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!

Can someone confirm these statements?

hanzosbm

Premium Member
A friend loaned me a book recently called The Freemasons by Jasper Ridley. It is essentially a history of the Craft starting with operative Masons in the middle ages up to relatively current times. The first thing I liked about it was the abundance of citations. As we all know, books on Masonry are filled with theories and often times authors play fast and loose with their facts to support those theories. I was hoping that this book, having so many citations, would not follow that path. Sadly, I was mistaken. The author does things like cite the origins of the legend of the third degree to things happening in the middle ages when we know that the legend was dramatically different than we know it today up until the 18th century. So, when I went to look into the sources he cited, I ran into some further problems. When I came upon some statements of his that I found questionable and I went to see where he got them, yes, he does give references, but they're all to modern books. I suppose if I were so inclined, I could go down each of those rabbit holes by buying the referenced book and then seeing if it has references, and then track down those references, etc., but I have no interest in doing that.

Which brings me to my point. In the first chapter of his book, Ridley states that operative Masons were subject to a wage cap (as were all trades) but they, being so highly skilled and in demand, could demand higher wages than was legal and used their secret meetings to fix prices. To me, this has some very interesting implications, if true. The source that he cites for this information is an Ars Quatuor Coronatorum article entitled Further Views on the Origins of Freemasonry in England by Geoffrey Markham. I haven't been able to find this specific article and what I have been able to find referencing the article does not collaborate Ridley's claims.

I was wondering if anyone had any contemporary information to the effect that Masons were widely being paid above the pay cap and ideally, that there was some kind of collusion that enabled it.
 

Ripcord22A

Site Benefactor
Same here. Maybe you could put together a presentation and share it with us that we could then share with our lodges
 

hanzosbm

Premium Member
Gentlemen,

I think I might very well do exactly that. This theory really got my wheels spinning and dovetails into a lot of explanations that make a lot of sense regarding a number of things. Stay tuned! Hopefully I can make some head way with this research.
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
The operative era was in the middle ages well before the industrial revolution. In that era the majority of the population worked on farms and lived by barter. I find it extremely dubious that the idea of a "wage cap" had ever been formulated back then. Coins were minted but they were comparatively rare.
 

hanzosbm

Premium Member
Well, I've spent most of the day researching and writing a paper. I'm hoping to have it finished today and I'll post it. But, either way, here's a little spoiler: I've confirmed it.
 

Bloke

Premium Member
Yes, I've heard this about payment to operatives, but doesnt make it true. And I think I mischievously joked our entire order is about the medieval protection of trade secrets

(*goes to link posted*)
 

Warrior1256

Site Benefactor
Ridley states that operative Masons were subject to a wage cap (as were all trades) but they, being so highly skilled and in demand, could demand higher wages than was legal and used their secret meetings to fix prices.
I also heard this on a Freemason "documentary" on the History Channel so take it for what it is worth.
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
To believe Freemasonry is a continuation of Stonecraft is to have drunk the Koolaid and succumbed to the sirens of the Craft. Evidence shows Freemasonry to be something utterly different, even when the operative/speculative argument is posited. Going down rabbit holes exploring Stonecraft and its practices reveals this fairly quickly.
 

Luigi Visentin

Registered User
Actually, this is as good of a theory as any other in my opinion.
For myself it is more than an opinion as I have just finished to write last version of my book where I show that ancient Masons claimed to be descendant from Romans' miles (as I had already wrote in another post, but I have found many more clues in the meantime). Obviously it can not be demonstrated that what they were claiming was real, but only that they said so.
 

Luigi Visentin

Registered User
I could answer you with "yes" or "not" depending with what you mean with "ritual". The documents about the Legend of the Craft does not includes ritual element. The cathechisms instead report parts of the ancient rituals (or at least they have been so interpreted by most of scholars) that have been included in those of eighteenth century but all are dated around the beginning of that century. Moreover rituals have been modified many times and in many ways, therefore it is difficult to fix which element is traditional and which is something new. Luckily the footprint has not changed so we have conserved many ancient elements.
 

Mindovermatter Ace

Registered User
To believe Freemasonry is a continuation of Stonecraft is to have drunk the Koolaid and succumbed to the sirens of the Craft. Evidence shows Freemasonry to be something utterly different, even when the operative/speculative argument is posited. Going down rabbit holes exploring Stonecraft and its practices reveals this fairly quickly.


I disagree because I have examined records that show and prove that speculative Freemasonry originated directly from operative guilds in Scotland during the mid 1600s. The records are well preserved. It was due to a decline in work and done so to preserve functionality.
 

Glen Cook

G A Cook
Site Benefactor
I disagree because I have examined records that show and prove that speculative Freemasonry originated directly from operative guilds in Scotland during the mid 1600s. The records are well preserved. It was due to a decline in work and done so to preserve functionality.
You were previously asked to identify these records which you said you had copies of. Have you had the opportunity to find them?
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
I disagree ...

That is a right granted to bright and dull men equally.

...because I have examined records that show and prove that speculative Freemasonry originated directly from operative guilds in Scotland during the mid 1600s.

Bold claims demand Bold proofs. Here's mine:

http://www.coach.net/BFM.htm
http://www.coach.net/TCU.htm

Where's yours?

The records are well preserved.

The records are misunderstood, misconstrued and misrepresented.

It was due to a decline in work and done so to preserve functionality.

Your premise and reasoning are unsupported.
  1. Define "it".
  2. The increases and deceases "in work" are cyclical; have been, are and always will be.
  3. "preserve functionality" of what? Ritual?
 
Last edited:

hanzosbm

Premium Member
To believe Freemasonry is a continuation of Stonecraft is to have drunk the Koolaid and succumbed to the sirens of the Craft. Evidence shows Freemasonry to be something utterly different, even when the operative/speculative argument is posited. Going down rabbit holes exploring Stonecraft and its practices reveals this fairly quickly.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you (yet) but I was hoping for some more clarification. Are you saying that there were no speculative aspects practiced in operative Masonry? Are you saying that speculative aspects being practiced in operative Masonry (assuming the question to the first question is 'no') did not continue on into what we now consider speculative Masonry? Are you saying the early operative lodges did not have purely speculative members? Are you saying that early operative lodges did not provide assistance to purely speculative Masons?

I'm just trying to understand your stance.
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you (yet)
Thanks!
...but I was hoping for some more clarification. Are you saying that there were no speculative aspects practiced in operative Masonry?
I am not saying this. Although, if we evaluate closely the major trends with our "preservation" society, there are absolutely no clues as to speculative practice that is even remotely close to even a metaphorical rendering of stonecraft practices.
Are you saying that speculative aspects being practiced in operative Masonry (assuming the question to the first question is 'no') did not continue on into what we now consider speculative Masonry?
I am not saying this either. Although it would be an awesome book to read that claims to actually reveal anything that these stonecraft lodges did that could remotely be called "speculation" and of which Freemasonic practices continued to this day.
Are you saying the early operative lodges did not have purely speculative members?
I am not saying this either. There is evidence that these lodges had members that didn't actually do stonecraft work. This DOES NOT mean that they were speculative masons, as so many zealous members automatically assume. It merely means that they were not involved in day in and day out chiseling of stone directly. What they were involved in could have been any number of things that supported the lodge in its operations, including and not limited to merely being patrons paying for dinners and being associated with the lodge, much like would occur today in networking business groups around the world.
Are you saying that early operative lodges did not provide assistance to purely speculative Masons?
Op. Lodges likely had a symbiotic relationship with members not involved directly in the chiseling of stone. To claim these lodges offered "speculative" assistance to such members is a stretch. More likely they were more geared toward business/social support.
I'm just trying to understand your stance.
Not a stance. Just an informed non-romantic view.
 

Mindovermatter Ace

Registered User
You were previously asked to identify these records which you said you had copies of. Have you had the opportunity to find them?

My apologies. Bare with me momentarily to gather citations. I may not have time today. There's more than one set of records out there, but most of the info lies in the records of the time immemorial lodges of Scotland and the registers of the guilds of Edinburgh circa 1400-1600s. They express, imply, and in some instances explicitly state that speculative masonry derived from a decline in building during the mid 1630s, and that they began taking in non-operatives to keep the doors open. Quatuor Coronati Lodge has several papers that support as well. It's been a very long time since I've examined them, so please bare with me in assembling the references. I made this discovery while researching the Scottish Rite Lodges of England and reading available records of the operative lodges of Scotland about two years ago.
 
Top