Tag: Research

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.

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.

The Masonic Aggiornamento (Part I)

Posted on by Dr. Felipe Côrte Real

©The Two Crafts

Even if you are not a Roman Catholic, you are familiar with one outcome of the Second Vatican Council that came about in the Holy See from October 1962 to December 1965. This outcome is the aggiornamento, an Italian word popularized during that period meaning “bringing up to date”. Most of the current Catholic masses and practices reverberates the aggiornamento that took place after the council. Priests facing the congregation, celebrating the mass in vernacular, singing pentatonic tunes, even priests recording and selling albums, all of this would not take place before the Second Vatican Council and its aggiornamento.[1]

Freemasonry is not a religion, but it is a tricentenary institution[2] at least its most ancient body, the Grand Lodge, based in London, nowadays the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE). As any old institution based on tradition, regardless of how and when they were invented, Freemasonry suffered with the acceleration of history brought by the end of the Second World War. If a century ago Freemasonry carried within and around the values of the British Empire, nowadays the institution suffers backlashes due to the very same reasons.

Attendance of the Second Vatican Coouncil was of over 2000 clergymen per session.

The past three years have been full of journalists, critics, academics and even some Freemasons pointing out issues with the way the Craft is conducted, portrayed and displayed. From critics arguing that Freemasons should not occupy public positions to others claiming that Freemasonry has gone “woke”; the masonic aggiornamento is a reality.[3]

The UGLE may be regarded as a Masonic Vatican for a more traditional branch of Freemasonry. It is fair to say that they carry the flag of Freemasonry as being a Teist, Royalist, male-only sociability. As much as the UGLE repeatedly highlights the diversity of masonic institutions in England (Order of Women Freemasons (OWF) and the Honourable Fraternity of Ancient Freemasons (HFAF) and so on ), there is little doubt that even its critics see the UGLE as being the most traditional branch, therefore ‘the original’ Freemasonry.

It is important to highlight that academics, including the author of this post, advocate for a broader interpretation of Freemasonry, mostly as a practice with several possible combinations. A more holistic view of the masonic phenomenon demonstrates that the term “freemasonries” is more accurate than its singular form. Being so, in a logical effect, holding the UGLE as accountable for more representative or progressive values, even when there are other forms of masonic practice, is to give them the sceptre of masonic authority. Great Queen Street became, somehow, the Masonic Holy See.

As everything in Freemasonry, a Bible reference is needed. Here, the parable of the faithful servant (Luke 12:48) is suitable. The lesson of that story is mostly known under the name of Peter Parker principle “with great power comes great responsibility”. The idea is similar: UGLE’s Freemasonry stood for a pattern of masonic practice, called ‘regular’ by its practitioners, and now sees itself obliged to update some of its policies.

The Quarterly Communication is UGLE’s periodical meeting to, among other business, communicate recognitions of foreign Grand Lodges, changes of Masonic Rank and of Masonic policies. (Picture from Crescamus Lodge No.7776)

The changes in their headquarters have been largely publicised, mostly by their own Public Relations Team. However, the changes in the structure of the UGLE are something far more interesting from a historic point of view. In 2018, a physician, Dr. David Staples, was hired to be UGLE’s first CEO. Yes, a Chief Executive Officer, that would now offer the guidelines for everything that happens outside the four lines of the ritualistic world. Although not publicised, and not understood by most media, the creation of a parallel structure to manage “the business of Freemasonry” was a shift in the history of Friendly and Fraternal Societies.

The changes within the UGLE, its charities, headquarters, and lodges under its jurisdiction around the world are sundry. The administrative structure of the UGLE was further parted from the masonic, i.e., ritualistic, administration, meaning a professionalization of procedures, responses and compliance. Therefore, the positions created within the administrative structure, and the existent ones that became vacant, were largely advertised and professionals were hired for them (very rarely were these professionals Freemasons). The Museum of Freemasonry, already equipped with a team of professionals, was revamped and reshaped to better serve public research and to reinforce Freemasonry as part of British and world history, and not a world apart. In July 2018, a Gender Reassignment Policy was issued, ruling, among other details that transgender women may stay in their masonic lodges and transgender men may apply for initiation.[4] Recently, dietary requirements are being accommodated at dinners (vegetarian, vegan, gluten free, etc.). And yet, the UGLE went out to the public to confront accusations, its accusers, and to promote Freemasonry, inviting people to see “who we are and what we do” in the words of Dr. Staples, also present on the institution’s annual report, the first in 300 years.[5]

This sets up the scenario for us to dive into the Masonic Aggiornamento. More than a curiosity or its social implications, this is a chance to take a critical look to the history of Freemasonry. Let’s not miss it.

[1] For a concise history of the Second Vatican Council: Alberigo, Giuseppe. A Brief History of Vatican II (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2005). To understand the structure of the Vatican: Reese, Thomas J. Inside the Vatican: The Politics and Organization of the Catholic Church (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996).

[2] Certainly after 24 june 2021.

[3]   Some examples are Foster, Dawn. “Secret Freemasons Should Have No Place in Public Life.” The Guardian, 5 Feb. 2018 and Shute, Joe. “Millennials and Vegans welcome: Have the Freemasons gone ‘woke’?” The Telegraph, 26 Jun. 2021.

[4] United Grand Lodge of England. Gender Reassignment Policy (London, 2018). https://www.ugle.org.uk/gender-reassignment-policy

[5] United Grand Lodge of England. Annual Report 2020 (London, 2021).  https://www.ugle.org.uk/about-us/annual-report

Anderson’s Constitutions in Latin America

Posted on by Dr. Felipe Côrte Real

©The Two Crafts

The title of the book is “The Constitutions of the Free-Masons; containing the History, Charges, Regulations, &c. of that Most Ancient and Right Worshipful Fraternity. For the Use of the Lodges. London. In the year of Masonry 5723, Anno Domini 1723″. Yes, in 1723, the publishing market still had a lot to learn about catchy titles.

The book that would become known as “The Constitutions” or “Anderson’s Constitutions” would live longer than its, probable, desired impact. The impact of Andersons’ Constitutions varied from country to country as shown by Jacob (1991), Porset and Révauger (2006), and Scanlan (2014). Nonetheless, there is still work to be done when it comes to the influence of the Constitutions in Latin America.

One of the interesting points is to observe how – and if – the Constitutions shaped Latin American Freemasonries, and whether it was used in its entirety. Another relevant aspect is to peruse how and when this book, or parts of it, reached each of the twenty countries grouped in this geopolitical invention.

This is obviously a gigantic task. However, if we break it into small pieces, it may be meneageable. Being so, I am welcoming any information, hints or guesses, on the arrival, reception, divulgation, etc. of the Constitutions in any Latin American country.

References

Jacob, Margaret C. Living the Enlightenment: Freemasonry and Politics in Eighteenth-Century Europe (New York, Oxford University Press, 2001).

Porset, Charles and Cécile Révauger (orgs.) Franc-Maçonnerie et Religions dans L’Europe des Lumières (Paris, Honoré Champion, 2006).

Scanlan, Mathew D.J., “The Origins of Freemasonry: England” in Handbook of Freemasonry, Henrik Bogdan and Jan A.M. Snoek (eds.) (Leiden, Brill, 2014).

In praise of introductions

Posted on by Dr. Felipe Côrte Real

©The Two Crafts

The other day I posted on my Instagram account a picture of a book of mine soaked by a typical English heavy rain. So far, so good. However, some friends came to me to make an interesting observation: Why was I reading “an introductory” book on History? I mean, next to the completion of a Ph.D., why should one bother on reading introductions?

I couldn’t recommend the introductions more. If you don’t know anything on the topic, they are a nice and soft path to bolder readings. If you know a fair amount about the topic, they operate as a quick and enjoyable recapitulation of the main points and themes.

Students of all sorts use to dislike the introductions since they give away their supposed beginner status on some topic or skill. Nonetheless, the introductory books were also reinvented in the form of “1.000 [insert substantive] you need to [insert adjective] before you [insert here a catastrophic event]”.

The introductory books may also be historicised, which means to be transformed in the centre of a historical narrative. From the 19th century onwards, with the expansion of press, there was, consequently, the expansion of things to be learned. The manuals were a sensation in every branch of knowledge, trade, and even life. The marriage manuals, for husbands, wives, brides, mothers-in-law, are just an example of that; and to not leave Freemasonry aside, let’s not forget Carlile’s Manual of Freemasonry.

IMG_20190924_085837_886
My book, wet by an English rain, was this post starter.

Another part of this history is the series “Que sais-je?” (What do I know?) published since 1941 by the PUF (Prèsses Universitaires de France), which inaugurated sundry series of the same kind, and similar name, worldwide. Fast-forwarding to the nineties, more precisely 1991, comes the series “For Dummies”, also translated in several languages. Among my favourites are the series “For Beginners” and “A graphic guide”, since they mix cartoon (in an Al Jaffee meets Robert Crumb style) with snippets of condensed information. To introduce, accessibly, Sartre, Foucault, Logic, or Chaos Theory, is pure art and mastery of didactics.

The question that every introductory book sparkle is “where do I begin?”. The mandatory savvy quote from Alice in Wonderland “Begin at the beginning…”, make us chuckle, but brings more confusion for someone trying to find something, as Alice. To write an introduction is an effort of concision, it is to make hard choices, to create a common ground for newcomers Also, is to promote a safe harbour for the ones already familiar with the topic but wishing to revise, reinforce or remember the basics. Yes, because to forget what is fundamental in a topic is almost inescapable after you are in it for a long time.

Regarding the two topics of this blog, History and Freemasonry, I recommend two introductions that are from the same collection: the “Very Short Introduction” series from the Oxford University Press. No, this is not a paid post. The History one, is written by Professor John H. Arnold (Cambridge), it brings a well-flown discussion on the topic and addresses the questions that every historian must answer from the rest of his life, inside the classroom and elsewhere, like family dinners: Is history an opinion matter? History is the past, right? Are the historians judges of the truth? And so on, and so forth.

The one about Freemasonry (and I would stress, mainly History of Freemasonry) is in the capable hands of Professor Andreas Önnerfors (Gothenburg), a well-known name for the regulars of this blog. I strongly advise this book to researchers (professionals and amateurs) thirstily going through documents from the 18th, 17th, and even 15th century (!), to find “hardcore” evidence on some “mind-blowing” fact that will produce a “ground-breaking” article on Freemasonry. And why? Because of one thing that my Ph.D. made me realise is that research on Freemasonry needs common ground.

Introductory books have the power to put together such grounds, or the discussion about what is fundamental. The manuals end up giving an accessible starting point, preventing a random out-of-ones’-depth book followed by a dilettante understanding of what was read. The latter is probably one of the ingredients for conspiracy theories.

Poking the Beehive: Is there an “English Rite”? (Part V – final)

Posted on by Dr. Felipe Côrte Real

©The Two Crafts

Before reading this one, I suggest reading part I, part II, part III, and part IV

Why all this fuzz about the existence or not of an “English Rite”? We are losing ourselves in semantics, some would say. Well, I can even agree if we are talking about Freemasonry for the practitioner – in this case, a Freemason. For a member of a lodge in Bristol or in Kent, the name by which his rituals are called may be of less or no importance since they are performing it regardless. But before I make a case for the importance of definitions for any academic (or just committed) study, let me address the significance it has for Freemasons.

Clifford Geertz, an American anthropologist, published in 1973 a book called “The interpretation of cultures”. This work was a game changer not just for the Anthropological Studies but its effects were felt in the field of Historical Studies as well. From all the important ideas that he put forward in this book we can pick some to explain why the concept of “masonic rite” is important, also why it is also crucial to know if this concept may be applied to the English system of Freemasonry, and last but not least, if English Freemasons recognise themselves in this concept that is a Masonic rite.

In the aforementioned book, to oppose the Structural Anthropology of Claude-Levi Strauss, Geertz proposed an Interpretative Anthropology, and what that means? Among other things, Geertz states that an interpretation should not distance from what is happening, that is to say, from the object of study. He also alerts that to understand a culture it is not necessary to become a “native”, but that it is indeed necessary to talk to them, to understand, to get a grip of their concepts. That’s why the conceptual precision is so important and rigorous in the interpretative anthropology, and by extension, in History nowadays.

That being said, I will bring my own experience that was not ethnographical in its nature, but that has an ethnographical value, especially for this topic. I am from Brazil, so, on a regular basis, some Freemason asks me how’s Freemasonry in Brazil. And guess what part is the hardest, almost impossible, one to explain? Yes, the notion of “Rite”. Because for the so-called “Continental Freemasonry” the concept of rite is crucial since the Craft degrees are worked into a rite tradition, there is to say, the Craft degrees are basic degrees of a bigger system which works vertically. For English Freemasonry, rite is an alien concept, overall when referring to the Craft degrees. Does that mean that there are no rites in England? No, they exist, but a rite is one path out of many possibilities allowed by the English system.

The notion of Rite is laudable in its ecumenicity, however, I understand to be inaccurate when it comes to the structure of English Freemasonry. There are rites – i.e. a group of degrees conferred inside a particular order in an established sequence – inside the English system. An English Freemason may join the A&AR (Ancient and Accepted Rite)[1], for instance. Nonetheless, after the Craft degrees, the Freemason is not obliged to progress in a particular path. Some will say that the English Master Mason is strongly encouraged to join the Holy Royal Arch and etc. Notwithstanding this fact, a Master Mason can join, after one year, the A&AR, or the Order of Mark Master Masons, or the SRIA, or the Royal Order of Scotland… The point is: there is not a vertical, necessary, mandatory sequence.

The other point is that the “higher degrees” in the English System work inside Orders, rather than in the body of a rite controlling them all. Most of these Orders work from one (as the Holy Royal Arch) to five degrees (as the Allied Masonic Degrees), and every order, or the combination of association in two of them may serve as pre-requisite to join even other bodies. Some will see in that evidence to suffice the name “rite”, but again, we have to remember the history of Freemasonry and its rites. Most rites started as a group of degrees already existent, and that was at some point compiled, enhanced and organized to give it a structure and a philosophical rationale.

What I aim to expose here is a view seeking more accuracy, what is always needed in academia, and I believe that it is very welcome in any other field, professional or amateur. There is nothing terribly wrong in calling what happens in England (or places that emulate this system) as “English Rite”, however, it may lead (and by personal experience, I can say it did) to an understanding that there is a mandatory or enchained sequence between the rites and orders that compose the English system.

The notion of rite is ubiquitous, as I tried to demonstrate in this sequence of posts. Also, the notion of rite is really dear to most Freemasons because it eases things out. Nevertheless, it can work as a pitfall when we are in need of understanding a specific Masonic system, different from the ones that we know. To exemplify: it is like to arrive in someone else’s house and presume that they eat the same things as your family does, that they call their dog by the same name, that they go for vacations to the same places, etc, just because they are a family (like yours) and because they live in a house (like you).

Names are not just a tag, they are embedded in values, notions, and meanings. As it is often said, “if everything is art, nothing is art”. So, if every set of rituals in Freemasonry is a rite, so nothing is a rite. In order to study something, sometimes we need generalizations and sometimes specifications. However, the generalizations cannot lead to massification, flattening obvious differences, and the specifications cannot single out to the point of becoming the knowledge of the object impossible.

Research and my amateur “ethnographic” experience in England led me to understand that what exists in England is a system of Freemasonry. This system fosters rites and orders, but it is a stretch to call the whole ensemble of the English Freemasonry, a rite. However, I don’t criticize the efforts made in the past to propagate the English system by calling it a rite. Hughan and others did an amazing work “translating” how the passage of degrees and other aspects of the Craft were conducted in England.

Nevertheless, since then, masonic studies grew in importance, scope, and complexity. It is about time for us researchers, amateurs and professionals, to be more thorough with the specifics of Freemasonry. At the same time, the tools offered by theory (of humanities and social sciences) may be used to understand this phenomenon that it is far from being “niche” or for Freemasons’ only.

[1] In England, the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite is normally called “Ancient and Accepted Rite”, my guess is that it is called this way to not be confused with the workings under Scottish Constitution (GloS)

Structure_of_Masonic_appendant_bodies_in_England_and_Wales
A good, but not exhaustive, representation of the English Masonic System.