|
1717
Feb 13, 2005 13:01:58 GMT
Post by symbol on Feb 13, 2005 13:01:58 GMT
What was Freemasonry doing for all that time previous to 1717 that required such secrecy and how did the penalties become so 'physical' for revealing its secrets. I understand that these can be considered 'symbolic' penalties, but why would such penalties be required to join a humble stone masons guild?
What happened to the masons lodges that refused to join the new Grand Lodge? Did they all just jump for joy because the new Grand Lodge suddenly become public and reveal that the secrets exsisted. ( which they had been hiding for years , centeries even?) Or did some remain secret and refuse to join in and play the game,,,,, do these still exsist today and if so how would we know? So any members present? Please feel free to pm me.
Ive loads of other questions but that may be enough in one post. I had a knock back for a while and i started to doubt an awful lot of what i have belived in BUT its started me on a new track so theres a moral there somewhere.
|
|
staffs
Administrator
Staffs
Posts: 3,295
|
1717
Feb 13, 2005 13:04:02 GMT
Post by staffs on Feb 13, 2005 13:04:02 GMT
Nice post Symbol.i look forward to the replies
|
|
|
1717
Feb 13, 2005 15:56:05 GMT
Post by mrmason on Feb 13, 2005 15:56:05 GMT
My own view is that the craft both speculative and operative was in full swing in Scotland at this time. England IMHO seen what was happening and formed a body from an idea that was already around. Freemasonry in Scotland was never hidden as it was a part of the social structure of the time and in many cases still is. Many old lodge records prove this as well as local civic records which show that the masons Incorporations were told by the local burghs to look after there own with regards benevolence/widows etc. So strong was the link with the operative mason that in Scotland it was common for a purely speculative lodges to outwardly seek operative brethren to join to try and give those particular lodges creedence.
|
|
|
1717
Feb 13, 2005 16:13:43 GMT
Post by symbol on Feb 13, 2005 16:13:43 GMT
hi Mr mason So if it was always in full view at that time what was the purpose of being secret with such emphasus. does this mean that the English romantasied operative masonry from 1717 onwards and added or rather took Scottish Masonry that was fully formed and running previous to this date. If this is so why all the speculation about the Freemasons, the history is simply that it arrived from Scotland and adapted for the English taste and agenda of the time, on or around this date.
|
|
|
1717
Feb 13, 2005 16:42:34 GMT
Post by mrmason on Feb 13, 2005 16:42:34 GMT
Hi Symbol. basicly yes!! IMHO. Other might disagree, however it all makes for an excellent discussion.
One theory is that in England, lodges were created by gentlemen for gentlemen, where as in Scotland the development from operative to speculative is well recorded, particularly in early lodge records. The only early secrets in Scottish Masonry was what was known as the "Mason's Word" This was an early form of proving you were, who you said you were.
|
|
|
1717
Feb 13, 2005 18:40:33 GMT
Post by symbol on Feb 13, 2005 18:40:33 GMT
Just wait til Mr Lomas reads this, We should get this down in a book fast cos this will blow the Masonic world apart. See what can be achieved chaps when two brilliant minds (well mines not that hot actually) come together on a forum such as this. And on a dull Sunday afternoon the Masonic mysteries solved. ;D If i knew it was for gentlemen, i would never have joined. But there are one or two little grey areas ,,,,,what then does the (possibly) french derived words cowan, lewis, Hiram Abiff, etc etc come from, was French spoken alot in the Scottish operative masons lodges.
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
1717
Feb 13, 2005 23:49:14 GMT
Post by ruffashlar on Feb 13, 2005 23:49:14 GMT
Symbol,
Now, you know that would never work. A book about the Masons which says that really there never were very many secrets at all will die like a turkey tied to the Titanic.
But if the book says, aw yeah, they're up to their necks in secrets, bad evil nasty ones, well, that reads as more plausible.
|
|
Harmony
Member
The Craft ; 1241 & 1386 & 1706 (Hon) (SC). OSM - Polnoon Castle Conclave. HRA - Rockmount & Camphi
Posts: 337
|
1717
Feb 14, 2005 9:25:49 GMT
Post by Harmony on Feb 14, 2005 9:25:49 GMT
But there are one or two little grey areas ,,,,,what then does the (possibly) french derived words cowan, lewis, Hiram Abiff, etc etc come from, was French spoken alot in the Scottish operative masons lodges. It is very possible - Scots is littered with French words (especially teh Doric which is spoken in the north east). An example is the use of the word Ashet for plate or dish.
|
|
|
1717
Feb 14, 2005 9:58:56 GMT
Post by hollandr on Feb 14, 2005 9:58:56 GMT
Symbol
Good questions all of them.
Now firstly you might be better off not thinking of Freemasonry as a single entity. There may well have been a number of organisations that found it useful to conceal themselves in Masonry rather than go out of existence. This gave rise to a number of the higher degrees.
Some family (bloodline) rituals exist outside Masonry that could well have been accepted within Masonry. The Montgomery family is said still to have one such.
Then of course there are bloodline groups that would not be acceptable within Masonry - being too far from the landmarks or under incompatible sponsors.
Of course craft Masons claim to be a bloodline group - being all descended from the Widow. (note the ritual - at least the ones I know - only refer to the origin of a widow. Somehow that gets changed into The Widow)
There was a downside to hiding in Masonry - the organisations lost control of who entered and thereby probably lost control of their organisations.
The symbolic penalties are likely not the punishments inflicted on ill-behaved stonemasons but come to us from the mystery temples where the penalty for breaking secrecy was always death.
The EA penalty may be literal from temple days but in any case refers to the need for being silent about the mysteries before the profane.
The FC penalty helps us understand the meaning of the MC of KST
The MM penalty marks the release of the real MM from domination by the lower chakras.
I recall Blavatsky writing about 1890 that no Masonic lodges still held the Masonic secrets. She did not say that no Masons held the secrets.
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
1717
Feb 14, 2005 16:40:58 GMT
Post by Trinityman on Feb 14, 2005 16:40:58 GMT
What was Freemasonry doing for all that time previous to 1717 that required such secrecy and how did the penalties become so 'physical' for revealing its secrets. I understand that these can be considered 'symbolic' penalties, but why would such penalties be required to join a humble stone masons guild? I guess we could look upon the penalties as a 'sign of the times'. In a period of our history where violent death was waiting just around the corner, and you could be hung for stealing a sheep, or a penny; it was quite natural, and indeed relatively commonplace, to make such blood curdling oaths. There is a non-masonic equivalent which is still in common use today: "Cross my heart and hope to die If I should ever tell a lie"This is often accompanied by a crossing of the heart, and is effectively saying "if I am lying to you then you can cut my heart out". No-one means this literally these days, least of all the children in the playground who are the most likely to use the phrase . The traditional penalties of freemasonry should be looked at in exactly the same way - they are, and always were, symbolic - underlining how serious the individual was about the promise he was giving without ever expecting the literal punishment to take place. There are many legacies of our more brutal past still around today, notably in certain nursery rhymes, but unfortunately there are those amongst our detractors who are not willing to do the (very basic) homework and discover the reality behind our colourful rituals.
|
|
|
1717
Feb 15, 2005 20:17:36 GMT
Post by symbol on Feb 15, 2005 20:17:36 GMT
Yes i agree supposing they were all symbolic ( the Oaths) then thats one tradition in Masonry thats dissolving in front of me,,, geez theres been an awful lot lately.
If English masonry came to be as a Gentlemans club in the 18th century basing its form on Scottish Masonry then what is the back bone of English Masonry, all that ritual learning ,, for what?
I know that each take what they want from it and im just thinking aloud...
|
|
|
1717
Feb 15, 2005 20:52:05 GMT
Post by billmcelligott on Feb 15, 2005 20:52:05 GMT
We are to quick to defer to a popular belief that evrything in early masonry was symbolic. If we look at the facts surrounding this period of History the populous was taking violent forms of punishment as every day events. for example: The full sentence passed upon those convicted of High Treason up to 1870 was as follows : That you be drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution where you shall be hanged by the neck and being alive cut down, your privy members shall be cut off and your bowels taken out and burned before you, your head severed from your body and your body divided into four quarters to be disposed of at the King’s pleasure.” So not for the feint hearted then!! www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/hdq.htmlThe Guillotine From Robert Wilde, Your Guide to European History. FREE GIFT with Newsletter! Act Now! Part 4: The Terror Perhaps the most unusual aspect of the guillotine's history is the sheer speed and scale of its adoption and use. Born out of a discussion in 1789 that had actually considered banning the death penalty, the machine had been used to kill over 15,000 people by the Revolution's close in 1799, despite not being fully invented until the middle of 1792. Indeed, by 1795, only a year and a half after its first use, the guillotine had decapitated over a thousand people in Paris alone. Timing certainly played a part, because the machine was introduced across France only months before a bloody new period in the revolution: The Terror. 1636 The Massachusetts Bay Colony lists 13 crimes punishable by death, including idolatry and witchcraft. 1791 The Bill of Rights is ratified, including the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits the imposition of cruel and unusual punishments. Nevertheless, the practice of capital punishment is universally accepted and it is understood at the time that the Eighth Amendment was not intended to stop it. 1793 Pennsylvania invents degrees of murder, recognizing qualitative differences in the kinds of murder, some not necessarily deserving of a death sentence. This was a compromise between pacifist Quakers who opposed the death penalty and capital punishment supporters. 1833 In the face of public executions becoming chaotic, carnival-like spectacles, with rowdy crowds becoming increasingly violent, Rhode Island becomes the first state to require private hangings. New York follows suit in 1835. Why should we today think for one minute that the original penalties were exagerated.
|
|
|
1717
Feb 15, 2005 21:00:22 GMT
Post by middlepillar on Feb 15, 2005 21:00:22 GMT
Nice Bill, very nice A very comprehensive reasoning!
|
|
|
1717
Feb 15, 2005 21:48:05 GMT
Post by Mikepm on Feb 15, 2005 21:48:05 GMT
We are to quick to defer to a popular belief that evrything in early masonry was symbolic. If we look at the facts surrounding this period of History the populous was taking violent forms of punishment as every day events. for example: The full sentence passed upon those convicted of High Treason up to 1870 was as follows : That you be drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution where you shall be hanged by the neck and being alive cut down, your privy members shall be cut off and your bowels taken out and burned before you, your head severed from your body and your body divided into four quarters to be disposed of at the King’s pleasure.” So not for the feint hearted then!! www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/hdq.htmlThe Guillotine From Robert Wilde, Your Guide to European History. FREE GIFT with Newsletter! Act Now! Part 4: The Terror Perhaps the most unusual aspect of the guillotine's history is the sheer speed and scale of its adoption and use. Born out of a discussion in 1789 that had actually considered banning the death penalty, the machine had been used to kill over 15,000 people by the Revolution's close in 1799, despite not being fully invented until the middle of 1792. Indeed, by 1795, only a year and a half after its first use, the guillotine had decapitated over a thousand people in Paris alone. Timing certainly played a part, because the machine was introduced across France only months before a bloody new period in the revolution: The Terror. 1636 The Massachusetts Bay Colony lists 13 crimes punishable by death, including idolatry and witchcraft. 1791 The Bill of Rights is ratified, including the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits the imposition of cruel and unusual punishments. Nevertheless, the practice of capital punishment is universally accepted and it is understood at the time that the Eighth Amendment was not intended to stop it. 1793 Pennsylvania invents degrees of murder, recognizing qualitative differences in the kinds of murder, some not necessarily deserving of a death sentence. This was a compromise between pacifist Quakers who opposed the death penalty and capital punishment supporters. 1833 In the face of public executions becoming chaotic, carnival-like spectacles, with rowdy crowds becoming increasingly violent, Rhode Island becomes the first state to require private hangings. New York follows suit in 1835. Why should we today think for one minute that the original penalties were exagerated. Basicly it was known as Hanged, Drawn, & Quartered, which was performed down the thames, where the prisoners were marched from the sessions house, (now Clerkenwell masonic Centre) or from there to newdgate prison. 1717 was when the Ancients & Moderns joined as one, to a fashion, English masonry was about before then, read the book on Ashmole, or The Green Man.
|
|
sarge
Member
peace and harmony
Posts: 224
|
1717
Feb 15, 2005 22:36:42 GMT
Post by sarge on Feb 15, 2005 22:36:42 GMT
Symbol re your first post, I have just started reading "The invisible college by Robert Lomas . It is about the early "Royal Society" Freemasonry and the birth of modern science.there is a web site www.robertlomas.com where the text of William Preston's book "Illustrations of Masonry" published in 1772 is available as a web book. hope this is of some use sarge
|
|
|
1717
Feb 16, 2005 0:58:53 GMT
Post by billmcelligott on Feb 16, 2005 0:58:53 GMT
The first record of the ‘making’ of an English Freemason is Elias Ashmole, the antiquarian and herald, whose collections formed the basis of the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford. He recorded in his diary that a lodge met at his father-in-law’s house in Warrington, Cheshire on 16 October 1646 to make him a Mason. None of those involved was a stonemason. In the later 1600s there is further evidence for the existence of Freemasonry as a separate organisation unrelated to groups controlling the stonemason’s craft. www.grandlodge-england.org/ugle/the-history-of-grand-lodge.htm Origin Of The Grand Lodge In 1717 four Lodges in London met together and decided to form a Grand Lodge, possibly for no other reason than to strengthen and preserve themselves. In 1723 they adopted a Constitution. Their success led to the establishment of still other Grand Lodges. In 1725 some of the Lodges in Ireland formed a Grand Lodge and a similar body was instituted in Scotland in 1736. Moreover the original Grand Lodge in England did not remain without rivals, and at one time in the eighteenth century three Grand Lodges existed in England in addition to the one organized in 1717. Two of these died out without influencing the history of Masonry in general, but the third had a great part in the spread and popularizing of Masonry throughout the world. It called itself the Ancient Grand Lodge. The two surviving Grand Lodges were long and vigorous rivals, but they finally united in 1813 into the present United Grand Lodge of England. Thus, from one of these two Grand Bodies in England, or from those of Ireland or Scotland, all other Grand Lodges in the world today are decended. Titles of Grand Lodges in the United States also vary. Some Grand Lodges are called A. F. & A. M. which means Ancient Free and Accepted Masons. The most commonly used title, like that used in Arizona, is F. & A. M., or Free and Accepted Masons. Masonry was established in France sometime between 1718 and 1725. The first lodge in Spain was established in 1728. A lodge was established in Prague in 1729, in Calcutta in 1728 and in Naples in 1731. Masonry came to Poland in 1734 and Sweden in 1735. The growth of Freemasonry and its ideals and beliefs came not without opposition. Masons are taught that all men are equal - We meet upon the level. Individual freedom of thought and action, as well as morality and ethics, are the concepts and ideals upon which our order is founded. The teachings are a condemnation of autocratic government, who in turn condemn Freemasonry. 64.45.43.99/aboutus/history.htm Interesting background: www.glmasons-mass.org/Grand_Lodge/WHO/history.htmTrust the Colonies to have better information than the English: freemasonry.bcy.ca/Writings/afandam.html
|
|
|
1717
Feb 16, 2005 6:19:31 GMT
Post by Trinityman on Feb 16, 2005 6:19:31 GMT
Bill
There's no doubt that similar punishments as described existed at the time - in fact I said as much myself - but there's a huge leap to the conclusion that they were ever intended to be invoked.
If I said to you "Give me Life with a recommendation for a minimum term of 17 years if I ever tell a lie" I can assure you I would not be intending to say bye-bye until 2022 should I slip a whopper in by accident.
We are trying to demonstrate just how unlikely we are to break our obligations. Clearly giving one's word on the Holy Bible wasn't enough - eternal dxmnation had to be backed up with some painful way of despatching the miscreant to his maker post haste. "No less a penalty of having your hand slapped and sent to bed without any supper" doesn't seem to have the same impact ;D
|
|
|
1717
Feb 16, 2005 11:17:27 GMT
Post by billmcelligott on Feb 16, 2005 11:17:27 GMT
You miss my point. What I am saying is that at this point in history , no one would have raised an eyebrow at the inclusion of such a penalty being included in the obligation of a mason. It was common language and common practice.
What we try to say now is , "Oh no that was never meant to be taken literally", well I belive it was.
What sounds much more plausible to me is , " Yes that was a serious penalty , but we have left it in to demonstrate how seriously we take this obligation. It is now only symbolic in nature"
This is a reasonable comment as supported by the fact that in the last 250 yaers not one incident has been reported of any person being involved in any way in such a penalty.
It is in the end just a matter of opinion.
|
|
|
1717
Feb 16, 2005 23:17:05 GMT
Post by taylorsman on Feb 16, 2005 23:17:05 GMT
I go for the argument that these were the punishments what would have been inflicted in olden times on a Brother who betrayed the secrets and thus the Members of his Brotherhood. This could be at the hands of the Inquisition, KGB, Gestapo, etc, rather than what his own people would do to him for breaking their trust.
Of course when Speculative Freemasonry came down the England from Scotland about the time of the Restoration, some say at the hands of General George Monck, Duke of Albemarle, such draconian physical punishments were commonplace , hanging, drawing , quartering, being branded, tongue torn out, ears cut off etc, and some cultures still inflict these. I wonder in these days of no Capital or Corporal Punishment in European Society what sanctions we would apply, "Under no less a penalty than of being forced to attend Special Counselling and a Truthfullness Awareness Workshop and Group Bonding Sessions"
|
|
|
1717
Feb 17, 2005 3:29:05 GMT
Post by billmcelligott on Feb 17, 2005 3:29:05 GMT
Very good, I for one would have to resign ? ;D
|
|