Yep. I am indeed. And much much more.
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!
Traditional Observance Lodges
- Thread starter BullDozer Harrell
- Start date
Yes Brother Mark. That is exactly what I am saying. And that "he" is Brother John S. Nagy for future reference.
I don't think Brother Bob would argue with me on this. It's pretty clear what we do now is not even remotely related to Speculative Masonry as the organization as a whole has so elegantly defined it.
However, describing what we do, it is abundantly clear that we are a Total-Immersion, Theatrically-Based, Alternative-Reality Role-Playing Society with a Moral Purpose which has taken from Stonecraft its Lore, Lexicon and Symbols as our backdrops and props in our morality plays, lectures and general interactions; well, at least at the blue lodge level.
Any resemblance to Stonecraft is purely contrived to add to the illusion.
This all started in and around the modern Grand Lodge Era circa 1717-ish.
Beyond the Blue Lodge Arena, other Lore, Lexicon and Symbols are used for our backdrops and props in our morality plays.
Warrior1256
Site Benefactor
Sounds reasonable.
It also explains why there are SO MANY inconsistencies within Craft lore, history and alike.
It's simply either bad script writing (do to ignorance on the part of the researchers who put it together*) OR the writers were deliberately trying to make a point that went way over the heads of those who simply didn't realize it was all fabricated.
* One example: Cowans are NOT pretenders to the Craft. They were Master Rough Masons, they Served Apprenticeships, they had Apprentices who learned from them, and they were members within many Craft lodges prior to the Grand Lodge Era. Only after knowing this and doing further research does one begin to see the true reason for keeping them out of the lodge.
Ripcord22A
Site Benefactor
Brother- could you expand on this more? I did a quick bit of googling and found that a cowan was some one that "built without mortar" and became a stonemason without proper training....
Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app
It's most unfortunate that almost everything you'll come across about Cowans is polluted by Freemasonic influence. When you filter out the Freemasonic rubbish, you begin to see that there's more to it than what has been influenced by our Fraternal chatter.
You can get a nice overview here: http://buildinghiram.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-hole-story.html
Warrior1256
Site Benefactor
Very informative coachn. Thank you for this clarification. I had no idea of the true meaning. I just took cowan to mean pretender.
The Craft are trained to believe Cowans are Pretenders. Without further research, they shall likely die not knowing any better.
MarkR
Premium Member
The first Schaw Statutes of 1598 (governing the conduct of Scottish Masons’ Lodges) uses the term in a way that makes clear that the term was known to Scots of that era. §15 says “No master or fellow of craft shall accept any cowan to work in his society or company, nor send any of his servants to work with cowans, under the penalty of twenty pounds as often as any person offends in this matter.” So we see that well over 400 years ago, the term cowan had meaning to Masons, and that a cowan was someone to be avoided. But what did the term mean? Jamieson’s dictionary of the Scottish language (1st Edition) (http://www.scotsdictionary.com/) defines a cowan as follows: “A term of contempt, applied to one who does the work of a mason, but has not been regularly bred. . . Also used to denote one who builds dry [without use of mortar] walls, otherwise denominated a dry-diker.”
Yeah, I ran into this too at the very beginning of my research efforts and would have stopped there had I accepted it like most of the stuff offered up to justify our Craft attitudes. However, I did not stop there and I am glad that I did not.
I believe you'll find some tremendous historical references and insights in "Freeman and Cowan", Volume XXI Ars Quatuor Coronatorum that explain the local infighting that caused this statute effort was not usual and not universal. It was likely used by an ignorant speculative Freemason to justify exemptions.
MarkR
Premium Member
In 1598?
You mean the date that was followed by an inconvenient [?]
"The Oxford International Dictionary of the English Language gives the following definition of the word “Cowan”:
Cowan - 1598 [?] 1. Sc. One who does the work of a mason, but has not been apprenticed to the trade. 2. Hence, One uninitiated in the secrets of Freemasonry 1707. 3. slang. A sneak, eavesdropper."
as it clearly conflicts with the fact that Cowans were part of stonecraft lodges, were masters of their trade and were paid by the craft within these lodges.
Last edited:
Keith C
Registered User
Thanks! that complicates matters as we usually do degrees the 3rd Wednesday.
Bloke
Premium Member
Please go..... i never get an independent opinion of the lodge..... and we might finally get that PM (whose name is on the warrant) here..... i've tried trash talk, praise and begging without luck. I'm starting to think he doesn't love me any more....
Last edited:
MarkR
Premium Member
I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that the Schaw Statutes of 1598 aren't from 1598? I've never seen anyone else question the date of the Schaw Statutes.
Yes. I can see that you don't. The "date" is followed by a bracketed question mark ([?]) in the dictionary that denotes the definitions used. This indicates to researchers and students alike that the date is "questionable". In this case, "inconvenient" for those who want it to be something that is unquestionably accurate; of which it is deemed unworthy.
I am not.
What I am saying: People writing these "definitions" are saying the date is questionable.
As far as the Schaw Statutes are concerned, it is one document from one area where a trade war was underway. It was not the standard universally. It does not reflect the overwhelming evidence that how Cowans were treated in that one area and how they were viewed in that one area was indeed how the were treated and viewed universally.
Perhaps you are taking things out of context this time and hence your first experience is due to an assumption on your part.
However, all of this is for not. Freemasonic writers "borrowed" from Stonecraft lore, lexicon and symbols to fabricate their Morality plays; this is their only connection. Their plays are allegorical; they are not factual or historical.
The use of "Cowans" within ritual has caused many to seek justification for keeping them off that have nothing to do with the original allegorical intent.
Hence we have additional lore, definitions and such that sprang up as a result of ignorant and well-meaning members trying to further justify its use that has noting to do with the allegorical intent.
In other words, Cowans are not pretenders. They are members of the lodge who do not Square their Work, do not Fabricate their own Cement and only spread that Cement (at an Ell's height) when supervised. And the society has many of them in many lodges spread out around the world.
But if you want to quibble about stonecraft statues enforced in a relatively small area and dates, have at it. All it will do is distract those who could benefit from some serious and beneficial learning.
Last edited: