history 11

HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY

CHAPTER XI

THE OPERATIVE MASONS

by H.L. HAYWOOD

IF the date assigned by scholarship is correct, the oldest existing

Masonic manuscript, the Regius poem, was penned in the year

1390. In that year King Richard II was on the throne of England;

the battle of Agincourt had not yet been fought; the War of the

Roses as yet in the future and the first voyage of Columbus to the

New World was not to begin for more than another century.

Almost three-quarters of a century were to pass before Martin

Luther's birth. All over Europe men were still building cathedrals

in the Gothic style, although that school of architecture had entered

upon its final phases of decline. The guild system was in its heyday

in England and on the continent. It had not yet become fashionable

- in England at least - to burn heretics at the stake. Legal issues

might still be decided in trial by combat.

The Regius manuscript contains a set of rules and regulations for

the government of what was obviously a guild of craftsmen; in the

light of modern research it is possible to ascertain that the society

was organized upon much the same general plan as were the

majority of operative guilds of that day. But the Regius poem is of

far greater importance than that. It was a patent attempt to account

to the English members of an English institution for an antiquity of

that institution in which they already believed. Presumably it was

to be read to men whose fathers and grandfathers and probably

great grandfathers had belonged. It gave naive credence to a

tradition that the society had been in continuous existence on

English soil since the days of Athelstan - which was to say since

before the Norman conquest. It is clear from the rhymed narrative

itself that its author had no real sense of the passage of time. What

he did know, however, was that the society was very old - or at

least so old that the traditions and memories of persons then living

did not run back to a time when it did not exist.

In some manner this particular manuscript was lost to sight, to

remain lost for some 450 years. At any rate when the first Grand

Lodge was formed, about 325 years after it was penned, and

diligent search was made for all the writings having to do with

Operative Masonry, this one for the time escaped attention. There

were other and later ones, however, and these contained

substantially the same material, thus indicating the persistence of

the Regius tradition. At least six of these were in possession of the

old "immemorial" Lodge at York - a lodge which held itself out to

be the direct lineal descendant of the masonry of Athelstan's day.

Not a few such lodges were scattered about England and Scotland

at that time, unmistakable survivors of the guild system of the

Middle Ages. One of the first tasks the new Grand Lodge set for

itself was to gather, digest and publish in literary form all that

could be learned of the operative guilds and particularly their

legends, customs, laws and regulations. More than a century after

that had been done, the Regius manuscript was rediscovered, to

bear eloquent testimony to the fact that there had been no great

alteration in the practices and beliefs of the operative masons

between the reign of Richard II and the reign of George I, a period

of more than three centuries.

Taking the year 1400 as a point of departure from which to

measure English Masonic history both forward and backward, it is

therefore clear: (1) that before that time, and probably for a

considerable period before it, operative masonic guilds were in

existence in England; that they had a substantial literary tradition

and customs established by immemorial usage; (2) that they

continued to exist for another 300 years with relatively little

change in either customs or traditions; and (3) that surviving units

or "lodges" of them participated in the eighteenth-century

movement which centered on the formation of the first Grand

Lodge, from which Speculative Freemasonry dates its present form

of existence.

For purposes of discussion it may be assumed that even if there

had been no operative societies coming down from a remoter

antiquity, the guild system itself would have produced them. When

artisans of all other classes and callings were uniting themselves

into such groups, it would have been strange indeed if the stone

masons had not done so also. If not a single record of their

medieval existence could be found, it still would be safe to infer

they did exist. As a matter of fact there are records of Masonic

guilds both in England and on the continent. The term Freemason

occurs in the fabric rolls of Exeter Cathedral in the year 1396. The

guild at London in 1537 called its members Freemasons; at

Norwich in 1375 masons appear to have been attached to the guild

of carpenters; whether that was a purely local or a general

arrangement at the time there is no way of knowing.

It is interesting to observe, however, that in the year 1350 two

separate classes of masons were recognized. A statute of that

period describes a mestre mason de franche pere - a master mason

of free stone - as being different from other masons and entitled to

higher pay. That distinction is maintained in a statute of 1360

except that in the later one the preferred workman is called a "chief

mestre" of masons. The common mason appears to have been

classified generally with "carpenters, tilers, thatchers, daubers and

all other labourers." As late as 1604 an incorporation at Oxford

included freemasons, carpenters, joiners and slaters. It is evident

from the records of smaller towns that mason guilds were not

numerous or particularly important, a fact which in itself is

illuminating. It marks one great respect in which these bodies

differed from all other craft organizations, for they were essentially

local institutions, made up of workmen who remained in one town

and usually in one quarter of the town, whereas the skilled masons

who worked in the building of the Gothic cathedrals had from the

nature of their calling to be more or less itinerant, moving about

from place to place as work was to be found.

In an enumeration of the guilds entitled to representation in the

Common Council of London in 1370, a Company of Freemasons

was listed and a Company of Masons, standing respectively as No.

17 and No. 34 on a roll of forty-eight. The Company of Masons

appears to have been of greater numerical strength than the

Company of Freemasons, since it had four representatives as

against two for the other. Whether, as Mackey's History of

Freemasonry suggests, this indicates that the Freemasons formed a

smaller and more select society, is pure speculation, since no proof

one way or the other has been found, but as a guess it is decidedly

plausible. In any event, the list establishes the existence of two

separate guilds. Ultimately they were merged, taking a coat of

arms which displayed three white castles with black doors and

windows on a black field, together with a silver or scalloped

chevron and on it a pair of black compasses.

It is therefore possible to be reasonably sure of the following facts

pertaining to the general situation of Operative Masonry at the time

the Regius manuscript was presumably written, that is, in the year

1390:

I. That it was occasionally divided into two general classes

respectively mentioned as Freemasons and as Masons;

II. That town guilds of masons were small and relatively

unimportant as compared with town guilds of other kinds;

III. That town mason guilds frequently united with, or formed parts

of, guilds of other workers employed in the building trades;

IV. That it is probable no wide gulf separated the two classes of

Masons, since separate guilds of them in London found no

insuperable obstacle in the way of union and particularly since the

Old Charges mention their common art as Masonry, without

drawing invidious distinctions between Masons and Freemasons;

V. That the rules laid down for practical guidance of members of

the Craft corresponded in the main with similar rules laid down in

other craft guilds of that period.

But when the Regius poem was drafted, the active period of Gothic

architecture was already drawing to a close. That period for

centuries had given to the stone masons of Northern and Western

Europe their principal occupation. Its work required a high degree

of skill, which for the most part could not be acquired except by

actual practice in the labor of building just such edifices as the

great churches themselves. The stonework of successive cathedrals

discloses that as fast as problems of construction were solved, the

solutions were passed along to succeeding builders. From quarry to

the finished task every stone had its separate purpose, and

preparation of every stone involved conscious and more or less

skilled direction at the hands of every workman through whose

hands it must pass.

When the curtain first rises on the stage of organize Operative

Masonry, it discloses a society proudly an profoundly self-

conscious. It is a society of aristocrat among workmen, boasting of

an ancestry of incredible age and distinction. It has noble

traditions, and it has dignity of a high order to maintain. Moreover,

it has secrets which at all costs must be preserved, and a esoteric

philosophy which is rooted in the lore of the past. True, it is a guild

and in many respects like all the other guilds which then flourished

as such societies had not flourished before and as they have not

flourished since. But it is more than a guild; it is also a cult, for it

practices mystical rites which are now known to have been

survivals of magic rites and religious observances, coming down

from a past which was indefinitely remote.

The Old Charges bear abundant witness to all these things. Most of

them prescribe the ritualistic manner in which oaths of secrecy

must be administered. One reveals that the candidate was

compelled to swear, "in the presence of Almighty God and my

Fellows and Brethren here present" that he would not by any act or

under any circumstance, "publish, discover, reveal or make known

any of the secrets, privileges or counseIs of the fraternity or

fellowship of Free Masonry." (Harleian MSS.) Those secrets were

indeed well kept; so well, in fact, that the modern Freemason is

much in doubt as to what many of them were and can only suppose

that they had to do with the mechanical science of the operative

calling. As Operative Masonry fell into disuse, some of them

undoubtedly became imbedded in the symbolism and allegory of

rite and ritual, where they remain to this day. Of their origin,

practical use, and indeed of their scope, the present day knows

almost nothing. It is by no means unlikely that as cathedral

building masons merged with the guild masons of the towns, they

saw no reason to impart to their less skilled companions more of

their own secret art than was necessary to give it symbolical or

emblematical preservation; and as "accepted," or non-operative,

masons came in time to outnumber them both, the value of purely

mechanical secrets naturally tended diminish and ultimately to

disappear.

The modern student must bear in mind also that from their very

nature it was unlawful for these things to be written, carved or

engraved upon any movable or immovable thing, in such fashion

that they might become legible or intelligible to a "cowan," or

outsider. The Old Charges must therefore be studied for what they

may suggest "between the lines" as well as for what they openly

say. In actual practice Masons appear always to have been

singularly tenacious of their secret ritualistic "work." Although no

particular care appears to have been taken to keep the Old

Manuscripts from public inspection, secretaries of many

immemorial lodges burned their records rather than have them fall

into the hands of historians appointed by the first Grand Lodge.

Even today conservative brethren, fearing improper disclosures

will be made, look askance upon public discussions of esoteric

matters, and although various Monitors have been published

officially for guidance in the ritualistic labors of the Craft, by far

the greater part of modern ritual may not be lawfully written even

in cipher; Masons who compose ciphers for that purpose or make

use of them are subject to the severest penalties. The only legal

method of passing these secret things from man to man and from

generation to generation is that of mouth-to-ear communication. It

is truly astonishing how accurate and uniform these oral

transmissions have been, and this accuracy is in itself the best

justification of a jealous zeal which forbids oral alteration or other

innovation upon the fundamentals of Craft Masonry.

In the operative days it is clear that mason guilds arose in towns

where there was enough work to support resident craftsmen.

Medieval cities for the most part, however, were built not of stone

but of wood. In such places carpenters were far more in demand,

and it is not surprising to find that carpenter guilds were more

numerous and more important in local affairs than were those of

the workers in stone. Indeed, the stone worker was likely to be

only an auxiliary to the carpenter, performing incidental tasks in

laying foundations for houses, shoring up banks, lining the walls of

excavations, and here and there constructing a small bridge or

culvert. Sometimes there were not enough of them in a town to

conduct their own mystery plays in connection with great pageants.

At Exeter the masons shared a play with the goldsmiths; at York

with the hatmakers.

But when great churches, monasteries, castles or manor houses

were toward, it was a different story. Here the stone worker came

into his own; the carpenter, tiler, slater, glazier, sank into

subordinate positions. Resident mason guilds were neither

numerous enough nor possessed the necessary skill to conduct

enterprises of such magnitude. From afar off, perhaps from foreign

countries, would come the master builder to take the work in hand.

In many instances he brought with him a few especially skilled

assistants who possessed his confidence and who knew how to do

important parts of the work as he liked to have them done. The

bishop, abbot or lord might have in mind a few especially skilled

craftsmen of his own and these of course would be employed.

Masons hearing of the undertaking would begin to drift in from all

directions. They came afoot, making their way from town to town,

visiting local lodges by the way, sure of refreshment and

hospitality and even of financial assistance if they required it.

The gathering of so many strangers in one place would naturally

bring to local authorities unwonted burdens of housing and

policing. In those days, when serfs were tied to their soil and a

considerable proportion of the population of every country was

made up of bondsmen, the masterless man was everywhere

suspect. He might be locked up or even be put to death if he

couldn't give a satisfactory account of himself. An apprentice not

yet free of his indentures was in most respects a bondsman; only

master workmen and fellows, free of their guild, might travel about

in safety, and it was essential that these have with them the means

of proving their identity. It could be assumed, even if there were no

traditions to support the theory, that these traveling craftsmen

possessed methods of making themselves known to local craftsmen

who would vouch for them to the civil authorities. As few could

either read or write, and as written certificates, even if they existed,

might be lost or stolen, they would need to know a method of

proving themselves free craftsmen which would be independent of

articles to be concealed in the clothing or carried about the person.

The method would have to be more or less secret to prevent its use

by impostors.

Common laborers and other classes of workmen would be

recruited from the neighborhood and would be under the direction

of their own masters. The masons, on the other hand, would have

to be subject to other arrangements. But this was an old experience

to them; they knew precisely what ought to be done in such an

emergency.

Their first care was to set up a "lodge." Nearly every craft guild

had its building or other place of work, where the men sometimes

slept or gathered for social intercourse as well as for labor, but the

masons appear to have been alone in applying the term "lodge" to

the organization or assemblage itself as well as to the place of

assembly. In town guilds, as at Aberdeen, where resident brethren

were sufficiently numerous, lodges were housed in permanent

structures. On the site of construction, however, it was usually

sheltered in a temporary shed or lean-to. Here it was a custom for

the craftsmen to take counsel on all matters pertaining to their

general welfare. Here also, apprentices were placed under strict

obligation to preserve the secrets of the logge; to hele, or conceal,

the counsel of their brethren.

Whether initiatory ceremonies were performed in those rooms is

not altogether clear. Survivals in the ritual make it most certain that

at some time lodge meetings were held in the open air, the roof

being nothing lower than the clouded or star-decked canopy of the

heavens. If this was the case, such congregations must have been

in secure places away from the general body of the work, perhaps

on the tops of hills or in deep valleys where sentinels might

observe the approach of "cowans" - that is, non-organized workers

or "scabs" as they are now termed in labor parlance - and

eavesdroppers. Some arrangement of the kind would at least seem

reasonable, since the working hut was usually situated at the heart

of a busy camp surrounded by those of other crafts. Some of the

ceremonials which have come down to modern times manifestly

had their origin in magical practices - practices maintained because

they were supposed to bring "good luck," long after their primitive

function of appeasing the divinities of nature had been forgotten.

Such exercises would serve to impress the novice with the

solemnity and inviolability of his undertakings in addition to

providing him with means of identifying himself should he

afterwards become a sojourner among stranger masons. They

naturally would be screened with the greatest care from the eyes of

the profane.

The principal function of a lodge at the scene of labor was to bring

the masons under a central government, responsible to the general

overseer or superintendent of the work, who might be the master

builder, his agents, the ecclesiastical authorities, the civil

authorities or a committee of laymen. The lodge chose its own

presiding officer, sometimes known as a master, sometimes as a

warden, sometimes, and especially in Scotland, as a deacon. A box

master, or treasurer, was chosen to take care of the common fund.

There were bookkeepers or rolls keepers, whose duty it was to

keep track of the workers and the pay due them or received by

them. In general the officers were as few as might be. Local

conditions sometimes dictated increasing or diminishing the

number. There are no records showing the employment of tylers at

that early day, although it is apparent that some method must have

been employed to keep the lodge free from intrusion when it was

engaged upon its private business. Some of these officers

disappeared entirely in later days, hen the need for them no longer

existed; other officers were created as circumstance might decree.

The Old Charges furnish indications of the kind of rules and

regulations to which the members were subject. From another

source, the Fabric Rolls of York Cathedral, comes a sidelight upon

the working conditions of that period. It is a decree establishing

"Orders for the Masons and workmen," and reads as follows:

"The first and second Masons, who are called masters of the same,

and the carpenters, shall take oath that they cause the ancient

customs underwritten to be faithfully observed. In summer they are

to begin to work immediately after sunrise until the ringing of the

bell of the Virgin Mary; then to breakfast in the fabric room

(logium fabricae), then one of the masters shall knock upon the

door of the lodge, and forthwith all are to return to work until

noon. Between April and August, after dinner, they shall sleep in

the lodge, then work until the first bell for vespers; then sit to drink

till the end of the third bell, and return to work so long as they can

see by daylight. In winter they are to begin work at daybreak, and

to continue as before till noon, dine and return to work till daylight

is over. On Vigils and on Saturdays they are to work until noon."

Masons of the lodge kept themselves strictly apart from unskilled

workers in stone, who were known as rough setters, wallers,

plasterers, layers, cowans and masons without the word."

Apparently there was free intercourse among members of the

cathedral builders' lodges and those of the local mason guilds, but

no master might lay out plans or display trade sets in the presence

of workers of the cowan class. As certain amount of intercourse

between the craftsmen and the directors of the work was essential,

it was a custom to give the "freedom of the lodge" to the more

notable of these, as a bishop, an architect or a man skilled in the

mechanical sciences. In Scotland persons so distinguished came to

be known as Geomatic Masons and Gentlemen Masons. This

appears to have been one of the earliest plans for "accepting" non-

operatives. There can be little doubt that these honorary members,

coming thus in contact with the esoteric practices of the society,

were vastly interested by them, and it may be that some of these

learned brethren were able to explain to the less erudite mechanics

certain meanings of their quaint ceremonials which had long since

been forgotten.

Occasions for this must have been numerous. These working

masons were constantly surrounded by symbols and other

reminders of the past. The cathedrals which they built, from "turret

to foundation stone," were full of symbolism. The arches, the

windows, the gargoyles, were luminous with it. Strange and secret

markings were chiseled into the stones; a master mason himself

might employ a mark which had been used by his father before

him, the original significance of which he had perhaps lost. Stained

glass, mural decorations, altar cloths, priestly vestments, were

employed to teach to an illiterate populace the most treasured

doctrines of Church and Bible. The ceremonial of the Mass was

symbolical in every detail, with every gesture and intonation

carefully prescribed so as to bear its proper place in this great

drama of the Passion of the Blessed Saviour. To wits skilled in the

reading of such things there was scarcely an object upon which the

eye could rest which did not have its own esoteric significance.

Even to-day the Gothic cathedral is an open book to those who

know how to read it rightly.

Operative lodges did not employ the system of degrees in use in

modern Freemasonry. They recognized three classes of workmen,

apprentices, journeymen or Fellows, and Masters, but the

distinction between the Fellow and the Master was not that which

now differentiates the Fellowcraft from the Master Mason.

Apprentices were precisely what the name implies. They were

learners, bound over for a term of years to serve their masters, in

return for which service they were to receive food, lodging and

clothing and to receive instruction which would enable them

afterwards to earn their own livelihood at the trade. They began as

mere boys of from twelve to fourteen years of age and usually they

served for seven years. Their relation to the lodge appears to have

varied in different localities; perhaps also as the lodge to which

they were attached was one of cathedral builders or merely a town

guild and therefore stationary. In at least one instance it is known

that apprentices were present at the making of a master, but

whether that means they witnessed the induction of a master into

his new rights or participated in some investment with the secrets

of the lodge is in doubt, the probabilities strongly favoring the

former suggestion.

What ceremonies of initiation apprentices were required to

undergo, beyond taking oath in due form in the presence of the

brethren, the present age has no way of knowing; nor is it known

whether initiatory rites were commonly observed. Immediately

after his Admission the newly made Fellow could begin work as a

journeyman, since in England he was not expected to undertake a

travel tour. On the contrary, this practice was forbidden by laws

passed in the fourteenth century. Wages as a rule were also fixed

by law, the wage scale sometimes requiring an employer to

provide his men with lodging and board and with aprons, gloves

and tunics.

The lodges were self-constituting bodies. In spite of efforts which

have been made to show that Operative Masonry was one big

fraternity, as modern Freemasonry is, the evidence weighs

overwhelmingly against that theory. All that seems to have been

necessary for forming a lodge was the presence of a number of

Masters and Fellows. These no doubt had satisfactory means of

proving one another. In later years lodges which had existed from

time immemorial came to feel they had exclusive jurisdiction over

their respective communities, and at least one of them, acting upon

that theory, proclaimed itself a Grand Lodge with the power to

issue warrants for constituting subordinate bodies.

The Old Charges make it plain that, from time to time, general

assemblies may have been held, but there is nothing in this

connection to support a belief that these were central governing

bodies in the sense that a Grand Lodge is. They appear to have

been district conventions called by officers of the Craft and

sometimes by sheriffs. There is doubt that even these were

exclusively Masonic and not rather general meetings of all the

crafts, masons among the rest. At most they were - if exception be

made of the legendary assembly at York, spoken of in the Regius

poem - county, provincial or municipal affairs, called to take

counsel on matters pertaining to the welfare or government of the

craftsmen. There are allusions in the Old Manuscripts to such

gatherings at York and to one or two held elsewhere, but nowhere,

with the exception noticed, is there record of one for the masons of

the entire country.

Each Master was under moral obligation to attend these assemblies

when they were held within a reasonable distance of his place of

abode. Some of the ancient documents fix the distance at fifty

miles, and those of most recent date put it at five miles. On this

matter the Regius poem says:

That every Mayster that ys a mason

Must ben at the generale congregacyon,

So that he hyt reasonably y-tolde

Where that the semble schal be holde;

And to that semble he most nede gon

But he have a resenabul skwsacyon.

That assemblies were sometimes summoned for disciplinary

purposes is indicated in the Cooke Manuscript, which sets forth

that while lesser excuses might serve for other Masters unable to

attend, "those who have been disobedient at such congregations, or

been false to their employers, or had acted so as to deserve reproof

by the Craft, should be excused only by extreme sickness, of which

notice was to be given to the Master is principal of the assembly."

What power the assembly may have had to enforce its decrees and

to administer punishment is not revealed. Since these were district

affairs, however, it is reasonable to suppose that the Masters who

did attend were neighbors of those who did not and that by

combining against an intransigent brother or lodge they could

exercise something more than moral suasion. Moreover, as the,

lodges were also guilds, with certain responsibilities to the civil

authorities, it is safe to assume that the decrees of an assembly

might expect support from the secular arm. It was probably to the

interest of the Masters to rule themselves through their own

congregations, as it is certain that the congregations themselves

might, on some matter of public policy, speak to greater effect than

could the separate lodges.

Dependable accounts of the operative days are unfortunately too

scant to enable the historian to do more than glance at certain

general principles. A good deal of guesswork must necessarily

enter into every attempt to trace Masonry through this tortuous

period, uncertain in its beginning and extended over almost half of

the entire Christian era. There seems reason to believe, however,

that itinerant, cathedral building guilds of masons came into

frequent contact with stationary local guilds and that these

ultimately became amalgamated. The itinerant guilds appear to

have been ma up of men of superior knowledge and wider

experience moreover they had innumerable points of contact with

the world outside of the British Isles. It is therefore to them that the

present age attributes most of the legends, symbolism and cult

practices which so evidently have descended from remote

antiquity. Even so, this is only a guess - perhaps an intelligent one,

certainly plausible, and at least more credible than the wild and

fanciful romances in which gullible and not over critical writers

have sometimes put their trust.