Calling all historians

[coachn]

I think the drawing distinctions article is clearer to explain my question

"In my quest, one of the rabbit holes I crawled down was the etymology of “Masonry”. It became very clear that the root of the word, “Masonry[viii]” is “Mason”. And furthermore, the root of the word, “Mason[ix],[x]” is “to make”. With a little bit of well thought out Speculation[xi] and even well founded reasoning, it’s easy to conclude that Masonry is about “making things”. In essence, Masons are Builders. "

&
"One thing stands out though. No matter what the conjecture is to its origins, the one thing that remains clearly obvious is that the current day use of the word is specific: To be called a “Freemason”, one must belong to a duly Recognized Organization and, furthermore, one does not require anything more from oneself than this legitimate association to wear this label. A Freemason does not have to Build anything whatsoever, he does not have to Speculate in any way and he does not even have to do anything other than pay his dues on time and be moral in his actions; he only has to be an accepted member. In essence, Freemasons are Members. "

Good! Glad to help.

I dont use these words in this way, but the paradigm is interesting. For me "Freemason" is a broad church and includes things like the "The Honourable Fraternity of Ancient Freemasons"

It's not the usual way, but it is one that more and more within the Fraternity are embracing. I'm one of them.

For me, "Freemason" is a collective and/or descriptive noun, similar to "Christian" under which sits all sorts of things like Catholicism, Anglicanism, Baptists etc etc, and like those groups, some Freemasons have a history of claiming their particular brand of 'Freemasonry' as the one true version.

In our second degree WTs there is a wonderful , "turning neither left nor right from the paths of virtue"- for an organisation supposedly without dogma, many of us seem to value and become obsessed with a single path, which our ritual actually cautions against when you listen to it.

Anyway, I now understand what you mean when you say "Freemasonic" but your nomenclature is not something I'm going to adopt today...

In your own time Bro.

 

[coachn]

Greetings, Coach!
It's written in his -- "Freemasonry Encyclopedia", if I'm not mistaken.

It's not in any of the ones that are available, and there are quite a few versions out there. Would you cite the publishing date, page and perhaps a snapshot of what you read please. You quote is not to be found.

 

[coachn]

You must have a different ritual.

"What are the peculiar objects of research in this degree?

Yeah, that MUST be it. It couldn't possibly be that fact that studying the 7LAs&Ss would ever make good men better by focusing upon bringing order to the chaos of the mind. Or that Teaching and Learning are ways to continue to refine and make men better. Silly me.

Answer: The hidden mysteries of nature and science."

It took me 20 years just to understand what that meant. And at that point I discovered that I had already been investigating those hidden mysteries for some decades.

Keep working at it. Perhaps with another 20, you'll see what I already see.

Then when I investigated how and why those mysteries are hidden, I started to see aspects of the work of the MM

Yeah, hidden in plain sight...

Holy Royal Arch, Royal Ark Mariners and Rosecroix rituals all reference and to some degree demonstrate some aspects of the hidden mysteries and the work of the MM

Ya gotta love those remedial Degrees. I'm so glad that they are available for those Brothers who don't get it at the Blue Lodge level.

 

[sdh0158]

With all due respect brothers, as a professional historian, do not use Wikipedia to prove any point or use as any example. Anyone can go into this site and manipulate "history" and pass it off as fact. If you want to make sure it is a factual or properly documented source then go to books, libraries, archives, museums, etc... It takes more time but a published or researched item has been edited, checked and rechecked. In an age where we desire instant gratification Wikipedia is the bane of an historians and even the publics existence. It's not bad to use as a basic knowledge tool but beyond that stay away.

 

[Bloke]

With all due respect brothers, as a professional historian, do not use Wikipedia to prove any point or use as any example. Anyone can go into this site and manipulate "history" and pass it off as fact. If you want to make sure it is a factual or properly documented source then go to books, libraries, archives, museums, etc... It takes more time but a published or researched item has been edited, checked and rechecked. In an age where we desire instant gratification Wikipedia is the bane of an historians and even the publics existence. It's not bad to use as a basic knowledge tool but beyond that stay away.

Hmmm how much of "history" is indeed fact ? Me, I am a big fan of wikipedia, like you say it is a good starting point, but just because it is in print does not mean it is true either as well you know. Yes, there is a barrier of passing the publisher to get in print, but a lot of trash is still published..

 

[Luigi Visentin]

I'm an amateur researcher but I have a full respect of the work of historians as they are often dealing with scarce or contradictory sources. However even the most serious author have a political, a social, a spiritual opinion which affects the way in which he presents the "facts". The same "fact" therefore is presented or read in different way according to the author. I do not trust Wikipedia like Britannica or Treccani (Italian), but a thing that I do with Wikipedia, that I cannot do with the others two, is to compare the article in the four language that I can understand. Except for the articles translated, the comparison helps to understand which sources are the most known and which others can be examined. Usually in a good article the reference is reported and is not simply a reference to another book, but often to a source like a cartulary or an original manuscript. Fortunately the diffusion of scanned documents is increasing as the most interesting documents are not available to amateur reasearchers. The reasons are comprehensible (value of the book, rarity, delicacy of the book etc.) but in any case this is an existing limit for non professional researchers.

A Italian historian (Gaetano Salvemini) once said: "We can not be impartial. We can only be intellectually honest: that means, to understand our passions, keep us on guard against them and warn our readers against the dangers of our partiality. Impartiality is a dream, probity is a must"
(I hope that translation gives the correct meaning)

 

[Bloke]

...Usually in a good article the reference is reported and is not simply a reference to another book, but often to a source like a cartulary or an original manuscript....

In English (which I assume is a second language, although you write extremely well) we call these "primary sources" - which are first hand accounts and resources like documents and items. Then we have "secondary sources' which are written by people, occasionally contemporary but generally following (such as historians) who look at the evidence within primary sources to make conclusions. For me, the best writings are those have an excellent knowledge of primary sources and how they have been interpreted in secondary sources and use them to draw conclusions - but as your quote suggests, they all carry some bias.

I think it is amazing how good some of the wikipedia articles are. Some, like the articles on Freemasonry have pages and pages of discussions (arguments) over content. What ever is said, I love footnotes because they let the reader look at the source. My favourite work and hobby has 40 pages of content and 73
pages of footnotes comprising 2,243 footnotes. I've been working on it for 9 years as a hobby

 

[hanzosbm]

Wikipedia or otherwise, I view all non-contemporary works as simply a regurgitation or reinterpretation of original documents (assuming of course that we're talking about literary history). What I mean by that is, if I'm researching something that happened in the 16th century, an 18th writing about the event might be interesting, but I am primarily looking through it for sources that I can then seek out and read for myself. Obviously, this isn't always possible, either through loss of the original document or because I, unlike Mr. Visentin, only speak one language fluently (something I really need to work on).
It's a bit scary to see sometimes how pieces of information can be handed down as commonly known facts, only to look back and the source material and realize that there is no basis for it. But unless one goes back to the beginning, how would one know?

 

[coachn]

Wikipedia or otherwise, I view all non-contemporary works as simply a regurgitation or reinterpretation of original documents (assuming of course that we're talking about literary history). What I mean by that is, if I'm researching something that happened in the 16th century, an 18th writing about the event might be interesting, but I am primarily looking through it for sources that I can then seek out and read for myself. Obviously, this isn't always possible, either through loss of the original document or because I, unlike Mr. Visentin, only speak one language fluently (something I really need to work on).
It's a bit scary to see sometimes how pieces of information can be handed down as commonly known facts, only to look back and the source material and realize that there is no basis for it. But unless one goes back to the beginning, how would one know?

The common accepted assumption that "freemason" came from "freestone mason" is an example of this. It cannot be any farther from the truth. It was originally put forth as conjecture, not even speculation, and has stuck to the freemasonic wall and been referred to as true ever since.

 

[hanzosbm]

The common accepted assumption that "freemason" came from "freestone mason" is an example of this. It cannot be any farther from the truth. It was originally put forth as conjecture, not even speculation, and has stuck to the freemasonic wall and been referred to as true ever since.

I agree. Even the idea doesn't hold water. If our operative forefathers had been those whose primary work was the delicate and beautiful carvings of free stone rather than those working the harder stones used for construction, why are our working tools those used for building? It would be like an organization call the woodcarvers who are given working tools of a pneumatic nail gun.

 

[Luigi Visentin]

My favourite work and hobby has 40 pages of content and 73
pages of footnotes comprising 2,243 footnotes. I've been working on it for 9 years as a hobby

Well done! I tried once but I got lost in the instructions! A good article can be an useful beginning for a research or to give a good summary of an argument. It is true however that some articles are poorly written or are strongly directed to give a partial vision of the subject.

 

[Luigi Visentin]

The common accepted assumption that "freemason" came from "freestone mason" is an example of this. It cannot be any farther from the truth. It was originally put forth as conjecture, not even speculation, and has stuck to the freemasonic wall and been referred to as true ever since.

You are right. Moreover the oldest documents, that is the Regius an the Cooke do not use the word "Freemason".

 

[Luigi Visentin]

If our operative forefathers had been those whose primary work was the delicate and beautiful carvings of free stone rather than those working the harder stones used for construction, why are our working tools those used for building?

Likely because it was not their primary work.... From Regius poem: " They were as good masons as on earth shall go, - Gravers and image-makers they were also."

 

[coachn]

You are right. Moreover the oldest documents, that is the Regius an the Cooke do not use the word "Freemason".

From all outward signs, the word "Freemason" is a 1717 Premier Grand Lodge innovation. Prior to their inventing the word, there was "Free Mason" and "Free-Mason" and each referred to Superior/Excellent Stonecrafters, not the actors in the acting society or the organization that makes them.

 

[Bloke]

...It is true however that some articles are poorly written or are strongly directed to give a partial vision of the subject.

I'd be responsible for some of those too .... *nervous laugh*

 

[BullDozer Harrell]

From all outward signs, the word "Freemason" is a 1717 Premier Grand Lodge innovation. Prior to their inventing the word, there was "Free Mason" and "Free-Mason" and each referred to Superior/Excellent Stonecrafters, not the actors in the acting society or the organization that makes them.

Coach, how many years after its formation do you think the Premier Grand Lodge of England coined the word, Freemason as we use it today?

From what i know, it was still a few years later after the 1717 formation that the 4th elected Grand Master(G.Payne)published, 'the General Regulations of a Free-Mason'.
I think it was around 1720-21, if i remember correctly.
Payne did include in his title, Free-Mason as opposed to Freemason.

A small & subtle distinction that points out to me that you surely know about these matters.

One problem that i've always had with the Premiers history is the period between 1717-1724. I heard something awhile ago that no Minutes were taken down until 1724.
That's a 7 yr period of unrecorded Minutes but yet names of the 1st to the 5th Grand Masters are tossed around even til this day.

How responsible and reliable is that for a newly formed 'Premier' Grand Lodge?



Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app

 

[coachn]

Coach, how many years after its formation do you think the Premier Grand Lodge of England coined the word, Freemason as we use it today?

Considering the Premier Grand Lodge's constitutions themselves did not have the word "freemason" within it and that document was rewritten (and edited) many times and many years after the first dinner party, I'd say it didn't. It was likely coined by either its members or those writing about the organization who did not know any better. Just an opinion of mine and a loosely based one at that.

From what i know, it was still a few years later after the 1717 formation that the 4th elected Grand Master(G.Payne)published, 'the General Regulations of a Free-Mason'.
I think it was around 1720-21, if i remember correctly.
Payne did include in his title, Free-Mason as opposed to Freemason.

A small & subtle distinction that points out to me that you surely know about these matters.

A little & subtle distinction for sure; and sadly one of which few take notice much less give any further thought.

The word "freemason" did not appear till after the formation of the PGL. Examination of transcripted documents prior to this time that show this word "freemason" are inevitably shown to be errors and liberties taken by transcribers where they changed the word from "free_mason" or "free-mason" without giving it any thought whatsoever OR believing there was no difference.

One problem that i've always had with the Premiers history is the period between 1717-1724. I heard something awhile ago that no Minutes were taken down until 1724.
That's a 7 yr period of unrecorded Minutes but yet names of the 1st to the 5th Grand Masters are tossed around even til this day.

How responsible and reliable is that for a newly formed 'Premier' Grand Lodge?

Not very. But then again, it all started out to be quarterly dinner parties between a hand full of members from four lodges who wanted to get together to drink, eat, sing, chat and be entertained. Why would you expect anything more?

 

[Bloke]

Considering the Premier Grand Lodge's constitutions themselves did not have the word "freemason" within it and that document was rewritten (and edited) many times and many years after the first dinner party, I'd say it didn't. It was likely coined by either its members or those writing about the organization who did not know any better. Just an opinion of mine and a loosely based one at that.


A little & subtle distinction for sure; and sadly one of which few take notice much less give any further thought.

The word "freemason" did not appear till after the formation of the PGL. Examination of transcripted documents prior to this time that show this word "freemason" are inevitably shown to be errors and liberties taken by transcribers where they changed the word from "free_mason" or "free-mason" without giving it any thought whatsoever OR believing there was no difference.


Not very. But then again, it all started out to be quarterly dinner parties between a hand full of members from four lodges who wanted to get together to drink, eat, sing, chat and be entertained. Why would you expect anything more?

Spelling then was not as standard then as now, so I'm not sure i would read that much into it, even in today's global world you write "honor" and i write "honour" and the two distinctions simply indicate geography (American vrs "English" spelling) rather any change in meaning...

 

[coachn]

Spelling then was not as standard then as now, so I'm not sure i would read that much into it, even in today's global world you write "honor" and i write "honour" and the two distinctions simply indicate geography (American vrs "English" spelling) rather any change in meaning...

Yup. Which makes it all the more challenging when making effort to determine when such anomalies warrant closer scrutiny or not.

That being said, the supporting structure and practices of the Freemasonic organization juxtapositioned against what we know to be those of Stonecrafters simply do not match, even when one makes effort to claim FM to be a "speculative" continuation of an so called "operative" origin.

 

[BullDozer Harrell]

A few more curious things to consider are that the single word Freemason in use today was not transcribed in Anderson's Constitution of 1723 nor in Preston's 'Illustrations of Masonry' 1772.
Both writers either wrote Masons as a single word, Free-Masons as a double word, Free& Accepted Masons as a triple word.
There is no instance of 'Freemasons' appearing in these works.
Also, the last and puzzling observation on the subject is that 41yrs later after Preston's work, it wasn't even a single word used in the 'Declaration of the Act of Union in 1813' created between both Antients& Moderns.

So when did we begin to use the single word, Freemason?




Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app