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.
THE GENESIS
OF FREEMASONRY
AN ACCOUNT OF THE RISE AND
DEVELOPMENT OF FREEMASONRY IN ITS
OPERATIVE, ACCEPTED, AND EARLY
SPECULATIVE PHASES
BY
DOUGLAS KNOOP,
M.A., HON.A.R.I.B.A.
Professor of Economics in the University of Sheffield P.M. Quatuor Coronati Lodge, No. 2076, London AND
G. P. JONES, M.A., LITT.D.
Reader in Economic History in the University of Sheffield
Published by Q.C. Correspondence Circle Ltd.
in association with Quatuor Coronati Lodge No. 20'76
London 1978
ć 1978 Q.C. Correspondence Circle Ltd.
First published by Manchester University Press 1947,
reprinted 1978
PREFACE
WE make no apology for adding yet another book to the vast mass of Masonic literature; but we should like to offer two explanations.
In the first place, whereas it has been customary to think of Masonic history as something entirely apart from ordinary history, and as calling for, and justifying, special treatment, we think of it as a branch of social history, as the study of a particular social institution and of the ideas underlying that institution, to be investigated and written in exactly the same way as the history of other social institutions.
In the second place, it is now some sixty years since Gould's History of Freemasonry made its appearance, and more than thirty since Begemann's volumes on early English, Irish and Scottish masonry were published in Germany.
The ensuing years have seen not only much new material brought to light, and old material examined from new angles, but have revealed the existence of various unsolved problems, mostly concerning the practices prevailing among freemasons at different periods, which were formerly regarded as outside the scope of Masonic history.
We feel, therefore, that, as frequently happens in other branches of history, the time has come to endeavour to re‑write the history of freemasonry in its earlier phases.
We realise that such re‑writing cannot be definitive in character, but can see no reason why serious students of masonry should not have available, in one volume of reasonable size, a continuous and connected account of the rise and development of freemasonry, in place of the sectional studies at present scattered over a large number of separate publications.
Taking our Short History of Freemasonry to 1730, published in i 940, as a basis, we have greatly amplified it, made some necessary corrections, and provided detailed references. We have paved the way for this fuller approach to the subject by editing in 1943 and 1945, in conjunction with our colleague, Douglas Hamer, two volumes of documents
otherwise not easily available, The Early Masonic Catechisms and Early Masonic Pamphlets, thus doing away with the need for an appendix of illustrative documents. As there can be no question of printing a complete bibliography, we prefer to print none, and to allow the numerous references in text and footnotes to serve instead.
We do, however, append a bibliographical note on Masonic bibliographies and on collections of Masonic documents.
Some of the information incorporated in this volume was originally published in papers or articles contributed by us to firs Quatuor Coronatorum, Economic History, the Economic History Review, the Yournal of the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Transactions of the Anglesey Antiquarian Society and Miscellanea Latomorum, and we have to thank the editors of these publications for allowing us to make such use as we desired of those papers and articles.
We desire to record a deep obligation to our colleague Douglas Hamer, Lecturer in English Literature, for valuable advice and criticism on numerous points, and especially in connection with the legends of the Craft and the Enter'd 'Prentices Song. Without his present help and past collaboration many parts of this book, and especially Chapter IV, would have been very much poorer.
We desire also to thank our colleague A. G. Pool for reading the proofs and Mr. H. M. McKechnie, Secretary of the University Press, for his continued advice and assistance.
D. K.
G. P. J.
THE UNIVERSITY,
SHEFFIELD.
October, 1946
Vi
CONTENTS
CHAP. PAGE
LIST OF ABBREVIATED REFERENCES .ix
I THE SCOPE AND METHOD OF MASONIC HISTORY . I
II THE MEDIEVAL BUILDING INDUSTRY ..17
III THE ORGANISATION OF MASONS IN THE MIDDLE AGES ..36
IV THE MS. CONSTITUTIONS OF MASONRY . 62
V THE MASON WORD .. 87
VI THE PERIOD OF TRANSITION .108
VII THE ERA OF ACCEPTED MASONRY ..129
VIII THE FORMATION OF GRAND LODGE 159
IX THE EARLY DAYS OF GRAND LODGE .. 186
X THE ORIGINS OF MASONIC CEREMONIES
204
XI THE DEVELOPMENT OF CRAFT WORKING .
227
XII THE TRIGRADAL SYSTEM ..
259
XIII THE ROYAL ARCH .274
XIV EARLY EIGHTEENTH‑CENTURY MASONIC TRENDS . 294
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE ..325
INDEX . 327
LIST OF ABBREVIATED REFERENCES
A.Q.C. . . Ars Quatuor Coronatorum [Transactions of the
Quatuor Coronati Lodge, No. 2076, London].
B. and C. . . D. Knoop and G. P. Jones, "Castle Building at
Beaumaris and Caernarvon in the early fourteenth
century", A.Q.C., xlv (1932).
Bolsover . D. Knoop and G. P. Jones, "The Bolsover Castle Building Account, 1613", A.Q.C., xlix (1936).
Briggs M. S. Briggs, The Architect in History, 1927.
Caem. Hib. W. J. Chetwode Crawley, ed., Caementaria Hibernica, 1895‑1900.
Conder . E. Conder, The Hole Craft and Fellowship of Masons, 1894.
Contractor D. Knoop and G. P. Jones, "The Rise of the Mason Contractor", 7.R.I.B‑4., October x936.
Ec. Hist.. Economic History, a supplement to The Economic Yournal.
Ec. H. R. The Economic History Review.
E.M.C. . D. Knoop, G. P. Jones and D. Hamer, eds., The Early Masonic Catechisms, 1943
E.M.P. . D. Knoop, G. P. Jones and D. Hamer, eds., Early Masonic Pamphlets, 1945
Eton D. Knoop and G. P. Jones, "The Building of Eton College, 1442‑146o", A.Q.C., xlvi (1933).
Gotch J. A. Gotch, Inigo Tones, 1928.
Gould R. F. Gould, The History of Freemasonry, 1882‑7.
J.R.I.B.A. Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects.
L.B. D. Knoop and G. P. Jones, "London Bridge and its Builders", A.Q.C., xlvii (1934)
Leics. Reprints . Masonic Reprints [of the Lodge of Research, No. 2429, Leicester].
Lepper and Crossle . J. H. Lepper and P. Crossle, History of the Grand Lodge of Ireland, 1925.
L.M. D. Knoop and G. P. Jones, The London Mason in the Seventeenth Century, 193 5.
Lyon D. Murray Lyon, History of the Lodge of Edinburgh (Tercentenary Edition), igoo.
Manc. Trans. . Transactions of the Manchester Association for Masonic Research.
Miller A. L. Miller, Notes on ... The Lodge, Aberdeen, jeer [1920].
Misc. Lat. Miscellanea Latomorum.
M.M. D. Knoop and G. P. Jones, The Mediaeval Mason, 1933 LIST OF ABBREVIATED REFERENCES
O.E.D. . Oxford English Dictionary.
Poole and Worts H. Poole and F. R. Worts, eds., The "Yorkshire" Old Charges of Masons, 1935
Q.C.A. . Quatuor Coronatorum Xntigrapha [Masonic Reprints of the Quatuor Coronati Lodge, No. 2076, London].
Quarry D. Knoop and G. P. Jones, "The English Medieval Quarry", Ec. H. R., November 1938.
Raine J. Raine, ed., Fabric Rolls of York Minster, Surtees SOc., Vol. 35, 1858.
Robbins . A. F. Robbins, "The Earliest Years of English Organized Freemasonry", 14.Q.C., xxii (1909).
Rutton W. L. Rutton, "Sandgate Castle, A.D. 1539‑1540", ‑4rchaeologia Cantiana, xx (1893).
Scott Hew Scott, Fasti Ecclesiae Scotianae, new ed.,1917.
S.M. D. Knoop and G. P. Jones, The Scottish Mason and the Mason Word, 1939,
Two MSS. D. Knoop, G. P. Jones and D. Hamer, eds., The Two Earliest Masonic MSS., 1938.
Willis and Clark R. Willis and J. W. Clark, Architectural History of the University of Cambridge, 1886.
V.R. D. Knoop and G. P. Jones, "The First Three Years of the Building of Vale Royal Abbey, 12781280",.I.Q.C., xliv (193x).
XYI C.M. D. Knoop and G. P. Jones, "The Sixteenth Century Mason ", 14.Q.C., 1 (1937).
Yevele D. Knoop and G. P. Jones, "Henry Yevele and his Associates", J.R.I.B..4., May 1935.
CHAPTER I
THE SCOPE AND METHOD OF
MASONIC HISTORY
SCHOOLS OF MASONIC HISTORY
IN the course of time the scope of Masonic history has undergone great changes. So far as we know, the first attempts to write Masonic history were made in the fourteenth century, and resulted in the accounts of the Craft which, in the Regius Poem, the Cooke MS., and in other versions of the MS. Constitutions of Masonry,' were passed on to freemasons of later times. The motives underlying these early versions of the history of freemasonry can only be conjectured. The purpose may have been to provide the masons with something resembling the charters, or records of privileges, possessed by craft gilds at that time. Or possibly some clergyman, or other relatively learned person connected with the building industry, out of interest in the mason's craft and a desire to show how ancient and honourable it was, may have compiled its history. The results, whatever the motive, cannot be taken very seriously to‑day; but the compilers probably did their best according to the standards of their time, basing their accounts mainly upon scriptural and such other received authorities as were directly or indirectly known to them.
In these accounts masonry was treated as equivalent to geometry, one of the seven liberal arts, and as a consequence Euclid was a leading character in the story.
The narratives bring the history of masonry down to the reign of Athelstan (925‑4o) and must, we believe, be regarded as myths.
' We refer to all Masonic manuscripts by their conventional Masonic names, the origin of which we discuss in our paper, "The Nomenclature of Masonic MSS.", fI.Q.C., liv (1941). The MS. Constitutions of Masonry form the subject of Chapter IV of this book.
In 1721, if we accept his own account, Grand Lodge ordered the Rev. James Anderson to `digest' the old `Gothic' Constitutions in a new and better method,' and he accordingly revised, elaborated and brought up to date the legendary matter of the MS. Constitutions of Masonry. Anderson may be presumed to have had much better opportunities to write Masonic history than his fourteenth‑century predecessors, but his performance, viewed in relation to those opportunities, is poorer than that of the despised medieval compilers. His anachronisms, e.g., in making Nebuchadnezzar `Grand Master Mason', and the Emperor Augustus 'Grand‑Master of the Lodge at Rome',2 are as absurd as anything in the MS. Constitutions of Masonry. The effect of the Renaissance is evident in Anderson's preference for the Palladian style in architecture, but he did not apparently bring much classical learning to bear on his subject, and as a humanist he does not shine in comparison, for instance, with the anonymous author of A Defence of Masonry, 1730.[3]
Despite his contempt for the `Gothic' Constitutions, he is himself very uncritical, and his picture of the development of building and architecture is a strange mixture of fact and fiction. It is certainly not a history of freemasonry in the sense of describing the organisation prevailing from time to time among freemasons. Although written in 1722, and published in 1723, it does not even mention the establishment of Grand Lodge in 1717, though it does imply the existence of Grand Lodge by referring in
[1] Constitutions of 1738, 113. The New Book of the Constitutions of the Antient and Honourable Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons ... By James Asnderson, D.D. London ... 1738 is the second edition of the Book of Constitutions. It is reproduced in facsimile in Q.C.1?., vii (189o), with introduction by W. J. Hughan. It is commonly known as Anderson's Constitutions of 1738.
[2] The Constitutions of the Free‑Masons ... London ... 1723, 16, 25. The editor's name is not on the title page, but among the names appended to the Approbation (pp. 73‑ó) appears against Lodge XVII: "James Anderson, A.M. The Author of this Book. Master."
This is the first edition of the Book of Constitutions; it was reproduced in facsimile by Quaritch in 1923, with an introduction by Lionel Vibert. It is commonly known as Anderson's Constitutions of 1723.
[3] E.M.C., 16o.
one very lengthy sentence' to "Our Present Worthy Grand‑Master ... John Duke of Montague" [G.M. 1721‑2]. On the other hand, it deals with events as recent as 1721, such as the laying of the foundation stone of the Church of St. Martin's in the Fields.
Even in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, the so‑called "history" of masonry embodied in the MS. Constitutions of Masonry and subsequently in Anderson's Constitutions of 1723, had its critics. Dr. Robert Plot, the antiquary, in his Natural History of Staffordshire, published in 1686, stigmatised the history of masonry, as contained in a version of the MS. Constitutions, as false and incoherent; 2 the Briscoe pamphlet of 1724,3 The Free‑Masons decusation and Defence, 1726,4 fln Ode to the Grand Khaibar, 1726,5 and a letter of `A. Z.' in The Daily journal of S September 1730,6 poked fun at contemporary versions of Masonic history and ridiculed the idea of any connection between modern freemasonry and King Solomon. The critics at that period, however, were greatly in the minority, and Anderson's version of Masonic history was accepted by the premier Grand Lodge and incorporated in all the eighteenth century editions of its Book of Constitutions.
It was followed 1 We quote the sentence (Constitutions of 1723, ó7‑8) as a specimen of Anderson's involved and verbose style: And now the Freeborn BRITISH NATIONS, disintangled from foreign and civil Wars, and enjoying the good Fruits of Peace and Liberty, having of late much indulg'd their happy Genius for Masonry of every sort, and reviv'd the drooping Lodges of London, this fair Metropolis flourisheth, as well as other Parts, with several worthy particular Lodges, that have a quarterly Communication, and an annual grand .4.ssemhly, wherein the Forms and Usages of the most ancient and worshipful Fraternity was wisely propagated, and the Royal flrt duly cultivated, and the Cement oś the Brotherhood preserv'd; so that the whole Body resembles a well built 14rch; several Noblemen and Gentlemen of the best Rank, with Clergymen and learned Scholars of most Professions and Denominations, having frankly join'd and submitted to take the Charges, and to wear the Badges of a Free and flccepted Mason, under our present worthy Grand‑Master, the most noble PRINCE John Duke of MONTAGUE.
s E.M.P., 33 s The Secret History of the Free‑Masons ... London: Printed for Sam Briscoe . . . (17241, commonly known as the Briscoe pamphlet.
E.M.P., I20.
4 E.M.P., 169‑70.
5 Ibid., 191.
6 Ibid., 233.
3
closely by William Preston (1742‑1818) in his Illustrations of Masonry, which ran through seventeen editions between 1772 and 1861, some of the later ones being edited by the Rev. George Oliver (1782‑1867), another disciple of Anderson. At a subsequent date, these writers were described as belonging to the imaginative or mythical school of Masonic historians.
It was against such writers as these and some of their opponents that Henry Hallam, more than a century ago, directed part of his well‑known gibe that "the curious subject of freemasonry" had been treated "only by panegyrists or calumniators, both equally mendacious".
The pioneer of a new and more scientific study of the subject was a German doctor, George Moss (1787‑1854), whose Geschichte der Freimaurerei in England, Irland and Schottland was published in 184'7. The work of another German Masonic student, J. G. Findel (i 828‑i 9o5), is much better known in England than that of Moss, because an English translation of Findel's History of Freemasonry, 1861, was published in 1865.
In the course of the next decade or two, A. F. A. Woodford (1821‑87), R. F. Gould (1836‑i 9 i 5), W. J. Hughan (1841‑1911) in England, D. Murray Lyon (1819‑1903) in Scotland, Albert G. Mackey (180'7‑81) in America, and William Begemann (1843‑1914) in Germany were working along similar lines. These writers are generally regarded as leaders of the socalled authentic or verified school, named in contrast with the former mythical or imaginative school. The two schools, however, are not as antithetical as is sometimes implied.
Actually, the imaginative school did not consist of writers utterly careless as to their facts; nor ought the verification of facts, which is characteristic of the authentic school, to be considered sufficient in itself, and as excluding all need of imagination.
Imagination as a substitute for facts is useless; as a guide to facts it may be invaluable. Unfortunately, the proper function of the imagination in the writing of history is not always understood by Masonic students. Even to‑day there are still some writers who, whilst claiming to submit themselves to the ordinary canons of historical research by taking no fact
4
for granted until proved, appear to have a secret hankering after the old imaginative treatment of Masonic history. The earlier history of practically all institutions of the last thousand years or so is more or less shrouded in uncertainty. This is true, for example, of the history of central and local government, of land tenure, and of the gild system. No one can reasonably expect a detailed or continuous treatment of the evolution of some particular institution in its earlier phases. Historians realise the lacunae and seek to fill them by searching for new facts. In Masonic history there are many gaps and obscurities, not only in medieval times, but in relatively modern times, such as the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, for which record material might well be found, if only diligent search were made.
Instead, however, of seeking new facts to help to fill the gaps, some present‑day Masonic writers draw upon their imaginations to paint a full picture of the development of freemasonry, of which only the bare outlines have a factual basis. These writers may best be described as belonging to a neo‑imaginative school. It was probably such writers that Mr. John Saltmarsh had in mind when, as recently as 1937, he described Masonic history as "a department of history which is not only obscure and highly controversial, but by ill luck the happiest of all hunting grounds for the light‑headed, the fanciful, the altogether unscholarly and the lunatic fringe of the British Museum Reading Room".' One weakness of the members of all these different schools is that they seldom, if ever, clearly define the subject‑matter of their studies; the reader is left to form his own opinion as to what any particular author has in mind by the term `masonry' or `freemasonry'. And there can be little or no question that different writers have not always the same thing in mind, and that this, partly at least, accounts for the very conflicting views held by Masonic students concerning the rise and development of freemasonry.
If the very common method of defining a subject by reference to its principal function or functions is applied to freemasonry, then it would almost necessarily 1 Ec. H. R., Nov. 1937, p. 103.
5
appear to follow that a definition will be adopted which is not universally true, i.e., one which does not apply at all periods and in all places, because in the course of time, and in the course of transmission from one country to another, the main motifs of freemasonry have changed.
THE MOTIFS OF FREEMASONRY
In the early eighteenth century, `conviviality' appears to have been a prominent characteristic of the lodges; there were many convivial societies at that period in this country, all inclined to convert the means of innocent refreshment into intemperance and excess. In the opinion of some Masonic students, e.g., G. W. Speth, first secretary of the Quatuor Coronati Lodge, and a very sound writer, freemasons' lodges were probably not very different from the generality of contemporary convivial societies.' In 1722, freemasons had the doubtful honour of a special inclusion in an English version of a French book, The Praise of Drunkenness,2 in which the fifteenth chapter treats "Of Free Masons and other learned Men, that used to get drunk". There is some reason for thinking that the translator‑editor was a freemason, which suggests that drunkenness was regarded as but a venial sin. Francis Drake, the York antiquary, was certainly a freemason when, as junior Grand Warden of the Grand Lodge of All England at York, he delivered a speech in 1726, in which he drew attention to "the pernicious custom of drinking too deep which we of our nation too much indulge", and added "I wish I could not say, that I have frequently observed it in our own Most Amicable Brotherhood".$ Eighteenth‑century Masonic gatherings being associated with the drinking of many toasts, and no clear‑cut distinction between lodge ceremonies and after‑proceedings having as yet developed,a the convivial aspect of freemasonry probably continued very much to the fore until the end of the century or even later.
"Q.Q.C., vii, 173.
2 E.M.P., io8.
$ Ibid., Zoo‑1.
a Cf. H. Poole, "Masonic Song and Verse of the Eighteenth Century", Q.Q.C., xl, 7‑18, and G. Norman, "Notes on the Working of a Lodge about t76o", Maw. Tranr., xxvi, 27‑32.
6 SCOPE AND METHOD OF MASONIC HISTORY
Though Francis Drake drew attention to the excessive consumption of alcohol among freemasons, he also, like his contemporary, Edward Oakley,' another leading freemason of the 1720s, commended the giving of lectures in lodge, more particularly on architecture or geometry. So also a few years later did William Smith, editor of the first Pocket Companion and of The Book M.3 Drake goes so far as to state that he is credibly informed that in most lodges in London and several other parts of the Kingdom, a lecture on some point of geometry or architecture is given at every meeting;3 but according to William Smith such lectures were only occasional. This is confirmed by a Dutch official proclamation of 1735 relating to an English lodge of freemasons recently established at The Hague, which states that "it is in no way to be supposed that the study of architecture is the sole or principal object of their meetings".4 According to Martin Clare, a prominent freemason of the 1730s, the principal motive for first entering into, and then propagating, the Craft is `good conversation'.r, The Address in which his observations are contained was translated into French and German, and would doubtless make a strong appeal to German masons, who always showed a special interest in the philosophical side of freemasonry.
During the second half of the eighteenth century much attention was directed to Masonic symbolism. Wellins Calcott, in his Candid Disquisition of the Principles and Practices of... Free and f4ccepted Masons, 1769, was probably the first writer to endeavour to explain the symbols of the Craft, a subject more fully discussed by William Hutchinson in his Spirit of Masonry, 1775. Hutchinson has been termed by Woodford s the father of Masonic 1 See his Speech of 31 December 1728, E.M. P., 210.
a See p. 138 below.
For facilities to consult R Pocket Companion for Free‑Masons (London, 1735) and The Book M (Newcastle‑upon‑Tyne, 1736) we are indebted to the Hallamshire College S.R.I.A. and the Provincial G.L. of Yorkshire W.R.
3 E.M.P., 207.
Ibid., 3336 See his Address of 11 December 1735, Ibid., 327.
Kenning's Cyclopaedia of Freemasonry, 323 7 THE GENESIS OF FREEMASONRY symbolism.
Dr. Oliver 1 describes Hutchinson's book as the first efficient attempt to explain the true philosophy of masonry, there represented as a Christian institution which should be open only to those who believe in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.z Though many of Hutchinson's views cannot be accepted, his work undoubtedly did much to elevate freemasonry and to direct attention to, and probably to extend the use of, Masonic symbolism, which, to judge by the surviving documents, played little or no part in operative masonry in the Middle Ages, or in Accepted Masonry in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.
Though the Regius Poem of circa 1390 is full of moral precepts, and the Cooke MS. of circa 1 q. i o rather less so, in neither of these early manuscripts, nor in the later versions of the MS. Constitutions of Masonry, those peculiarly Masonic documents written about masons for masons, is there any sort of symbolism based on the mason's tools. Likewise, in the re‑arranged and greatly elaborated Masonic ritual which appears to have been associated with the first ten or twenty years following the establishment of Grand Lodge in 1717, only very slight traces of symbolism are to be found.$ So long as lodges were mainly convivial societies, or institutions for discussing architecture and geometry, there could be little scope for symbolism.
That would not arise until freemasonry had become primarily a system of morality.
Since the Middle Ages, the MS. Constitutions of Masonry had contained in the Articles and Points, or Charges General and Singular, a code of industrial and moral conduct. In so far as the accepted masons made use of versions of the MS. Constitutions in their ceremonies of admitting new members, as they almost certainly did, then presumably the Charges General and Singular were read or recited to 1 Preface to the 1843 edition of The Spirit of Masonry.
2 His views being what they were, and completely in conflict with the First Charge of all editions of the Book of Constitutions since it was first published in 1723, it is somewhat surprising to find that the book was issued with the official approbation of the Grand Master and Grand Officers of the year. Cf. pp. ISO‑i below.
3 See E.M.C., passim, and pp. 134‑5 below.
SCOPE AND METHOD OF MASONIC HISTORY
candidates, although most of the precepts contained in the MS. Constitutions were inapplicable to men who were not working masons, or seeking to become such. As during the eighteenth century a new ritual of admission was gradually evolved by the accepted' or by the early speculative masons, largely out of the somewhat crude usages and phrases associated before the end of the seventeenth century with the giving of the Mason Word in Scotland (a subject discussed in Chapter X below), there was elaborated a new and wider moral code, which gradually came to be taught largely by means of symbols. At the same time, the old moral precepts, embodied in the MS. Constitutions of Masonry, were mainly eliminated from the ceremonies and, in part at least, transferred, with or without modification, to the Book of Constitutions, where they still appear under the heading "The Charges of a Free‑Mason". It was almost certainly not until the second half of the eighteenth century that freemasonry had become so modified in character that it could justly be defined as a peculiar system of morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols.
Of the motifs of freemasonry which have characterised the Craft at different periods, the only one apparently which has been associated with it for centuries, as far back, in fact, as the period when the earliest surviving versions of the MS. Constitutions of Masonry, the Regius and Cooke MSS. of circa 1400, were copied, is the inculcation of morality. The morality in question has never been in any sense a complete code of moral conduct, still less a religion, as being concerned with what is essential for salvation. In the course of generations, the moral precepts of freemasonry, and the relation of freemasonry to existing religions, have undergone very considerable changes.
Consequently, the subject is capable of being treated historically, but, in our opinion, a student of the rise and development of freemasonry, working on the basis of the definition that freemasonry is a system of morality, is almost certain to go astray, because of confusion with the fuller and more usual definition, which states that the morality is illustrated by symbols. As already indicated, symbolism is a comparatively late introduction into the Craft.
9 THE GENESIS OF FREEMASONRY
Symbolism, per se, has undoubtedly had a very long history, but not, according to the surviving evidence, in connection with freemasonry. The mere fact that symbolism is of considerable antiquity, and that teachers at an early date made use of the mason's tools to inculcate moral lessons, is no evidence that masons themselves moralised upon their tools. A present‑day Masonic student who asserts that they did, is simply reading into sixteenth ‑ and seventeenth ‑ century masonry ideas which, at a later date, prevailed in the Craft. So far as we are aware, there is no evidence whatsoever that operative masons ever moralised upon their working tools, or that accepted or speculative masons did so prior to the eighteenth century.
DEFINITIONS OF FREEMASONRY
Were a writer who adopted the definition of freemasonry as a system of morality to adhere rigidly to his view, his study would consist mainly in tracing the changes in the moral truths inculcated and in the relation of freemasonry to existing religions. We touch upon some aspects of this subject in Chapter VIII, but it is only one relatively small problem in the rise and development of freemasonry.
A much more comprehensive and universally true definition of the subject is called for, if an adequate picture of the genesis of the Craft is to be given.
It is partly over the question of the definition of freemasonry that a new school of Masonic historians, which is now emerging, differs from the older authentic school. Members of the authentic school concerned themselves almost exclusively with the development of organisation among freemasons, an unduly narrow conception, in our opinion, of the scope of the subject.
They may further be criticised for their premature attempt at finality.
We are convinced that until much more evidence is available there can be no question of writing a definitive history of freemasonry, such as Begemann attempted.
In reviewing his work in I.Q.C., liii, we pointed out (1) that large fields of knowledge concerning masonry are but slightly explored ; (ii) that there is a possibility of new discoveries of important Masonic documents, such as the Edinburgh Register House
10 SCOPE AND METHOD OF MASONIC HISTORY
MS. and the Graham MS.; (iii) that opinions regarding the scope of the subject and the method of approach are apt to change. The evidence on most problems of Masonic history is incomplete, and consequently Masonic history is necessarily, in part at least, provisional in character. We endeavour, in the course of this volume, to formulate working hypotheses to relate the established facts, more especially regarding the origins and evolution of Masonic ceremonies, but we should be the first to admit and to stress that our conclusions are purely tentative, based on the evidence at present available.
The most satisfactory definition of freemasonry from the Masonic historian's point of view would appear to be the organisation and practices which have from time to time prevailed among medieval working masons and their `operative' and `speculative' successors, from the earliest date from which such organisation is traceable down to the present time. We have already drawn attention to some of the changes which have occurred in course of time in the ideas underlying freemasonry, but there remains to be emphasised the all‑important problem of continuity. In discussing the genesis of freemasonry, it is not sufficient to show that freemasons had an organisation in the Middle Ages and that they enjoy an organisation to‑day; it is essential to be able to show that such medieval institution and the modern are indissolubly connected in historical development.
In Europe in the Middle Ages and early modern times there was more than one organisation of masons.
Thus we find the corps de metiers and later the compagnonnages in France; a supposed company of mason-architects in Italy; the Steinmetzen in Germany and Austria; gilds in Flanders; lodges and incorporations in Scotland; `assemblies' and later craft gilds and companies in England.
Of these various organisations, it is only the early Scottish and English ones which can be shown to have a definite connection with modern freemasonry, and much of this book is devoted to tracing that connection. Chapter III, in which the organisation of masons in the Middle Ages is discussed, though primarily devoted to conditions in England and Scotland, contains brief accounts II THE GENESIS OF FREEMASONRY
of the continental organisations, from some, if not all, of which Masonic students have from time to time sought to derive modern freemasonry, though in each case the evidence of continuity is lacking.
A further problem connected with the scope of Masonic history is the exact meaning to be attached to the word `freemason'. In older records the terms commonly used were the Latin words cementarius and lathomus,l or occasionally lapicida,z and the Norman‑French word masoun.3 Cementarius was the word in almost universal use in the thirteenth and earlier centuries, and in frequent use at a later date. Latomus is found in the London municipal records as early as 1281,4 but was most widely used in the fifteenth century.
Masoun, in the form mazon, occurs as early as the twelfth century,' but was perhaps used most frequently in the fourteenth. In the York Minster Masons' ordinances of 1370,8 which were written in English, the word used is "masonn" [? Msoun].
The first occurrence known to us of the word `freemason' is in the City of London Letter‑Book H., under date of 9 August 1376,' when the Common Council was elected from the mysteries instead of from the wards: an entry showing Thos. Wrek and John Lesnes as "fre masons" is struck out and replaced by another showing Wrek, Lesnes and two others as "masons". From this time onwards the word `freemason' occurs in various documents,$ though never as frequently as `mason'. In the two earliest versions of the MS. Constitutions of Masonry, the Regius and Cooke MSS. of circa 1400, the word used is always `mason', the term `freemason' not occurring at all.
At Norwich in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, twelve freemen were admitted under the description "freemason", eleven under the description "roughmason", and 135 under the des 1 M.M., 82.
2 Bateson, Records of Leicester, ii, 158.
3 M.M., 82.
4 Cal. Letter‑Book B., 9.
' Pipe Roll, 1x65‑6.
e Raine, 18 r.
7 See photographic reproduction, f4.Q.C., li (1938), following p. 136.
8 See W. J. Williams, "The Use of the word `Freemason' before 1717", ,I.Q.C., xlviii (1935)ņ
I2 SCOPE AND METHOD OF MASONIC HISTORY
cription "mason".'
Of thirty‑two sixteenth‑century building accounts which we have examined, twenty contain the word `mason' and twelve the word `freemason'.z The words `mason' and `freemason' appear to have been largely interchangeable. Thus in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries we find the same men, e.g., John Marwe of Norwich, 3 John Croxton of London,4 and Gabriel Coldham of London,b sometimes described as `mason' and sometimes as `freemason'. It may further be noted that the London organisation of the trade is, in its own muniments, called a company sometimes of masons and sometimes of freemasons s Similar, though later, associations at Newcastle, Norwich, Lincoln, Kendal, Ludlow, Canterbury and Exeter were officially known as companies of masons; those at Oxford, Durham, Gateshead, Alnwick and Bristol were called companies of freemasons .7
In some cases, however, the word `mason' was used in a wider sense than `freemason' to include all stoneworkers,8 whereas the term `freemason' in early building documents would appear to be contrasted with `roughmason', or with `layer' (itself commonly equivalent to roughmason), or with `hardhewer' (concerned with the preparation of the hardstone of Kent).e In sixteenth‑century building accounts `freemason' signifies hewer or setter of freestone,1o a usage which in our opinion explains the adjective free in `freemason'.
In this matter we follow Wyatt Papworth, the well‑known architectural writer, Dr. G. G. Coulton and Prof. Hamilton Thompson, two distinguished scholars, and Dr. W. Begemann, the German philologist and Masonic historian, in believing that the freemason, like the marbler 1 J. L'Estrange, Calendar of Freemen of Norwich. z See our XYI C.M.
3 R. Howlett, "Fabric Roll of Norwich Guildhall x4xo‑x I", Norf. ‑4rch., xv, 176; G. W. Daynes, "A Masonic Contract of n.D. 1432", d.Q.C., xxxv (x922) 37.
4 Cal. Letter‑Book K., 250, 257, 276, 3x4. s XYI C.M., 199.
e See W. J. Williams, "Masons and the City of London", 14.Q.C., xlv (1932), passim.
? M.M., 229‑33; Misc. Lat., xix, 129.
8 XYI C.M., x98.
s M.M., 85.
1░ XYI C.M., 199.
13 THE GENESIS OF FREEMASONRY
who worked in marble and the alabasterer who worked in alabaster, was so called as a rule from the material in which he worked, namely, freestone. Freestone' is any finegrained sandstone or limestone that can be freely worked in any direction and sawn with a toothed saw,2 as, for example, the tractable limestones found in a belt stretching from Dorset to the Yorkshire coast. This was the stone par excellence for carving and undercutting; and the freemason was one who carried out the finer work possible only in freestone.
It may be significant that in Scotland, where there is little or none of it,2 `freemason', as a trade name, does not appear to have been current.
This explanation of `freemason' is strengthened by the actual occurrence of the term `freestone mason'. In Latin we find sculptores lapidum liberorum mentioned in London in 1212,4 and a magister lathomus liberarum petrarum at Oxford s in 1391.
The Anglo‑French equivalent, mestre mason de franche peer, occurs in the Statute of Labourers of 1351.
In English, `freestone masons' alternates with 'freemasons' in the early seventeenth‑century Wadham College building accounts; e and both terms were used also in the Christ's College, Cambridge, accounts of the early eighteenth century, to describe the famous contractor, Robert Grumbold.7 The term `freestone mason' also occurs in Norwich church accounts of 1638 and 1652.8 Secondly as corroborative evidence of a trade appellation derived from the material used, we may cite `hardhewer', designating a worker in the hard and stubborn stone of Kent.
Thirdly, it may be pointed out ‑that `freemason' has its opposite in `roughmason' or `rowmason', used to describe layers (even bricklayers) who, when they shaped stone, did so only roughly with axe or scappling hammer.
1 Translation of Old French franche pore, where the adjective means "of excellent quality" (O.E.D.).
2 J. Watson, British and Foreign Building Stones, 9.
s SM., 73‑4‑
4 London Assize of Wages, x212. s H. E. Salter, Med. Zrch. of the Univ. of Oxford, 22.
e llrch. 7., viii, 390.
1 Willis and Clark, passim.
8 Records of the church of St. Peter, Mancroft, Norwich, Norf. Zntij. Misc., ii, pt. ii, quoted by Daynes,ll.Q.G., xliii, 223 14 SCOPE AND METHOD OF MASONIC HISTORY Mention may also be made of other explanations of the adjective free which have been advanced by various writers: it may indicate either status in a municipality or company (as in freeman of London) or freedom from feudal serfdom. The adjective may occasionally have been used in one or other of these senses. It should be noted, however, that a great number of masons could hardly be counted free of a company.
Also, though the Fourth Article of the Regius and Cooke MSS. of circa 1400 laid it down that an apprentice should not be of bond blood, and though the migratory character of the mason's trade meant by the fourteenth century that he could hardly be bound to the soil of the manor, yet his calling was in earlier times not incompatible with servile status.' Finally, if `freemason' in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries commonly referred to an operative mason engaged in hewing or setting freestone, nevertheless a new meaning of the term was creeping in during the seventeenth century. Elias Ashmole, the antiquary, wrote in 1646 that he had been made a "Free Mason", and in 1682 that he had attended a lodge at Masons' Hall, London, when certain persons, later referred to as new‑accepted masons, were admitted into the "Fellowship of Free Masons' '.2 In 1686, Dr. Robert Plot, the antiquary, wrote about the "Society of Free‑Masons", a fellow of which, he informs us, was called an "accepted mason".3 In 1686, John Aubrey, another antiquary, wrote about the "Fraternity of FreeMasons", whom he describes also as "adopted masons" and "accepted masons".4 In 1688, Randle Holme III, the Chester genealogist and antiquary, described himself as a member of that "Society called Free‑Masons".s
An anti‑Masonic leaflet of 1698, warning people against "those called Freed Masons", was probably directed against men who were not operative masons c ' M.M., 108.
2 E.M.P., 40‑1.
3Ibid., 3r, 32.
4 Bodl. Aubrey MS. 2, pt. ii, fo. 73, reproduced in facsimile in .4.Q.C., xi, facing page r o.
s E.M.P., 34 5 Ibid., 3 5; and I.Q.C., Iv, 15 2.
THE GENESIS OF FREEMASONRY THE METHODS OF MASONIC HISTORY We differ from members of the authentic school regarding not only the scope of Masonic history but also the method of approach. Present‑day students are disposed to employ both analytical and comparative methods, whereas the authentic school was mainly descriptive in its methods, and inclined to regard Masonic developments in each country in isolation. W. J. Songhurst's approach to the problem of the origin of the Royal Arch,' and R. J. Meekren's study of the Aitchison's Haven Lodge minutes, with a view to proving the early existence of two degrees,a may be quoted as good examples of the analytical method. The attempts we have made to trace the connection between Scottish operative and English accepted masonry,3 and to co‑ordinate English and Irish experience in order to throw light on Masonic development in the later seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries 4 are illustrations of the com parative method.
In this volume we make use of both the analytical and the comparative methods.
1 A.Q.C., xxxii, pp. 34‑5.
See also p. 292 below.
s A.Q.C., liii, p. 147.
See also p. 95 n. below.
3 A.Q.C., li, 2I I; lv, 296‑7, 3I6‑I8.
See also Chap. X below. 4 .4.Q‑C., Iv, 5‑7, 13‑1 5. See also Chap. XI below.
16 CHAPTER II THE MEDIEVAL BUILDING INDUSTRY THE BUILDING ARTS IN EARLY ENGLAND EARLY medieval building in this country differed greatly from that of to‑day.
The main materials were wood and clay; the artisans engaged were consequently carpenters and daubers, not masons and brick :
layers.
The Britons and Scots were apparently unfamiliar with stone building involving the use of squared stone and mortar.' This art was probably introduced by the Church, and at first presumably required the importation of craftsmen from the Continent. Certainly Benedict Biscop, soon after the founding of Wearmouth Abbey in 674, sought in Gaul for craftsmen to build a stone church ti
in the Roman style 2
St. Wilfred, too, who died in 709, '
is said by a twelfth‑century chronicler to have brought masons from Rome to build his church.3
Other instances of stone building in pre‑Norman England are recorded thus Bede 4 (675‑735) mentions stone churches at Lastingham and Lincoln; according to the Old English Chronicle, Towcester was provided with a stone wall in 92 I ; William of Malmesbury,b writing two centuries after the event, and without quoting his authority, states that Atbelstan (925‑40) fortified Exeter with towers and a wall of squared stone.
Probably once the arts of building and carving in stone had been introduced from abroad, some knowledge of them was acquired by native artisans, but the likelihood 'r
is that early building work was performed not by specialised masons, but by men whose main occupation was connected with agriculture, stone working in many cases still being a 'See Plummer, Baedae Opera Historica, II, for‑2.
2 Bede, Historia 14hbatum, 1 5 (Plummer, op. cit., I, 368).
s William of Malmesbury, De Gestis Pontificum, Rolls Series, 255.
4 Plummer, op. cit., I, 176, 117‑
s Gesta Regum, I, 148 17 THE GENESIS OF FREEMASONRY by‑occupation of farming at a much later date (see page I 1 7 below).
To judge by the fewness of the records and the paucity of surviving remains, the number of English stone‑workers was very small until after the Norman Conquest, as even in France, architecturally much more advanced than this country, the substitution of stone for wood only began in the late tenth century? It was doubtless Norman influence and example which led to the development of stone building in this country, the main structures at first being abbeys, priories, cathedrals and castles. The rebuilding of Westminster Abbey by Edward the Confessor (1042‑66), and the erection of the Tower in the reigns of William I (Io66‑87) and William Rufus (1087‑1100) imply the presence in London of masons in considerable numbers in the second half of the eleventh century. It was not, however, until the last quarter of the twelfth century that London Bridge was first built of stone .2
In Scotland, the use of stone for building came even later; the motte, or earliest type of castle, was a timber stronghold,3 and these structures did not disappear until the fifteenth century.
The earliest record of stone being used for the walls of Stirling Castle relates to
12 8 8.4
Both north and South of the Tweed the use of stone and brick in domestic architecture was a still later development, these materials coming into use gradually for chimneys and floors, but it was not until the seventeenth century that they came to be commonly used in house building.
THE ORGANISATION OF BUILDING OPERATIONS The fact that the erection of abbeys, priories, cathedrals and castles provided most of the work for masons in this country in the later Middle Ages implies that the Church and the Crown were directly or indirectly the principal employers of masons.
Although the Crown was mainly 1 V. Mortet et P. Deschamps, Receuil de Textes relatifs a PHistoire de P‑4rchitecture, p. xxxiii.
2 C. Welch, History of the Tower Bridge, 29 seq.
3 W. Mackay Mackenzie, The Medieval Castle in Scotland, 3 r. 4 Ibid., 38.
18 THE MEDIEVAL BUILDING INDUSTRY interested in the erection and repair of castles for military purposes, the English kings also incurred vast expenditure on ecclesiastical works, such as Westminster Abbey, Vale Royal Abbey and Eton College. The nobility and landed gentry erected castles or houses for residential and, in some cases, for defensive purposes, but in England, though not in Scotland, the Crown ,was generally strong enough to prevent unlicensed private castle‑building. The municipalities were responsible for a certain amount of stone building, especially town walls, guildhalls and bridges.
The prevalence of large building enterprises had a very important influence on the organisation of the industry. Whereas the typical medieval artisan was a `little master' who owned his material, worked it up with the assistance of an apprentice or journeyman, and disposed of the finished article, the medieval mason, like the modern workman, was generally a wage‑earner. Commonly it was an agent of the party for whom the building was being erected who employed the mason; less frequently it was a contractor; occasionally it was an independent small‑scale employer who specialised in supplying rough‑dressed stone, ashlar, mouldings, or partly worked images and figures. This type of employer is sometimes described as a mason‑shopkeeper., The Direct Labour System.‑To judge by the surviving records, larger buildings in this country in the Middle Ages were generally executed by what we should now call the "direct labour" system, by which the employer appointed one or more officials, such as a master mason and a clerk of the works, who directed a complicated sequence of operations. These included the digging of stone and sand, their transport by land and water, the hewing and setting of stone, the making and laying of bricks, the felling and sawing of timber, and the various works of joiners, carvers, tilers, smiths, plumbers and glaziers.
This type of integration had certainly developed by the thirteenth century, and probably existed at an earlier date, though for want of surviving records this cannot be proved. Vale Royal Abbey in 12'78‑80, See L.M., 19 seg.
19 THE GENESIS OF FREEMASONRY Beaumaris and Caernarvon Castles in the early fourteenth century, and Eton College in the fifteenth century, are examples of buildings erected by this method on a large scale. At Adderbury Chancel in the early fifteenth and at Kirby Muxloe Castle in the late fifteenth century the organisation was similar but on a smaller scale. 3‑ In connection with certain large structures, where maintenance, repairs, or additions were frequently involved, there commonly existed a more or less permanent works department, employing a regular staff of masons and other artisans, which was expanded or contracted according to requirements.
Most cathedrals, an abbey such as that at Westminster, as well as important bridges such as London Bridge and Rochester Bridge, had works departments of this kind associated with them.2 The Clerk of the Works.‑At all the larger medieval building operations, whether cathedrals, monasteries or castles, a dual system of management was established, the financial administration being separate from the technical. The former, in royal building works, was the concern of one of the king's clerks, or of an Exchequer official, known as clerk, or keeper, or‑in exceptional cases‑surveyor of the works. Two men who at one period occupied such positions, but are famous for other reasons, were William of Wykeham,3 the founder of New College and of Winc
