 

In 1674 the Earl of Eglington was elected Deacon. He never attended, and during the next few years the principal offices were always taken by the gentry, with operatives acting as their Deputies. But the gentlemen were seldom present and in 1679 the Lodge discarded its noble patrons, and reverted to the practice of choosing Officers from its own ranks as it had always done before.

 

We can only speculate on the reasons which prompted the Lodge to open its doors to non‑operatives generally and to the nobility and gentry in particular. It seems likely that there were two main reasons, patronage, and income. Doubtless it was hoped that the Lodge would gain in prestige and power if it was administered under the supervision and patronage of the local lairds and landowners.

 

LODGE MOTHER KILWINNING NO 083 Whatever the reasons which prompted the step, Kilwinning did open its doors to non‑masons, but nothing much came of this first attempt. On the face of it, the whole affair seems to have petered out, but in the years that followed the number of non‑operative entrants grew steadily. The Lodge remained primarily operative in character, and continued for many years under operative management; but attendances began to fall off, and the Lodge went through a bad time.

 

The 25 years or so from 1689 to 1714 may be counted as the era of the `Lodge in decline', yet there is nothing in the minutes to explain what had happened. A small team of four or five members rotated through the various offices of Deacon, Warden and Clerk, and somehow they managed to hold the Lodge together until 1716 when the first signs of revival appear.

 

In 1716 there began a practice of holding a meeting in July regularly every year, and attendances started to improve. Doubtless the summer weather was helpful, and the July meetings were well supported. From 1716 onwards there were new men joining the Lodge at each meeting, the minutes become more detailed, and it is noticeable that there was a new spirit abroad.

 

At the meeting on 20 December 1733, three non‑operatives were admitted, ie: Mr Charles Hamilton, Collector of Excise. Patrick ffullerton Esq`,. Mr Alex` Baillie, Merchant in Glasgow.

 

This record marks the beginning of the last phase in Kilwinning's transition from operative to speculative masonry. From this time onwards a huge number of new men began to join the Lodge, many of them men of gentle birth, with local landowners, lawyers, surgeons, ship‑masters, Excise Officers, and sailors. There were indeed mason craftsmen and other artisans among the new intrants, but the management of the Lodge was now in the hands of the gentry.

 

At the end of 1734 we note the change in the title of the principal officer from `Deacon' to `Master'; not a major change perhaps, but good evidence of some new influence in the Lodge, and of a readiness to move with the times.

 

Probably the most important single item in the history of the Lodge during this exciting period was the arrangement (by invitation, no doubt), which brought Patrick Montgomery, the Laird of Bourtreehill, to the Chair of the Mother Lodge, on 27 March 1735. The circumstances were curious.

 

David Muir was elected Deacon in December 1734, and he signed 84HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY the minutes as Master in January and February 1735, and also in July and December 1735. But there were three meetings in March 1735, when Patrick Montgomerie presided as Master, and signed the minutes in that capacity. At that stage he was not yet a member of the Lodge and it was not until the third of the March meetings that he paid half‑a‑guinea 'for Entering himself a Member . . .'.

 

In December 1735, Muir, as Master, nominated Montgomery to be his successor, regardless of many worthy members who might have claimed the office. Montgomery had only been a member for nine months, but when the Lodge was assured that he was willing to accept office, and that it was legal to elect him in his absence, Montgomery was unanimously chosen.

 

The whole tenor of the minutes testifies to the eagerness with which he was welcomed into the principal office, at first as a guest, and he was elected at the earliest opportunity, almost certainly because he had some wider knowledge of the most advanced ritual and Lodge‑practice of that time.

 

It was during his tenure of the Chair in March that we find the first reference in the Kilwinning minutes to the third degree.

 

In December 1735, the Lodge for the first time styled itself as the `Lodge of the ffree and accepted Masons of Kilwinning'. Montgomery in January 1736 presented '. . . a sett of Jewels, viz, the Compass Square Plummet & Level . . .' the first jewels mentioned in the Minute book. In June the Lodge, under his presidency, drew up its first double‑scale of fees, non‑masons paying double the rate for `working masons'. In that same minute we find the first reference to 'Livery' (probably Aprons and Gloves). Montgomery was the first Master of the Lodge to be honoured with the designation 'The Right Worshipful'. In January 1736, on his first attendance at the Lodge after his election, he appointed James Marshall, an Irvine lawyer, to serve the Lodge as Secretary in addition to Alex` Cunningham who had been continued as Clerk. This was the first appointment of a Secretary, and in December 1736, when Montgomery was continued in the Chair, he was the first Master of Kilwinning to appoint Stewards. Altogether, the change in the Lodge during the course of these two years was really phenomenal.

 

Mother Kilwinning still had a substantial operative membership, but by now it was no longer exercising any trade controls. Operative masons and artisans continued to be admitted into the Lodge at LODGE MOTHER KILWINNING NO 085 specially reduced fees, but they were joining for social rather than industrial reasons, and the concession in fees represented Kilwinning's last link with the mason trade.

 

The advent of the trigradal system implies that there were substantial changes in ritual practice and indicates the adoption of certain elements of ceremonial procedure which were of a Speculative nature. The period roughly from 1730 to 1760 may be counted as the time when Speculative ideas were gradually embodied into the ritual, and when the ceremonial practices began to take shape in their modern form.

 

The Kilwinning minutes, with their customary reticence on all ritual matters, furnish no detailed evidence of the changes, but the minutes of 1735 and 1736 show that the Lodge had passed through all the earliest stages of the transition, and was ready for the beginning of a new era.

 

KILWINNING, THE MOTHER LODGE In December 1677, eleven masons from the Canongate, at Edinburgh, travelled right across the country to Kilwinning and were constituted as a Lodge in their own right with Kilwinning as their Mother and creator.

 

The circumstances were quite extraordinary. The Canongate was a separate burgh, adjoining the royal burgh of Edinburgh at its eastern end. It had had its own Incorporation of Wrights, Coopers and Masons since 1585, but it had no Lodge.

 

Under the tight system of trade‑control exercised by the Lodge of Edinburgh, Mary's Chapel, these men must have known that they could expect no encouragement from Edinburgh and so they came to Kilwinning.

 

There is no indication in the Kilwinning minutes as to how the matter was broached, or how long it had been under discussion before it came to fruition on 20 December 1677, but the minutes suggest that Kilwinning must have given deep thought to this action, which might well have been considered as a manifest invasion of the territory of the Lodge of Edinburgh.

 

Until this time lodges had arisen naturally wherever groups of masons were settled in one place for lengthy periods, and every lodge was its own master, a sovereign lodge. There can be no question as to whether Kilwinning had the right to create a new lodge, because 86HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY every Lodge had that right if it so desired; the only doubt was as to the infringement of Mary's Chapel's territory. Kilwinning overcame this difficulty by resorting to a polite fiction, erecting the new society in terms which indicate that it was merely a branch of the Mother Lodge.

 

Thus the minute contains a note which refers to the Canongate Brethren as `. . . ane part of our number being willing to be booked & inrolid . . .'. The implication of the first five words of this extract is that these men were actually members of the lodge of Kilwinning (who were anxious to open a branch in the Canongate). Despite the phrase `ane part of our number' it is very doubtful whether any of these men had ever been entered or passed at Kilwinning. Yet it seems certain that they were (with one possible exception) all masons by trade, probably unattached to any particular Lodge, and wishing to erect their new Lodge in an orderly manner, they made their approach to Kilwinning as the traditional birthplace of all masonry in Scotland.

 

This Lodge, now Canongate‑Kilwinning No 2, was the first offspring of the Mother Lodge and it is undoubtedly the first Lodge that was ever created by another Lodge.

 

More than 50 years later, in 1729, another petition was delivered at Kilwinning, from a `Company of Masons at Tarpichen', a village roughly midway between Glasgow and Edinburgh. The Lodge at Torpichen had certainly been in existence some time before it made this approach to the Mother Lodge, and the main object of the petition was: . . . that ye may grant us a power of contstitutione and acting in our society under you in all things, to the recovering and maintaining of good order and suppressing immoralities and licenciousness . . .

 

(One wonders how far the Mother Lodge could assist in this last matter!) It is curious to notice that the petitioners acknowledged themselves as holding all their rights and privileges from Kilwinning even though Torpichen was well outside Kilwinning territory, but the whole tone of the petition indicates the reverence in which the Mother Lodge was held, and the benefits which Torpichen hoped to derive from its adopted Mother.

 

During the following years, a great number of Charters were LODGE MOTHER KILWINNING NO 087 granted to new Lodges, and soon it became fashionable for Lodges to incorporate the word Kilwinning into their titles without any justification or permission at all. That did no serious harm to anyone, and it was all a great compliment to an ancient and honourable Lodge, but it led to a great deal of confusion.

 

It is now quite impossible to say definitely how many Lodges owed their existence to Kilwinning. There is indisputable evidence for at least 34, including two in Virginia, USA (when that country was still a British Colony), one in Antigua, West Indies, and one in Ireland.

 

Although Kilwinning was generally recognised as the `Mother Lodge' before the formation of the Grand Lodge of Scotland in November 1736, she did not adopt that title, either in Lodge minutes or in general correspondence, until 1747. Her last Daughter‑lodge was erected in 1803, with the Number 79. It may well be that the Mother Lodge was responsible for 79 Lodges in all, but ‑ unfortunately ‑ we shall never be able to prove it.

 

THE GRAND LODGE OF SCOTLAND AND THE SECESSION 1735‑44 In 1735, with its management firmly held in non‑operative hands, the Mother Lodge entered into a period of growth and prosperity. It was drawing its members from all grades of society, masons, wrights and artisans, Excise officers and seamen, lawyers, ministers of religion, lairds and landed gentry. In 1741, the Earl of Kilmarnock served as Master for one year, and he was followed by Alexander, Earl of Eglinton, who thus revived a family link with the lodge which has continued for more than two centuries.

 

Entrance fees in 1736 were fixed for working masons, at 5/‑ Sterling for entered‑apprentices, 2/6d for fellows‑of‑craft (with extras for their `liverys'). Non‑operatives had to pay double those sums, and qualified men of both grades were entitled to be raised to the degree of master‑mason, gratis.

 

These preferential admission‑fees for working masons were virtually the last link between the Lodge and the craft from which it had arisen. There is no justification yet for describing it as a `speculative' lodge in our present sense of the word; its membership was substantially non‑operative, and at this period we begin to get an insight into the expanding benevolent work of the Lodge, as well as its newly‑developing social and convivial character.

 

88HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY Since the 1680s the Lodge had distributed small sums to members in distress, and to widows of former members. Now the gifts in charity were expanded to include `travelling masons', and soon it became the practice to allocate small but regular payments to `the poor' in Irvine and Stevenston as well as Kilwinning.

 

In 1735 the Lodge recorded the purchase of a stone punch‑bowl and ladle, and a few months later the minutes acknowledge the receipt from the daughter‑lodge, Canongate‑Kilwinning, the gift of `a Sett of Songs,' ie a song‑book, evidently a valued and useful gift. In 1754, there is an expense item of 34/‑ for five dozen `Mason Glasses' (previously they had used glasses belonging to the `house' in which they met).

 

The changes of character and functions described here, were common to all the older Scottish Lodges. The newer creations, having no traditional link with the mason trade, developed quite natually in the modern non‑operative pattern.

 

In 1736, after a year of preliminary manoeuvres and negotiations, the Grand Lodge of Scotland was founded. Thirty‑three Lodges from all parts of Scotland were represented at the foundation meeting, Kilwinning among them. The Mother Lodge had participated whole‑heartedly in the preliminaries and although she had made a number of valid and useful proposals for the management of the Grand Lodge to be, they were at first shelved, and subsequently vetoed. Kilwinning did not protest against this or any other ruling of the Grand Lodge, but remained a loyal adherent of the new organisation.

 

One of the early difficulties which the new Grand Lodge encountered was the task of trying to determine the seniority of its adherent lodges and it took the wholly logical step of inviting the Lodges to establish their positions on the Roll by documentary proof, with the reasonable proviso that the Roll would be adjusted to make proper place for those which might subsequently prove their right to a higher status.

 

Under this ruling, Mary's Chapel, Edinburgh, with minutes from 1599 was enrolled as No 1, although it must have been common knowledge within the Craft that Kilwinning ‑ despite the absence of records ‑ could claim a history as old, if not older than this. For many lodges with quite genuine claims, real documentary proof would have been impossible. On such evidence alone, the Lodge of Aitchison's LODGE MOTHER KILWINNING NO 089 Haven would have taken precedence over the Mother Lodge and Edinburgh too, for it had minutes from 1598 (although they were probably not available at that time).

 

In 1744, following a letter from Canongate‑Kilwinning, the Mother Lodge replied, complaining that she had been placed second on the Roll to Mary's Chapel No 1, but the Grand Lodge indicated that nothing could or would be done in the absence of documentary proof.

 

The Mother Lodge, secure in her acknowledged antiquity, did not dispute the Grand Lodge decision and did not attempt to lessen the status of any other Lodge, or to improve her own. Quietly she withdrew from her association with the Grand Lodge and resumed her ancient status, exercising rights which she had in fact never surrendered, granting Charters, offering fraternal welcome to visiting Masons regardless of their allegiance to the Grand Lodge or any other Lodge, and in every way conducting herself as though the Grand Lodge had never existed.

 

For its part, the Grand Lodge also treated the whole matter very calmly, and in 1750 Alexander, Earl of Eglinton, was chosen Grand Master Mason of Scotland while still RWM of the Mother Lodge, which suggests that there was no bad feeling on either side. In subsequent years, the Grand Lodge began to view the matter in a different spirit, instructing Lodges which owed allegiance to her to have no Masonic intercourse either with Kilwinning or any of her Daughter Lodges.

 

There is no doubt that some bad feeling was engendered in this way, but perhaps it was all for the best, since it may have helped considerably to pave the way towards the reunion which took place in 1807.

 

BUILDING THE NEW LODGE 1744‑80 It is quite clear that Kilwinning's secession from the Grand Lodge organisation entailed no loss of prestige for the Mother Lodge; indeed, it is possible that her status was enhanced by her action. In the 60 years of her separation from the Grand Lodge there are minutes showing that she Chartered at least 29 new lodges, and there may have been many more.

 

Membership was growing steadily by ordinary admissions within the Lodge, and these numbers were greatly increased by frequent admissions under the pernicious system of 'out‑entry'.

 

90HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY There is in fact, ample evidence, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, of the practice, fully recognised and accepted by a number of Lodges, of allowing their members to admit masons away from the Lodge, ie as 'out‑entries'. The essential characteristic of 'out‑entry' meetings was that they might be held at any time or place away from the Lodge, without the specific permission of the Lodge or its officers; and so long as the admissions complied with the Lodge regulations (and quite often when they did not) the Lodges were willing to ratify the admissions.

 

Although the Kilwinning records afford little evidence on the subject, there is good reason to believe that `out‑entries' had taken place since 1648. The Lodge enacted a rule in 1686 forbidding the practice but it continued at intervals until 1728 when, under new regulations, the practice was made legal again. From 1735 onwards there was a real spate of 'out‑entries', most of them properly recorded and ratified. In the 1750s, Irvine and Stevenston gradually became reception centres for prospective members of the Mother Lodge. Irvine recorded 11 intrants in 1755; 12 in 1762 and five in 1764; and Stevenston brought in nine new members in 1764. The last Kilwinning out‑entry was recorded in 1792.

 

The Lodge was now growing at a tremendous pace. Attendances at the annual meetings ranged from the sixties to over a hundred occasionally, and inevitably the question arose as to the Lodge finding or building a new `House' for its meetings. The project had first been mooted in 1747 and had been shelved. Now, in 1770, the matter had become really urgent, and a Committee was appointed . . . for purchasing ground to build . . .' and to collect outstanding monies for the purpose.

 

Despite the urgency nothing definite was done until 1778, when the Earl of Eglinton brought the matter to a head by offering the Lodge a 500 years' lease of the Eglinton `Court House' or girnal, at a really nominal rent of 2/6d per annum. The reaction of the Lodge was instantaneous: The Brethren . . . in Consideration of the Family of Eglintoune being often Friendly in protecting and countenancing the Ancient Mother Lodge and that the present Earl . . . in particular has been long a Member of this Lodge and often shewn his attachment to it . . . and that he lately presented the Lodge with a Stedding for Building a New Lodge . . . for a trifling Quit‑rent . . . Therefore in hopes of his further Continuance and in LODGE MOTHER KILWINNING NO 091 gratitude for his past favours, they . . . do unanimously Elect Archibald Earl of Eglintoune to be Most Worshipful Grand Master of the Mother Lodge for Life . . .

 

This was the first use of the title `Most Worshipful' for the Master of the Mother Lodge, and the style `Most Worshipful Grand Master' remained in general use at Kilwinning for the next 60 years.

 

The Foundation stone for the new Hall was laid in 1779 and the re‑building was completed a year later, but the cost of the undertaking brought the Lodge to the edge of bankruptcy; it had used up all its funds and was hopelessly in debt.

 

The minutes in the succeeding years pathetically bemoan the low state of the funds which prevented the Lodge from bestowing Charity as it was wont to do, but a continuous ‑ if modest ‑ income was derived from hiring out the premises regularly for dances and other entertainments.

 

Ten years later in 1790 the Lodge still owed ú52, plus interest, to the builder; he did not live to see the debt paid.

 

The Lodge funds under careful management were eventually brought into better shape, but an amusing finale to this chapter appeared in the minutes for 1841, when it was suddenly discovered that the Lodge had never paid one penny of its ground rent (2/6d pa) since the lease was first granted more than sixty years before.

 

The building that had been erected after so much effort served as the Lodge Hall for 113 years, until July 1893, when it was demolished.

 

A few months later a new Temple was completed and furnished at a cost of some ú2,000, and the present Lodge building was consecrated on 30 September 1893.

 

HARD TIMES 1780‑1806 Following an era of great prosperity, the Mother Lodge passed through a very bad period in the twenty years or so from c1780 to c1800. Charity payments were reduced, money‑lending facilities ceased altogether, and attendances shrank disastrously (at several of the Annual Meetings in the 1780s the records show attendances ranging from six to eleven men in all, including the officers!).

 

By this time, the Grand Lodge of Scotland, now firmly established, had ordered its adherent lodges to refrain from all Masonic intercourse with Kilwinning and her Daughters, and an incident in

 

 92HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FRFEViASONRY

 

1791 was doubtless typical of the kind of difficulties that ensued.

 

In December 1791, a few weeks after their constitution as a Daughter Lodge of Mother Kilwinning, the Lodge of Paisley St Andrew Kilwinning, anxious to establish fraternal relations with other Lodges in their neighbourhood, sent a deputation to visit the Lodge Paisley St James. The latter, owning allegiance to the Grand Lodge of Scotland, took the lamentable course of refusing to receive the deputation. It was a gratuitous insult, aggravated by a great deal of unpleasant publicity.

 

If there were any similar incidents elsewhere, they were less widely advertised; this was the only case that was actually recorded in the Kilwinning minutes, and it was never mentioned again.

 

The Lodge gradually began to recover from its difficulties. Towards the end of the 1700s, admissions began to increase, attendances improved, and there were frequent visits from members of other lodges. More important still ‑ as evidence of Mother Kilwinning's status at this period ‑ there were a number of joining members, . and numerous records of the election of `honorary members'.

 

In 1767, the Lodge had imposed a new triple‑scale of admission fees; every apprentice who was a `Real working mason with Stone and Lime' paid 7/6d Sterling: a 'Wright or Square Man' paid 10/‑; a `Gentleman' paid 21/‑, and these rates remained in force until 1807. The accounts (which were kept meticulously at this period) afford evidence that the Lodge was beginning to prosper again.

 

In 1796 it paid the last ú10 owing pn the building plus six years' interest! In 1797 the Lodge spent over ú4 Sterling on Candelabra and Lamps. Increases in the payments of Charity, and minor extravagances such as the provision of Toddy for the Tyler and Stewards all go to indicate that the bad times were finished.

 

THE RE‑UNION, 1807 The re‑union of the Mother Lodge with the Grand Lodge of Scotland was a major event in her history, and the story of the negotiations which led to it (and of some of the results that followed) provides a good finale to this study of Kilwinning's oldest records.

 

When the Mother Lodge decided in 1744 to withdraw from her association with the Grand Lodge, she went her own way ‑ and flourished. From 1744 to 1807 there was no official contact between LODGE MOTHER KILWINNING NO 0 93 Kilwinning and the Grand Lodge, but a number of brethren from Lodges under the Grand Lodge joined Kilwinning without hindrance.

 

At the turn of the century she had begun to recover from her financial distress, there were many influential men amongst her officers and members, and attendances were growing steadily.

 

It was at this stage that well‑wishers appeared on both sides, eager to heal the breach, and the first unofficial moves were made, in private letters and discussions, in 1806. The whole tenor of the subsequent negotiations shows that the Grand Lodge had much to gain from an amicable solution to the difficulties which had caused the separation, and the official proceedings began in 1807 with a most tactful letter from the Grand Lodge, addressed to the Secretary of the Mother Lodge: R.W. Sir, It has been the Subject of much great regret that the misunderstanding so long subsisting between the Grand Lodge of Scotland and the Kilwinning Lodge Should not ere now have been Accomodated, It does not from Our Records, Appear very clearly, what were the reasons which induced your Lodge to leave the Bosom and protection of the Grand Lodge. But whatever was the Cause it must now be Obvious that it will tend greatly to the Interest, Honour and Respectability of the Craft in general, were Masonry in Scotland to be practised only in the Bosom of, and under the protection of the Grand Lodge, whereby she as the only head of the Masonic Body in Scotland, would feel herself responsible, for the Regularity and good Conduct, of every Lodge, enjoying the privilage of Meeting as a Masonic Body under her Charters . . .

 

The letter ended with a note that the Grand Lodge had appointed a Committee of prominent officers, with powers to meet a Kilwinning Committee in order to settle outstanding difficulties and arrange a mutually satisfactory settlement.

 

The Mother Lodge gave `deliberate consideration' to the Grand Lodge letter and appointed a Committee with similar powers. There followed a meeting of the Kilwinning Committee at Irvine on 25 May 1807, at which a number of points were drawn up to serve as a basis for discussion when the two Committees should meet. At first glance the minutes of that meeting seem to suggest that Kilwinning was preparing to impose stiff conditions as a preliminary to any talk of re‑union, but the situation of the Mother Lodge was, of 94HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY course, vastly different from any of the other Lodges which had joined the Grand Lodge. It was inevitable that the re‑union would involve the surrender of some of her ancient privileges, and she had also the duty of protecting the interests of her Daughter Lodges.

 

The two Committees met at Glasgow in October 1807, and in a single session they drew up a code of five articles which they jointly recommended: 1st That the Mother Lodge Kilwinning shall Renounce all right of Granting Charters, and come in along with all the Lodges holding under her, to the bosom of the Grand Lodge.

 

2dly That all the Lodges holding of the Mother Kilwinning shall be Obliged to Obtain from the Grand Lodge Confirmations of their respective Charters, for which a ffee of three Guineas only shall be exigible.

 

3dly That the Mother Kilwinning Lodge shall be placed at the head of the Roll of the Grand Lodge under the denomination of Mother Kilwinning; and her Daughter Lodges shall in the meantime be placed, at the end of the Said Roll, and as they shall apply for Confirmations, but under this Express declaration, that so soon as the Roll shall be arranged and Corrected which is in present Contemplation, the Lodges holding of Mother Kilwinning shall be entitled to be Ranked According to the dates of their Original Charters, and of those granted by the Grand Lodge.

 

4thly That Mother Kilwinning and her Daughter Lodges, shall have the same Interest in, and Management of the funds of the Grand Lodge as the Other Lodges now holding of her; The Mother Lodge Kilwinning Contributing ‑ annually to the said funds a sum not less than two shillings and sixpence for each Intrant, and her Daughter Lodges Contributing in the same manner as the present Lodges holding of the Grand Lodge.

 

Sthly That the Master of the Mother Kilwinning Lodge, for the time, shall be ipso facto Provincial Grand Master for the Ayrshire District ‑ And lastly while both Committees are satisfied that the preceding arrangements will be highly conductive to the honour and Interest of Scottish Masonry, and tho vested with the fullest powers, to make a final adjustment the Committees do only respectfully recomend its adoption to their respective Constituents.

 

Signed (10 Signatures).

 

The Lodge considered the points agreed by the two Committees, unanimously ratified and approved them, and after the Committee had been thanked for its efforts `. . . the healths of the Committee LODGE MOTHER KILWINNING NO 095 were drunk Standing with all the honours of Masonry', and it was resolved that the Grand Lodge delegates be elected members of the Mother Lodge.

 

The Grand Lodge also met on 2 November, with 64 Lodges represented, and the conditions of the settlement were approved by all present with only one dissenting voice from the SW of Mary's Chapel `. . . on the ground of that Lodge being deprived of her place on the Roll . . .' Despite the protest, Grand Lodge accepted the proposals and ratified them, and the schism of more than 60 years was ended.

 

Both Mother Kilwinning and the Grand Lodge had just cause to be pleased with the settlement, and so far as the Mother Lodge was concerned, the matter was happily ended. But the Grand Lodge had not yet reconciled the Lodge of Mary's Chapel, Edinburgh, to the change that was involved in placing Mother Kilwinning at the head of the Roll, especially as the Mother Lodge had produced no really satisfactory documentary evidence of her right to that position.

 

There were many Kilwinning legends and traditions current in the Scottish Craft at that time that might have been cited at the Glasgow meeting in 1807. Historically, they were all equally ill‑founded, and incapable of proof. But the Grand Lodge representatives were not historians. They had no means at their disposal for verifying the claims, and having been appointed specifically `to Settle all disputes', they were not disposed to cavil at the claims which were made by the Kilwinning men.

 

There can be no doubt that, with or without proof, the Kilwinning brethren genuinely believed that theirs was the oldest masonic foundation in Scotland, and for all that we know, they may have been right in their claim. But a new situation had arisen in the 64 years that had elapsed since Mother Kilwinning had withdrawn from the Grand Lodge. In 1736‑43 the Grand Lodge was primarily concerned with the seniority of its adherent Lodges; in 1807 its main object was to effect the re‑union, and it had much to gain from persuading Kilwinning to return as an adherent. During those 64 years, the Mother Lodge had pursued its own independent course, virtually as a Grand Lodge in her own right. She had been for more than 200 years the focal centre of Masonry in the West of Scotland, and had erected or Chartered a huge number of Daughter Lodges which owed her allegiance.

 

96HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY Several of these Lodges had already joined in with the Grand Lodge, but if Mother Kilwinning and all her remaining Daughters could be brought under her banner the result would bring a useful accession of funds as well as a vast improvement in her status as . . . the only head of the Masonic Body in Scotland'.

 

Kilwinning was therefore in a strong position to bargain for whatever rights and privileges she was about to relinquish. In the event, so long as her premier position on the Roll was assured, she asked for only one concession, the clause which made the Master of the Mother Lodge, ipso facto Provincial Grand Master for Ayrshire. It was a natural request, designed to enhance the status of the Mother Lodge within the Province, and to ensure that none of her junior lodges could acquire precedence over Kilwinning.

 

The readiness with which the Grand Lodge agreed to this unusual privilege may be taken as a measure of her eagerness to bring about the re‑union as speedily and smoothly as possible. It was largely a matter of expediency, and the main body of the Craft supported the Grand Lodge in its action. Mary's Chapel alone argued that the procedure was unfair to them.

 

The dispute was not finally settled until 1815 when in response to a petition from Mary's Chapel, '. . . it seemed to be the general sense of the Grand Lodge, that, after the solemn agreement entered into with Mother Kilwinning in 1807, and ratified, approved of, and acted upon by all parties ever since that period, that such petition and remonstrance by Mary's Chapel Lodge could not now be received and entertained, and ought, therefore, to be dismissed as incompetent and inadmissible; upon which the Right Worshipful Brother Robertson, Master of Mary's Chapel Lodge, agreed to withdraw the same, and the petition was accordingly withdrawn'.

 

THE NUMBER "0" Much curiosity is aroused nowadays by the unique No 0 which the Mother Lodge bears on the register of the Grand Lodge of Scotland. The terms of the re‑union did not specify it; indeed it seems evident that the original intention was that Kilwinning was to have no number at all. The proposals which formed the basis of discussion at the Irvine meeting on 25 May, contained the following: 1st That the Lodge of Kilwinning shall be placed at the head of the Roll of LODGE MOTHER KILWINNING NO 097 Lodges in Scotland without an v number but by the Title of the Mother Lodge Kilwinning or by the said Title and Number One if the Grand Lodge rather prefer the latter.

 

The clause in its ratified form, simply did not mention the number at all: 3rdly That the Mother Kilwinning Lodge shall be placed at the head of the Roll of the Grand Lodge under the denomination of Mother Kilwinning; . . .

 

Neither the Mother Lodge nor the Grand Lodge made use of the No 0 (or any other number) during the negotiations which led to the re‑union. The No 0 does not appear in any of the Kilwinning minutes during 1807 to 1842 (ie the whole of the third minute‑book) nor is it found in any of the contemporary minutes of the Grand Lodge.

 

For the purpose of this record, an attempt was made to ascertain when, and in what circumstances the number was allocated to the Mother Lodge, and the question was posed to Bro Dr A. F. Buchan, the Grand Secretary. After a careful search he reported that there is no minute recording that the number was ever allocated officially.

 

The Mother Lodge was not numbered in the minutes relating to the re‑union, and when the first edition of the Constitutions and Laws of the Grand Lodge was published, in 1836, Kilwinning was listed at the head of the Roll, without a number. In the second edition, 1848, the No 0 made its first appearance in print, and so far as can be ascertained, that was the first time the number was used officially.

 

Bro G. S. Draffen, Past Depute Grand Master, who assisted in this enquiry is of the opinion that it: I... was a purely administrative action on the part of the clerical staff in the Grand Lodge. Obviously when making a list of Lodges by number only, it was highly inconvenient to have a Lodge with no number at all . . . They appear to have started the list with the number '0', and gradually that has become accepted, even to the extent of brethren who are members of that Lodge using that number when they sign the Visitor's Book when they go to another Lodge.

 

It is not impossible that this practice of designating Lodge Mother Kilwinning as number '0' did in fact arise from the difficulty that its members found themselves in when visiting other Lodges and having to fill in the number of their Lodge which, of course, they could not do.

 

To sum up, Grand Lodge, as far as I can trace, has never officially adopted 98HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY the number `0' . . . It appears to have arisen from an administrative practice necessitated by purely practical reasons.

 

Until May 1983 the No 0 does not appear on Lodge stationery and summonses, although it was and is readily accepted by the Lodge. The Mother Lodge is known locally and throughout the world as No 0 (but Americans use the No Zero) and the Lodge aprons bear the letters MKO on their flaps.

 

Nevertheless, many of the old Depute Masters preferred the ancient designation, `The Mother Lodge of Scotland'.

 

AFTER THE RE‑UNION, 1807‑42 The third Minute Book of the Mother Lodge runs from 1806 to 1842, so that the records contained in the first three books cover almost exactly a period of 200 years, 1642 to 1842.

 

An immediate result of the re‑union was that Ayrshire became a Masonic Province of the Grand Lodge, with Kilwinning as its chief Lodge, and the RW Master of Kilwinning as its Prov Grand Master. In the Commission or Document which conferred that right the Grand Lodge carelessly inserted a proviso `so long as such Masters are approved of by Grand Lodge'. Kilwinning immediately protested that she alone had the right to choose and approve her Masters, and that such Masters were to be ipso facto Prov GM; and the offending words were removed.

 

One curious result of this close link between the Mother Lodge and the Provincial Grand Lodge, was the frequent appearance in the Lodge minutes, of items of business which would belong properly to the Minute book of the Provincial Grand Lodge. At the Anniversary meeting in 1816 the Lodge minutes record that the Prov GM was calling a meeting of the Provincial Grand Lodge for March 1817, for Ipropogating the good of Masonry . . .' and to ensure that the Lodges in the district '. . . Conforme themselves to the Laws and Regulations of the Grand Lodge . . .'.

 

In due course a full report of the Meeting appeared in the Lodge minutes, and it must have been quite an occasion! There was an attendance of over 200 Brethren and proceedings began with a procession to the Church, a Sermon, then back to the Lodge; a loyal Address to the Prince Regent; `. . . a substantial and plentiful dinner . . . (and the Meeting) . . . broke up at a late hour'.

 

LODGE MOTHER KILWINNING NO 099 Early in 1825 the rapid growth in the number of new Lodges on the Roll prompted the Grand Lodge to make a fresh classification of the Lodges under the various Provinces; and because of the large number of Lodges in Ayrshire, many of them at a great distance from Kilwinning, it was proposed that the Province should be divided, Masonically, into two parts; West Ayrshire, with 15 Lodges including Mother Kilwinning; East Ayrshire with 13 Lodges; and four Lodges were to be struck off the Roll.

 

In pursuance of this plan, which had apparently been settled without consulting the Mother Lodge or its Master, the Grand Lodge wrote to Mother Kilwinning on 20 April 1825, outlining the plan in some detail, and announcing that the division had already been made! `... The Grand Lodge of Scotland . . . being highly sensible that it will tend to the good of Masonry, as well as to the comfort and conveniency of the Brethren, to divide the county into two districts or provinces, which they have accordingly done as follows . . .

 

There followed a list of Lodges for the proposed West Province under Alex` Hamilton of Grange the then Prov GM and another list of lodges for the East Province under an un‑named Prov GM with headquarters at Maybole, and the Grand Lodge invited the Prov GM of Ayrshire to name the Brother who was to share the province with him.

 

The Prov GM and the Mother Lodge, counting this arrangement to be an infringement of their ancient rights, protested by letter to the Grand Lodge, and the matter should have ended at this point because Grand Lodge accepted the protest and abandoned the plan to divide the Ayrshire Province. But she was still busy with the re‑arrangement of other Provinces and, in 1826/27 a piece of mismanagement on her part nearly led to serious trouble.

 

In 1826, without consulting the Mother Lodge, the Grand Lodge decided to transfer two Lodges (Beith St John, and Largs St John) to the jurisdiction of the Renfrew Province, and the RWM of Beith St John reported the matter to the Mother Lodge at the anniversary meeting, in December 1826. A letter was despatched in January 1827, to Bro James Maconochie, the Proxy Master (an advocate, member of St Luke's Lodge) at Edinburgh, directing him to protest against this transfer and to have the matter put right.

 

No reply was received to this note, and in June 1827, a sharp letter WASHINGTON MASONIC L;BRARY AND MUSEUM 100}LARRY CARR s WORLD of FREEMASONRY was sent to him, again seeking his intervention. A note in similar terms was sent directly to the Grand Lodge: '. . . As I am anxious, as becomes my duty, to preserve the jurisdiction of the Provincial Grand Lodge in the same way as I received it, I insist that the lodges transferred into the two new provinces of Renfrew shall immediately be restored: and if not, I shall call a chapter of the lodge to take their advice.

 

Upon receipt of the second letter from the Mother Lodge, Maconochie replied that he had, upon receipt of the first letter, laid the complaint before the Grand Secretary with a request that the two Lodges should be 'restored'. The Grand Secretary later told Maconochie that 'this had been done', and he had undertaken to advise the GM of Mother Kilwinning that this was so. Maconochie had accepted the word of the Grand Secretary, and had therefore not troubled to report back to the Mother Lodge.

 

The arrival of the June letter showed Maconochie that the Grand Secretary had forgotten or failed to keep his promise, and Maconochie saw him again. This time the Grand Secretary replied by letter addressed to Maconochie: Dear Sir, I have read the letter from the RW Master of Mother Kilwinning to you, and I do assure you that when I received your communication 1 have made such arrangements as that no alteration has taken place, or will happen.

 

Signed, Alex' Lawrie, Gr Secy Maconochie dutifully reported all this to the Mother Lodge, with protestations of his continued interest and loyalty, and the matter was finally settled, but with no great show of courtesy on the part of the Grand Secretary.

 

In September 1834, the Kilwinning minutes report a letter from the Grand Secretary requesting the Lodge to `. . . Make a show of our books and pay arrears said to be due . . .'.

 

In 1835, the Grand Lodge decided to raise the Registration fees for Intrants to 5/6d and Kilwinning sent a protest saying that in terms of the 'Agreement' the fee was fixed at 2/6d. Here, the Mother Lodge was definitely in the wrong, because the fee had been fixed at '. . . a sum not less than . . .' 2/6d for each intrant. Two years later the point was still in dispute.

 

At first glance it would seem as though the Mother Lodge during LODGE MOTHER KILwINNING NO 0101 the years following the re‑union, was constantly at odds with the Grand Lodge, but of course it was not so. The incidents which are described here in close sequence, actually occurred in a period of 35 years. For the Grand Lodge it was a period of rapid growth, quite apart from the accession in one year of so many of Kilwinning's Daughters, and the problems of re‑organisation, procedure and management must have presented all sorts of difficulties.

 

For the Mother Lodge, having surrendered some of her ancient rights, and jealously guarding the concessions she had won at the re‑union, it was inevitable that the settling‑down period was full of anxiety, and in these circumstances each little difference with the Grand Lodge was magnified, sometimes out of all proportion to its importance.

 

The original Five Articles of the Settlement in 1807 were clearly inadequate to cover all the problems that were to arise, and as each difficulty was settled in its turn, precedents were laid and the Mother Lodge settled peacefully into her position at the head of the Roll of Lodges under the Grand Lodge of Scotland.

 

MODERN TIMES The privileges enjoyed by the Mother Lodge have nevertheless given rise to difficulties, even within her own Province of Ayrshire, and this brief sketch would be seriously out of date without some reference to the most recent problems.

 

In Scotland, unlike our English practice, the appointment of Provincial and District Grand Masters rests with the Grand Lodge itself, and not with the Grand Master. Those Commissions (or Patents of Office) are invariably for five years, and they are renewable. In practice, when a vacancy occurs at the expiration of this term, or on death or retirement of the holder, the Grand Secretary will write to the Provincial or District Grand Lodge, inviting nominations. This procedure applies to all the Scottish Provinces and Districts, but not to Ayrshire, where the Master of No 0 is ex officio Provincial Grand Master of Ayrshire.

 

It has long been the custom of Mother Kilwinning to keep watch for a Brother of status suitable to serve as Master of No 0 and ex officio Prov GM of Ayrshire. When they find a Brother with the requisite qualifications he is invited to become a joining member of the Lodge, and is elected Master in due course.

 

102HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY Some years ago, an Ayrshire Brother, feeling that the system is very undemocratic, was proposed and elected as a joining member of No 0. He was a persuasive and forceful character, sufficiently well known and respected by the Ayrshire Lodges to get himself ,nominated' by them as a prospective Prov Grand Master.

 

All very well, but when the time came for the election of Master of No 0, he was not elected. The Lodge had ignored the `nomination', in effect depriving more than forty Lodges in the Province of the rights they would enjoy in every other Scottish Province. They simply have no say at all in the appointment of their Prov GM, and they are not at all happy about that.

 

Broadly, the Kilwinning problems today arise out of the social, industrial and economic changes that have taken place in that area during the past 175 years. In 1807, Kilwinning was the Lodge of its own territory, with the local nobility and gentry among its members. Today, the membership consists mainly of small shopkeepers and miners.

 

But their zeal for the preservation of their ancient privileges as the senior‑ranking Province has led them, occasionally, to claim rights over other Provinces, rights which belong only to that Province, or to the Grand Lodge itself.

 

Recently, without any desire to alter the basic terms of the re‑union of 1807, the Grand Lodge moved to amend Clause 5 of that agreement in a manner that would avoid or satisfy some of the modern problems that were totally unforeseen in 1807.

 

Unfortunately, in a series of meetings with the Grand Committee, those proposals had been resisted and rejected by the Kilwinning Committee to the point where Kilwinning had taken legal proceedings against the Grand Lodge, to maintain and uphold their supposed rights and privileges.

 

The mills of justice grind slowly, and those proceedings were still sub judice, so that it would be improper to comment. One can only hope and pray that there will be a speedy settlement to the legal action, and that a truly Masonic goodwill and tolerance may prevail.

 

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS While these pages were being prepared for press, news arrived of the settlement of the difficulties arising out of the 1807 Agreement. Both parties have now agreed the following.

 

LODGE MOTHER KILWINNING NO 0103 (Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Scotland, 5 May 1983) That the existing Clause V of the Agreement between the Grand Lodge of Scotland and the Lodge Mother Kilwinning, No 0, dated 14 October 1807 be deleted and the following inserted: That there be erected and constituted the Provincial Grand Lodge of Kilwinning and any future Lodge erected within the Parish of Kilwinning. That Mother Kilwinning at its Annual Meeting in November will nominate a suitable Brother for the Office of Provincial Grand Master for 9 submission to Grand Lodge as in the case of all Provincial and District Grand Masters.

 

That Mother Kilwinning for all time coming shall have the honour to nominate annually a suitable Brother for the Office of Grand bible‑bearer whom Grand Lodge shall elect.

 

That the numbering of any new Lodge within the Parish of Kilwinning shall be prefaced with "0", such as "O1" and "02", etc.

 

That dispensation be granted to all Past Depute Masters of Lodge Mother Kilwinning to receive the Chair Degree. Page 58 of Proceedings.

 

5 SAMUEL PRICHARD'S MASONR Y DISSECTED, 1730 THIS ESSAY WAS compiled as an Introduction to the facsimile edition of Masonry Dissected, 1730, published by the Masonic Book Club of Illinois, USA, in 1977, which produces rare and important masonic books in limited editions available only to members.

 

Prichard's text is not included here (see p 410), but it is readily accessible in full, in the Early Masonic Catechisms, 2nd edn, 1963.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES In compiling the notes under this heading, I am much indebted to three specialist studies: (i) The Early Masonic Catechisms, by Knoop, Jones and Hamer, second edition, pp 157/8: (ii) 'Prichard's Masonry Dissected', by Comdr S. N. Smith, A QC, 51 pp 138/9: (iii) John T. Thorp in Leicester Lodge of Research Masonic Reprints, Vol XII (1929) pp 10/11.

 

Masonry Dissected The first edition of this 32pp 8vo pamphlet (approx 75/s" x 41/2") was advertised for sale in a London newspaper, the Daily Journal, on Tuesday 2 October 1730: This day is published ... MASONRY DISSECTED ... by Samuel Prichard ... Printed for J. Wilford ... (Price 6d) The second edition was advertised the very next day, 21 October, and again on the 23rd, two days later: the third edition was advertised on Saturday, 31 October 1730, and these two editions were also printed for Wilford. (See advertisements reproduced.) 104 SAMUEL PRICIIARD'S 'MASONRY DISSECTED', 1730 105 Meanwhile the pamphlet had been reprinted in Read's Weekly Journal or British Gazetteer, on Saturday 24 October 1730. This was apparently a pirated version in which the whole thirty‑one printed pages of the original were crammed into two pages of the newspaper, each approximately 15" x 10".

 

Another pirated edition, dated MD.CC.

 

X. printed by Thomas Nichols, 'without Temple Bar' (London) had also probably made its appearance by the end of October 1730.

 

Prichard's text was reprinted, in two parts, in separate issues of the Northampton Mercury, the first section, up to the end of the Enter'd 'Prentice's Degree, in October 1730, and the remainder, from the Fellow‑Craft's Degree to the end, on 2 November 1730.

 

Thus, there were three separate editions by Prichard, and a pirated edition (Nichols), plus a newspaper version (Read's) all printed in London, and a two‑part newspaper version, printed in the Midlands, all within fourteen days! Thorp, writing in 1929, listed another fourteen editions before 1760 and nine more before the end of the eighteenth century. Bro Knoop and his collaborators, writing in 1943, mentioned 'thirty numbered editions . . . printed in England, and eight . . . in Scotland'.

 

In spite of this seeming profusion of copies, all the earlier editions are scarce and the four versions dated 1730 are extremely rare. There is a copy of the first edition in the Library of the United Grand Lodge of England and one in the Library of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts. Another first edition (formerly in the Wallace Heaton collection) is now owned by the present writer. There is a copy of the second edition in the Leicester Masonic Library (reprinted by J. T. Thorp in 1929). The third edition is the earliest in the British Museum collection. That version was the first to contain 'A List of Regular Lodges according to their Seniority and Constitution' and it was reproduced by Bro Douglas Knoop and his colleagues in The Early Masonic Catechisms, 1943. The excellent collection in the Library of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts also includes a copy of the Nichols pirated print.

 

SAMUEL PRICHARD HIS MASONIC BACKGROUND Among the many characters who made their mark in Masonic history during the early decades of the first Grand Lodge, Samuel Prichard

 

107

 

HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY The Daily Journal, Tuesday, zo October 1730 Tfbiz Dap is ipubliffjeb, (Dedicated to the Right Worfhipful and Honourable Fraternity of Free and Accepted Mafons, and the Author's Affidavit before Sir Richard Hopkins prefix'd) MASONRY DISSECTED: Being a Univerful and Genuine Defcription of all its Branches, from the Original to this Prefent Time; as it deliver'd in the Conftituted Regular Lodges both in City and Country, according to the feveral Degrees of Admifon. Giving an Impartial Account of their Regular Proceeding in Initiating their New‑Members in the whole Three Degrees of Mafonry, viz. I. Enter'd Apprentice. II. Fellow Craft. III. Mafter. To which is added, The Author's Vindication of himfelf. By SAMUEL PRITCHARD, late Member of a Conftituted Lodge.

 

Printed for J. WILFORD, at the Three Flower‑de‑Luces behind the Chapter‑Houfe, near St. Paul's. Price 6 d.

 

The first advertisement.

 

The Daily Journal, Wednesday, zI October 1730 aGlbig map ig Vubliffjeb, (Dedicated to the Right Worfhipful and Honourable Fraternity of Free and Accepted Mafons, and the Author's Affidavit before Sir Richard Hopkins pre fix'd) The SECOND EDITION, o f MASONRY DISSECTED: Being a Univerfal and Genuine Defcription of all its Branches, from the Original to this Prefent Time; as it deliver'd in the Conftituted Regular Lodges both in City and Country, according to the feveral Degrees of Admifion. Giving an Impartial Account of their Regular Proceeding in Initiating their New‑Members in the whole Three Degrees of Mafonry, viz. I. Enter'd Apprentice. II. Fellow Craft. III. Mafter. To which is added, The Author's Vindication of himfelf. By SAMUEL PRITCHARD, late Member of a Conftituted Lodge.

 

Printed for J. WILFORD, at the Three Flower‑de‑Luces behind the Chapter‑Houfe, near St. Paul's. Price 6 d.

 

The second advertisement. "The Second Edition of" has been inserted after line 4.

 

SAMUEL PRICHARD'S 'MASONRY DISSECTED', 1730 The Daily Journal, Friday, 23 October 1730 Thig Map is J)ublifheb, (Dedicated to the Right Worfhipful and Honourable Fraternity of Free and Accepted Mafons, The SECOND EDITION, o f MASONRY DISSECTED: Being a Univerfal and Genuine Defcription of all its Branches, from the Original to this Prefent Time; as it deliver'd in the Conftituted Regular Lodges both in City and Country, according to the feveral Degrees of Admiffion. Giving an Impartial Account of their Regular Proceeding in Initiating their New‑Members in the whole Three Degrees of Mafonry, viz. 1. Enter'd Apprentice. II. Fellow Craft. III. Mafter. To which is added, The Author's Vindication of himfelf. By SAMUEL PRITCHARD, late Member of a Conftituted Lodge.

 

Printed for J. WILFORD, at the Three Flower‑de‑Luces behind the Chapter‑Houfe, near St. Paul's. Price 6 d.

 

N. B. There is prefixed to this Account, a True Copy of the Affidavit made before Sir RICHARD HOPKINS, of its Truth and Genuinenefs in every Particular, without which all other Accounts are fpurious, and grofs Impofitions on the Publick.

 

The third advertisement. Original lines 4 and S are omitted and a footnote is added.

 

The Daily Journal, Saturday, 31 October 1730 Thig map io Vubliffjeb, (With a Lift of the Regular Lodges, according to their Seniority and Con f titution) The THIRD EDITION, o f (MASONRY DISSECTED: Being a Univerfal and Genuine Defcription of all its Branches, from the Original to this Prefent Time; as it is deliver'd in the Conftituted Regular Lodges both in City and Country, according to the feveral Degrees of Admiffion. Giving an Impartial Account of their Regular Proceeding in Initiating their New‑Members in the whole Three Degrees of Mafonry, viz. 1. Enter'd Apprentice. 11. Fellow Craft. 111. Mafter. To which is added, The Author's Vindication of himfelf. By SAMUEL PRITCHARD, late Member of a Conftituted Lodge.

 

Printed for J. WILFORD, at the Three Flower‑de‑Luces behind the Chapter‑Houfe, near St. Paul's. Price 6 d.

 

N. B. There is prefixed to this Account, a True Copy of the Affidavit made before Sir RICHARD HOPKINS, Of its Truth and Genuinenefs in every Particular, without which all other Accounts are fpurious, and grofs Impofitions on the Publick.

 

The fourth advertisement. `Third' instead of `Second' and the word `is', previously omitted, is now added in line 6.

 

108HARRY C'ARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY must surely rank as one of the most extraordinary. As a person, nothing is known about him, his family, social status, trade, or profession; he remains a complete mystery.

 

In October 1730 he published Masonry Dissected, a very successful pamphlet which claimed to be `A Universal and Genuine Description of [Masonry in] all its Branches'. At the next Quarterly Communication of Grand Lodge on 15 December 1730 he was roundly condemned as `an Impostor': The Deputy Grand Master took notice of a Pamphlet lately published by one Pritchard [sic] who pretends to have been made a regular Mason: In Violation of the Obligation of a Mason w"' he swears he has broke in order to do hurt to Masonry and expressing himself with the utmost Indignation against both him (stiling him an Impostor) and of his Book as a foolish thing not to be regarded. But in order to prevent the Lodges being imposed upon by false Brethren or Impostors: Proposed . . . that no Person whatsoever should be admitted into Lodges unless some Member of the Lodge then present would vouch for such visiting Brothers being a regular Mason, and the Member's Name to be entered against the Visitor's Name in the Lodge Book, which Proposal was unanimously agreed to (QCA IX, pp 13516).

 

This was the only occasion on which Prichard's name appeared in the Grand Lodge Minutes. His Lodge was not mentioned and, so far as official records go, it is not even certain that he had ever been admitted into the Craft.

 

The only information to be found about him is that which can be deduced from his book as a whole, but especially from the eight preliminary pages, and from `The Author's Vindication of himself . . .', which formed its final chapter. The sources from which these details can be gathered are of two kinds: (a) Direct statements, made by Prichard, about himself and his reasons for compiling the book.

 

(b) Inferences that may properly be drawn from the knowledge of the Craft that he displayed in his introductory pages and in the text of his exposure.

 

There is reason to believe that the information thus obtained may furnish useful light on Prichard as a Mason and on his capacity as a writer on Masonry, all the more valuable, perhaps, because of the total absence of other sources. In the following notes the page SAMUEL PRICIIARD'S 'MASONRY DISSECTED' 1730 109 numbers shown in [] refer to un‑numbered pages in the first edition of Masonry Dissected.

 

LATE MEMBER OF A CONSTITUTED LODGE: [p 1]. Prichard's claim that he was 'late Member of a CONSTITUTED LODGE' implies that he was a Mason who had resigned or been excluded. This was probably true. Quite apart from his ritual text (which does not necessarily prove that he had been a Mason) there is evidence to show that he had a very good knowledge of Masonry and its background, and there is no reason to doubt his claim.

 

There is indeed a record of a 'Mr Sam'. Pritchard' in the minutes of the Lodge held at the Swan and Rummer Tavern, in Finch Lane, London, showing that he was a visitor to that Lodge on 25 September 1728, and the record also mentions his Lodge. It runs: 'Mr Sam'. Pritchard [of] Harry ye 8th head of 7 Dyalls' (Hughan, AQC 10, p 134).

 

The names Prichard and Pritchard are interchangeable, and this entry may have been made by the Secretary of the Lodge, who included the 't'. Grand Lodge also used the spelling 'Pritchard' in the minutes of 15 December 1730, above, and it appeared so in the advertisements, but not in Prichard's book.

 

Little is known about the Lodge at 'King Henry ye VIII Head' except that it was a `Regular Constituted Lodge', and was so recorded in the Grand Lodge List for 25 November 1725* when it had seventeen members whose names are also recorded (but Prichard's name was not among them). The Lodge sent representatives, Master and Wardens, to the Quarterly Communications in June 1728 and in December 17301, after which it seems to have disappeared.

 

If we could be sure that the visitor to the Swan and Rummer on 25 September 1728 was our Samuel Prichard, the record would be doubly interesting, partly because we know that the Lodge had a number of distinguished visitors, but chiefly because it was one of the earliest English Lodges recorded as working the third degree. Needless to say, Prichard's chief claim to Masonic fame or notoriety was his publication of Masonry Dissected, the first exposure of the ritual of three degrees.

 

* Minutes of the Grand Lodge ... 1723‑179, QCA, X, p 43. tibid. pp 86. 133.

 

110HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY The word `CONSTITUTED', on Prichard's title‑page, had a special significance at that time. The first Book of Constitutions, 1723, contained a chapter describing `the Manner of constituting a New Lodge' and on 25 November 1723 the Grand Lodge had ruled: That no new Lodge in or near London without it be regularly Constituted be Countenanced by the Grand Lodge, nor the Ma' or Wardens admitted at the Grand Lodge." Prichard's use of the word `Constituted' was intended to emphasise the regularity of his former Lodge, but it may well indicate a better than average knowledge of what was going on in the Grand Lodge.

 

THE OATH: [p 11]. A greatly inferior exposure, The Mystery of Free‑Masonry, had been on sale in London under various titles, since August 1730. Prichard's work was infinitely better and he probably decided to use the Oath as a plain piece of salesmanship, guaranteeing the quality of his own publication. It was sworn, before a magistrate, Sir Richard Hopkins, an Alderman of the Lime Street Ward of the City of London, on 13 October 1730.

 

It seems that pirated versions, under the same title, had begun to appear immediately after Prichard's first edition came out on 20 October, and he altered the 23 October advertisement for his second edition, by inserting a note which referred to the Oath (or Affidavit): NI3 There is prefixed to this Account, a True Copy of the Affidavit made before Sir Richard Hopkins, of its Truth and Genuineness in every Particular, without which all other accounts are spurious and gross Impositions on the Publick ...

 

THE DEDICATION: (pp III, IV]. This was addressed to the Fraternity itself, in polite and respectful terms, but when read in conjunction with the `Author's Vindication of himself' at the end of the work, the dedication appears to be tinged with irony.

 

Masonry Dissected: pp 5‑8. In this section, Prichard compared `the original Institution of Masonry' with the `Accepted Masonry' of his own day. He began with a very brief precis of the story of the Craft, as told (with many variations) in practically every version of the Old Charges or MS. Constitutions. He mentioned `the Liberal Arts and * ibid. p 54.

 

SAMUEL PRICHARD'S 'MASONRY DISSECTED', 1730111 Sciences; but more especially . . . Geometry' and traced the transmission of `the Art and Mystery of Masonry' from `the Building of the Tower of Babel', through Euclid, who communicated it to Hiram, the Master‑Mason concern'd in the Building of Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem, where was an excellent and curious Mason that was the chief under their Grand‑Master Hiram, whose Name was Mannon Grecus, who taught the Art of Masonry to one Carolos Marcil in France, who was afterwards elected King of France....

 

Omitting many details, but still following the Old Charges in outline, Prichard noted that the Craft was brought from France and became established in England, where `Masons were made in the Manner following': Tunc unus ex Senioribus teneat Librurn, cut illi vel ille ponant vel ponat Manus supra Librum; tum Praecepta debeant legi, ie Whilst one of the Seniors holdeth the Book, that he or they put their Hands upon the Book, whilst the Master ought to read the Laws or Charges.

 

It is obvious that Prichard was well acquainted with one or more versions of the Old Charges, although he did not name specific texts; but he did leave several clues, and the search is rewarding, because it produces valuable evidence of his status as a student of Freemasonry.

 

THE OLD CHARGES IN PRICHARD'S DAY Some 130 versions of the Old Charges have survived to this day, ranging in date from c1390 right through to the mid‑eighteenth century. Several of them are copies of earlier versions, but all of them ‑ even the early copies ‑ are rare and valuable manuscripts. Modern students are fortunate, because most of them have been reproduced in print during the past hundred years or more, so that their contents are readily accessible nowadays.

 

In Prichard's day, however, the majority of them would have been stored in private libraries, or in antiquarian collections, out of reach of the public, and their existence in most cases was unknown. There was, nevertheless, a great interest among Masonic leaders in these old documents which purported to recount the history of the Craft since Bible times, together with the Charges or Regulations by which the masons were governed. In the `historical' section of Anderson's Book of Constitutions, 1738, (p 110) he recorded, for 24 June 1718: 112HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY George Payne Esq: Grand Master . . . desired any Brethren to bring to the Grand Lodge any old Writings and Records concerning Masons and Masonry in order to shew the Usages of antient Times: And this Year several old Copies of the Gothic Constitutions were produced and collated.

 

On 24 June 1720, at the beginning of Payne's second term as Grand Master, Anderson noted that: This Year, at some private Lodges, several very valuable Manuscripts (for they had nothing yet in Print) 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. (ibid. p 111) At the Grand Festival in June 1721, Payne exhibited the Cooke MS, c1410 (now acknowledged as the second oldest version of the Old Charges).

 

Anderson had said, correctly, that `they had nothing yet in Print' (in 1720), but this was partially remedied in the next few years. In 1722, a version of the Old Constitutions was `Printed, and Sold by J. Roberts, in Warwick Lane' [London].

 

In 1724, and again in 1725, another pamphlet was `Printed for Sam. Briscoe, at the Bell‑Savage, on Ludgate‑Hill', and came on sale there and at three other places in London. It is now known as the Briscoe pamphlet, and contains a varied collection of Masonic odds‑and‑ends including a version of the Old Charges.

 

In 1728‑29 Benjamin Cole published another version, in book form; it was printed from engraved plates in three different states and the first `edition' may have appeared a year or two before 1728. These three versions are the only texts known to have been in print at the time when Prichard was preparing to publish his exposure. In addition there were a number of copies of several versions, most of them made by William Reid, who was Grand Secretary from 1727‑34. He was responsible for three texts, now known as the Fisher MS, c1726; Songhurst MS, c1726; and the Spencer MS, 1726, all three being virtually identical. Two years later, he produced another version, the Woodford MS, 1728, which was a copy of the Cooke MS of c1410.

 

One more text must be added to this list, because it is of special interest, ie the Bolt‑Coleraine MS, dated 1728, which will be discussed more fully, below.

 

SAMUEL PRICHARD'S 'MASONRY DISSECTED', 1730113 This completes the list of all the print and manuscript versions of the Old Charges that could have been readily accessible to Prichard in the years before he published his Masonry Dissected. He may, indeed, have had access to other versions, but that is extremely doubtful because ‑ had they been available ‑ there would almost certainly have been some record of their being copied, as was the case with the Cooke MS and Songhurst, Spencer, Fisher and BoltColeraine MSS.

 

THE THREE CLUES We may return now to the three clues which Prichard left; they consist of the two names, `Mannon Grecus' and `Carolos Marcil', with the Latin instruction `Tune unus ex Senioribus . . .' Among the 130 surviving versions of the Old Charges, there are many which lack all three items. Some contain one or both names in a fantastic variety of spellings", but they omit the Latin instruction; others contain that instruction in English. Only a small proportion contain all three items, ie two names with the Latin text, but their spellings differ widely from Prichard's clues. The following extracts, all earlier than 1730, may serve as illustrations, from versions that contain all three 'clues'.

 

Prichard's words,Latin text for comparisonMANNON GRFCUSCAROLOS MARC‑11‑(see p. 111 Thorp MS, 1629.NAymUs GREI=USCHARLES MART1LLabove) Spellings A QC, Vol 11,differ pp 209/210 Beaumont MS, 1690MANION GRFCUSCARALUS MARCHILLSpellings Yorkshire Olddiffer Charges, pp 76/8 By Poole & Worts Bain MS, 1670‑1680[Bi.ANK[ GROFCUSCHARLES MARFELLSpellings A QC, Vol 20,differ pp 260, 263. * The first name. 'Mannon Greens' appears in versions ranging from 'Naynms Greens' to 'minus Greenatus. alias Green'. The second name 'Carolos Marcil appears in versions ranging from Carolus Martyll' to 'Charles Marshall'.

 

114HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY Drinkwater MS, No 1. c.1710MANNON GRALCUMCAROLUS MARTYLLWords Trans. Manchesterdiffer Assn. for Mas.

 

Research, Vol XV It is doubtful if Prichard had access to any of these texts, but even if he had, it is clear that none of them could have been his source for those names, or for the Latin instruction.

 

The manuscript and printed versions of the Old Charges that are known to have been accessible to Prichard before 1730 are equally unhelpful except in one case. As regards the three clues, for which we are searching, they exhibit wide variations of detail, eg the Spencer, Songhurst, and Fisher MSS, and the Cole engraved versions have neither the two names nor the Latin instruction. The Cooke MS of c1410 (and the Woodford MS, which was a copy made in 1728) have only one of the names, given as `Carolus Secundus', but they lack the Latin passage. The Briscoe print of 1724 gives both names `Nainus Groecus' and `Charles Marcil', but again the Latin instruction is omitted. The Roberts print, of 1722, has both names, with the Latin instruction, but none of the three items matches Prichard's clues, ie Roberts, 1722. Masonry Dissected, 1730.

 

Memongrecus: Carolus Martel Marmon Grecus: Carolos Marcil and for the Latin passage: Roberts, 1722 Prichard, 1730 Tunc Unus ex Senioribus veniat librum illi qui Injurandum reddat & ponat Manum in Libro vel supra librum duet Articulus & Precepta sibi legentur.

 

Tnnc unus ex Senioribus teneat Librum, ut illi vel ille ponant vel ponat Manus supra Librum; tum Praecepta debeant legi.

 

After much searching, there is only one version of the `Old Charges' that contains all three of Prichard's clues and that can be proved to have been in circulation at the time when Prichard was preparing his material. It is the Bolt‑Coleraine MS, dated 1728, and is believed to have been copied by one, William Askew, from an original now lost. This text of 1728 was in a small book of forty‑three SAMUEL PRICHARD'S 'MASONRY DISSECTED', 1730 pages, with an inscription which suggests that it was commissioned by Lord Coleraine, or prepared for presentation to him, at the time when he was Grand Master in 1727/8. The inscription runs: The Constitutions of the Right Hon hl░ and Worshipfull Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons A. M.5728 A. D.1728 The Rt. Honble Henry Lord Colerane Baron of Colerane in the Kingdom of Ireland Grand Master Odi Profanum (The Latin is from Horace, Odes III, 1. I. and means `I hate the uninitiate crowd . . .'). The book was in the possession of the Bristol Masonic Society until 1941, when it was destroyed by enemy action. Fortunately a transcript survived and that was reproduced in full in Gould's History of Freemasonry (Poole's edition, 1951, Vol I pp 25‑29).

 

As to Prichard's name clues, those in Bolt‑Coleraine are almost, but not quite identical: Prichard, 1730Mannon GrecusICarolos Marcil Bolt‑Coleraine, 1728Mannon GrecusCarolus Marcill As to the Latin instruction, in all except the spelling of one word, the two versions are word‑for‑word identical: Prichard's Masonry Dissected 1730 Tune unus ex Senioribus teneat Librum, ut illi vel ille ponant vel ponat Manus supra Librum: turn Praecepta debeant legi.

 

The Bolt‑Coleraine MS., 1728 (From the Bristol Transcript) Tunc Unus Ex Senioribus teneat Librum ut illi vel illem ponant vel ponat manus supra Librum Turn praecepta debeant Legi.

 

Because of the destruction of the 1728 copy of the Bolt‑Coleraine MS, in 1941, Bro Poole was unable to vouch for the accuracy of the Bristol transcript, which was the basis of his reproduction in 1951, 116IIARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY and this may perhaps explain the minute differences that appear in the two versions under discussion. But there is another explanation that may be far more satisfying.

 

All the manuscript versions of the Old Charges that can be proved to have been accessible to Prichard in 1730 were in some way connected with the Grand Lodge itself, or with Lord Coleraine, Grand Master in 1727‑28. The Spencer MS 1726, the Songhurst and Fisher MSS, c1726, were all copied by William Reid, who was Grand Secretary from 1727‑33. The Woodford MS (a copy of the Cooke MS, of c1410), was copied by him in 1728, and it contains an inscription headed `L`' Coleraine ‑ Gr" Master'. The Bolt‑Coleraine MS was also copied in 1728, by order of Lord Coleraine, or for his ultimate use.

 

At this period, two years before Prichard's Masonry Dissected was condemned by the Grand Lodge, Prichard obviously had access to the 1728 copy of the Old Charges which eventually became known as the Bolt‑Coleraine MS; but in that case, it is more probable that he had access to the original text from which that copy was made, and that his three clues were extracted from that version which is now lost. All this suggests that Prichard was in touch with William Reid, the Grand Secretary, and perhaps with Lord Coleraine as well.

 

Immediately following the Latin instruction, Prichard printed a very adequate English translation (which was not in the BoltColeraine MS) and this shows that he had, at the very least, a useful working knowledge of Latin.

 

The results of this somewhat involved examination of the sources of Prichard's clues show him to have been a man of some education, a student of the early documents of the Craft, with access to one or more texts of the Old Charges which were in the custody of the Grand Lodge, or of some of its senior officers; and this implies that in the years preceding the publication of Masonry Dissected, he had been a respectable member of a regular Lodge.

 

We shall see, moreover, when we examine the text of Prichard's three degrees, that he must have had a useful working knowledge of the ritual and usages of that time. Anderson recorded the destruction, in 1720, of `several very valuable Manuscripts . . . concerning the Fraternity, their Lodges, . . . Secrets and Usages' and we have no means of knowing if Prichard had had access to those or to similar documents. But when we observe how vastly superior his work was to SAMUEL PRICHARD'S 'MASONRY DISSECTED', 1730 any of the early documents that have survived, and how much of his work can be directly linked with the earlier texts, it is obvious that he was much more than an average student of the Craft, its ritual and procedures.

 

ACCEPTED MASONRY: (pp 6‑7) Prichard continued his introductory remarks with a note on the Accepted Masonry of his own day: ... Accepted Masonry (as it now is) has not been heard of till within these few Years; no Constituted Lodges or Quarterly Communications were heard of till 1691, when Lords and Dukes, Lawyers and Shopkeepers, and other inferior Tradesmen, Porters not excepted, were admitted into this Mystery or no Mystery; It would have been difficult for Prichard to give a precise date for the rise of `Accepted Masonry', but there are records of the `Accepcon' in the London Masons Company from 1621 onwards, and Plot, in his Natural History of Staffordshire, had written in 1686 that `persons of the most eminent quality . . . did not disdain to be of this Fellowship', and that he had found it `spread more or less all over the Nation'.

 

Prichard's date, 1691, for the beginning of Quarterly Communications, would be beyond proof nowadays; there is no evidence to support the existence of any such established organisation in 1691.

 

Prichard's division of the classes of men who were joining the Craft, reflected the social distinctions of his own era: the first sort [Lords and Dukes] being introduc'd at a very great Expence, the second sort [Lawyers and Shopkeepers] at a moderate Rate, and the latter [inferior Tradesmen, Porters not excepted] for the Expence of six or seven Shillings, for which they receive that Badge of Honour, which (as they term it) is more ancient and more honourable than is the Star and Garter, which Antiquity is accounted, according to the Rules of Masonry, as delivered by their Tradition, ever since Adam, which I shall leave the candid Reader to determine.

 

This appears to be the earliest comparison of the Apron with the `Star and Garter', in words which have survived some 250 years as part of the Masonic ritual in English Lodges all over the world. This note on the Apron as a Badge of Honour is particularly interesting because there is no mention of the Apron in the text of Prichard's 118HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY exposure, showing ‑ on his own admission ‑ that his text is incomplete.

 

The reference to 'their Tradition, ever since Adam' is a gentle jibe at the opening words of the historical section of Anderson's first Book of Constitutions, 1723: Adam, our first Parent, . . . must have had the Liberal Sciences, particularly GeornetrY, written on his Heart: . . .

 

Prichard's introductory chapter continued with brief references to some of the mock‑Masonic societies of the 1730s, and the final paragraph consisted of a complaint that a Brother, having to withdraw from the Craft because of the `Quarterly Expenses' would be denied the Privilege (as a Visiting Brother) of knowing the Mystery for which he has already paid, which is a manifest Contradiction according to the Institution of Masonry itself . . .

 

The tone of this passage seems to suggest that Prichard was perhaps writing about himself as a sufferer under this rule. He cited another example of `loss of visiting privileges' in the `Vindication', which formed the final chapter of his book.

 

THE AUTHOR'S VINDICATION OF HIMSELF . . . pp 30, 31; The contents of this brief section are not at all in keeping with its pompous but promising title, The Author's Vindication of himself from the prejudiced Part of Mankind'. By way of vindication, the only reason he could find, to justify him in the breach of his Masonic oath, was that the Obligation had already been published: ... the grand Article, viz., the Obligation, has several Times been printed in the publick Papers, but is entirely genuine in the Daily Journal of Saturday, Aug. 22. 1730. which agrees in its Veracity with that deliver'd in this Pamphlet; and consequently when the Obligation of Secrecy is abrogated, the aforesaid Secret becomes of no Effect, and must be quite extinct; It had indeed been published under the title `The Mystery of Freemasonry', in the Daily Journal of 15 August, 1730 (and in several broadsides under various titles); but even if all these had been correct in every particular, their appearance in print could not have released or absolved him of his own oath. (Incidentally, the text in the Daily SAMUEL PRICHARD'S 'MASONRY DISSECTED'. 1730119 Journal was vastly inferior to Prichard's version.) At this point, and with total irrelevance to his supposed vindication of himself, Prichard entered on a new theme, telling the story of some Masons* who made a Visitation from the first and oldest constituted Lodge (. . . in London) to a noted Lodge in this City, and was denied Admittance, because their old Lodge was removed to another House, which, . . . . . requires another Constitution, at no less Expence than two Guineas, with an elegant Entertainment, under the Denomination of being put to charitable Uses. . . .

 

He expressed serious doubts as to whether these costs would really be applied to the charitable uses for which such funds were intended, believing that they would `be expended towards the forming another System of Masonry, the old Fabrick being so ruinous, . . .' There is no record of this incident in the Grand Lodge Minutes; and there was no rule in the 1723 Book of Constitutions that would have justified a fee for a new Constitution in this case, unless the Brethren who were `denied Admittance' had actually withdrawn or separated themselves from their original Lodge, in which case Reg. VIII would have applied.

 

The story, if it were true, might well have influenced Prichard's views on the Masonry of his day and, doubtless, he recounted it as an additional excuse for his defection. His comments on the `ruinous' condition of the `Fabrick' of Masonry seem to reflect the resistance to change which must have been generated fairly widely during that era of major changes in the government of the Craft, while the young Grand Lodge was beginning to acquire control over old and new Lodges in London and the Provinces.

 

In the Records of the Lodge of Antiquity No 2 (Original No 1) pp 35/6, our late Bro W. H. Rylands identified the `first and oldest constituted Lodge . . . in London' as a reference to Original No 1 and examining Prichard's tirade, he came to the conclusion that the whole attack is directed not against Masonry in general, but against the new Fashions which threatened the "old Fabrick".

 

The final paragraph of Prichard's `Vindication' claimed that he was * He described them as `Operative Masons (but according to the polite Way of Expression, Accepted Masons)'.

 

120HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY induced to publish his exposure `at the Request of several Masons' and he expressed the hope that it would give entire Satisfaction, and have its desired Effect in preventing so many credulous Persons being drawn into so pernicious a Society.

 

Whether he was actually persuaded, by Masons, to undertake the publication is open to doubt and need not be taken seriously. The sting in the Vindication is contained in his opening and closing words: Of all the Impositions that have appear'd amongst Mankind, none are so ridiculous as the Mystery of Masonry . . . . . . . . so pernicious a Society.

 

These are the only passages in the whole book that are tinged with real animosity. They suggest that the exposure was not published merely as a protest against changes or innovations. Something had embittered him against the Craft and that is the final detail in the portrait of Prichard that we have tried to reconstruct from the evidence that he left for us. He had been a member of a regular Lodge, had read Anderson's Book of Constitutions and was a student of the history of the Craft. He was probably well known to senior officers of the Grand Lodge and certainly had free access to documents in which they were deeply interested. Soon after the Bolt‑Coleraine MS had been copied, in 1728, an incident had occurred ‑ trivial or serious, we do not know ‑ but it turned him against the Craft, and he betrayed his Obligation.

 

MASONIC CATECHISMS AND EXPOSURES* Until the late 1600s the only evidence we have on Masonic ritual consists of several versions of the masons' Obligation (in the Old Charges) with occasional notes describing how it was administered (as in the Latin instruction quoted on p 111, above). The earliest versions are simple oaths of fidelity to the King, the trade, and the Master, without any reference to esoteric matters, or penalties. Some of the later versions contain references to secrets, but without details.

 

For students of the evolution of Masonic ritual, the following works are particularly recommended: 'Masonic Ritual and Secrets before 1717' by the Rev Herbert Poole, AQC, 37, pp 4‑43; The Early Masonic Catechisms, by Knoop. Jones and Hamer, which contains transcripts of all the texts up to c1740, with a valuable introduction (2nd edn, pub]. by the QC Lodge); 'An Examination of the Early Masonic Catechisms'. by H. Carr, in AQC, Vols 83. 84 and 85. in which the contents of the earlier texts arc compared with Masonrv Dissected; The Genesis of Freemasonry. pp 204‑293, by Douglas Knoop and G. P. Jones. A less detailed sketch, covering developments up to c1813, 600 Years of Craft Ritual, by H. Carr. may also prove useful.

 

SAMUEL PRICHARD'S 'MASONRY DISSECTED'. 1730 The Harleian MS, No 2054, c1650, contains a form of the Masons' obligation which speaks of `sev'all [ie several] words & signs of a free Mason', plural, implying secret modes of recognition for more than one degree, and indicating that the ceremonies were beginning to take on their modern shape, ie an obligation and `entrusting'; but the text gives no other details. From 1598 onwards, there are Scottish Lodge minutes which prove the existence of two degrees, the first for the Entered Apprentice, and the second for the `Master or Fellow‑craft', but they give no information as to the contents of those ceremonies.

 

Today, there are altogether seventeen Masonic documents that comprise the whole of the surviving evidence on the ritual up to 1730. Seven of these were printed in newspapers, or as broadsides or pamphlets, and all seven were published from motives of curiosity, profit, or spite; hence their general classification as `Exposures'.

 

The remaining ten documents are manuscripts, mainly in the form of Question and Answer, occasionally with the addition of notes on various Masonic matters. At least three of these texts (discovered respectively in 1904, 1930 and 1954) were undoubtedly copied out carefully by hand in order to serve as aides‑memoires to the ceremonies and they are particularly valuable on that account. All these hand‑written texts were obviously prepared for personal use and they are usually described under the more respectable heading of `Catechisms'.

 

The senior Grand Lodges (England, Ireland and Scotland) have never issued any official Rituals or Monitors, so that there are no authoritative documents that would provide a proper starting‑point for studies on the evolution and development of early Masonic ritual. It is this total absence of officially authorised material that has invested the Catechisms and Exposures with a degree of importance far beyond the interest they would otherwise have merited. Because all such documents ‑ whether hand‑written or printed ‑ were compiled in violation of the Mason's oath, they were collectively deemed to be of dubious origin and therefore suspect; and no matter how interesting their contents might be, they were considered unworthy of serious study. In effect, the more they revealed, the less they were to be trusted, unless it could be proved that the rituals and procedures which they described were linked in some way with the actual Lodge practice of their time. That kind of proof was not easy to 122HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY come by, but it did come ‑'in stages ‑ during a period of some thirty years. The story may seem irrelevant here, but it is not possible to make a fair assessment of Prichard's work without knowing how the cloud of mistrust that rested on all such documents was finally removed. It begins with a fragment of ritual, dated 1702, on the opening page of an old Scottish minute book.

 

THE `HAUGHFOOT FRAGMENT' In 1702, a little group of gentlemen, all Masons, decided to found a Lodge in the village of Haughfoot, some twenty miles S.E. of Edinburgh. Two of them, Sir John Hoppringle of that Ilk and his younger brother, Sir James Pringle, were notable landowners in that district. Another founder, Andrew Thomson, probably a lawyer, was due to become their `Boxmaster' and he served in that office, ie as Treasurer, combining it with the duties of Secretary. He was ordered to buy a minute‑book, for which he was reimbursed in due course `ffourteen shillings Scotts'.

 

The minute book survives to this day as one of the treasures of the ancient Lodge of Selkirk, now No 32, S.C. Its contents begin, in the middle of a sentence, at the top of page 11, the preceding ten pages having been lost or destroyed. As far as we can reconstruct the story, it seems that Thomson began his records with details of the preliminaries before the foundation of the Lodge, and then continued with what must have been a complete copy, or a pr6cis, of the two‑degree ritual of that time. When this was finished, he had filled the first ten pages, and the last five lines of ritual were at the top of page 11, leaving three‑quarters of the page blank. But his native Scottish thrift would not allow him to waste that page and, immediately after the end of his ritual text, he added a heading: `The same day' and continued with the minutes of the meeting held on 22 December 1702, apparently the first `working' meeting at which six `Intrants ... were duely and orderly admitted apprentice and ffellow Craft'.

 

The minutes were beautifully kept throughout the next sixty‑one years, but the Lodge disappeared in 1763, probably being swallowed up by some of its more powerful neighbours. At some stage in its history ‑ we do not know when ‑ the minute‑book must have fallen SAMUEL PRICHARD'S 'MASONRY DISSECTED', 1730 123 into the hands of a zealous busy‑body, who was so horrified at finding the ritual copied out into its opening pages that he tore out the first ten. He was constrained to leave the last fragment of ritual on page 11 intact, doubtless because that page contained the earliest minutes of the lodge. Hence, the 'Haughfoot fragment', just twenty‑nine words of ritual‑procedure, preserved since 1702 in the minute‑book of a small but very respectable Lodge. They begin in the middle of a sentence: of Entrie as the apprentice did Leaving our (The Common Judge.) Then they whisper the word as befor ‑ and the master mason grips his hand after the ordinary way.

 

The `fragment' with its uninformative references to a whispered word, and a grip given by the `master mason' did not attract serious attention from scholars because the main body of the text was missing and the surviving words, the `fragment', could not be matched to any other known text. It was left, so‑to‑speak, in mid‑air, simply because there were no means of ascertaining its real significance.

 

STAGES IN THE EVALUATION OF THE CATECHISMS AND EXPOSURES The first hesitant step towards a proper evaluation of the Catechisms and Exposures was taken in 1904, when Bro W. J. Hughan, a notable scholar and founder of the QC Lodge, compiled a brief note (in A QC Vol 17, pp 91/2) on a newly‑discovered manuscript that he had just acquired for the Grand Lodge of Ireland. It is now known as The Chetwode Crawley MS, c1700, and is reproduced in EMC, 2nd edn, pp 35‑38. The text is headed THE GRAND SECRETOR THE FORME OF GIVING THE MASON‑WORD and it describes, in narrative form, the ritual and procedure of the two admission ceremonies of its day. Its contents are of high importance in our present study and they may be summarised briefly, as follows: FOR THF ENTFRED‑APPRENTICE. The candidate was put 'upon his knees: And after a great many Ceremonies, to frighten him', he took up the Bible and repeated the Oath. He was then 'removed out of the Company with 124HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY the youngest Mason;' There, he endured further horseplay. Then, still outside the Lodge, he was taught 'the manner of making Guard, which is the Sign, Word & Postures of his Entry'.

 

He returned to the Lodge, made the [E.A.] Sign, recited the 'Words of Entry' and made the Sign again. Then, the 'word' was passed by 'the youngest mason' in a whisper to his neighbour who passed it on similarly, and so on all round the Lodge, until it came to the Master. who whispered it to the candidate. (There is a note indicating that the E.A. had two Pillar‑words). After this there was a Catechism of sixteen Questions and Answers, and that was all.

 

FOR THE `MASrcR‑MASOn OR Fra_LOw‑CRAFT. All Apprentices were removed '. . . non Suffered to stay, but only Mason Masters' and there was no horseplay. The candidate had the same `Oath administered . . . anew'. He was taken out by 'the youngest Master to learn the words & Signs of ffellowship'. Returning, he gave `the Master‑Sign' [not described] and 'the Same words of Entry as the prentice did, only leaving out the Common Judge', i.e. those three words, which were in the E.A. greeting. Then `the Masons whisper the word . . . as formerly', i.e., the 'word' was passed by the youngest Master in a 'rotational whisper', until it reached the Master. The candidate placed himself in a posture, for what was subsequently described as Wive . . . Points of (fellow‑ship', and he gave a whispered greeting to the Brethren. 'Then the Master Mason gives him the word & grips his hand, and afterwards, all the Masons, which is all to be done to make a perfect Mason'. Associated with this ceremony was a Catechism of only four test Questions and Answers, and that was all for the `Master‑Mason or ffellow‑Craft'.

 

In his notes on 'The Chetwode Crawley MS, Bro Hughan, after having compared it with all the early Exposures and Catechisms that were known in his day, observed that 'the Common Gudge' [sic] had been cited as part of the equipment of 'a just and perfect Lodge' in two printed Exposures, A Mason's Examination, 1723, and The Mystery of Free‑Masonry, 1730. To his credit, he was the first to notice the close similarity between the 'Haughfoot fragment' and the comparable section of the Chetwode‑Crawley MS (ie the words shown in italics in the above summary) but for reasons unknown, probably excessive caution, he dated the newly‑found text as 'about the year 1730, or slightly earlier'. Nevertheless, he accorded it a substantial degree of respectability when he wrote that the distinctive features in Chetwode‑Crawley SAMUEL PRICHARD'S 'MASONRY DISSECTED', 173012,5 suggest to my mind that it represents a more or less accurate account of the Ceremonies of the period, written by a brother, who took this plan to assist his memory, and who himself had been Admitted as an "Apprentice and Master Mason, or ffellow‑Craft" accordingly.

 

This was a bold admission in 1904, but it was clear that Bro Hughan's caution, in dating the text c1730, had misled him as to the true significance of the obvious relationship between the 'Haughfoot fragment' and the Chetwode Crawley MS.

 

In 1924, Bro Herbert Poole, in his 'Masonic Ritual and Secrets before 1717' (AQC, 37 p 7) discussed the same question and concluded that . . . the latter [i.e. the Chetwode‑Crawlev MS] though it may have been copied as late as 1730, must be regarded as a faithful description of a ceremony which was worked at the very beginning of the eighteenth century.

 

This was proper recognition at last, not merely of the CCMS for itself, but of the authentication which it gained from the 'fragment' of ritual in the minute book of the Haughfoot Lodge.

 

Bro Poole's conclusions were completely justified in 1930 on the discovery of a sister text to the CCMS, now known as the Edinburgh Register House MS, (because it was found in the Public Record Office of Edinburgh). It bore an endorsement 'Some Questiones Anent the mason word 1696' and that date 1696, after strict examination, is accepted by the experts. The two texts differ in many respects, eg in spelling, phrasing, and in the 'catechism‑narrative' sequence of the Edinburgh text, which is the reverse of that in the CCMS. In spite of these minor differences, there is no doubt that they are descended from a common original, and they certainly describe the same two ceremonies.

 

In 1954, a third version was discovered, now known as the Kevan MS, c1714, and this ‑ because of the omission of several words and phrases ‑ is clearly a defective text. Yet, there is no doubt that all three describe the same general procedure. Their differences, indeed, are helpful, because it is obvious that they were not copied from each other, implying ‑ so long as they can be authenticated ‑ that they represent lodge working over a fairly wide area in the south of Scotland. The authentication comes from the 'Haughfoot fragment' 126HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY which is clearly a precis of the corresponding passages in all three texts.

 

One major benefit that arises from these documents, as soon as they are recognised as respectable versions of the ritual of their day, is that they provide, collectively, a firm basis for furtherstudies and for testing the validity of some of the later texts; but it must be emphasised that the three sister‑texts, now often described as the 'Edinburgh group', represent only Scottish practice.

 

The English Masonic ceremonies, so far as may be judged from surviving evidence, were largely based on the Old Charges or MS Constitutions. In their early form they consisted of an invocation or opening prayer; a reading of some part of the `history' of the Craft; a recital of the 'Charges' or regulations; an obligation of fidelity, taken ,upon the book' (as indicated in several versions of the 'Latin instruction' quoted on p 111 above). Originally that was all; but in the seventeenth century, when we find versions of the Old Charges that contain references to 'secrets', and to several 'words & signs' etc, it is obvious that the ceremonies had been expanded to include some form of 'entrusting'. At this stage, the English ceremonies were already beginning to resemble the Scottish forms.

 

It would not be practicable, here, to make a prolonged study of how the practices of the two countries became merged. Gradually, the ritualistic influence of the Old Charges or MS Constitutions declined; but there is no doubt that . . . both types of operative ceremony, the one depicted in the MS Constitutions, and the one depicted in the MS Catechisms, have undoubtedly contributed to the development of present‑day working, and justify us in saying that the existing working has not a single, but a twofold origin.* It is only necessary to stress that so far as the Catechisms and Exposures are concerned, the best of the English texts (when they begin to appear from c1700 onwards) are in harmony with their Scottish counterparts. Generally, they complement each other, and often, a document, in one group, furnishes details that are lacking in the other. In this way, the sixteen texts that preceded Prichard's work supply a valuable body of evidence to show the sources of much of the material in Masonry Dissected.

 

" The Genesis of F'reeinasonrv. bv Knoop and Jones, M'tcr. Univ. Press, 1947 p 217.

 

SAMUEL PRICHARD'S 'MASONRY DISSECTED'. 1730 127 MASONRY DISSECTED ‑ THE TEXT OF THE EXPOSURE There is a peculiar fascination attaching to the study of the text of Prichard's exposure, not only because it was the first publication that claimed to describe a system of three degrees, but also because of the variety of the problems that are involved. The work, as a whole, was unlike any of the earlier documents of its kind, both in its general structure and in the manner in which its parts are presented. Much of Prichard's material was already in existence, but some very important sections had never appeared in manuscript or in print; yet, there is good reason to believe that he did not invent those novelties, but had simply collected and arranged them.

 

In their Introduction to the Early Masonic Catechisms (pp 11‑13 and 18‑19) the authors, discussing the early documents up to c1740, were able to find textual affinities that might have formed a basis for classifying them in four separate groups, with Prichard's Masonry Dissected as the first of a fifth grouping; but this left them with six highly individualistic texts which did not bear `a close affinity to any other known document' and they were forced to conclude that `there is not sufficient material available to formulate a satisfactory classification'. There is nevertheless, good reason to believe that these groups represent separate streams of ritual.

 

Masonry Dissected, no matter how well it deserved to be placed at the head of a separate group, might well have been included with the six that could not be classified. It was not only the longest and most comprehensive document of its kind, but it also contained items that were more‑or‑less closely connected with most of the earlier texts. This suggests that it did not necessarily represent the working of a particular lodge, but may have been a composite of several different workings, a distinct possibility, since there was no official control of the ritual or procedures.

 

Generally, Prichard produced his text for each of the three degrees in the form of a catechism, or a `Question and Answer Lecture', which took place, presumably, after a candidate had passed that particular degree, ie the catechism was not a ceremony in itself, but an exercise in the explanation and interpretation of the ritual and procedure relevant to a particular degree.

 

There were certainly some omissions. Prichard made no mention of a `Prayer', or of any kind of `Charge to a newly admitted Brother': it may be that these were not customary in Prichard's Lodges. But his 128HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY ritual text also omitted all reference to the Apron, though he mentioned the `Badge of Honour' and actually quoted some of the words which accompanied the investiture. These are minor blemishes, however, and they do not seriously detract from the interest or the value of the work as a whole.

 

The Questions in Prichard's catechism fall readily into three groups: 1. Test questions which were doubtless used prior to the admission of an unknown visitor to a lodge, but which were also designed for test purposes, outside, or away from, the lodge.

 

2. Questions relating to the actual ceremonies and depicting the preparation of the candidates, and floorwork or procedure inside the lodge.

 

3. Questions relating to Lodges and Masonry generally, eg the `Form of the Lodge', its jewels, lights, furniture, the composition of a Lodge, the situation and duties of its officers, principles, modes of recognition etc, etc. This group also included much new material of an explanatory or mildly symbolical nature.

 

The new explanatory material marked an important stage in the expansion of the catechisms. The Edinburgh Register House MS, 1696, contained brief narrative descriptions of the EA and FC ceremonies, but it had only fifteen Questions and Answers for the EA, and two for the `Master or Fellow‑craft'. From c1700 onwards, most of the documents of this class, both in manuscript and print, showed the introduction of material that had not appeared in the earlier texts. They may have represented separate streams of ritual, or the practice of particular localities; but by 1730, we find much of this material ‑ from several sources ‑ in Masonry Dissected. Prichard had ninety‑two Q & A for the EA, thirty‑two for the FC, and thirty for the `Master's Degree'. A typical example of this expansion is a question in the Sloane MS, 3329, c1700: Q. W`1' is the mast's place in the Lodge It appeared in various forms in most of the texts that followed, and by the time it was printed in Masonry Dissected, it had grown into eight questions, beginning 'Where stands your Master?', with answers covering all the officers down to the `Junior Enter'd 'Prentice', their situations, jewels and duties.

 

SAMUEL PRICHARD'S 'MASONRY DISSECTED'. 1730 129 It would not be practicable here to undertake an examination of Prichard's sources for all his material.' The authenticity or trustworthiness of his work can best be checked by comparison with earlier documents of the same class. Virtually the whole of his Enter'd 'Prentice's Degree can be traced back (as in the Sloane example just quoted) to texts from 1696 onwards and the same applies to substantial parts of his FC and MM degrees. But when we find major items in Prichard's text for which there are no precedents, we can only test their reliability by seeing how much of that material was accepted and used in the best of the publications that appeared in the following decades. (These aspects of Prichard's work are discussed in the Notes that follow the Facsimile. Not published here.) For the present we are concerned with one section of his work that distinguished Masonry Dissected from all its predecessors, ie the Hiramic Legend.

 

THE FIRST HIRAMIC LEGEND ‑ SOURCES From Q 133 to the end of the catechism, the text gives us the earliest known version of the `Hiramic Legend' and (apart from one interesting procedural note to Q 149) it is all in the form of question and answer. Our study, at this stage, is only concerned with Prichard's sources.

 

The story of Hiram's part in the building of Solomon's Temple is told twice in the Old Testament (1 Kings VII and 2 Chron 11' Masonic sources for the Legend are almost non‑existent. The Old Charges, in their historical section, trace the `science' of building through a collection of early biblical characters in which Solomon and his Temple are barely mentioned, and Hiram appears usually under a pseudonym, Aynon, Aymon, etc, in numerous variations. But there is no mention of Hiram's death in the biblical accounts, nor in the commentaries, nor in any of the Old Charges. Indeed, nowhere in all of these early sources is there any trace of the various incidents which made up the story, now generally known as the Hiramic Legend, and it seems certain that Prichard's version ‑ the earliest that has come down to us ‑ was a comparatively late introduction into Craft working.

 

A detailed study of this aspect of Prichard's material will be found in AQC. 83. pp 337‑357; AQC. 84, pp 293‑307 and AQC, 85, pp 331‑348.

 

130HARRY CARR'S WORLD OF FREEMASONRY If we examine his text to ascertain its principal elements, the story divides into four main sections: 1. The Master‑mason of KST who refused to divulge the MM Word, and was slain in consequence, ie 'faithful unto death'. 2. The assassins hide the body and bury it.

 

3. Solomon orders the search and the searchers agree amongst themselves that 'if they do not find the Word in him or about him, the first Word should be the Master's Word'.

 

4. The discovery of the corpse. The 'raising' on the FPOF and the 'Funeral'.

 

In all these items there is only one 'constant' that had appeared in practically all the earlier Masonic catechisms and exposures, ie the 'Points of Fellowship'. Sixteen of these texts have survived that preceded the publication of Masonrv Dissected, many of them differing widely from each other. Yet, in spite of their differences, fourteen of them, from 1696 onwards, contain descriptions of the 'Points of Fellowship' and some five or six of them furnish their own sadly‑debased versions of the word that is supposed to have accompanied those Points.

 

There can be no doubt whatever that this part of the 'Hiramic Legend' was very strongly established in Craft usage long before Prichard's work appeared, yet in all these there is no hint of a Hiramic Legend, except in one late version, The Wilkinson MS, ('1727, which contains a curious answer to one of its questions, Without mention of the 'Points of Fellowship': Q. What is the form of your Lodge A. An Oblong Square Q. Why so A. The Manner of our Great Master Hiram's grave This tiny fragment of evidence proves nothing of any importance, but it does at least imply that 'Hiram's grave' was of some interest to the Craft at that time.

 

So, we are left, in the period 1696 to 1730, with the 'Points of Fellowship' and a Word, parts of the skeleton of a legend, and it is very difficult to believe that this is all there was. Throughout the middle ages and well into the eighteenth century, hundreds of years before the invention of radio and television, stories and legends, SAMUEL PRICHARD'S 'MASONRY DISSECTED'. 1730 music and songs were the main social recreation of the people. Indeed, the Old Charges themselves, with their numerous legends concerning the supposed founders of the Craft, and others `who loved masons well and gave them their charges', suggest very strongly that there must have been a store of craftlore, not necessarily in the ritual, with which the masons entertained themselves off duty. As to the `Points of Fellowship', even at the stage when the ritual contained no hint of a legend, it is impossible to believe that any group of masons could have recited the words, or demonstrated the postures that they described, without some kind of story or legend in explanation of their origin, or meaning.

 

In our search for sources, there is one document of supreme importance, the Graham MS, 1726, which must be cited frequently in connection with other aspects of Prichard's work. That text is unique in many respects. It is headed: THE WHOLE INSTITUTIONS OF FREF MASONRY OPENED AND PROVED BY THE BEST OF TRADITION AND STILL SOME REFFRANCE TO SCRIPTURE Its compiler was probably a churchman, or at least a deeply religious Christian, and he exercised his powers of interpretation on the catechism and on many aspects of the ritual that have rarely been handled in that way. After he ha