Calling all historians

[hanzosbm]

I doubt that there is a Mason out there (at least one with the slightest interest in really understanding our teachings) who has not done at least some research on the history of the Craft. I know I have done a significant amount. That being said, like myself, I'm sure most Masons have no formal training in history aside from a few general education classes taken in school.

To cut to the root of things, what methods are used for dating documents found online? We all know that online sources are not the best to use, but for unusual documents such as those we typically seek, for most of us, that is all that is available. Yet, one can easily find the same document with significantly different dates assigned. In our case, this is problematic because we tend to be looking for comparative dates to tell a story of how things have evolved.

Case in point: The Inigo Jones Manuscript is seen by some to be of huge importance for its introduction of the protagonist central to the 3rd degree. Many would argue that its date of 1607 ( http://theoldcharges.com/chapter-17.html )far predates any other mention of this character and therefore is very important. But even that link indicates that there is doubt about the dating. There are others who date it at 1655 ( http://www.themasonictrowel.com/Articles/Manuscripts/manuscripts_main_toc.htm ) which at first seems to be impossible since Inigo Jones died in 1652, but is the date wrong, or the author? Then you have other sites dating it to 1725 ( http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/masonic_manuscripts_jones.html ) which not only puts it FAR later than the lifetime of Inigo Jones, but also means that it is no longer the first version of the character known from the 3rd degree.

There are many other similar cases. For instance, in The Three Distinct Knocks has dates of 1723, 1760, and 1763, and the document references Masonry Dissected which it dates at 1700 but others date to 1730, which obviously has problems.

So, back to the original question, for those with training in these kinds of things, how do reconcile these things and come to a solid conclusion?

 

[Bloke]

Well, one thing on books, they were often revised. Anderson's Constitutions being a good example. Also, date of publication and date of being written are not the same thing, but the date of publication is often used.

Manuscripts, they are super tricky.. one thing is for sure, there is a bias in Freemasonry, that if it is old, it is of merit. This drives some of the arguments over dating. It also has certainly driven forgeries. As does neatness - think Ramsey's Address which, for a time, became "history" rather than myth...A document written in 1760 becomes more important than one written in 1790 simply because the 1760 is older. Never forget the bias in Freemasonry for the old: "Our Lodge/GL/Ritual was the first established so it is more notable than all others!"..."This is how the ritual should really be!"... The tensions which helped create the Ancients vrs Moderns continues to today. Freemasonry has a clear bias toward the old being or merit... Often people dating documents want a certain answer to fit their thoughts or arguments..

It must be tricky to date manuscripts of the 1700's but speaking to older more spaced documents, especially medieval ones where there are many forgeries because there was a lively trade on them, historians looking at medieval documents look at material (the paper and ink) to be contemporary with the claimed time of authorship, spelling (is actual a big one), vocabulary, and grammar (it changes), external references used within the document - ie, events influencing or included in the document, people or institutions mentioned that had not been born at the claimed time the document was written . For example, if a document of 1600 references something only known in 1700 or invented in 1640 , it's likely going call the documents dating into question. If a document claimed to be written in 1999 starts in "In 1999 during the Presidency of the USA of Obama......" then you know something is up with the document, medieval documents often show problems like that which prove them later forgeries.. ..... They look at technology (again, ink, writing style- both in language and script, and paper, method of printing and assembly and post Gutenberg, the type face and ).... Terms; phrases born of a certain time when included in documents claimed be earlier. Contemporary dating conventions being consistent with other documents of the claimed time of authorship, Some use chemical methods of dating, radiocarbon dating being a very well known one... Elements in included pictures; ie black swans are only known in Australia, a black swan (which is an interesting term of thinking and a title of a book) is included in a picture, it's probably going to be after Australia was known and there will be similar examples such as sail plans or technologies such as guns and such... Context, if a "1730's document is found in a library which burned down in 1740, and was rebuilt in 1750, how is that explained ? If "printed' by a method or company which did not exist... If it was written by someone known to be dead when they "wrote" it, if it is or is not referenced in external writings or lists of documents.... it must be quite the pursuit..

There are expert scholars who argue over this stuff, but I love your question..... I bet if we go to google there will be a couple of established academic standards to date the documents you're looking at..

 

[Bloke]

Here is a great example

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Freemasonry#/media/File:Freimaurer_Erhebung.jpg

See here

If the fashion is from 1812, or even 1790, how can it be 1745 ? (the fashion looks more 1745 than 1812 to me btw and hence supports the statement.)

 

[pointwithinacircle2]

My contribution to this thread is not based on historical documents. I would call it a social question posed by a layman. The authority of Freemasonry is structured around the Master of the Lodge. Each Master runs his Lodge as he sees fit, provided that he does not violate the rules of the Grand Lodge. There are two observations that I would make here.

First, that the structure and history of Freemasonry invests the Lodge with autonomy to do as it sees fit provided that it does not violate the rules of the GL. This attitude indicates a certain familiarity with the dangers inherent in an all-powerful centralized authority.

Second, this decentralized power structure allows the individual Lodges great latitude to fill the space between the opening and closing rituals with whatever content they deem appropriate and are capable of producing. It seems completely logical to me that the varying interests and abilities of the members would lead an active Lodge to concentrate it's studies and investigations in a particular area. It seems absolutely normal to me that one Lodge might study and teach the disciplines of science while another Lodge might concentrate on esoteric studies.

Perhaps our goal should not be to find the first stone that Masonry ever laid and continue to build the same kind of structure upon that stone for all eternity. While we should continue to attempt to understand our past, we must also realize that we build in the present, and we build for the future. The purpose of history is not to mire us in what we were, it is provide a springboard into the what we can be.

The individual Lodge should be allowed to pursue what interests it's members. The opposite of this is the "boring business meeting" in which no member of the Lodge contributes anything of himself. Haven't we had enough of those?

Ultimately, centralized authority will decree that the only acceptable course must be bland enough that it is acceptable to everyone. Isn't blandness in one form or another the most common reason why men stop attending Lodge?

I applaud your interest in the history of our fraternity. I would love to hear the talk that you could give in your home Lodge. And I think you should give such a talk. For even if there are a few facts or conclusions that cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, the possibility exists that you may cause your brothers to think. And the crime of challenging a Brother to think is one that I am always eager to support!

 

[Bloke]

>this decentralized power structure allows the individual Lodges great latitude to fill the space between the opening and closing rituals with whatever content they deem appropriate and are capable of producing

That does not sound like an English practice but rather a Scottish practice, providing the lodge can demonstrate the content is their traditional ritual.

I agree

 

[Brother JC]

The English have fair latitude in which ritual they use. There are at least a dozen in use these days.

 

[pointwithinacircle2]

latitude to fill the space between the opening and closing rituals with whatever content they deem appropriate

From the responses I have received I am not sure that the intended meaning of this sentence is clear. I am referring to what happens between the time the opening ritual is concluded and the closing ritual is begun. I am referring to the "business portion" of the meeting. I have personally stood in Lodge and read masonic poems and told stories about Masonry during this time. If even a small percentage of Masons were to stand in Lodge and present some tiny part of what they find interesting in Masonry the Lodge meetings would be much more interesting. That is, if there are any Masons left who actually have an interest in Masonry.

 

[Bloke]

That is, if there are any Masons left who actually have an interest in Masonry.

Me ! Me ! Me !

 

[Ripcord22A]

From the responses I have received I am not sure that the intended meaning of this sentence is clear. I am referring to what happens between the time the opening ritual is concluded and the closing ritual is begun. I am referring to the "business portion" of the meeting. I have personally stood in Lodge and read masonic poems and told stories about Masonry during this time. If even a small percentage of Masons were to stand in Lodge and present some tiny part of what they find interesting in Masonry the Lodge meetings would be much more interesting. That is, if there are any Masons left who actually have an interest in Masonry.

next wednesday at the regualr communication of Cerrillos Lodge #19 AF&AM GLoNM I will be giving a presentation on the color blue and Masonry. If there are any brothers who might be in the area come on down, dinner is at 630 and the gavel falls at 730.

 

[Luigi Visentin]

Bloke has explained well one of the main point and I have a example. In the "The old constitutions of the masons - THE Old Constitutions Belonging to the Ancient and Honourable S O C I E T Y O F Free and Accepted MASONS Taken from a Manuscript wrote above Five Hundred Years since" published on 1722 there is a reference to the "unlawful games", which is a clear reference to the "Games Act" of 1541. This means that the manuscript it is likely not older than about 150 year. The Historians who have dated it have fixed the time around 1660. Surely to state exactly the date of a document is not an easy work!

 

[coachn]

I have come to suspect any claim of antiquity when it comes to any document purported to be conclusive evidence supporting Freemasonry being older than the creation of the Premier Grand Lodge. There simply too much evidence reflecting a heavy bias of those members wanting it to be older than it truly is. This of course is all due to its tradition of tradition and a need to have tradition as a base. As a result, you have all sorts of documents coming forth that are "copies" of lost originals that appear just in time to support yet one more claim to some form of antiquity or another. Why MUST we fabricate an appearance that is older to make it any more valued than it should be standing upon its own true history? Why must we fabricate the illusion that it is connected to other things that it never was to make it more appealing?

 

[Bloke]

..... Why MUST we fabricate an appearance that is older to make it any more valued than it should be standing upon its own true history? Why must we fabricate the illusion that it is connected to other things that it never was to make it more appealing?

Back to that cognitive bias: if its old it must be of merit...

 

[coachn]

Back to that cognitive bias: if its old it must be of merit...

 

[Bloke]

..... As a result, you have all sorts of documents coming forth that are "copies" of lost originals that appear just in time to support yet one more claim to some form of antiquity or another. ...

Of course, therein lies (hehe) the problem, most works we have are copies, the hand being the printing press of the day.

Imagine poor historians in 500 years time trying to sort through the internet for sources

"This has html tags indicating a primitive programing language, links to a social network of the day which was called "facebook" and traces of a device called iphone3, yet, the extension .com.mason was not used or registered until 2016 when iphone3 was defunct. Critically, there is evidence of the iphone's operating system AND our own andriod in proto form. These did not coexist and hence i conclude this document is wooowooo".

But in all seriousness, if things like the wayback machine dont survive, hard copy publishing will be much more important to the future than we see it today..

 

[coachn]

Of course, therein lies (hehe) the problem, most works we have are copies, the hand being the printing press of the day.

Imagine poor historians in 500 years time trying to sort through the internet for sources

"This has html tags indicating a primitive programing language, links to a social network of the day which was called "facebook" and traces of a device called iphone3, yet, the extension .com.mason was not used or registered until 2016 when iphone3 was defunct. Critically, there is evidence of the iphone's operating system AND our own andriod in proto form. These did not coexist and hence i conclude this document is wooowooo".

But in all seriousness, if things like the wayback machine dont survive, hard copy publishing will be much more important to the future than we see it today..

STOP! You had me at "wooowooo"!

 

[MarkR]

I have come to suspect any claim of antiquity when it comes to any document purported to be conclusive evidence supporting Freemasonry being older than the creation of the Premier Grand Lodge.

What, then, was Sir Robert Moray initiated into in 1641? And what were the four lodges that formed the Premier Grand Lodge?

 

[Bloke]

What, then, was Sir Robert Moray initiated into in 1641?

You read Coach's comment the same way I did, but then I read again, it's not that he does not believe Freemasonry does predates 1717, just that he's very skeptical of any document about Freemasonry which has a pre-1717 date..

 

[coachn]

What, then, was Sir Robert Moray initiated into in 1641?

So What! Some guy joined a stonecraft lodge so that he could pay them money to eat, drink, sing and talk and who no intention of learning the stonecraft profession.

And what were the four lodges that formed the Premier Grand Lodge?

Back to, so what! Four lodges planned to have quarterly dinner parties so that they could get together and eat, drink, sing and talk every 3 month that have nothing to do with stonecraft activities.

You read Coach's comment the same way I did, but then I read again, it's not that he does not believe Freemasonry does predates 1717, just that he's very skeptical of any document about Freemasonry which has a pre-1717 date..

Yup! Exactly!

 

[Luigi Visentin]

My English is likely inadequate to understand everything it has been written but I have to underline that the first document that talks about an history of Freemasonry is dated 1686 and it is not masonic. It is the well known "The Natural History of Staffordshire" of Robert Plot. In this document there is a summary of the Legend of The Craft and it has been helpful to understand that the various manuscripts or copies of manuscripts that have been found later were really talking about Freemasonry. Referring instead to the manuscripts, there is a similar problem with the ancient copies of the Gospels or of the Bible: sometimes we have not in hands the original version but a copy of a copy and it is often difficult to define which version is older than the other.
In a book dedicated to the ancient christian manuscripts, it was explained that the main reason why the scholars try to define which is the older version is that, as once the writings were not printed but copied, any copy could have inside some mistakes (the causes of mistakes can be many) so if you find the oldest one, this is likely the more correct one. With ancient masonic manuscript this is much evident if we look at the many different versions of them because names are often miswritten or modified. However they tell more or less the same history which basically is the same summarized by Dr. Plot thirty years before the first Grand Lodge. It is pretty difficult to believe that they are all forgeries.

 

[Ripcord22A]

, any copy could have inside some mistakes (the causes of mistakes can be many) so if you find the oldest one, this is likely the more correct one. With ancient masonic manuscript this is much evident if we look at the many different versions of them because names are often miswritten or modified.

The problem is proving that the documents are in fact old. with the tech of today you man make everything seem old. I watch this show call Barnwood Builders. This company dismantles old log cabins and repurposes them in to new log buildings. but they keep the old look of the log. one of the logs from a building was bad, they had a spare log from another job they had done but it was too wide, so they cut the middle out of it and attached the two halves back together making the log look like it came from the same house.....