hanzosbm
Premium Member
Sorry to revive an old thread, but I came across something interesting regarding the operative masons and practices that may have filtered down.
In the History of the Masonic persecutions in different quarters of the globe, with an introductory essay; and Masonic Institutes by George Oliver from 1867, he talks about possible origins of the name Freemason, he writes the following:
"Others have derived the institution of Freemasons from a combination among the Masons, not to work without an advance of wages, when they were summoned from several counties, by writs of Edward III., directed to the sheriffs, to assist in rebuilding and enlarging the castle, together with the church and chapel of St. George, at Windsor. Accordingly, it is said that the Masons agreed on certain signs and tokens, by which they might know one another, and assist one another against being impressed, and not to work unless free, and on their own terms."
Going back to my argument in the original paper, the operative Masons didn't want the powers that be forcing them to work on jobs against their will.
Is it possible that our modern requirement that the request be of a man's own free will and accord is a way of allowing the lodge to safeguard against unwilling workers?
Let's say Bob is told by his local Sheriff that he MUST report for a building project that he doesn't want to work at. Legally, he can't refuse, so, against his will he reports to the job site. Upon first gaining entrance, he is asked if it be of his own free will and accord. Bob answers that, no, it is not. No problem, the Master denies him admission. Bob avoids being pressed into work he doesn't want in a legal way by benefit of the lodge.
I this there is strong evidence for this.
In the History of the Masonic persecutions in different quarters of the globe, with an introductory essay; and Masonic Institutes by George Oliver from 1867, he talks about possible origins of the name Freemason, he writes the following:
"Others have derived the institution of Freemasons from a combination among the Masons, not to work without an advance of wages, when they were summoned from several counties, by writs of Edward III., directed to the sheriffs, to assist in rebuilding and enlarging the castle, together with the church and chapel of St. George, at Windsor. Accordingly, it is said that the Masons agreed on certain signs and tokens, by which they might know one another, and assist one another against being impressed, and not to work unless free, and on their own terms."
Going back to my argument in the original paper, the operative Masons didn't want the powers that be forcing them to work on jobs against their will.
Is it possible that our modern requirement that the request be of a man's own free will and accord is a way of allowing the lodge to safeguard against unwilling workers?
Let's say Bob is told by his local Sheriff that he MUST report for a building project that he doesn't want to work at. Legally, he can't refuse, so, against his will he reports to the job site. Upon first gaining entrance, he is asked if it be of his own free will and accord. Bob answers that, no, it is not. No problem, the Master denies him admission. Bob avoids being pressed into work he doesn't want in a legal way by benefit of the lodge.
I this there is strong evidence for this.