-
Articles/Ads
Article C0ERE8P0NI>E^CE. ← Page 3 of 5 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
C0ere8p0ni>E^Ce.
Bro . Smith ' s letter , however , suggests some other points to which I hape some of your archaeological readers will devote their attention ; premising that nothing but extrinsic evidence will suffice , and all reference to '" old Masonic traditions , " or " time immemorial , " is of no avail , since these rarely extend beyond what the neutral world calls fifty or a hundred years . First—When was the appellation Free first given to distinguish the speculative
from the operative Mason ? I know of no degree , except one , that could be called speculative , till about the commencement of last century . That one is believed to have been instituted in the tenth or eleventh centuries , for giving instruction to Master Masons ( i . e . Masters of Lodges ) : certainly not before that ; and as it is purely Christian , it cannot be given in an ordinary Lodge . In its ritual the appellation Free is rarely introduced , and only in places where it may have been an after-ihterpolation .
Second . — Was any distinction made between : " Free " and operative Masonry before the end of the seventeenth , or beginning of the eighteenth centuries 1 Third . — -When were individuals not architects or operative masons first admitted to the Fraternity 1 Hobison states that " -the- first distinct and unequivocal instance " is the admission of Mr . Ashmole and Colonel Mainwaring , in 1648 , into a Lodge at Warrington .
Fourth . —Were any allowed to follow a trade or profession , especially in towns , without first belonging to the guild or corporation of that town ? Or were all such obliged to become free of that guild ? Kobison says : " ' "A person who has the privilege of working at any incorporated trade is said , to , be- a freeman of that trade ; others were accepted as Brethren , and admitted to a kind of honorary freedom , as is the case in many other trades and incorporations . "
Fifth . —Were not all trades included under the same guild , originally one corporation , although afterwards ' separated , each forming a corporation by itself ? Sixth . —Was there not a peculiar and secret ceremonial practised at conferring the freedom ? In many places carpenters or wrights , gardeners , & c . still retain ceremonials which indicate that these are all offsets of one craft . That the " freedom of the city" is now conferred on many distinguished men without a ceremony , as a compliment , is no proof that such did not exist for centuries after the foundation of the guild .
Seventh . —Was it not requisite to have a private mode of recognition by which artizans could prove their freedom when travelling in search of employment , at a time when reading and writing was not very customary ? I can see a much better practical reason for such among operative , than among speculative Masons . Eighth . —May not the word free-born , as used by Masons , have originally referred to those who were descendants of freemen ?
Ninth . —Did not all the great orders of Knightjhood require postulants to submit to a private or secret ceremonial before admission ? It is well known to have Deen so with the Knights Templar , Knights of the Bath ,. and some others—such ceremonials implying a lustration , purification , or separation from others . Repugnant although it be to our pride as Freemasons to think that our glorious art was one and the same with , and only separated from operative masonry about 150 years ago , still it seems the only conclusion at which an unbiassed mind can arrive . It maybe some consolation to think that , in early ages , " Masonry " and
" learning " were of the same import . In Egypt all learning was confined to the priests or such few others , chiefly princes , whom they associated with them : religion was the chief object ; arts and sciences were of secondary importance ; buildings were , however , under their superintendence . When science or Masonry was transplanted into Greece , and taught at Eleusis , religion was also the primary object , science secondary ; that is , speculative Masonry preponderated over the
operative . But this was not likely to please the tastes of all . Those engaged m the erection of buildings would naturally consider practice better than theory ; and the result was an emigration of builders to the coasts of Ionia and Syria . These latter had their chief residence at By bins ( Greek ) , or Gebal ( Hebrew ) , whence in the Bible they are called Gibblim or Ghibblites , or " stone-sqnarers . " Here architecture became the main object , but a religious ceremonial of admission
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
C0ere8p0ni>E^Ce.
Bro . Smith ' s letter , however , suggests some other points to which I hape some of your archaeological readers will devote their attention ; premising that nothing but extrinsic evidence will suffice , and all reference to '" old Masonic traditions , " or " time immemorial , " is of no avail , since these rarely extend beyond what the neutral world calls fifty or a hundred years . First—When was the appellation Free first given to distinguish the speculative
from the operative Mason ? I know of no degree , except one , that could be called speculative , till about the commencement of last century . That one is believed to have been instituted in the tenth or eleventh centuries , for giving instruction to Master Masons ( i . e . Masters of Lodges ) : certainly not before that ; and as it is purely Christian , it cannot be given in an ordinary Lodge . In its ritual the appellation Free is rarely introduced , and only in places where it may have been an after-ihterpolation .
Second . — Was any distinction made between : " Free " and operative Masonry before the end of the seventeenth , or beginning of the eighteenth centuries 1 Third . — -When were individuals not architects or operative masons first admitted to the Fraternity 1 Hobison states that " -the- first distinct and unequivocal instance " is the admission of Mr . Ashmole and Colonel Mainwaring , in 1648 , into a Lodge at Warrington .
Fourth . —Were any allowed to follow a trade or profession , especially in towns , without first belonging to the guild or corporation of that town ? Or were all such obliged to become free of that guild ? Kobison says : " ' "A person who has the privilege of working at any incorporated trade is said , to , be- a freeman of that trade ; others were accepted as Brethren , and admitted to a kind of honorary freedom , as is the case in many other trades and incorporations . "
Fifth . —Were not all trades included under the same guild , originally one corporation , although afterwards ' separated , each forming a corporation by itself ? Sixth . —Was there not a peculiar and secret ceremonial practised at conferring the freedom ? In many places carpenters or wrights , gardeners , & c . still retain ceremonials which indicate that these are all offsets of one craft . That the " freedom of the city" is now conferred on many distinguished men without a ceremony , as a compliment , is no proof that such did not exist for centuries after the foundation of the guild .
Seventh . —Was it not requisite to have a private mode of recognition by which artizans could prove their freedom when travelling in search of employment , at a time when reading and writing was not very customary ? I can see a much better practical reason for such among operative , than among speculative Masons . Eighth . —May not the word free-born , as used by Masons , have originally referred to those who were descendants of freemen ?
Ninth . —Did not all the great orders of Knightjhood require postulants to submit to a private or secret ceremonial before admission ? It is well known to have Deen so with the Knights Templar , Knights of the Bath ,. and some others—such ceremonials implying a lustration , purification , or separation from others . Repugnant although it be to our pride as Freemasons to think that our glorious art was one and the same with , and only separated from operative masonry about 150 years ago , still it seems the only conclusion at which an unbiassed mind can arrive . It maybe some consolation to think that , in early ages , " Masonry " and
" learning " were of the same import . In Egypt all learning was confined to the priests or such few others , chiefly princes , whom they associated with them : religion was the chief object ; arts and sciences were of secondary importance ; buildings were , however , under their superintendence . When science or Masonry was transplanted into Greece , and taught at Eleusis , religion was also the primary object , science secondary ; that is , speculative Masonry preponderated over the
operative . But this was not likely to please the tastes of all . Those engaged m the erection of buildings would naturally consider practice better than theory ; and the result was an emigration of builders to the coasts of Ionia and Syria . These latter had their chief residence at By bins ( Greek ) , or Gebal ( Hebrew ) , whence in the Bible they are called Gibblim or Ghibblites , or " stone-sqnarers . " Here architecture became the main object , but a religious ceremonial of admission