Modern Freemasonry, at last, or What actually happened on June 24th, 1721? (Part 3)

Posted on by Dr. Felipe Côrte Real

Keep this page caffeinated, buy me a coffee buymeacoffee.com/cortereal or, if you are in Brazil, pix (felipecortereal@gmail.com)

In our previous post, we left the Freemasons making an oath to bestow upon the Grand Master their “Separate and Distinct rights and powers of Congregating in Chapters and in the present old Lodges in London in trust.” It is no surprise if the term “Chapter” caught the attention of all the Royal Arch enthusiasts out there. Does this signify that the Royal Arch existed even before the Master Mason degree? Not so fast. Just like other words in this document, we need to consider their meaning at the time. The term “Chapter” referred to a section of something, not just books. According to the “An Universal Etymological English Dictionary”, from 1721, a chapter was “a division.” This passage also highlights the document’s embryonic nature, as it adopts a broad term to discuss masonic congregations. It further supports the argument that, during that time, the prevailing meaning of “lodge” was for a gathering rather than a fixed congregation.

The minutes go on to state that “the same was Publikly Recognised and Notified to their Brethren in Grand Lodge Assembled.” Hence, this covenant was not a hidden, mysterious, or encrypted agreement. It was public, and the minutes declare that this transfer of rights was communicated to all Freemasons present at the Grand Lodge meeting. One of the intriguing aspects of this agreement, particularly for modern Freemasons, is the absence of material symbols. In other words, there are no “keys to the lodges,” special aprons, or sceptres handed over to the Grand Master to symbolize their newly acquired sovereignty. The transfer of powers over the lodges and future chapters of Freemasonry (whether they would be referred to as lodges or not) was granted to the Grand Master, who now presided over a permanent Grand Lodge.

The minute concludes by stating, “The Masters of the old Lodges Accepted the Trust for their Lodges and were Sworn Accordingly.” Here, we see the expected inversion of dynamics. The lodge masters relinquished their sovereignty to a Grand Master, and now those same masters have sworn their allegiance to the Grand Master and the Grand Lodge. During that time, lodge masters and wardens held a fixed position. This inference can be made not only from these minutes or the initial list of lodges printed in England but also from reported customs in other countries during the same decade (1720s), such as Ireland and France.

To recap, let’s summarize what transpired in this meeting at Stationer’s Hall on June 24, 1721: The Duke of Montagu was installed as the Grand Master of Masons, swearing to uphold the alleged privileges of the Freemasons of England, preserve the old records, and prevent any alterations to their established practices. It was also agreed that the Duke’s successor would take the same oath. Furthermore, the masters of the established lodges in London and Westminster transferred their sovereignty to the Grand Master, swearing their allegiance to the Grand Lodge under this new covenant.

Nothing in this minute would be surprising if it weren’t the first recorded instance of such actions, most likely indicating that similar events had occurred before. Just as the Schaw Statutes can be seen as the genesis of Speculative Freemasonry, the meeting at Stationers’ Hall can be considered the beginning of Modern Freemasonry. However, before delving into the reasons why, some clarifications are necessary, especially for Freemasons.

Transitions do not happen overnight. No one woke up in the Middle Ages after the fall of the Roman Empire or suddenly realized the Renaissance had arrived after a wild night of revelry. Transitional processes are slow and complex. Historians divide time into eras, ages, centuries, and other categories to better comprehend human actions across time and space. These divisions are based on what we call (warning: jargon ahead) etic concepts. Simply put, these are abstractions used to study the objects under investigation. In order to avoid revisiting the era of our earliest ancestors or diving into discussions about the legal aspects of marrying a robot, historians need to isolate a specific slice of time and space. The larger chunks are then labelled to facilitate more systematic exploration of their specific aspects.

This is why it is important to differentiate between Speculative Freemasonry and Modern Freemasonry: to understand the continuities and ruptures in the practices and beliefs of the Freemasons. The distinctive features, evident in this minute, include the establishment of a procedure for installing Grand Masters and the core content of the oath to be taken by subsequent Grand Masters. This indicates a desire for some rotation of individuals in that position, as there are no indications of an intention to perpetuate the Duke in office. The spontaneous nature of Speculative Freemasonry was now being replaced by lodges not only organized according to the Grand Lodge’s designs but also exhibiting a more stable structure. It is worth noting that most records of lodges in England prior to this meeting refer to impromptu lodges.

During this meeting, the document acquired by George Payne (Additional MS. 23198) was solidified as the cornerstone of Masonic history and tradition. As is the case with any standardization of practices, especially those of an organic nature, the establishment of the Grand Lodge was not without ambitions of grandeur. The oaths taken by the Grand Master and the Lodge Masters were made in the name of all masons in England, something that led to discontent not only immediately afterwards, as evidenced by the Grand Lodge of All England held in York,  but also years before in the case of the Wigan Grand Lodge.

What actually happened on June 24th, 1721? (Part 2)

Posted on by Dr. Felipe Côrte Real

Posted on 

Keep this page caffeinated, buy me a coffee buymeacoffee.com/cortereal or, if you are in Brazil, pix (felipecortereal@gmail.com)

In our previous post, we noted that the Duke of Montagu made a solemn pledge to uphold and protect the “Records of Ancient Time in the Custody of the Old Lodge of St Paul in London.” These records refer to the Additional MS. 23198, which had been acquired by George Payne. Payne, on his turn, had served as the Grand Master twice, in 1718 and 1720. However, the installation of the Duke represents the first occasion in England where minutes are taken, documenting a ceremony and an oath. It also marks the first time that a masonic gathering garners public attention.

According to the minutes, the Old Lodge of St Paul in London held these records. Which Old Lodge was being referred to? Based on the first book of Constitutions and subsequent lists of lodges published afterward, it was the lodge that convened at the Goose and Gridiron Tavern. This lodge underwent several renumbering, as was customary in English Freemasonry during the 18th century. Eventually, it became officially recognized as Lodge No. 1, with a constitution dating back to “time immemorial.” As the saying goes in English Freemasonry until today, “time immemorial” refers to anything that no one can set a specific date. What is certain is that this lodge initially met at the Goose and Gridiron Tavern in St. Paul’s Churchyard and later relocated to the King’s Arms toward the end of the 1720s.

Subsequently, the Duke also pledged to “firmly hold and be bound never to tolerate any encroachment on the established customs of the old lodges in England.” This part can be interpreted in different ways. However, let us consider the more likely interpretation, which suggests that the Grand Master of Masons was assuming responsibility for safeguarding the practices of the lodges that had already been established in London and Westminster. With this compromise, the character of the new organization began to take shape. The Grand Master would follow and reinforce the uses established by the four old lodges: the one meeting at the Goose and Gridiron in St. Paul’s Churchyard, the one gathering at the Queen’s Head in Knave’s Acre, the lodge also convening at a pub named Queen’s Head (pub names were not very imaginative), but situated in Turnstile, and the lodge assembling at the Horn in Westminster.

We have previously discussed that although speculative Freemasonry had existed for a long time, it is unlikely that this practice was widespread or uniform. Testimonies from individuals such as Elias Ashmole and William Stukeley make this abundantly clear. Therefore, the commitment to “firmly hold and be bound never to tolerate any encroachment on the established customs of the old lodges in England” can be seen as more of an ambition for than a defence of tradition. This is further reinforced by the promise that this commitment would also extend to the Duke’s successors, who would likewise be bound by oath.

A map of London, Westminster, and the Borough of Southwark in 1721.

The next paragraph introduces a new type of agreement, which characterizes what some refer to as the “Grand Lodge system.” It states that on that day, the “Free Masons of London, in the name of themselves and the rest of their brethren of England,” took an oath. Let us recall that in 1721, according to the first list of lodges published in the 1723’s book of Constitutions, London had no more than 20 lodges. Therefore, it was ambitious, to say the least, to firm any document in the name of all Freemasons in England.

So, what did they swear? They “vested their separate and distinct rights and powers of congregating in chapters and in the present old lodges in London in trust.” Although the language of the oath may sound ornated (and indeed it was), this part is crucial for understanding the difference between speculative Freemasonry and modern Freemasonry. More precisely, it helps us grasp the evolution from one form to the other. In this commitment, we can perceive speculative Freemasonry as a practice and modern Freemasonry as the transformation and institutionalization of that practice. For this transition to occur, the Masters and Wardens of the lodges needed to relinquish their autonomy to the Grand Master. This act is explicitly stated in this part of the minutes.

Thus far, we can discern that the minutes contained covenants that bestowed internal and external sovereignty upon the newly formed Grand Lodge. The lodges granted internal sovereignty to the Grand Master, meaning that the Grand Master was vested with supreme masonic authority over the Freemasons (to paraphrase Jean Bodin’s definition). The Grand Master possessed the power to perform acts that were not subject to other masonic authorities, and his decisions could not be overruled (according to Grotius), except by the Grand Master’s own discretion (as aptly defined by Jelinek). While this might sound quite drastic to modern readers, it was the agreement reached when transferring rights and powers to someone. The other aspect that characterized this transition was the external sovereignty of the Grand Master, which meant that the newly formed body was not under the responsibility of any other masonic authority. This sovereignty also empowered the Grand Master to recognize and establish treaties with other masonic bodies. Given that this oath was taken in London on behalf of all Masons in England, it is reasonable to anticipate potential challenges ahead.

Before leaping forward in time, let us return to the final sections of these minutes. We are not finished yet. In the next part, we will summarize the significance of this document and why it marked a new era in Freemasonry.

What actually happened on June 24th, 1721? (part 1)

Posted on by Dr. Felipe Côrte Real

Keep this page caffeinated, buy me a coffee buymeacoffee.com/cortereal or, if you are in Brazil, pix (felipecortereal@gmail.com)

When formulating the question that serves as the title for this blog post, Microsoft Word consistently underlines the phrase “actually happened.” According to the app’s writing style suggestions, the expression could be made more concise by using only the word “happened.” The app also states that “more concise language would be clearer to your reader.” However, when discussing history, writing is not an end in itself but rather a means to an end. While creating a readable, enjoyable text is always a goal, historical accuracy is of utmost importance.

Nevertheless, our friend, Word’s corrector, can be viewed from a different perspective. In this age of AI, where machines are seen as the solution to our limitations, we could consider this admonition as a question regarding the philosophy of history. The corrector might be echoing Paul Ricoeur, pondering whether history holds meaning when it approaches the universality of events, while simultaneously acknowledging that such universality hinders the understanding of individual experiences. A dilemma between history and historicity.

Fear not, this introductory digression, which I call a reader’s engagement disaster, is not our main topic today, at least not directly. The question of “what actually happened” will also move beyond our concerns, as writing history involves reconstructing from remnants. Therefore, more important than knowing who said what to whom, or what was eaten or what regalia was worn, the truth of the matter, the truth that truly matters, lies in what was decided on that 24th of June.

In our previous posts, we discussed the sources we had to access the events of that St. John’s Day. We also examined that the surviving narrative was the one recounted by James Anderson, written 17 years after the events. This can be attributed to two factors: first, its publication and wide readership, particularly its second edition; and second, its authoritative nature.

In contrast, I will focus on two contemporary sources. We have already reviewed what the journals of the time stated about the meeting. Additionally, there was a gathering at Stationer’s Hall, attended by two to three hundred people, where the Duke of Montagu was elected Grand Master and Dr. Desagullier delivered a speech.

The 2nd Duke of Montagu was around 31 years old when installed Grand Master of Masons.

Now, what do the minutes, the other contemporary document, reveal to us? What information can we glean from the 181-word minutes recorded about that meeting?

The minutes get straight to the point, stating that on that day, the “Most Noble Prince,” the Duke of Montagu, was “installed in form as Grand Master of Masons.” Let’s start scrutinising this first part. Those inclined to find modern concepts in the past may take note of the term “installation” since, nowadays, installation refers to the ceremony that places the elected Master of the Lodge in possession of the secrets associated with the chair, meaning the position of Worshipful Master. However, this installation ceremony only emerged in the mid-18th century. Therefore, the Duke was not “installed” in the modern sense, just as he was not a Prince in the conventional sense, meaning the heir to a crown.

How can these conclusions be affirmed? Quite simply, by referring to dictionaries and literary works to understand the language in its context. Thus, it is possible to interpret the usage of “Most Noble Prince” as a designation for a “most excellent person” due to his Dukedom. Equally plausible is the understanding that the Duke’s installation meant “to put him in possession of an Office, Order, or Benefice,” and that “in form” does not hint at any specific Masonic ceremony but rather denotes proper shape, condition, style, manner, etc. Certainly, this installation followed some customs, as “in form” also implied that, but not to the extent of an installation ceremony.

The minutes go on to state that the Duke of Montagu “swore with his Right hand on the Holy Evangelists.” There are two interesting aspects in this passage. First, the English custom of placing the right hand on the Bible to take an oath, rather than the more popular practice of placing the left hand on the Bible and raising the right hand. Second, the fact that the Holy Bible is referred to as the “Holy Evangelists,” reveals a Christocentric view of the book. This differs from the ecumenism sometimes attributed to 18th-century English Freemasonry and provides a glimpse of the Craft before its de-Christianization, although that term may not be entirely accurate.

The purpose of this oath was mainly to observe and protect “the Franchises and Liberties of the free Masons of England.” This is perhaps the most perplexing aspect of the minutes since “franchises and liberties” were typically associated with guilds, not clubs, which Freemasonry clearly was. Guild members had voting rights, and sometimes had duties, privileges, and/or exemptions in specific districts or towns.

The following section sheds some light on this inconsistency. The Duke also swore to uphold and protect the “Records of Ancient time in the Custody of the Old Lodge of St. Paul in London.” The records referred to here are a manuscript (Additional MS. 23198) that George Payne acquired beforehand and displayed on that day. Its arrival caused great excitement, enhancing the significance of the gathering. The manuscript, dating from the 15th century (rather than the alleged 13th century at the time), contained a blend of legends and stories about the masons’ craft, as well as regulations of the stonemasons’ fraternity. Perhaps this explains the commitment to observe and protect “the Franchises and Liberties of the free Masons of England.” It is possible that the oath was intertwined with what was written in the ancient records, but it may also refer to something else.

These traces reveal the experimental nature of the Early Grand Lodge. While claiming antiquity, a valuable currency in the 18th century, as we discussed before, the now established Grand Lodge sought to transform customs into traditions. The arrival of the Duke of Montagu brought the respectability that only royal patronage could bestow. The practice had proven to be quite resilient, considering that speculative Freemasonry had already existed for over a hundred years at that point. In order to channel its organicity and give it a purpose, the free Masons needed an institution. And to establish an institution in Hanoverian England, certain franchises and liberties had to be granted. These are the aspects of the minutes that we will cover in the next part.

24th June 1721

Posted on by Dr. Felipe Côrte Real

Keep this page caffeinated, buy me a coffee buymeacoffee.com/cortereal

©The Two Crafts

The year 1721, like the others in the first quarter of the 18th century, was of major transitions. The United Kingdom, now a political reality, was settling a series of political and economic evolutions, as well as starting new and bold enterprises. The year’s topic was the “South Sea Company”, a financial enterprise that resulted in a financial scheme, which became known as the “South Sea Bubble”. Several people lost lump sums in the burst of the bubble, including Sir Isaac Newton, who lost £20,000 (something around £2.5 million in today’s purchase power). Yes, history does not repeat itself, but capitalism does. The year 1721 also saw the rise of its first and longest-serving Prime Minister, Sir Robert Walpole. As with many other things, that position, then named First Lord of Treasury (officially still is), evolved slowly, presenting itself in a rounder way under Walpole.

According to the Almanack for the year of our Lord God, 1721, the 24th of June would be a cloudy day, with small winds. The day was propitious for treatments related to bladder issues, and the night would be of a first-quarter moon. The almanacks, which could be found in the form of a book, booklet, or sheet, were the most common way of having essential information for daily chores and seasonal activities. Mixing aspects that nowadays present themselves separately, like the influence of the zodiac on parts of the body, and weather forecast, the almanacks give a sample of the values and beliefs of the 18th century. Not rarely, the “Zodiac Man” figure would be printed on the Almanak.

The “Zodiac Man” as it appeared in the Almanack for the year of our Lord God, 1721. The inscription in Latin says “the stars govern men, but God governs the stars”.

Like the other events narrated so far, few are the sources for that 24th of June in Freemasonry’s history. One is the already mentioned diary of William Stukeley, the other is the second edition of the Consitutions of the Freemasons, published in 1738, by James Anderson, the third is the newspapers, like The Post Boy, which noticed the event, the fourth is the so-called Book E. Book E is a minute book that belongs to the Lodge of Antiquity nº 2, and it registers the minute the meeting on the 24th of June. But before analysing these sources, what historical facts can be deduced from them?

On that Saturday night, at the Stationers’ Hall, a venue that is still there, the Masons had dinner and an assembly (a Grand Lodge), following the tradition agreed on in 1717 (according to Anderson), and probably dating from before that year (as far as meeting and banquet are concerned). In this Grand Lodge, John Montagu, the 2nd Duke of Montagu, was elected Grand Master of Masons, and John Beal, a physician, was elected his Deputy.

Around two and three hundred Masons (according to The Post Boy) or a hundred and fifty (according to James Anderson) were present.

From these sources, three are contemporaries of the events: Book E, Stukeley’s diary, and the newspapers. One of them, as already mentioned, was produced 21 years later. This source is the second edition of Anderson’s Constitutions, published in 1738.  Not surprisingly, the narrative that is taken at face value, and the one that we tend to lean on, is the one by Anderson. One reason for that is that Anderson was hired to write the Constitutions and did so with the talent and commitment he had as a genealogist. Not rarely such works were embellished, so would be naïve to believe that the Constitutions of the Freemasons passed Anderson’s industry unscathed. After studies such as Prescott and Sommers, it would be something fringing being in denial.

The enticing characteristic of Anderson’s book is its language and structure. Written according to the historical taste of the eighteenth century, the Constitutions claim an antiquity that goes back to antediluvian times and draw a direct line to the then Grand Lodge. In its second edition, the history (or story) of the formation of the Grand Lodge is told. Confronted with the contemporary documents, several inconsistencies may be found. Here it is important to differentiate inconsistencies from fabrications.

The contemporary sources give us a good number of inconsistencies between Anderson’s report and what they present as being the events and agreements of that 24th June 1721. Other sources, give way to the understanding that some parts of the Constitutions are fabrications. Due to the overarching nature of the Constitutions, of 1723 and 1738, significant features of the other sources were eclipsed. Such details revealed by those sources will give us a better ground to understand why the General Assembly at the Stationer’s Hall started something different from what was before, and, therefore, why the practice that rises from it must be called by another name for research’s sake.

Of Societies, Lodges, and Grand Masters.

Posted on by Dr. Felipe Côrte Real

Keep this page caffeinated, buy me a coffee buymeacoffee.com/cortereal

©The Two Crafts

We finished our last text with lodges gathering to elect a Grand Master of Masons in 1717. It is important to remember that the main account of such a fact is the second edition of the Constitutions, published in 1738. We also saw that Anthony Sayer was selected as Grand Master and that on every 24th of June, the Grand Lodge (meaning the assembly of Freemasons) would choose a Grand Master of Masons.

According to some accounts, but again, having James Anderson as the main narrative, the Freemasons did so from 1717 until 1720. The succession went as follows: George Payne in 1718, Jean Teophile Desagullier, in 1719, and George Payne again in 1720. The apparently uneventful succession hides a rise in the importance of its Grand Masters. Sayer was a bookseller; although the bookselling business flourished after the end of the 17th century, this trade would hardly pass beyond the nascent middling sort. Payne was First Clerk of the Taxes Office, and Desagullier was a scientific demonstrator and academic. It may be observed that these men, listed as the four first Grand Masters of Masons, were not noble, or even from the high echelons of society. Nonetheless, they made it above the cut, and apparently, they were not only keeping a London club but crafting something, maybe, more ambitious.

Anthony Sayer, portrayed by John Faber after Joseph Highmore.

            Freemasonry was one of a kind in several aspects, but as stated before, clubs and societies were flourishing everywhere in Europe, especially in England. However, how do we know in which aspects Freemasonry was unique, and what others we are addressing as common features of the time? Historians, not having hard theories to contrast their findings against, and (at least most of us) trussing over the historicity of events, meaning that historical events are firstly characterised by their uniqueness.

            The main way of overcoming such uniqueness of historical events is to compare them with similar events, associations, persons, etc. It is important to clarify that none of the elements of such comparison will serve as a “control group”. A comparison in history has other goals than finding a general theory or a law. Historical comparisons assist to find possible generalizations but also different variations of similar phenomena and see how similar inputs may produce dissimilar outcomes.

            In the case of Freemasonry, as stated before, we see that although the special feature of its rituals, a mix of stonemasons’ craft with philosophical and spiritual meanings, they were evolving into club-like sociability, something common at the time. As also seen before, several Freemasons were also members of other clubs, societies, and fraternities. This fact takes the lodges and their quarterly assembly, the Grand Lodge, from a position of isolation, meaning that practices, procedures, elections, and so on, were not being made from scratch.

            Another element that may lead us to know better the early days of this new model fraternity, is one of the possible already mentioned sources: diaries of learned masons. On the matter, one diary is key: the diaries of William Stukeley. Stukeley had the profile of those interested in joining Freemasonry in the 17th and 18th centuries, a learned man, a polymath. Physician, antiquarian (the historians of the time), and Anglican priest. He was not only an antiquarian but one of the founders of the Society of the Antiquarians in 1707, ten years before the alleged Grand Lodge (an assembly) which elected a Grand Master. Stukeley was also the first Antiquarian’s secretary when of its formal establishment in 1717. Yes, there is something about this year…

            Of the many things that Stukeley wrote about Freemasonry, and to which we might come back in due time, one is of relevance for this scenario. Like Elias Ashmole, Stukeley registered in his diaries his initiation on the 6th of January 1721 at the Salutation Tavern in London. His entry registers as “I was the first person in London made a free mason in that city for many years. We had great difficulty finding members enough to perform the ceremony.” Surely, as with any testimony, Stukeley’s accounts must be taken with a pinch of salt. However, these remarks add an extra layer to our perceptions of the early days of organised Freemasonry in England. Stukeley was well-connected, especially when it came to fraternities and societies, so his observation that it was difficult to find people to perform the ceremony gives us at least two important pieces of information. One is the reinforcement of the lodge as an assembly, rather than a permanent group, since it was hard to find “members enough to perform the ceremony”. Similar descriptions may be found in the writings of Ashmole, and others. The second is that, apparently, Freemasonry was not as vibrant as one may think. Even if the claim that he was “the first person in London made a free mason in that city for many years” is not entirely precise, the whole entry gives the impression of scarcity.

William Stukeley physician, antiquarian, clergyman, and freemason.

            In 1721 we have notice of five lodges. However, the only coeval report is Stukeley’s report, which, as the text indicates, was an assembly which gathered for that meeting at the Salutation Tavern. The other four, are up to James Anderson’s account (late at its best, apocryphal at its worse), being the ones meeting at the Goose and Gridiron Ale-house in St. Paul’s Church-yard, the Crown Ale-house in Parker’s Lane off Drury Lane; the Apple-Tree Tavern in Charles Street, and the Rummer and Grapes Tavern in Channel Row, Westminster. These accounts by Anderson started to be scrutinized only recently, although previous masonic historians cast doubt on it before. Scholars such as Andrew Prescott and Susan Sommers are carrying out extensive research on Anderson’s life and works, so probably more on that to come soon. For now, one important piece of information that gives us some perspective on the veracity of the 1738 Constitutions’ story is that one of these places in which one of the four lodges allegedly met has not existed on Charles Street.

            One may argue that this is a minor mistake. However, Prescott and Sommers dedicate a whole article to explaining how that makes the whole story more fragile.[1] To that, I would add that the scenario of lodges meeting regularly at pubs also resembles developments of a later date. Stukeley, in 1721, still mentions the necessity of gathering masons to perform a ceremony rather than attending a specific lodge meeting regularly somewhere.

            Being so, it is essential to keep in mind what the sources are telling us. First, a lodge was still, at that point, an assembly of masons. Second, some assemblies did not have a regular meeting place, being something like impromptu lodges. Third, late or apocryphal papers mentioned the election of a Grand Master of Masons at the end of the 1710s, more specifically 1717. Fourth, such Grand Master was elected annually in the General Assembly, called Grand Lodge. Fifth and final, in 1721 something changed in the structure of governance of the Masons. This change will be the rupture that will prompt a new terminology for the history of Freemasonry.

[1] Prescott, A.  and Sommers, S. M. (2017) Searching for the apple tree: revisiting the earliest years of organised English freemasonry. In: Wade, J. (ed.) Reflections on Three Hundred Years of Freemasonry: Papers from the QC Tercentenary Conference. Lewis Masonic.

The path to modern Freemasonry

Posted on by Dr. Felipe Côrte Real

Keep this page caffeinated, buy me a coffee buymeacoffee.com/cortereal

©The Two Crafts

In my last post, I discussed the importance of establishing differences between operative and speculative masonry. I suggested five traces that may be observed as the distinguishing aspects of speculative masonry, whether they were the cause or consequence of that phenomenon. I also observed that although speculative masonry has some characteristics of what we know today as Freemasonry, the term cannot manage to characterize its later evolutions. By later evolutions, I am referring to the first quarter of the 18th century onwards. What happens at that point in England makes the definition of “speculative masonry” become not useless, but insufficient.

We left our speculative masons at a point in which that new sociability was spreading from Scotland to England and Ireland. From and to where it sprouted, migrated, returned, or was revamped, is a matter for another discussion. The convoluted nature of the history of operative and speculative masonry, and the amount of amateur writing on it, cast a fog into all these discussions. Nowadays, something similar happens with Wikipedia articles, a usually accidental confusion called wikifogging.

Back to England, at the beginning of the 18th century. What sources tell us is that there was some form of survival of English lodges practising the acception. Important to highlight that whenever we are talking about lodges, we are referring to speculative masonry. Why? Because operative masons were not organised in lodges. The contrary is affirmed by a hindsight will of associating operative and speculative.

There are three main sources to understand what was happening at this point. One is the reports of travellers, a type of learned literature common in the Early Modern Period. Books such as the famous The Natural History of Strafford-Shire, by Dr Robert Plott. The other type of source is the diaries of men who were accepted into masonry at the time, like Dr William Stukeley, who was made a mason in 1721. Another interesting source is the exerts of rituals practised at that time. Exerts since there were no printed rituals or exposures circulating, but aide-memories, small extracts of parts of the ceremonies with not many specifics. From these sources, we may affirm that speculative masonry, or the acception, developed into a completely independent practice from rituals that guilds may have had. This was noticeable already in the last quarter of the 17th century.

It becomes clear that some lodges started to grow in membership and to become more organised in their procedures. This was not a unique and unprompted event, socially and culturally speaking, since clubs, fraternities, and societies were sprouting everywhere in England, especially in London. Many of the London masons themselves were from a unique and exclusive club, the Royal Society, a mix of academy of sciences with learned society, a one-of-a-kind at the time of its foundation, the year 1660. There was not only the inclination but also the experience to transform the organic acception into something more structured.

The sources point to the second half of the decade of 1710 as the turning point for Freemasonry. At that point, the practice of acception was already institutionalised into lodges. However, different from what can be assumed by the common and anachronistic interpretation that lodges were physical places with regular meetings, they were in fact regular assemblies of masons. This detail will help us to understand why there will be a rupture later.[1]

This understanding of a lodge may be verified in the way that lodges were described at the time. Minutes and official papers usually describe them as “the lodge meeting at the Devil’s Tavern”, or “the lodge at Queen’s Head”. Therefore, the lodge is a collective noun, a concept. Differently from what is deduced, anachronistically, there was no “Devil’s Tavern Lodge” or “Queen’s Head Lodge”, as a thing, a noun, an assembly with a name.  The process of numbering and naming lodges is of a later date, and we will go back to that in a future article.

This detail is relevant because it allows us to understand what happens next. These lodges, meeting regularly at these pubs and taverns, apparently, perceive the need for a wider organization. At this moment, is when the narrative written by James Anderson in 1738 comes into play. The famous account that in 1716 four lodges found themselves neglected by Sir Christopher Wren, “thought fit to cement under a Grand Master as the Center of Union and Harmony”. Therefore, the four lodges, meaning, four established assemblies, that met at regular places, decided to elect a Grand Master. Additionally, Anderson’s accounts say that they revived the “Quarterly Communication of the Officers of Lodges (call’d the Grand Lodge).”

From these exerts, some things become quite clear if the accuracy of what James Anderson is narrating is taken at face value. First, Sir Christopher Wren was an accepted mason, at the time around 84 years old, and performed some sort of overseer role for the lodges now performing the acception.  Second, these four lodges were probably the prominent or more active ones in the region of London and Westminster, since they took the initiative of reviving what is recounted as a tradition and establishing some structures for the governance of the lodges. Third, they decided to elect a Grand Master, someone who would perform a figurehead role for the accepted masons, now living a separate life from the guilds of builders. Fourth, the assembly, held every trimester, was the Grand Lodge. As the lodges were assemblies, and regarded as such when united, later to be understood as a permanent group, so was the Grand Lodge at the beginning. A meeting, an assembly, which will become a permanent institution under the same name later.

The first Grand Master, still, according to James Anderson’s account was Anthony Sayer. His title was “Grand Master of Masons”. So, not a master of a Grand Lodge, but of the masons as individuals, which, in turn, gathered in their lodges. These lodges were, only then, becoming more of a permanent and regular assembly, thus identifiable by the name of the place in which they met.  

[1] For historical studies, rupture may be understood as a breach of some kind of established situation, but not necessarily caused by dissent. We use the term rupture to mark that there is another situation, environment, or organisation emerging. Therefore, it requires different considerations from the previous situation.

Operative Masonry, Speculative Masonry, what do these terms stand for anyway?

Posted on by Dr. Felipe Côrte Real

Keep this page caffeinated, buy me a coffee buymeacoffee.com/cortereal

©The Two Crafts

Freemasonry, like any topic struggling to properly make it into academia, lacks definitions, or academic agreements. This is due to several factors, which I will highlight three main ones. The first is what I call “Dan Brown syndrome”; many writers, and, sadly, academics, see Freemasonry as a pot of gold. They dream to be the sole voice explaining Freemasonry to the world. No criticism of Dan Brown here, who does a great job in his books and as a philanthropist.

The second is the amount of material written on the topic. Different from what is commonly thought, Freemasonry always attracted incredible amounts of ink into paper. The hush-hush about its secrecy just made increased sales about its alleged secrets. Additionally, the poor record keeping and organic way in which Freemasonry spread makes it harder to trace any sort of organised and linear evolution.

The third is the lack of rationality which topics like Freemasonry are able to produce, in academics and non-academics, pros and cons, lovers and haters. Having been used as a political tool for various groups, the idea of Freemasonry is the perfect scarecrow argument, which some very reasonable people will use shamelessly.

Regardless, I have been trying to establish some ground rules, or housekeeping announcements, whenever I give a talk. The first and constant notes are on the definitions that give a title to this article: operative and speculative masonry. Although these terms were coined long ago, there is still much confusion on what they stand for, or even if some of them are different names for the same thing.

In the present day, the distinction between the craft of stonemasonry, and the fraternity of the Freemasons, is quite clear.  To stay within England, not only they are governed by distinct bodies (The Worshipful Company of Masons and the United Grand Lodge of England), as they tell different stories about their past. The Worshipful Company of Masons even says on its page, “The ‘Masons Company’ should not be confused with the comparatively modern fraternity of Freemasons which is entirely separate.”

            However, as explained in the previous post, Freemasonry saw and still sees a necessity to link the fraternity to the guilds of builders. Part of this claim is due to the fact that the group we know as the Freemasons are derived from builders’ guilds, as seen by its historical evolution. Nonetheless, the narrative adopted by Freemasonry, and most Freemasons, does not correspond to what the sources tell us.

            Studies like the ones conducted by Dr Ian Stone, on the history of The Worshipful Company of Masons demonstrate that although its records show a movement of accepted masons within its ranks, the story crafted from this historical fact is not quite what it is purported. Especially, if we take into consideration the book by Edward Coder Jr. published in 1894, “Records of the Hole Crafte and Fellowship of Masons.”

            The term “speculative masonry” comes to light as a way to differentiate and at the same time bind masonry and Freemasonry. However, when the such separation took place? Here, as with any historical question, we are looking at two different events. First is to ask when, in fact, Freemasonry started. Second, when the rhetorical divide “operative x speculative” started to be used. 

Although the term “speculative masonry” appears in some stances during the eighteenth century, starting in the 1720s, it is in the second half of the nineteenth century that it gets traction. Its usage is mainly to differentiate the work of the Freemasons from that carried by the stone workers, which, by opposition, would be the operative masons. According to John Kersey’s Dictionarium Anglo-Britannicum, from 1708, Speculation was defined as follows:

            “Speculation, the Act of Speculating, contemplating, &c.an Espial, a Notion: Also, the Theory, or study of an Art, or Science without regard to the Practice” (bolds, capitalizations, and italics from the original).

            Nonetheless, what does “speculative masonry” defines? From contemporary masonic literature, amateur and professional, one can infer that speculative masonry is everything that it is not operative masonry. Meaning that from the seventeenth century until 2023, we would be talking about the same phenomenon. A mere observational approach could dispel such an overarching tag. Surely, historical research dismays any will of semblance between non-operative masonry from the 16th, 17th, 18th, 20th, and 21st centuries. No historical subject would be static for so long to deserve the same nomenclature.

            If speculative masonry is such an overarching term, the very thing that is defined by it must also be general, without many specifications. Therefore, it must be used as an umbrella term to state general things. And which general things the term “speculative masonry” may define?

            First, as stated before, the occurrence of a break between traditions of and the actual trade of masonry. At first, a bifurcation, more than a schism. This moment could be defined by the already mentioned Shaw Statutes, the first in 1598, and the second in 1599. As exposed scholarly and extensively by Professor David Stevenson, that moment is the culmination of several traditions that, being developed separately, found common ground in the re-organization of the operative masons in Scotland.

            Second, the acceptance of gentlemen from outside the stonemasons’ craft as members of masonic lodges. This movement also does not represent, at first, a divorce between builders and non-builders. Certain is that such separation increases with time. Nevertheless, it would take more than a hundred years from the Shaw Statues for this divide to be clear-cut.

            Third, the elaboration of masonic rituals. Surely the operative masons had ceremonies of initiation, when a young man was admitted as an apprentice, and some sort of elevation of that apprentice as a full guild member. The accounts of such ceremonies are scarce, but the sources led us to believe that although wrapped in religious features and some sort of commensalism, these ceremonies were brief and had a basic frame.

            Fourth, an increasing separation between the guilds and the lodges, now, formed by the so-called “accepted masons”. This movement was so subtle that tracing it is a difficult task. Even the well-documented history of The Worshipful Company of Masons does not establish a name for this social wing of the guild, as Professor Andrew Prescott called it. For the lack of a better word, this period has being called in etic and emic terms, “acceptance”.

            Fifth, the development of moral and esoteric elements within the previous four elements. If the operative masons had the history and practice of their trade linked to a religious and professional code of morality, the speculative masons would take it further. Such elements added into speculative masonry would come from the educated background of the middling sort, such as the developing Natural and Moral Philosophy. Also, the taste for symbols and allegories is inherited from the pedagogical support of the Emblems tradition. It is also important to highlight that these advancements meant a deepening of religious and mystical feelings for most individuals. These “new masons” would synthesize several traditions into a fashionable social frame: the club.   

            In conclusion, the divide between operative x speculative masonry is significant and useful for the study of history and of Freemasonry. However, it cannot serve as a blank cheque, given when definitions prove challenging. We observed here that speculative masonry stands for a development that started in the late sixteenth century, leading to the formation of a new sociability and a new practice. Nonetheless, it is noticeable that it does not cover countless other and late developments, especially those that will define Freemasonry. This is where we are heading: to the logical necessity of a different and non-interchangeable term if we are defining something distinct.

Freemasonry in the 18th century (I am the son and the heir…)

Posted on by Dr. Felipe Côrte Real

Keep this page caffeinated, buy me a coffee buymeacoffee.com/cortereal

©The Two Crafts

            Freemasonry, like any human invention, or social fact if you like, has a date of creation. This idea is battled by some Freemasons, and non-Freemasons, who believe in some sort of divine revelation. Ideas like the one that the Craft was handed down to Adam by God, and that the grape leaf was the first masonic apron. Allegedly, this was the very understanding of James Anderson when of the first Constitutions, in 1723. However, it is necessary to remember that what the narrative of the Doctor of Divinities tells us is in accordance with the historical mentality of the time. It does not mean that things, or Freemasonry for that matter, could not be handed down by God, but, usually, even those can be dated.

            Dr Anderson had good reasons to locate the beginning of Masonry in the Garden of Eden and to date it at 4003 BC. He describes, even with some moderation, how God “must have had” inserted the Liberal Arts, among them Geometry, into Adam’s heart.  The theoretical keys for that piece of historical information were two, which not only Anderson but any other scholar at the time would probably make use of: scholastic logic and the respectable “Annals of the World” by James Ussher. The book, published in 1650, was a study of the Old Testament and a credible source for the time. A version of this book was part of Dr James Anderson’s library, bien sûr.[1]

            The date of creation was a serious pursuit in the Early Modern period. Some figures forced into the ‘hard sciences box’ by today’s interpretation of history, such as Sir Isaac Newton, also dedicated their work to calculating the exact year, month, day, and time in which Genesis 1:1 happened. This is not a historical anecdote but an important reminder that the eighteenth century, and the whole Early Modern era, is an in-between of the Middle Ages and modern times.  Hence, having characteristics of the precedent era, and signs of the age to come. Freemasonry, alongside our political and moral compasses, including the plethora of Christian and Esoteric beliefs, were, if not created at, enhanced incommensurably in this period.

            If on the one hand, the premise adopted by James Anderson was a straightforward one at the time he wrote the Constitutions,[2] on the other, it is no less than anachronic today.  Another feature that was part of the historical mentality of the time, and part of the purpose of that document, was to link the craft of building (Masonry) with Freemasonry. Although in several languages, especially in the masonic milieu, Masonry and Freemasonry are used interchangeably, it is a far-fetched idea that Freemasonry exists since the first construction site was set in history. It would be equally questionable to set it at the beginning of the guild system. Here a clear definition makes itself indispensable: historical heritage and claimed heritage.

            Historical heritage is the one that a clear line may be traced for matters of nationality, religion, trade, or any other connection that leaves small room for subjectivities. For instance, the DeMolay Order is a youth organisation created in 1919, in the United States. It has its name to honour Jacques DeMolay, the last Grand Master of the order of the Temple, and in its rituals mentions values and legends related to the Knights Templars. However, there is no line of succession between Jacques DeMolay, who burned at the stake in Paris, in 1314, and the first DeMolays.  The order claimed the values and history of the Templars as theirs, as a guide, a homage. This is all legitimate, however, as a historian, it would be a mistake to trace an unmistakable historical line from DeMolay to Frank Sherman Land, if the topic history of the Knights Templars. What was done was the claiming of a heritage, meaning that there was a will to associate the emerging order with that legacy.

            Freemasonry is a bit of both, nonetheless, it is necessary to establish which bits are claimed and which ones are the fruit of historical development from the guilds. Freemasonry developed from the associative life and traditions of the guilds, especially, of course, masons’ guilds. However, there is a fundamental rupture which started what is usually called speculative masonry, a term coined by Freemasons to differentiate the trade of building, called then operative masonry, from the fraternal society.

            The fundamental rupture, different from the beginning of times, has a date and place: Edinburgh, 28th of December 1598. This was when William Schaw, decided to act on his appointment as Master of Works to the Crown of Scotland. On that date, he introduced statutes for the governing of lodges in Scotland, which re-organised their structure and added some renaissance bits to their rules. As with any position traditionally held by courtiers, it was more a sinecure than an actual position of overseer of works, having occasional practical duties. Schaw was interested in architecture, like many other savants of his time, as a science connecting all liberal arts.

            It is fundamental to understand that this phenomenon spread through the very porous borders between Scotland and England. In the mid-seventeenth century, the Mason’s guild in London already had its accepted masons, meaning people from outside the trade who were accepted as part of a social wing of the construction society. Indisputable is that in the late 1710s, these lodges of speculative masons were already having a life of their own, detached from the operative masons, the actual construction workers. Rather than a singular phenomenon, this was the result of a boom in associative life that took England, and especially London, by storm.

            When the time came for writing its Constitutions, which was a bold move that marked a more serious approach to that club, the choice of James Anderson and the tone of the narrative informs us of its intent. Anderson was a genealogist, an intellectual profession, but that usually involved claiming heritages that were not clear, or not at all, established. The tone of the Constitutions follows the tone given by the stone workers in the fifteenth century when they produced a document called the Old Charges. In sum, the document claimed a divine and mythical heritage to the trade of building, in response to a cap in payment stipulated by the government due to the Black Death.[3] To make their request, the historical and juridical mentality of the time was used: claiming antiquity and royal charters, both unable to be proven by documents.

            James Anderson wrote in a more comfortable position. Freemasonry was a clear Georgian society, meaning that they not only supported the recently established Hanoverian monarchy but also that the Grand Lodge was regarded as a respectable club. This even led to speculations that the letter G in Freemasonry would stand for George. Anderson then traced a line from Adam to the Duke of Montagu, then the Grand Master, merging Masonry with Freemasonry, and everything sacred and respectable in between.

            Although speculative masonry has its origins in the 16th century, it is only in the 1710s, probably in 1717, that Masonic lodges decided to formalise their difference to the Masons’ guild and to other fraternal societies. Additionally, it is in 1721, that their General Assembly, called Grand Lodge, start to be an institution responding by the same name. The first edition of the Constitutions of the Free-Masons, published in 1723, tells the mythological part of that story. The second one, published in 1738, sheds more light on the development of Freemasonry and the historical mentality of the eighteenth century. It demonstrates, more than the history (or stories) that it tells, the necessity to legitimise the institutional and historical discourses.

[1] Again, I must thank Professor Susan Sommers for her intellectual generosity and diligence.

[2] There are speculations, based on quite sound reasoning, that Dr Jean Théophile Desagulliers wrote the Constitutions, or that he gave the main directions. However, that is not enough sources to back that theory. Hence, I will be crediting the Constitutions to its named author due to the harder evidence of his authorship.

[3] The Black Death caused a severe shortage in Labour that caused a rise in wages. In 1351, the English Parliament passed the Statute of Labourers that prohibited salaries above Pre-plague levels, and also limited workers’ movements for better conditions.

The Masonic Aggiornamento (Final)

Posted on by Dr. Felipe Côrte Real

Keep this page caffeinated, buy me a coffee buymeacoffee.com/cortereal

©The Two Crafts

It is with reluctance that I restart this series on what I have been calling masonic aggiornamento. Usually, we, academics, have the impression (normally a right one), of being talking to ourselves. This is just natural since the goal of our career is to seek for specialization, just to be told later, often by publishers, that we should write for the public. One of the many academic oxymorons. 

Academic blogs look for this in-between. A place to write more freely, to pitch or ‘test’ topics, and, not rarely, to vent. With some luck, you get some readers, and with luck, they comment on what you are writing about (on the page, via messages or email). With greater luck, you have readers, like two friends of mine, who ask you to continue. I must, therefore, resume my blog writing by finishing the topic in which we (in case there are more of us, me, and my friends) stopped. Maybe there are more people who are interested in this comparison.

It is momentous to compare the process taking place in English Freemasonry with what happened during the Second Vatican Council. For two reasons: one is the 60th anniversary of the council in 2022, and the other is the death of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. The anniversary of the council marked the seniority of the aggiornamento promoted by it. However, the maturity of that landmark, instead of settling down disputes, made them more alive. This is to such an extent that there are even fears of a schism within the Catholic Church, especially coming from the United States and Germany. The former resents what they understand as a liberalization of the church, the latter, its alleged conservatism.

It is possible to observe that an updating of practices and beliefs does not occur without friction and eventual fissures. Nonetheless, there are also important questions that are often disregarded, in Catholicism and, in Freemasonry. Should practices and beliefs be updated?  Are these institutions, which the very existence sounds absurd for some political positions, fitted for modernization? Is it not their very essence, even their appeal, the fact that they offer a space in which a tradition may be preserved? For some critical voices, to save Freemasonry by modernizing it is like throwing a bucket of water for someone drawing.

This brings us to the second momentous event for this comparison: the death of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. A controversial figure, Benedict XVI was foremost a theologian, and in this capacity, served as one of the counsellors in the Second Vatican Council. By the age of 35, he was one of its youngest advisors, and by the time of his death, maybe the last live testimony of those debates. Representing modernisation for the traditionalists in 1962 and conservatism for the liberals in 2022, the Pope Emeritus represented better than anyone this crossroad.

The young Joseph Ratzinger, then a theologian considered progressive, and Monsignor Yves Congar, during the Second Vatican Council (1962).

The public debate, especially because of the enhancement of technology, is less and less prone to nuances, caveats, contradictions, and ponderation. All the things that are necessary for a real debate. This is one of the problems in trying to adjust to an agenda that moves daily, and that, regardless of anyone’s efforts, is impossible to meet. Perhaps this is the challenge of these two institutions, despite their very different ‘business’. Guided by marketing, opinion pools, headlines, likes, etc., both institutions are using the tools provided by capitalism to fight not necessarily for survival, but for relevance.

With the results of the Second Vatican Council, we learned that most people adapt to the aggiornamento. Most Catholics or Freemasons are not equipped with the knowledge, time, patience, or interest to discuss the destiny of their Church or Grand Lodge, respectively. Some have one or several of those assets, but then those discussions are portrayed and conducted as something “for the big fish.” Nonetheless, some people may find the updated forms of worship, or forms of living their Masonic experience, not matching what they are searching in it. Then, it becomes a problem of expelling the old to attract the new.

Apparently, by the campaigns in the media and by the constant transmission of the ‘radio corridor’, the UGLE will continue its aggiornamento. By the same ‘radio’ we learn that most masons do not care that much if, all things considered, they keep receiving their Grand Lodge, Provincial or Metropolitan honours, and as long as Freemasonry keeps donating to charity sumptuous sums.

The Freemasons Hall during the 19th Century, a symbol of a less scrutinized and apparently less comfortable Freemasonry.

The liberals (despite the reductionism of this adjective) inside the Craft usually celebrate, what in their perception may be seen as small advancements. Some policies and initiatives help to build a case for Freemasonry in front of their detractors or discontents. Nonetheless, such discontent with Freemasonry typically comes up from anti-masonry, thus being impossible to sacrifice enough goats to praise this many-headed monster on the altar of ‘public opinion’ (whatever that is). One mason that frowns upon this agenda told me, “It is like the thing meme”. I went to find it, see below.[1] So, yes, maybe amidst this media battle for hearts and minds a basic element of ‘catering for your audience’ has been lost.

However, the disquieting of such masons only comes after some libation when fear and bravery, both in their rhetorical form, appear in equal measure. There is a small, but buzzing, group growing in discontent with the aggiornamento. For those, the public scrutiny sounds less like accountability and more like an auto da fé that would stop once there were ‘tickets being sold to watch initiations’, according to a bacchian point made by a critical voice. It remains to be seen who the Lefebvrians of English Freemasonry will be.[2]

[1]

[2] The Lefebvrians (Society of Saint Pious X) is a fraternity of catholic priests that started after the Second Vatican Council. The name derives from Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, a main voice against the reforms promoted by that council. The Lefebvrians keep their liturgy, rites, and values, in a pre-Vatican II state. Between confrontation (John Paul II even excommunicated some of its bishops in 1988, later reverted) and reconciliation, the Lefebvrians stand as a traditionalist group despite its small membership.

The masonic aggiornamento (Part 2) 

Posted on by Dr. Felipe Côrte Real

Keep this page caffeinated, buy me a coffee buymeacoffee.com/cortereal

©The Two Crafts

The other day I went to the Freemasons’ Hall to say hello to a few colleagues (five years of research in their archives and counting) and to attend a Quatuor Coronati meeting. I was truly impressed with the new Café: spacious, bright, drinks and coffee in separated stands and crews, comfortable seats. I sat with a pint and thought about how easier my Ph.D. research would have been if I had a pub to gather my thoughts inside Freemasons’ Hall. However, I decided to do what we do nowadays: to text my excitement to a friend. 

Me: We need to schedule a trip to the Freemason’s Hall in London. They even have a café now. 

Friend: My God!!! A secret society with a cafe?!?!! What’s next a crèche? 

Me: Well, a shop? Hahaha. (Trying to cover my shame after having my excitement bashed by my friend’s view of how Freemasonry should present itself) 

My friend is not alone. A number of masons and non-masons have been treating the recent efforts to make Freemasonry more accessible with derision. One can only ask why since the public always demanded transparency from Freemasonry, even though not understanding why they are demanding it, most of the time. At the same time, Freemasons often claim to be treated with prejudice or suspicion if they reveal their membership. So, what is potentially ludicrous about the whole PR strategy of the UGLE? Maybe the ontological awkwardness of something traditional trying to acquire new clothes and present itself to the “youngsters”, or absorbing new interpretations of old doctrines. One example, to use the Catholic Church again, is the Charismatic Renewal, a movement that started in 1967 and that was highly impacted by American Protestantism. The charismatic renewal became the main bridge between young people and the catholic faith.  

From the enigmatic “to be one, ask one” to the more traditional marketing strategy of “apply here”.

Such strategy has proven effective, for instance, in 2007, 54% of the Latino Catholics were charismatic,1 however, one may argue that, still, the selling point of Catholicism is tradition. A non-stop apostolic chain from Peter to Jorge, a headquarters that runs in their own version of temporal time, an Estate where the official language is Latin, a place where decisions take more time and are often taken behind closed doors. Although the charismatic renovation is being responsible to keep the catholic trenches within steady numbers, their fair representation cannot be seen in the college of cardinals, the top priests who, among other things, elect the new Pope.  

And what does this have to do with Freemasonry? A similar trade-off between tradition and renovation. According to the numbers of UGLE’s National Digital Marketing Campaign, in almost a year of an increased digital presence, they received 2.516 enquires, and had a result of 989 membership leads. However, it is impossible to qualify what these new potential members are seeking within Freemasonry. Even though the UGLE has been championing progressive positions, there is a backlog that makes the sole act of joining Freemasonry a potential political statement. This is true, especially for people who used to not see much difference between the Apostolic Palace and the number 60 at Great Queen Street. 

According to public opinion (this amorphous and ideological entity), the backlog that I mention would be in two aspects of the matter: secrecy and aspects of its sociability. These two topics can be quite hazy; however, we need to address them in order to understand the ways sought for promoting this aggiornamento.