hanzosbm
Premium Member
Doing some reading today, I came across a very interesting Masonic topic. It is very important to remember that the following account was given from the historian of the Journeymen Society, NOT the Lodge.
Edinburgh, early 1700s, the Lodge of Edinburgh (Mary's Chapel) is considered the mother Scottish lodge (and in fact, is still Lodge #1). At this time, a group of Journeymen (Fellowcrafts) decide to secede from the lodge and create their own. This was done in either 1707 or 1709 and was titled the Journeymen Society or Journeymen Masons in Edinburgh. The date difference has to do with when they were beginning versus formally formed. In 1708 a list of grievances was submitted by the Journeymen to the Lodge of Edinburgh for numerous reasons, one being they did not feel they had enough control over the funds raised by the lodge. It seems that they met informally starting in 1707, drafted the complaint in 1708, and by 1709 had seceded. The resolution was signed by 44 brothers, although it is thought that many did not outright leave their former lodge as they still had a their funds being controlled by the lodge. The Lodge of Edinburgh responded by allowing 6 of the Fellowcraft to inspect and oversee the accounts. However, this didn't have the desired effect than the Fellowcrafts still felt they were not being given full representation. To address this, the Lodge chose 2 Fellowcrafts named Andrew Williamson and Michael Naysmith to enquire from the widows of Fellowcrafts if they were being properly looked after. While this was a nice gesture, immediately following it, the lodge resolved to rescind the previous agreement and the Fellowcraft were no longer allowed to inspect the accounts. The Fellowcrafts became very angry, and at that meeting, all but one got up and left. The Masters voted to not allow any of them back in until they were made satisfied of their contempt. Furthermore, no Entered Apprentice was to assist any of the Fellowcraft.
A while later, a meeting was held by representatives on both sides. The Lodge had passed several rules, one was that no Master should employ any of the Fellowcraft who had left, nor any of the Entered Apprentices they had since taken on. At this point, they could not travel and earn a wage. In addition, none of their sons or son-in-laws could join the Lodge of Edinburgh.
Now comes a very important part. At the time, the Lodge of Edinburgh was a mixture of operative and speculative Masons. The operative aspect is very important, because they held a warrant signed by the King. The Fellowcrafts were continuing to try to work at this time (although there are no records of how much success they had) so the Lodge of Edinburgh confiscated their books and records. At the same time, two of the Fellowcraft, referred to as their leaders, were arrested and imprisoned named William Brodie and Robert Winram and they were thought to be the Master and Warden of the new Journeymen Society. At this point, the Journeymen Society take legal action and bring a suit against the Lodge of Edinburgh. It was the court who finally dealt the death blow in this case and stated that the Lodge must give over control to the Journeymen Society. There were several points to the final court decision, but one factor which comes up over and over again is that they must allow the Journeymen Society to meet and to pass on the Mason's Word.
Now, it doesn't make clear if the Fellowcraft were already in possession of the Mason's Word or not. But either way, we can clearly see an instance, prior to any versions featuring Noah or HAB of Fellowcrafts demanding the Mason's Word (or freedom) from their master. The request is repeatedly denied until finally, the coup de grace is struck and the mother lodge is broken. This could easily be seen as the basis for the legend of the third degree. And, while the account is written from the point of view of the Fellowcraft who did the demanding, the pieces seem to fit.
Of course, this begs the question, IF this really is the origin of the story (and we'll never know), did the Fellowcraft already have the word? If they did, then the loss of the word is simply symbolic of a loss of power and all that comes with it. However, if they didn't, and they were forced by court authority to disclose it...was the real word given? Or just a substitute? And, if it was a substitute, they likely couldn't continuing using the real word for fear that someone might discover that they were different.
Like I said, not something that can ever be proved, but interesting nonetheless.
By the way, the above account was found in The Freemasons' Magazine and Masonic Mirror, Volume 4.
https://books.google.com/books?id=X...Ch4Q6AEIOjAG#v=onepage&q=mason's word&f=false
Edinburgh, early 1700s, the Lodge of Edinburgh (Mary's Chapel) is considered the mother Scottish lodge (and in fact, is still Lodge #1). At this time, a group of Journeymen (Fellowcrafts) decide to secede from the lodge and create their own. This was done in either 1707 or 1709 and was titled the Journeymen Society or Journeymen Masons in Edinburgh. The date difference has to do with when they were beginning versus formally formed. In 1708 a list of grievances was submitted by the Journeymen to the Lodge of Edinburgh for numerous reasons, one being they did not feel they had enough control over the funds raised by the lodge. It seems that they met informally starting in 1707, drafted the complaint in 1708, and by 1709 had seceded. The resolution was signed by 44 brothers, although it is thought that many did not outright leave their former lodge as they still had a their funds being controlled by the lodge. The Lodge of Edinburgh responded by allowing 6 of the Fellowcraft to inspect and oversee the accounts. However, this didn't have the desired effect than the Fellowcrafts still felt they were not being given full representation. To address this, the Lodge chose 2 Fellowcrafts named Andrew Williamson and Michael Naysmith to enquire from the widows of Fellowcrafts if they were being properly looked after. While this was a nice gesture, immediately following it, the lodge resolved to rescind the previous agreement and the Fellowcraft were no longer allowed to inspect the accounts. The Fellowcrafts became very angry, and at that meeting, all but one got up and left. The Masters voted to not allow any of them back in until they were made satisfied of their contempt. Furthermore, no Entered Apprentice was to assist any of the Fellowcraft.
A while later, a meeting was held by representatives on both sides. The Lodge had passed several rules, one was that no Master should employ any of the Fellowcraft who had left, nor any of the Entered Apprentices they had since taken on. At this point, they could not travel and earn a wage. In addition, none of their sons or son-in-laws could join the Lodge of Edinburgh.
Now comes a very important part. At the time, the Lodge of Edinburgh was a mixture of operative and speculative Masons. The operative aspect is very important, because they held a warrant signed by the King. The Fellowcrafts were continuing to try to work at this time (although there are no records of how much success they had) so the Lodge of Edinburgh confiscated their books and records. At the same time, two of the Fellowcraft, referred to as their leaders, were arrested and imprisoned named William Brodie and Robert Winram and they were thought to be the Master and Warden of the new Journeymen Society. At this point, the Journeymen Society take legal action and bring a suit against the Lodge of Edinburgh. It was the court who finally dealt the death blow in this case and stated that the Lodge must give over control to the Journeymen Society. There were several points to the final court decision, but one factor which comes up over and over again is that they must allow the Journeymen Society to meet and to pass on the Mason's Word.
Now, it doesn't make clear if the Fellowcraft were already in possession of the Mason's Word or not. But either way, we can clearly see an instance, prior to any versions featuring Noah or HAB of Fellowcrafts demanding the Mason's Word (or freedom) from their master. The request is repeatedly denied until finally, the coup de grace is struck and the mother lodge is broken. This could easily be seen as the basis for the legend of the third degree. And, while the account is written from the point of view of the Fellowcraft who did the demanding, the pieces seem to fit.
Of course, this begs the question, IF this really is the origin of the story (and we'll never know), did the Fellowcraft already have the word? If they did, then the loss of the word is simply symbolic of a loss of power and all that comes with it. However, if they didn't, and they were forced by court authority to disclose it...was the real word given? Or just a substitute? And, if it was a substitute, they likely couldn't continuing using the real word for fear that someone might discover that they were different.
Like I said, not something that can ever be proved, but interesting nonetheless.
By the way, the above account was found in The Freemasons' Magazine and Masonic Mirror, Volume 4.
https://books.google.com/books?id=X...Ch4Q6AEIOjAG#v=onepage&q=mason's word&f=false
