Masonic Historiography

[Tamrin]

Researching Freemasonry: where are we?

by Prof. Jan Snoek, Heidelberg University, Opening Plenary Lecture,
the International Conference on the History of Freemasonry, Edinburgh, 2007

(Abstract)

This presentation has three parts. The first part gives a short overview of the development of the historiography of Freemasonry from the "Manuscript Constitutions" till 1986, including Anderson's Constitutions, developments in the second half of the 18th and first half of the 19th century, the "Authentic School", and the emergence of Freemasonry as an academic subject around 1980.

The second part describes the paradigm shift of 1986, the further development of the research of Freemasonry in the universities, and the process which is leading at the moment towards the development of a new paradigm. Also two examples of how this new perspective changes our reading of long known sources are presented, namely Anderson's account of what happened in 1716/1717 and the story of Von Hund's initiation in a masonic Knightly Order in Paris in 1743.

The third part asks what now has to be done. Here statements will be reviewed from the British historian John Roberts from 1969, from the Dutch historian of literature André Hanou, and the until recent director of the Centre for Research into Freemasonry at the University of Sheffield, Andrew Prescott. The speaker agrees with all three that, while the academic world has by now come to accept Freemasonry as a valid object of academic research in so far as this contributes to existing research interests in other areas, the study of Freemasonry as Freemasonry, i.e. as an initiation society, has largely been neglected by the academic world. But although this is in his view clearly at the top of the list of what is needed, that list is much longer.

[Tamrin]

Getting the Question Right
Problems with the Historiography of Freemasonry

by Dr. Bob James, The Australian Centre for Fraternal Studies,
to the International Conference on the History of Freemasonry, Edinburgh, 2007

(Abstract)

My paper will examine the historiography of Speculative Freemasonry [SF] from the view of questions not so far asked, the important ones of which concern the need for the SF. the institution, to see itself as unique, special and above the rough-and-tumble of Real Politik.

The resulting conflict with the evidence, as I see it, was, and is most obvious with regard to those relating to connections (ideological/political/social and economic) between and conflicts with 'cognate fraternal organisations.'

The avoided questions include:

• Does the usual story of transition from operative to speculative Freemasonry actually make sense?
  
• How similar were 18th century Speculative Freemasonry, trade-oriented ritual and that of 'mutual benefit societies' such as the Odd Fellows?
  
• What occupations other than stonemasonry had ritual and regalia? What is its post-1717 arc?
  
• Were the 4 'originating London lodges' involved in the politico/industrial struggles of the early 18th century?
  
• Did the 'Antient Grand Lodge' have trade union functions?
  
• Was the Irish Freemasonry of 18th and 19th century military regiments actually Protestantism by another name?

I will not claim to know the answers only that these would seem to be the obvious questions given that 300 years of Masonic scholarship have produced confusion, doubt and frustration rather than clarity and agreement about basic history. As some SF historians open themselves up to the new imperative of allowing evidence to lead where it will, I will argue that many Masonic scholars appear to be denying themselves valuable insights by continuing to deny the relevance of these and related questions.

[Tamrin]

A HISTORY OF BRITISH FREEMASONRY 1425-2000
Professor Andrew Prescott

CRFF Working Paper Series No. 1

(Excerpt)

In short, the history of British Freemasonry will only begin to make sense if we interpret it in the light of wider history. Freemasonry cannot be explained by Freemasonry. For that reason, it is perhaps more urgent that we establish a framework of interpretation for the history of Freemasonry than that we continue to explore those neglected documentary materials. Documentary historians such as me are often dismissive of historians who focus on the wider shape of history, but it is only when we contemplate an institution where no such shape has been proposed that we realise the fundamental importance of such frameworks for all aspects of historical study. A historian attempts to describe changes of societies, cultures and institutions in time. Freemasons are often anxious to establish that they are the guardians of an esoteric truth, a pure and accepted Masonry, that has passed down unchanged through time. There is a fundamental conflict here which means that, in a masonic context, too often history does not happen.

[Tamrin]

The Cycles of American Masonic History

by Prof. Steven C. Bullock, USA,
the International Conference on the History of Freemasonry, Edinburgh, 2007

(Abstract)

This paper will explore s larger pattern in American Masonic history that I think is particularly significant, a cyclical pattern of growth leading to a period of decline that in turn makes room for further expansion.

Voluntary societies seldom last very long. Masonry, of course, is the most notable exception to this pattern. But the oldest and most successful of all voluntary societies is not immune to the difficulties of survival. American Freemasonry has experienced two periods of serious decline: the first came in Antimasonic years of the late 1820s to early 1840s; the second, which began in the mid-1960s, continues to this day.

In this paper, I want to suggest some parallels between these two experiences. Of course, the differences are real and substantial. The first period of decline resulted from strong and sustained opposition. By contrast, the later period of decline resulted more from indifference. Not surprisingly, the Antimasonic years were marked by dramatic and sudden defections; the twentieth-century difficulties emerged much more slowly.

But, despite these differences, I believe there are also significant similarities. Both declines took place after periods of tremendous advance. American Masonry grew dramatically during the years before 1825 and (except for the difficulties of the Great Depression) during the years before 1930 to the 1960s. Both periods of expansion, furthermore, were marked by tremendous Masonic enthusiasm and institution building.

The end result of the current decline is unclear. But I would suggest that in important ways Antimasonry actually benefited American Masonry—by disciplining some of its more enthusiastic supporters and by allowing new structures, new organizations, and new practices to grow without the restraints created by entrenched institutions. The result was the most extraordinary time of Masonic growth in American history. The American Revolution can even be seen as a similar time of destruction, destroying and upending many lodges. In both cases these difficulties also allowed new groups and new ideas to development, allowing Masonry to adapt itself successfully to new situations.

The economist Joseph Schumpeter spoke of capitalism as both leading and depending upon creative destruction. Such renewal is necessary in voluntary institutions as well. Masonry’s flexibility and ability to adapt to new situations is extraordinary. But these changes did not always take place easily; they instead often grew of contention, division, and decline.

[Tamrin]

The Origins of Speculative Freemasonry in NSW

by Dr. Bob James
The Australian Centre for Fraternal Studies

(Excerpt)

An account provided by the Masonic Historical Society of New South Wales in 1998 insists that Australian Freemasonry [ie, SF, or 'Speculative Freemasonry'] has had a trouble-free history and that its importance can be measured in the number of 'Great Men' who were members, eg, Sir Joseph Banks, Mathew Flinders, Hamilton Hume, Lord Gowrie, etc, etc, and sportsmen such as Don Bradman and Dally Messenger. The deeper history is more interesting.

Immediately after the April, 1834 trial of the Tolpuddle Martyrs a circular went to UK Masonic Lodges asking that a return of the name, employment or profession and place of residence of all members be sent to the Clerk of the Peace immediately, 'in default of which (you) will be declared a secret society.'

But perhaps by then, the possibility of SF's being hanged or transported continued in the UK, but had passed in the colonies. History appears to show that behind a benign and respectable 'front' SF conspirators continued plotting, not to bring down a government, but for fraternal domination and as a means of personal advancement.

[Tamrin]

John Hamill, who is regarded as one of the world's foremost masonic scholars and historians, concluded his address entitled Whence Come We? (p.18), by asking:

Do we actually want to find out our origins? If we did the event would be greeted with great joy by Masonic historians. But it would be joy tinged with sadness for were our origins found I and many other Masonic students would be deprived of the great fun and enjoyment of the search for, and the argument over, that great question - what was the origin of Freemasonry?

Hamill's question illustrates one of the most frustrating features of masonic research. Basically, there are those who indulge in such research who regard it as a fairly pointless, but stimulating, intellectual diversion. Such people are reluctant to reach conclusions and relish pointing out the minutia of deficiencies in even the most straightforward case. Their standards of proof go well beyond those required to favour an academic conclusion and even beyond the burden of reasonable doubt, as required in criminal cases.

One means by which the debate is perpetuated, is to present various theories of origin as if they were mutually incompatible, without exploring how the evidence for each may be reconciled with alternative theories. For instance, describing stonemasons as 'operatives' and modern Freemasons as 'speculatives', unnecessarily implies that the stonemasons did not speculate upon social, moral or spiritual allegories related to their work.

While there are records of speculative Freemasons being admitted to operative lodges, there is usually thought to be no record of any operative lodge developing into a speculative lodge, (with the possible exception of the guild of masons at Lincoln). Even so, the theory of such a development has received the most support and is historically the most credible. Jones supports the theory, saying (p.19):

Freemasonry has two histories - the one, legendary and traditional, going back almost to the dawn of architecture; the other, authentic, covering a period of a few hundred years and deriving in some part form the ancient craft guilds and fraternities whose fortunes rose and fell in England with the Gothic period; in that particular period are believed to lie the main roots of world freemasonry.

Despite this general agreement, the origins of modern Freemasonry remains controversial. Opinions range between two extremes: One traces freemasonry from the 'Creation', with Adam as the first Grand Master! Overreaching theories, such as this, include the tradition being developed and transmitted through groups such as the ancient mystery schools.

The other extremity of opinion insists that modern, speculative Freemasonry simply began with the formation of the premier Grand Lodge in 1717. Between these extremes is a continuum wherein opinions largely depend on the importance given to either Freemasonry's generic identity with other groups or to its specific identity arising from the formation of the premier Grand Lodge. Significantly, the founders or reformers in 1717 claimed to be continuing a more ancient tradition and ostensibly invoked that tradition to legitimise their actions. Yet for their part, they had little compunction in reordering the rudimentary rituals of their two Craft degrees and creating a third!?