Question for ritualist and Manuscript researchers

[MasonicAdept]

Do you believe that the early catechisms and exposures identify and are founded in the early allegory of the Craft?

Let's use the earliest as an example.

The Post Boy exposure of 1723.

 

[Bloke]

Do you believe that the early catechisms and exposures identify and are founded in the early allegory of the Craft?

Let's use the earliest as an example.

The Post Boy exposure of 1723.

The example, was it real as in accurate ? I seem to remember it being referred to as the "Post Boy Sham" ?

Are you talking along the lines of "life imitating art" in that someone published something about Freemasonry which is in turn used by Freemasons to study and learn ritual, as was the case with Pritchard ?

 

[Bloke]

( PS http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/ritual/list.pdf )

 

[MasonicAdept]

The example, was it real as in accurate ? I seem to remember it being referred to as the "Post Boy Sham" ?

Are you talking along the lines of "life imitating art" in that someone published something about Freemasonry which is in turn used by Freemasons to study and learn ritual, as was the case with Pritchard ?

No, I am talking about the catechisms and exposures indicating that an allegory was already in place during the years of the transition of the operative Lodges.

Yes, that was the Post Boy Sham, but if you read the article published by Ill. Bro. Brent Morris, there were portions that were very consistent with masonic information. In several of these portions it seems to indicate that there was an allegory present from when these answers were derived from the allegory of operative Masons.

 

[Bloke]

No, I am talking about the catechisms and exposures indicating that an allegory was already in place during the years of the transition of the operative Lodges...

Having not closely looked at them I don't really know... but allegory was a tool from pre-plato days and even the Regis Manuscript talks of the ordinances of "geometry" which is used in allegory for moral behaviour.... so, if you accept that document as part of proto-Freemasonry, then yep, I think we can say allegory was present somewhat early.. They certainly had models in the Old and New Testaments, which would have been socially significant... I must admit, concerning the ancient charges , although I've read many of them, have not been an object of study for me... Early catechisms, well, I seem to remember allegory was present in most I have read, but again, they've not been an object of study for me being only interested in them for their bearing on the ritual I use today...

 

[MasonicAdept]

Having not closely looked at them I don't really know... but allegory was a tool from pre-plato days and even the Regis Manuscript talks of the ordinances of "geometry" which is used in allegory for moral behaviour.... so, if you accept that document as part of proto-Freemasonry, then yep, I think we can say allegory was present somewhat yearly.. They certainly had models in the Old and New Testaments, which would have been socially significant... I must admit, concerning the ancient charges , although I've read many of them, have not been an object of study for me... Early catechisms, well, I seem to remember allegory was present in most I have read, but again, they've not been an object of study for me being only interested in them for their bearing on the ritual I use today...

I tend to agree @Bloke.
There seems to be a misunderstanding among some researchers that although non-operative masons were present in operative Lodges pre-1717, that there was no SPECULATIVE element to the Craft until after 1730.
Their basis is that there was no allegory present. They believe that without a ritual, there was no speculation, therefore no Speculative Masons.
As a proponent of the transition theory, I find the notion erroneous, and a total misinterpretation of the Masonic concept of allegory.

The earliest exposure, the Post Boy sham of 1723, although an exposure, indicates that there was an allegory from where it was derived. You cannot create an exposure without inserting some truths, and those truths must have an origin. If there was allegory and symbolic language in 1723, as elaborate as the Post Boy exposure, and the Grand Lodge of England did not form until 1721, then it is safe to conclude that the system or the allegory from where the exposure is derived could not have just popped up in 1721 or even 1717.

Gothic constitutions and the early MSS of Freemasonry also have allegorical histories in them regarding the origins of Freemasonry. These legends form the basis of the allegory and the catechisms used during the transitional period of Freemasonry.

There is no way to place a definitive date on when Speculative Freemasonry began and when Operative Masonry finally died out, these were gradual processes that developed the modern ritual.

 

[coachn]

I'm not convinced that Freemasonry is a continuation of Stonecraft in any other way than using the latter's Lexicon, lore and symbols to create Morality Plays for organizational members. Allegory is part of Morality Play construction.

That being said, Ritual in many places states that Stonecraft was both Speculative and Operative practices.

 

[MasonicAdept]

I'm not convinced that Freemasonry is a continuation of Stonecraft in any other way than using the latter's Lexicon, lore and symbols to create Morality Plays for organizational members. Allegory is part of Morality Play construction.

That being said, Ritual in many places states that Stonecraft was both Speculative and Operative practices.

Yes, that is what makes the transitional theory a solid case for the origins of Speculative Freemasonry...

 

[coachn]

Yes, that is what makes the transitional theory a solid case for the origins of Speculative Freemasonry...

I disagree. I think it merely points solidly to Freemasonry not being the result of any transition whatsoever.

 

[MasonicAdept]

I disagree. I think it merely points solidly to Freemasonry not being the result of any transition whatsoever.

I would find that a difficult attempted position being that non-operatives were members of operative Lodges, and then we find Lodges that had more non-operative membership than operative, until we come into fully speculative Lodges.
To state that Freemasonry isn't a product of transition, one must point the date of the start of Freemasonry, totally unconnected to the operative element. Good luck!

 

[coachn]

I would find that a difficult attempted position being that non-operatives were members of operative Lodges, and then we find Lodges that had more non-operative membership than operative, until we come into fully speculative Lodges.
To state that Freemasonry isn't a product of transition, one must point the date of the start of Freemasonry, totally unconnected to the operative element. Good luck!

Yes. I understand your difficulty and why it is hard for you to imagine anything other than what you have already concluded. However, the facts do not support transition from Stonecraft Lodges as an explanation for Freemasonry as it exists today.

As far as calling ourselves "speculative", that name is a misnomer. At best we are a theatrical society filled with a lot of fanciful conjecture and lore that has little factual basis.

The society started out as social gatherings between business folk that had vested interesting in business connections. This was very common occurrence during the century preceding the 1717 grand lodge. Eating, drinking, singing and discourse, both for business and entertaining folly, were all on tap at the taverns and ale houses they met at. The fact that four groups got together (in 1716) and planned quarterly dinner parties and called themselves a grand lodge only confirmed what was already occurring: business gatherings.

I know that many want to associate what we have today with Stonecraft lodges. Claiming that non-Stonecrafters were members of these lodges assumes that these lodges were letting them join in as non-operative members. The facts point more readily toward these groups being business connection groups and communities where it would make perfect sense to have men from all sorts of businesses join in who were beneficial to the business community at large.

Far too many assume that these were Lodges that were strictly focused upon Stonecrafting and that they allowed non-Stonecraft members in. The facts point more toward business connection groups/communities than anything else. Eventually these business connection groups, under the franchising strong hold of the grand lodge system, moved more toward theater than anything else.

It was around 1717 when the GL strong hold started. From that point on, it is clear that more and more scripts, props and lore were written and used to embellish the society, including all sorts of fabrications to back up the claims of mysteries, time immemorial, traditions of traditions and such. All made up to draw attention to the roleplaying society for something that it clearly wasn't and away from the fact that is was all theater based upon something that it wasn't.

BTW - as a whole, the drinking, singing and business connective discourse has all but ended and been replaced with fish fries/rubber chicken dinners and talk of sports, hunting and fishing.

I don't need luck Brother. All I need is God's blessing and a good stiff wind in my sails. YAAARRRRR!!!!!!!

 

[MasonicAdept]

Yes. I understand your difficulty and why it is hard for you to imagine anything other than what you have already concluded. However, the facts do not support transition from Stonecraft Lodges as an explanation for Freemasonry as it exists today.

As far as calling ourselves "speculative", that name is a misnomer. At best we are a theatrical society filled with a lot of fanciful conjecture and lore that has little factual basis.

This is an assessment that is more your opinion than actual fact. And if that is how you want to view what you pay your time and money into, more power to you. If this is all you get from Freemasonry, more power to you, but I can assure you that it is much more than that. You get out of it what you can build and practice.

The society started out as social gatherings between business folk that had vested interesting in business connections. This was very common occurrence during the century preceding the 1717 grand lodge. Eating, drinking, singing and discourse, both for business and entertaining folly, were all on tap at the taverns and ale houses they met at. The fact that four groups got together (in 1716) and planned quarterly dinner parties and called themselves a grand lodge only confirmed what was already occurring: business gatherings.

I would have to advise you to do a bit more research on the origins and workings of operative Freemasonry. The Mason guilds were far more than social gatherings. They were trade Unions of sorts, as can be readily seen from Parliamentary acts and the records that have been preserved. It shows clearly that operative Lodges were not "social gatherings" but associations to protect and govern the trade.

I know that many want to associate what we have today with Stonecraft lodges. Claiming that non-Stonecrafters were members of these lodges assumes that these lodges were letting them join in as non-operative members. The facts point more readily toward these groups being business connection groups and communities where it would make perfect sense to have men from all sorts of businesses join in who were beneficial to the business community at large.

@coachn they were non-operative members, they did not work in the field of Masonry. Whether they joined as assets to the Lodge or not, the fact remains that they were non-operative members. Take for instance, in 1670 the Lodge of Aberdeen in Scotland had 49 members that left marks in a mark book for the Lodge, only ten of the signers were actually operatives. There are far too many instances that can be brought to bear that shows that member were non-operatives and ended up becoming influential in the Lodge affairs as the operative element declined.

Far too many assume that these were Lodges that were strictly focused upon Stonecrafting and that they allowed non-Stonecraft members in. The facts point more toward business connection groups/communities than anything else. Eventually these business connection groups, under the franchising strong hold of the grand lodge system, moved more toward theater than anything else.

I disagree. You have the premise all mixed up. The decline in work in England and Scotland caused the decline in membership of the operative Lodges, and to bolster membership and to keep the Lodges functioning, non-operative members were ACCEPTED in the Lodges. There wasn't anything forced on the operative Masons, they, by strategy and choice, made the decision to lift the restrictions from their membership requirements. Where are you getting that far too many assume that the Lodges were forced on the Stonecraft membership?

It was around 1717 when the GL strong hold started. From that point on, it is clear that more and more scripts, props and lore were written and used to embellish the society, including all sorts of fabrications to back up the claims of mysteries, time immemorial, traditions of traditions and such. All made up to draw attention to the roleplaying society for something that it clearly wasn't and away from the fact that is was all theater based upon something that it wasn't.

I think you may have to adjust your thinking on 1717. The Gothic constitutions predating 1717 have lore and fabrications of history, which made up the allegory of the day. There was no elaborate rituals, there was only ceremonies of investing members with marks and membership in the Lodge. Rituals did not happen until after 1750. I am intrigued at how you're coming to these conclusions with all of the evidence available, but hey, you're entitled to your version.

Again, good luck with your theory.

 

[Bloke]

PS Coach.. at lodge, we do a lot of drinking and singing.. the best speculations come over a good bottle of wine We've even been known to drink and sing during a tyled meeting, but not in a consecrated lodge room... but don't tell anyone But it was purely for entertainment and educational purposes..

 

[MasonicAdept]

@Bloke YES!!!

Geometry is the allegory and the SPECULATIVE value...Thank you sir.

 

[Bloke]

@Bloke YES!!!

Geometry is the allegory and the SPECULATIVE value...Thank you sir.

Thanks for the affirmation. but not necessary as it personalizes things.. the whole question is a debate, in which we should play the ball not the man, meh, but what do I know.. I'm just a Bloke and neither an Adept nor a Coach (couldn't resist because I am still a pretty rough ashlar..)

 

[Bloke]

The man must act like a man, in order to make it an orderly and worthwhile discussion @Bloke

I refuse to entertain the utter display of condescending attitude to other men, and acting as if it is cool to choose to speak to a person in those manners. These forums are social media, places to come and go. This guy takes it to a personal level.
My Grand father told me never argue with a fool, because some one looking can't tell which is which.

This is why I choose to give him the opportunity to tighten that part of his attitude up before I speak to him or we just go our separate ways and he goes on about his business...I don't mind the disagreement, it's the disrespect and condescending talk that I am not even thinking of tolerating...I don't have to recognize his hand on the threads. The same way I can answer him the same way I can act as if he doesn't exist.

Be that all as it may, there is agreement in what each of you say, lodges changed their composition and pursuits.

Rightly or wrongly i tell people, the European operative stone mason guilds born before and during the middle ages started to incorporate moral and philosophical rules and ideas into their lodges and at some point started accepting men who were not stonemasons and todays speculative freemasonry (masonry for coach) was born....

It's a very broad statement, but you can point to the Regius Poem and the making of "masons" such as Anthony Alexander and Elias Ashmole as supporting evidence, but what was really happening in those lodges, we're unlikely to know.. its a bit like trying to state what Noah liked for breakfast...

But this whole (interesting) thing started about allegory. It's present early in my opinion, but its presence does conclusively prove Freemasonry is present, it just indicates allegory was present? Coach might say the Halliwell MS is only part of Freemasonry because we retrospectively include it as such. Where is the clear line of tradition linked between todays Freemasonry and the group that produced it ? I think there is, but how linear i do not know; Freemasonry was adept at drawing from earlier tradtions... that cant be argued against, most rituals are scattered with that, such as reference to Jason and the Argonauts, Old Testiment Characters, Solomons Temple, and in ours, even Blake.

 

[MasonicAdept]

Be that all as it may, there is agreement in what each of you say, lodges changed their composition and pursuits.

Rightly or wrongly i tell people, the European operative stone mason guilds born before and during the middle ages started to incorporate moral and philosophical rules and ideas into their lodges and at some point started accepting men who were not stonemasons and todays speculative freemasonry (masonry for coach) was born....

Agreed. I am a staunch proponent of the transition theory. There is WAY too much documentation that support the transition of operative Lodges into Speculative Lodges. To even attempt to debate this will force the opponent to have to use semantics and creative stretches to make their theory sound remotely credible.

It's a very broad statement, but you can point to the Regius Poem and the making of "masons" such as Anthony Alexander and Elias Ashmole as supporting evidence, but what was really happening in those lodges, we're unlikely to know.. its a bit like trying to state what Noah liked for breakfast...

Agreed!

But this whole (interesting) thing started about allegory. It's present early in my opinion, but its presence does conclusively prove Freemasonry is present, it just indicates allegory was present? Coach might say the Halliwell MS is only part of Freemasonry because we retrospectively include it as such. Where is the clear line of tradition linked between todays Freemasonry and the group that produced it ? I think there is, but how linear i do not know; Freemasonry was adept at drawing from earlier tradtions... that cant be argued against, most rituals are scattered with that, such as reference to Jason and the Argonauts, Old Testiment Characters, Solomons Temple, and in ours, even Blake.

Early catechisms established solidly that there was an allegory that underlie their composition. The Post Boy exposure of 1723, point to the allegory, and the fact that Lodges were philosophical and contained a system of thinking and contemplation. These exposures didn't just pop up out of thin air in 1723. If the exposures were totally inaccurate then we can conclude that there was no semblance of Masonic thought there, but the fact that there was certain portions of the earliest exposure had accurate information, this alerts the true ritualist and historian to the fact that there was an allegory present in the Lodges between 1696-1723. And then you raised a great point regarding what GEOMETRY was in connection to MASONRY/FREEMASONRY.

You sparked a great point there.

The allegory was there, it may not have been as elaborate as we have today, but it was definitely present.

 

[Bloke]

....... this will force the opponent to have to use semantics and creative stretches ....

Greetings again... "opponent".... perphaps, that's the reason for the tension in this thread. Two Freemasons should aviod being "opponents" or competitors when discussing Freemasonry. Sure they can carry different sides of a debate, but as someone who's gone publically agains the view of my GL and GM and Grand Officers, what generated much mutual respect was focusing on the man not the ball, trying to get to "truth" ( * nod to James*) and listening..

Much of the issue is affected by semantics. Was someone "regular", "irregular", "initiated" into or rather joined as a"member" ... Look at Coach, he's created (or defined) a nomenclature to express his ideas, I dont agree with it, because it sells "Freemasonry" short, but despite how static (or dynamic) our respective rituals have become, they remain a thing of time and place. This applies to contemporary and "ancient charges".... like Shakespeare, they're most interesting and informative in their correct context ( whatever that was!?)

I really think i need to do a bit of work on coming to grips with the words allegory, metaphor, and simile... especially work on the first two. Today's Freemasonry is certainly allegorical (narrative) in nature, but the Regius Poem, might be a simpler than allegory and rather be metaphor, reflecting a simpliciy that later allegorical Freemasonry developed... maybe that makes it even more interesting. I'd be surprised if someones not written to that issue...

 

[coachn]

Some advice for Mason Adept - when reading Coach's comments, it's useful to keep in mind his nomenclature around "Masonic/Masonry" and 'Freemason/Freemasonic". He used these quite specifically. Sometimes he uses them to have a little joke with posters. I believe Coach uses "Freemason" when talking about the organisation and its devices, including ritual, particularly ritual, and "Masonic" when looking at the supposed end result of the "Freemasonic" vehicle - self development/improvement (correct me if I am wrong Coach). It's not a nomenclature I use, but can see it's useful.

When the thread started, i asked for clarification and Adept said



I then said "but allegory was a tool from pre-plato days and even the Regis Manuscript talks of the ordinances of "geometry" which is used in allegory for moral behaviour.... so, if you accept that document as part of proto-Freemasonry, then yep, I think we can say allegory was present somewhat early.. They certainly had models in the Old and New Testaments, which would have been socially significant..."

I thought someone would jump on that.. is the "Geometry" really an allegory in the Regis Poem ? Or is it a metaphor, or perhaps simile ? Is it really a proto-masonic document (what do you think Coach, is it a link people make purely to support a transition argument ?

What is interesting is how backward looking all this is. How backward looking Freemasons are...antiquity somehow legitimizing things "ancient freemasonry", the "golden fleece" and "brother Pythagoras". Don't get me wrong, the origins of Freemasonry are interesting and I think they help us understand what we were, and were not, and our traditions today... but all this backward looking often consumes us and stops us looking forward or even in the present. I love history, and I do think it is a tool to understand today, but so far, origins of Freemasonry consists of theories, with varying degree of evidence. I like Rip's post because he started with "Heres what I think happened...."... because really, that's the best I think we've got...and I always remember the saying "A suborn man does not hold opinions, they hold him"...

Still, I am enjoying the debate team going at it....

Yup! And I add, until we as members stop thinking about Freemasonry in terms of how the illusionist want us to think about it, we will forever be mesmerized by the illusionist behind the curtain. The illusions are captivating and we have far too many members chained to the Freemasonic Cave Wall.

 

[Bloke]

LOL! I am SOOOO glad to know this practice survives somewhere in the world. In the USA, drinking is outlawed most everywhere and singing is mournful, dreary and near lifeless and occurs only during a small part of the 3rd degree.

Go to England, there's a lot of that stuff i hear Most Victorian Lodges will have alcohol and the odd song but the best night of this the "Ceremony of the Seven Toasts". Theoretically you could do it as a social, so it would not be an innovation... it might be a study group, with alcohol at someone's home... I could email you the ritual... between the toasts we talk on things masonic and "examine" our newer guys and then fine them for getting the answer wrong or fine them if they get it right for being smart or fine people for using words which are too long etc etc..

It is an interesting thread... I've read over it more than one

I am talking about the catechisms and exposures indicating that an allegory was already in place during the years of the transition of the operative Lodges.

There is a bias in that statement I missed because I agree with the statement. The bias is on the assumption of the accuracy of the transition theory. Always gotta watch for the cognitive and other biases in our thinking and view..