My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Freemasonry is German?

Glen Cook

G A Cook
Site Benefactor
Well, the Hiramic legend certainly is a legend of the Craft. So you agree it teaches a moral lesson?

Also, we find the legends of the Craft developing in the 1658 indenture of the Lodge at Scoon that the “uniforme communitie and wnione “ of stonemasons had its origins in King Solomon ‘s Temple.

We also have Noachite Freemasonry referenced by Anderson in 1723. Those familiar with RAM ritual are aware this legend teaches moral lessons as well.

I think perhaps you meant to reflect on legends of the beginnings of the Craft, rather than the Legend of the Craft, such as what has been called the York Legend, the claim That stone masons had been given a charter by Athelstan GL MS 1. Or perhaps the claim in the Regius MS that stomasonry was invented by Euclid, or the Cooke MS that the Craft was antediluvian. However, the Regius certainly sets out rules for moral behaviour: poaching work, not undertaking work that cannot be finished (a concept unknown to current contractors).

As to date or the Third Degree, the London newspaper, The Flying Post is relevant. The text is known as a ‘Mason’s Examination’. By this time, 1723, the catechism was much longer and the text contained several pieces of rhyme, particularly noting :

‘An enter’d Mason I have been, Boaz and Jachin I have seen; A Fellow I was sworn most rare, And Know the Astler, Diamond, and Square: I know the Master’s Part full well, As honest Maughbin will you tell.’

Further, the Cooke MSv references “And the son of the King of Tyre was his master mason.”

Hiram Abiff is also found in Anderson ‘s 1723 Constitutions. The 1738 mentions his death.
 
Last edited:

Luigi Visentin

Registered User
Well, the Hiramic legend certainly is a legend of the Craft. So you agree it teaches a moral lesson
Yes but it is not of ancient Freemasonry but from modern one. The reference in the Cooke, for example
“And the son of the King of Tyre was his master mason.”
is not referred to Hiram the artificier. Hiram the artificier was son of Urias the Israelite (Inigo Jones Ms) who does not appear in the older version of the Legend about the beginnings.

What I meant was exactly what you say, that is I was referring to the
legends of the beginnings of the Craft
which, however is only one. In other words the one that you call York Legend is the same of Regius and of all the other manuscripts and tells one only story which, however, claims that was Nimrod, who was a Mason too, who gave to Masons the first charges. However I would be grateful if you could help me to give a name at this legend as in many place is called "Legend of the Craft", but you could be right and as I'm translating my book I would like to use the term which is the most correct.

I'm not in any rite, therefore I'm not familiare with RAM, but I'm sure, for other reasons, that Noachite Freemasonry is a product of Anderson & Company indipendently from its contents. The reference to the "indenture of the Lodge at Scoon of 1658", which I did not know, is interesting and I would be interested to know why the cited phrase of the Mason’s Examination is so interesting for you. For my reasearches it was interesting particularly the word maughbin, which in other texts is defined as Matchpin, Mahabyn, Machbenah and Magboe or simply M.B.. I do not think that the original word was hebraic however as it is indicated in some researches.
 

Glen Cook

G A Cook
Site Benefactor
Yes, but it is not ancient, but modern. What I meant was exactly what you say that is
Then your statement, “ I have studied a lot the Legend of the Craft and my conclusions are that it tells a story and with no a moral intent or teaching.” refers to what you call “ancient masonry.” I don’t know how you define the term “ancient.” To be clear, though, the discussion is about speculative, not operative masonry.

The Scoon reference was in regard to an earlier reference for the Solomonic legend.
 

Luigi Visentin

Registered User
Only to clarify: basically for me "antients" are before English civil war.

About the difference between "operative and speculative", this is pretty complicated. In the Matthew Cooke Ms, for example, is written:

And after that was a worthy king in England that was called Athelstan, and his youngest son loved well the science of geometry, and he wist well that handcraft had the practice of the science of geometry so well as masons, wherefore he drew him to council and learned [the] practice of that science to his speculative, for of speculative he was a master, and he loved well masonry and masons. And he became a mason himself, and he gave them charges and names as it is now used in England, and in other countries.

If we consider this text, the "speculative" component existed long time before the 1717. But what sound strange to me is the idea that once there were the "operatives" and then the "speculatives": how it is possible to affirm this with certainty without knowing which was the real job of the "operative"? I have an answer about this job that allows me to affirm that, anciently, both the operative part and the speculative one existed together even if with a different purpose. For example the "speculative" mentioned in the Cooke was mainly dedicated to improve the operative part. Anyway this could be an argument for another thread, therefore I will not proceed further on this.
 

Glen Cook

G A Cook
Site Benefactor
Only to clarify: basically for me "antients" are before English civil war.

About the difference between "operative and speculative", this is pretty complicated. In the Matthew Cooke Ms, for example, is written:

And after that was a worthy king in England that was called Athelstan, and his youngest son loved well the science of geometry, and he wist well that handcraft had the practice of the science of geometry so well as masons, wherefore he drew him to council and learned [the] practice of that science to his speculative, for of speculative he was a master, and he loved well masonry and masons. And he became a mason himself, and he gave them charges and names as it is now used in England, and in other countries.

If we consider this text, the "speculative" component existed long time before the 1717. But what sound strange to me is the idea that once there were the "operatives" and then the "speculatives": how it is possible to affirm this with certainty without knowing which was the real job of the "operative"? I have an answer about this job that allows me to affirm that, anciently, both the operative part and the speculative one existed together even if with a different purpose. For example the "speculative" mentioned in the Cooke was mainly dedicated to improve the operative part. Anyway this could be an argument for another thread, therefore I will not proceed further on this.
Athelstan and masons is considered a myth.

Since you define ancient masonry as before the English Civil war, do we not have moral lessons taught at least for some 50 years per Aichetson’s Haven and the Lodge of Edinburgh?
 

Luigi Visentin

Registered User
Athelstan and masons is considered a myth.
Also the origin in the guilds of real stonemasons is a myth: unfortunately there is no evidence of this. Also the Worshipful Company of Masons of London has no trace of any connection with Freemasonry and also in Scotland there is no evidence that the oldest minutes or the Schaw Statutes were addressed to real stonemasons. As I have written it is not possible to state exactly if the story told is true or is a fictional novel on an historical background. In both case the citation of Athelstan in what you call York Legend, is correct and in the right place, while legend of the meeting in York in 926 (at least as it is reported in many old books) is not correct as York was not among Atelsthan possessions in that year. For all other information about, including the part about the "son" of Athelstan, I suggest you to wait when my book will be ready (the whole part take more than a chapter).

Since you define ancient masonry as before the English Civil war, do we not have moral lessons taught at least for some 50 years per Aichetson’s Haven and the Lodge of Edinburgh?
This is not what I have written. I have written that the Legend of the Craft tells a story and its moral part is in the Charges. This does not means that in the Lodges were not taught moral lessons but, in case, it is not possible to affirme that they were the same of actual ones. To complete my answer, my hypothesis, supported from the (unfortunately few) documents available is that from end of civil war till around mid of 18th century Freemasonry allowed the entrance in the Freemasonry of persons coming from many different experiences because the ancient Brothers basically decided to cancel the operative part. The "speculative Fremasonry" in the modern sense started therefore likely together with the modern Freemasonry that is from end of 17th and beginning of 18th century, not without the opposition of the real "antients". For example the Briscoe Pamphlet of 1724 and The Plain Dealer, of the same year, accuse Anderson and his collaborators to try to modify deeply Freemasonry in the name of a more "popular" version based on the claim of alleged connection to ancient rites, united with a certain libertine behaviours. Same as above, I have detailled the whole in my book, together with the information that can be extracted by the scottish minutes that you have cited.
 

Glen Cook

G A Cook
Site Benefactor
Also the origin in the guilds of real stonemasons is a myth: unfortunately there is no evidence of this. Also the Worshipful Company of Masons of London has no trace of any connection with Freemasonry and also in Scotland there is no evidence that the oldest minutes or the Schaw Statutes were addressed to real stonemasons. As I have written it is not possible to state exactly if the story told is true or is a fictional novel on an historical background. In both case the citation of Athelstan in what you call York Legend, is correct and in the right place, while legend of the meeting in York in 926 (at least as it is reported in many old books) is not correct as York was not among Atelsthan possessions in that year. For all other information about, including the part about the "son" of Athelstan, I suggest you to wait when my book will be ready (the whole part take more than a chapter).


This is not what I have written. I have written that the Legend of the Craft tells a story and its moral part is in the Charges. This does not means that in the Lodges were not taught moral lessons but, in case, it is not possible to affirme that they were the same of actual ones. To complete my answer, my hypothesis, supported from the (unfortunately few) documents available is that from end of civil war till around mid of 18th century Freemasonry allowed the entrance in the Freemasonry of persons coming from many different experiences because the ancient Brothers basically decided to cancel the operative part. The "speculative Fremasonry" in the modern sense started therefore likely together with the modern Freemasonry that is from end of 17th and beginning of 18th century, not without the opposition of the real "antients". For example the Briscoe Pamphlet of 1724 and The Plain Dealer, of the same year, accuse Anderson and his collaborators to try to modify deeply Freemasonry in the name of a more "popular" version based on the claim of alleged connection to ancient rites, united with a certain libertine behaviours. Same as above, I have detailled the whole in my book, together with the information that can be extracted by the scottish minutes that you have cited.
Visentin: “I have studied a lot the Legend of the Craft and my conclusions are that it tells a story and with no a moral intent or teaching,”
 
Top