The Masonic world has been productive of three types of historians. Of the visionary school who have been largely responsible for the dissemination of many false statements and doctrines concerning Freemasonry may be mentioned Laurie, who as sociated the fraternity with the earliest religious rites; Fellows, who declared that it originated with the pagan mysteries; Oliver, who connected Masonic symbolism with the Tower of Babel; Holland, who sought to prove that Masonry was concerned with the erection of the pyramids; and lastly, Anderson, who traced it to the first man. The works of these men even to this day form the basis of many Masonic libraries, and their statements are accepted without question by the casual reader. These books very often fall into the hands of young Masons who are more or less influenced by the erroneous impressions which they impart.

In the nineteenth century, a new class of historians came into prominence who refused to accept the legendary history of the fraternity as f act, but who demanded documentary evidence in order to prove any given claim concerning the remote antiquity of the society. Among this class of writers may be mentioned Mackey, Gould, Hughan, Speth, Crawley, Robbins, and others. These men have perhaps rendered the craft a greater service than any known writers for they dispelled much of the doubt concerning the origin and early history of the society and destroyed many false notions which have been held by Masons concerning the institution. These men have been classed as ultra-extremists by a modern school of writers who have declared that we have no right to doubt the legendary history of the fraternity because of the absence of documentary evidence for the reason that for many years all that was known concerning Freemasonry was acquired by oral transmission, and that it is only recently that rituals and dissertations upon the esoteric features of the fraternity have been considered proper subjects for open discussion.

Regardless of the position taken, Freemasonry cannot claim special means of establishing antiquity, nor can it set up rules which are at variance with the generally accepted methods of reaching historical authenticity such as are demanded in the world of critical analysis and research, namely, the presentation of documentary and historical data of unimpeachable veracity.

It is strange but nevertheless true that many Masons, in the absence of authentic data concerning the early history of the society, have seized upon the obscure origin of the fraternity as an excuse for their exorbitant claims. They have assumed the same right to set up the Solomonic theory as has the critical student to place its beginnings with the formation of the Grand Lodge of England in the year 1717. A flow of words and a facile and ornate pen are oft' times not accompanied by critical carefulness and deliberate judgment. Of the many books and articles which have been written concerning Freemasonry, there are but few which will stand the cold test of modern criticism. The Masonic archaeologist who locates the origin of Masonry in the early periods of the world always fails to explain just how it was preserved through the hundreds of years precedent to its appearance in semi-organized form at the commencement of the eighteenth century, which proves conclusively that many of the written works on the antiquity of Masonry are simply based upon hasty assumption and untenable proposition.

It must not be understood for one moment that the early writers are alone in the matter of promulgating false ideas. It is not unusual even at this late date to hear a Masonic speaker declare Masonry to have been preordained before the creation of the universe. And there are Masons today who brand as a heretic, anyone who dares to assert that Freemasonry in its present form is not over two hundred years old.

It was such conjectures as these recited which drew from Hallam, the most impartial of all historians, the derisive criticism that "The curious subject of Freemasonry has unfortunately been treated only by panegyrists and calumniators each equally mendacious."

There is no disposition on the part of anyone to question the honesty of the old historians nor of the modern enthusiasts on antiquity. There is but one conclusion and that is that each in their Masonic zeal have overlooked the fact that like conditions in all ages produce like results, and simply jumped at the conclusion that ancient mysteries and old world societies were the direct sources from which Freemasonry sprang. Granting that these writers in their research may have found some conditions to warrant their assumptions, it must not be forgotten that however honest a historian may be, he is likely to be deceived. Masonic writers, let it be said, are no more infallible than scientific men. It is related that when Jacob Bobart was keeper of the public gardens at Oxford he took a dead rat, altered its head and tail, distended its skin on each side with two sticks to resemble wings, then let it dry quite hard. In due time, he presented it to the learned professors of the great educational institution for classification. They wrinkled their brows, assumed their most profound attitude, and pronounced it a dragon. As a result, essays were written and poetry composed about this rare relic of an extinct and remarkable species of animal. When it is remembered that all that is known concerning the institution of Freemasonry has, like its legends, been handed down by oral tradition, that there are no existing manuscripts or documents which in any way give authentic proof as to where Freemasonry may have originated or the sources from which it sprang, we can, in a measure, account for the way and manner in which men have been misled.

It should not be forgotten that all the elaborate works on Freemasonry which are available to the Masonic student have been written since most of the existing symbolism and legends became a part of its teachings. Those who were responsible for injecting these various legends and symbolism into Freemasonry accepted them as the gift of a far off past, and took them for their worth without deeming it necessary to establish their historical Masonic value. Thus it is easy to understand that the fabulous stories which were built up concerning the origin of the fraternity were the result of the misleading realism of Masonic teaching rather than any direct purpose to deceive.

The Masonic student needs but to consider the primitive condition of Masonry as it was given to the world in 1717 to understand how the early writers took everything for granted and cared little for authentic proofs. The first Masonic ceremonies consisted of one very simple rite, that of initiation, and it was not until the second decade of the Eighteenth Century that what, in a modern sense, are called degrees were known. Fellowcraft and Master were simply honorary distinctions which existed for quite a period in the early years of the fraternity, and were in no sense degrees but distinguishing titles which were accorded to certain members of the craft and when conferred involved no additional secrets, no ceremonials, and no retirement from the lodge of even the youngest entered apprentice.

It cannot be doubted that as the fraternity grew older and gained in prestige that its ritual, however simple it may have been in the beginning, commenced to receive the attention of those who sought to elaborate upon it. In order to do so these ritual builders drew upon old world societies, mysteries, and traditions. If there is in Freemasonry any similarity between any of its customs and those of the practices of several thousand years ago, it does not mean that Freemasonry had any connection whatsoever with those rites but that they were woven into the fraternity in modern times with a view to enhancing the ritual and investing the fraternity with an atmosphere of antiquity. The incorporation of legends and ceremonials resembling the ancient mysteries is so recent that in making historical research the student must excuse them from any connection whatsoever with Freemasonry. It is not to be disputed that in the legends and ceremonials of Masonry, there have been embodied during the last century and a half, myths resembling those of antiquity, but this proves nothing beyond the fact that those early rites representing as they did the powers and elements of material nature and the movements of heavenly bodies had so impressed themselves upon the susceptibility of the human mind that even at this late date it is a very difficult matter to free ourselves from their influence. All the great religions in the world today have been more or less moulded by ancient rites and teachings. It is not disputed that some of the symbols used in Freemasonry are identical with those made use of in the earliest forms of worship, when light was regarded as a divinity of good and darkness of evil. But this proves nothing more than that those who were responsible for the evolution of Freemasonry seized upon these ancient practices and inserted them in the ritual as an esoteric teaching. There is some analogy between secret societies, brotherhoods, cults, and even with the various religious denominations. In no sense, however, does the relationship prove a common origin, but it establishes beyond per-adventure the fact that men think alike, and resort to the same means to accomplish the end desired.

When the great obelisk at Alexandria, Egypt, was taken down for removal to New York where it now stands in Central Park, there was found beneath the stupendous shaft a stone upon which were inscribed the square and compasses. It was immediately pointed out that these were Ma sonic symbols, and the men concerned in the erection of this shaft were Masons, and therefore Freema sonry could trace its origin to the days of the Pharos. But the Masonic enthusiasts who sought to make great capital out of this discovery, overlooked the fact that the symbols inscribed upon the stone were simply the common working tools of the artisans who had been concerned in the erection of the obelisk, and may have been used by them to express some sort of crude symbolism relating to the work in which they were engaged.

Just as everything had a beginning, so Freemasonry commenced. It is the effort to fix the exact time and place of the birth of the fraternity which has led so many Masons into error and given rise to the multitude of theories concerning its origin and development. It should be remembered that all great ethical systems are growths and not discoveries. No man discovered law or can locate its beginning; no man invented education, or can name its birth place ; nor is it possible to state when religion took its place in the moral sphere of man. These great forces spring from the needs of the human soul, and are the result of growth and development. The same thing is true with Freemasonry. It was not created, but grew out of the I past. Great institutions are not struck off in a single moment. I They are the slow deliberate work of the years. They are not put together by rule and formula, but like the works of nature, derive their qualities from the conditions which produce them and the elements which sustain them.

To understand the history of Freemasonry, it is necessary to study the social, moral, and spiritual de velopment of the human race. It was a fable that Minerva sprang full armed from the brain of Jove. It would be a fable to say that Freemasonry came from a single mind. Like all human institutions which survive the throes of time, it is the outgrowth of conditions which provoked its necessity. Freemasonry is an evolution not something which has been created in a moment. It has grown little by little from out the accumulating needs and experiences of mankind. From its inception it has been distinguished by a potential force ever pushing it upward and forward toward a definite unity and a higher reality. As the human race has progressed in its evolution, Freemasonry has likewise been growing toward a greater and fuller adjustment of the ever increasing needs of the human race.

A careful study of such fragmentary facts as may be gathered concerning the beginnings of Freemasonry convinces the unprejudiced student that it is merely the product of social and moral evolution. To get even the faintest idea of the causes which led to its organization, we must study the history of the world for nearly two thousand years, examining the fragmentary and obscure history of the college of architects of Rome, the traveling Freemasons of the middle ages, the stone masons corporation of Germany, the masonic guilds of Europe. Even then we can find nothing that bears the slightest resemblance to Masonry of the present day and age, but we do find traces of human longings, aspirations, and hopes which prophesy the coming of an era of brotherhood and humanity.

Back to History and Evolution of Freemasonry [ Next ] [ Previous ]