The Origins of Freemasonry
by Jack Buta.
Every Freemason who spends
time reading about the history of the craft must eventually ask himself
the same questions. When and where did Freemasonry start? How is the
craft related to Operative Masons? What happened to the operative
Masons? The answers to these questions would require a few more pages
than I have space for. However, over the next several issues I will
attempt to address these questions.
Many brothers are of the
opinion that Freemasonry began in 1717 in London. However, when viewed
in the wider context of the history of the craft this date has very
little to do with anything other than the organization of four lodges in
London into a Grand Lodge. This concept being copied in various other
countries has resulted in some erroneous claims by my fellow Englishmen
that early Freemasonry was a wholly English experience.
The medieval guild of
Masons to which Freemasonry was grafted did have a long history in
England to be sure. Even the word Freemason was first coined in England.
The Old Charges which were developed in England and which were later
incorporated into Freemasonry have long been used as an argument to
support the English claims. But they were not the origins of
Freemasonry. No brothers, based on my readings, Freemasonry came into
being in Scotland sometime between the death of Robert Cochrane in 1482
and the enactment of the Schaw Statutes in 1598.
It is unfortunate that
there is no documentary evidence come to light so far that would
pinpoint the exact date that Freemasonry started. If there was, many
books on the subject would never have been written. That would include
of course this minor missive. There is however a significant list of
firsts in Freemasonry that point the way. The Schaw Statutes themselves
show the earliest attempts at organizing lodges at a national level. It
is in Scotland that we find the first non-operative (not actual
stonemasons) joining the lodges. Even the Mason Word was a Scottish
institution.
When the eminent English
Masonic Historian Robert F. Gould wrote his first History of Freemasonry
he first dealt with early Scottish Freemasonry before turning to the
English history of the craft. This apparently did not sit too well with
his readers as we see in his later The Concise History of Freemasonry it
is given a back seat being discussed only after the Story of the Guild
in England, Masons Marks and even The Legends of the Craft. In 1944, G.
Knoop and G. P Jones two men from my home county of Lancashire England
in their book The Scope and Method of Masonic History did attempt to
stress the importance of the Scottish contribution to the making of
Freemasonry. However, they studied it from their decidedly English
perspective and still regarded Freemasonry as an English experience. So
it is left to yet another Englishman to set sail and point the bow of
our little ship as close to the wind as I can, and sail into yet another
controversial storm.
The place to begin any
story is at the beginning. In history however, you must begin at a point
where you can identify the thread of your topic and pick it up from
there. In this case, we start with a stone mason who became so popular
that a King honoured him by making him a noble and on whom he conferred
the titles of 'The Earl of Mar' and 'Secretary of State'. The place was
Scotland the King was King James III and the time was 1482. The Mason
was one Robert Cochrane and he was already the King's Master Mason and
might have been the architect of the Great Hall in Stirling Castle. This
act demonstrates that it was a Mason who first moved up into upper class
of society long before gentlemen of distinction became curious about the
craft. This elevation in rank incensed the nobility since they were of
the opinion that no man of such low birth should ever be given a title,
no matter how much he deserved it. In July 1482 King James assembled his
army on the Burgh Muir. When the army reached Lauder, a small town south
of Edinburgh, the nobles (led by Archibald Douglas, Earl of Angus)
rebelled and seized Cochrane and several others. They hanged Cochrane at
Lauder Bridge and, thereafter, imprisoned the King in Edinburgh Castle.
By hanging Cochrane, the
very nobles who wanted to get rid of him, raised him to the stature of a
martyr. Had they left him alone he and the stonemasons might never have
attracted the interest and aroused the curiosity of future generations
of the upper classes in this craft that had produced such a man. In
life, Robert Cochrane built stately edifices. In death, he might have
laid the foundation stone of a worldwide fraternity. Of course, that is
just my opinion.
The sixteenth century is
that period of history when man climbed out of the Middle Ages and took
his first tentative steps into what we call the Modern Age. It is also
the most probable starting point for Freemasonry to have begun. Most
researchers point to the Reformation as being the critical event.
However, I believe that the ideas behind Freemasonry started a lot
earlier.
To quote an old adage
"Necessity is the mother of invention" and man reaches his highest
potential under times of greatest adversary. With this as a premise, I
direct your attention to the three inquisitions of the Catholic Church
against the spread of heresy. Pope Gregory IX instituted the papal
inquisition back in 1231 AD. This was the one that Philip "The Fair"
used to get rid of the Knights Templar and later in 1431 it is used to
burn Joan of Arc at the stake. Pope Sixtus IV authorized the second
inquisition, the infamous Spanish Inquisition, in 1478. In 1521 only the
protection of the German prince Kurfursten Friedrich the III, saves a
young Augustinian monk named Martin Luther from suffering this same
fate.
Alarmed by the spread of
Protestantism and especially by its penetration into Italy, Pope Paul
III in 1542 establishes in Rome the congregation of the Inquisition also
known as the Roman Inquisition. The venerable institution of "one man,
one vote" is still 330 years in the future and the common man is an
indentured servant in the last days of a feudal age. In Rome a new pope
takes over the Catholic Church in 1492. His papal name is Alexander VI.
He is perhaps better known to many as Rodrigo Borgia, the infamous
patriarch of the Borgia clan. He turns the papacy into a brothel as the
Church hits a new low. The world is about to change drastically. The
fire that Luther will ignite in Western Europe had already been
smouldering for hundreds of years. The kindling already laid in place by
another German 44 years previously. In 1456 Gutenberg issues the first
edition of the Bible printed from movable type in Mainz.
Books, those arch-enemies
of tyranny, begin to disseminate ideas that awaken the long submerged
desires in man for personal freedom. These ideas are no strangers to the
Stone Masons. These highly skilled master builders had been working
between the two classes for hundreds of years. The nobility seek their
skills and expertise but keeps them oppressed and as historic records
indicate, rarely pay a fair price for their work. Generation after
generation the ruling classes enacts laws restricting the rights of the
masons to charge a fair wage. The Peasant Revolt in late 13th century is
only one of many such uprisings led by the building trades. Masons, men
who can readily grasp the spatial concepts of geometry and conceive
designs of structures not yet built were ready repositories for such
radical beliefs. The stage is set. But how did non-operative
"Freemasons" develop out of this guild of Stonemasons?
There are no records that
identify this development. No written statement that on this day "James
A. Brown" joined the guild and became the first Freemason. Why would
there be? It was not important at that time and still has very little
significance today. History however, does give us some indication of how
it probably happened. Stonemasons were employed by the rich and
powerful. They were the only ones who could afford the services of a
mason. Since we lower class have a long history of sucking up to our
bosses the following conversation is not too hard to imagine. "Here Lad,
By Gum, that (wall, castle, etc. .) looks bloody marvellous. I wish I
could do that" The noble remarked whilst sitting on 'is 'orse quite
proper an' all.
"Well guv", replies yon
Mason, flicking a lump of mortar off 'is trowel, "If yer lordship likes,
you can come down to Lodge and I can teach yer some of our secrets,
we'll throw in 'onorary Mason as well.' Course," He added with a knowing
smile, "It will cost you a few bob" "Honorary Mason eh!" The (earl,
bishop, baron, king) said, "Now I do like that!" The old boy after
attending a few meetings at the lodge wastes no time in impressing his
fellow nobles with his new experience "'It's like bloody magic!" Ah,
could this be the birth of esoteric Masonry as well? It really does not
matter how the nobility became involved with the Stonemasons. What is
important is what they did after they entered the craft. Next time we
will take a quick look at William Schaw and the Masters of Works after
which we will turn south to England and see the actual grafting of
Freemasonry to the craft. An active, daring and very secret fraternity
thriving in England and Scotland almost 100 years before the Grand Lodge
opened in 1717. For an in-depth look at life in the 16th century I
suggest A World Lit Only by Fire, by William Manchester.
In the 16th century
Scotland began to appoint Masters of Works The first, Sir Robert
Drummond of Carnock, was displaced from an office granted to him for
life by King James VI on December 21, 1583 by his loyal friend and
fellow closet Catholic William Schaw. On Schaw's death in 1602 the
office was filled by David Cunningham of Robertland. On his death in
1607 Master Wright James Murray took the position. In 1629 he and the
Second son of Sir William Alexander Anthony shared the office. In 1633
James Murray was Knighted one year before his death and Anthony
Alexander became Master of Works and in 1635 he too was Knighted.
Whether it was the stress of the office or the frequent attempts by the
St Clairs to wrest away control over the Masons Sir Anthony died in
1637. The office falling to his younger brother Henry. All of these men
were of noble birth and were not operative masons and perhaps some were
even Freemasons.
It would take much more
space than I have allotted here to delve into the implications of the
first and second Schaw Statutes and the first and second St Clair
charters. Therefore, I will restrict my comments to the makeup of the
craft and the entry of non-operative Masons into it, to the extent that
I can do so.
The fact that Schaw
accepted incorporation deacons should preside in burgh Lodges could be
viewed as the price he had to pay to keep peace between the two
organizations. The booking of apprentices was the domain of the burgh,
only several years later to be followed by initiation into the lodge. A
man would also become a master or fellow craft in the lodge before being
accepted by burgh and incorporation.
The lodge, in fact the
craft as a whole, was a hot bed of political intrigue. The Kilwinning
Lodge demanded they were not just the head lodge but also the number one
lodge and not the number two that Schaw relegated them to in his second
statutes. When Schaw turned for help to the King to gain royal approval
he was rebuffed. Next Schaw turned to the knightly class for support and
we find John Boswell lord of Auchinleck in a meeting of the Lodge of
Mary's Chapel in June 1600. The next year, Schaw a catholic turned to
another catholic for help Sir William St Clair. In 1590 St. Clair was a
significant employer of masons by building a massive project at Roslin
castle.
What resulted was the
first St Clair charter under which Schaw would give up his General
Warden position to the Knight in the hope that his reorganization of the
masons would be finally gain approval with the king. Unfortunately, Sir
William was not the conservative that Schaw was. He battled constantly
with the Church of Scotland, flaunted his mistress in front of them and
was eventually forced to retire to catholic Ireland in 1617.
While Schaw had been a
supporter of St Clair his successors in office were violently opposed.
By the time his son Sir William the younger took up the fight for St
Clair authority over the masons producing the second St Clair charter
the political turmoil was heated up. In 1634 Sir James Murray and his
then junior partner countered by getting the king to give them signed
authority over not just masons but every trade that was even remotely
involved in building. This support by the young British Stuart King
Charles of the Master of Works in Scotland was I believe part of the
solidifying process of the new secret Fraternity of Freemasons. I will
address the subject in more depth later on.
Anthony Alexander then
arranged for himself, his brother Viscount Canada and Sir Alexander
Strachan to become members of the Lodge of Mary's Chapel in Edinburgh on
July 3rd 1634. By this move he showed interest in the Masonic affairs of
the lodge, flattered the masons and started the steady increase in the
affiliation of the lodges by non-operative masons.
Henry Alexander, the third
son of the earl of Stirling became a brother in 1638 and in 1640
Alexander Hamilton, General of Artillery was received as a fellow and
master of the craft. What had started out as a political manoeuvre was
fast becoming a trend and for reasons that went far beyond the St Clairs.
By the mid-seventeenth
century civil wars in Scotland and England broke out and the entire
British Isles was at war with itself.
With the restoration of
the monarchy in 1660, Charles II appointed William Moray, brother to Sir
Robert Moray, as sole master of works, overseer and director general of
his majesty's buildings in Scotland. He was knighted shortly thereafter.
In part five, we will revisit the Moray brothers and their work on
behalf of the Stuart kings and in the case of Sir Robert Moray,
Freemasonry. Of all of the Masters of Works one towers above the rest,
William Schaw. He gave the masons a Lodge System that would survive the
test of time. In David Stevenson's Origins of Freemasonry he states "it
is highly probable that these rituals themselves and the values and
beliefs they enshrined, also owed much to Schaw."
None of these events took
place in quiet isolation. The seventeenth century saw the joining of
England and Scotland under one king, civil and foreign wars, fire and
plague and the execution of a king in his own land. In Britain kings
would move from absolute power to being a figurehead. Brought to heel by
the power of parliament.
Next, we turn south to
England to look at the Stuart kings and the actual birth of the
Fraternity from which modern Freemasonry grew. Actually we get there
when there are less than 40 members in the fraternity which is as close
to the beginning as we can get at this point.
Elizabeth I died without
ever marrying and in 1603, James VI of Scotland son of Elizabeth's
sister, Mary and already a ruler for more than 35 years, became King
James I the first Stuart king of England. In Scotland he had been the
head of Episcopalian Church. Now, as King James I of Britain he was now
head of the Church of England not exactly the place you would expect to
find the son of a Catholic queen.
James was an able
theologian, and proved himself very tolerant in terms of religious
faith. His King James's Version of the Bible is still the standard used
today. From his speeches in Parliament we see him reaching out for
support he never got. When Guy Fawkes was arrested attempting to blow up
both King and Parliament, James urged his people not to hold all
Catholics responsible for the acts of the "poor wretch" . His choice of
words indicates that maybe the King suspected that the entire "Gunpowder
Plot" episode was concocted by his enemies to set the people against the
Catholics and other non-conformists. In that regard the plot worked only
too well. The next year a group of separatists left England in search of
religious freedom in Europe only to petition the king in 1619 to allow
them to have safe passage back to England so they might charter a boat
to America. King James agreed and in 1620 the Mayflower set sail.
It was the beginning of a
struggle by Parliament to gain control of the country from the power of
the King. Their tactic was simple, refuse to provide income for the
crown until they gained a strong voice so in everything the king did.
This ended up with the King dissolving Parliaments one after another
while foreign policy became non- existent. In the midst of all this
turmoil the crown prince Henry died leaving a very unprepared prince
Charles next in line for the throne.
There are no records to
show what steps the king took to prepare and protect the prince. We do
know that under the influence of the Duke of Buckingham , a man many
feel is responsible for England's participation in the 30 years war,
things went from bad to worse. By 1623 James had been a king for 56
years. It is inconceivable that he did not know the problems facing his
son. Any father in his position would have reached out to his most loyal
retainers to seek help in protecting his son as he ascended to the
crown.
In 1625 King James I died
and King Charles I took the throne. Three years later we see clear
evidence that such an organization did exist within in the court. David
Stevenson in the Origins of Freemasonry mentions that in 1628 Sir David
Cunningham, an officer in the Court of King Charles wrote his namesake
in Scotland telling him that as the 40th member of a secret fraternity
loyal to the king, he was to avoid all manner of excesses, riot and
disorder. In addition, he tell his relative that the enclosed badges of
the noble brotherhood were to be worn on their hatband until they meet
in six months when they shall be exchanged. The relative to whom the
letter was addressed was none other than David Cunningham of Robertland,
whose father had succeeded William Schaw as Master of Works in 1602.
It is interesting to note
that all Masters of Works were Knighted from 1628 on and in 1717
Freemasons in England wanted to be lead by nobles as they had before.
This is also the first known mention of a secret fraternity with direct
connections to operative masons and The Master of works. It also
corresponds with the entry into the Scottish lodges of nobility
beginning in 1634 and to the support by the king of the Master of Works
against St. Claire. To me, the chain of coincidence is too great.
However, to be successful
the king needed help from his English subjects. Who in England would be
willing to help a Scottish king? There was one group of men who were
only too happy to help. For more than a 100 years masons had been
prosecuted by the Tudor monarchs. In Fact, Henry VIII had abolished all
of their guilds except the powerful London Company. Here were men who
would gladly serve a Stuart king whose family held the craft is such
high esteem. Masonry had gone from England to Scotland 400 years earlier
and now Scotland brought Freemasonry to England. Freemasonry however,
did not belong to either country it was and still is a Masonic creation.
From what records we have
of these early Freemasons they all share one commonality. They were
soldiers. Men willing to die for their beliefs to take whatever risks
were needed to keep a kingdom from descending into the tribal warfare
that was tearing at the heart of Europe.
On one occasion with over
50,000 men facing each other war was averted due to the actions of the
fraternal brothers on both sides of the conflict. The place was
Newcastle and the time was 1641and in the middle of it all, generals
from both sides met to initiate a Covenanter general into the
fraternity. He was Sir Robert Moray, professional soldier, spy,
statesman, knight, Freemason and we meet him next.
Before becoming a
Freemason and Statesman, Robert Moray was first a professional soldier
of great ability. He Served with the Scottish Foot Guards in France
during the most destructive religious war ever to engulf Europe. During
the 30 Years War, he rose to the level of full Colonel before he was 30.
Here amid the carnage his ability to meet people on the level and gain
their trust and confidence drew men to him. A natural leader of men, he
came to the notice of the French Prime Minister Cardinal Richelieu.
Moray, according to Alexander Robertson’s book The Life and Times of Sir
Robert Moray: Solder, Statesman and Man of Science, became the
Cardinal’s agent and after Richelieu’s death was an agent for the Jesuit
educated Cardinal Mazarin who ruled France until his death in 1661.Was
Moray a secret Catholic carrying messages between the Catholic Cardinal
and King Charles? Whatever his beliefs were, he was able to subdue them
to the higher cause of peace, harmony and brotherly love. He seemed to
have no enemies and many friends, a rare occurrence in a savage time.
The initiation of Moray
into the Edinburgh Lodge is extraordinary not only in view of time and
place, a castle awaiting a battle, but in light of those who were
present. James Hamilton 1st Duke of Hamilton who had raised the army of
Scots that had gone to France. He was also privy councillor and in 1638
he was the Crowns commissioner in Scotland trying to conciliate the
Covenanters. At the time of the initiation he was leading the kings army
against them. Yet here he is, miles way from his troops and in the
company of two Covenanter Generals, Moray and Alexander Hamilton and the
son of the Master Mason to the Crown John Mylne. These men separated by
loyalty but united by masonry were a mix or operative and non-operatives
masons. They were as Sir Robert Moray describes himself Freemasons.
It is also interesting to
note that following this initiation the much anticipated battle between
the king and the Covenanters did not happen. It was resolved by
negotiation.
Unfortunately space does
not permit an in-depth look at Sir Robert Moray. It would take me six
months of articles to cover the subject. I do recommend chapter 7 in
Stevenson’s The Origins of Freemasonry. This chapter details some of his
Freemason activities on behalf of the King. It also gives the story
behind his choosing the pentagram from his family crest as his Mason’s
Mark.
Things did not fare well
for the early Freemasons. The fraternity could not protect King Charles
from himself. His biggest error was in ignoring the right of the
Scottish people to have their own prayer book and worship in their own
way. Had he been less prideful and more realistic he would not have lost
the Civil War. Despite all of the hoopla, the war turned not on
Cromwell's model army, in 1643 Charles had been beating them at almost
every turn. He began to lose when the Covenants entered the war in 1644
on the side of Cromwell. Turning back to my argument that the secret
Fraternity that surfaced in 1628 was indeed Freemasonry let’s recap. In
1628 we see connections of this secret fraternity to the masons of
Scotland. In 1641 at Newcastle we see even stronger evidence of a
Masonic based organization working on both sides of the war ( the same
way we see them later in our own civil war). In Moray’s own letters he
talks of taking on spy missions in Scotland “. . . playing the mason . .
.” writing reports in invisible ink under his masons mark.. In 1643 King
Charles knights Moray a Covenanter general, a man with no land to assist
the king. Why? What was in it for the king unless it was to reward a
loyal subject for his secret work.
After the King was
defeated in 1645 and captured Moray and his brother William made plans
for his escape from Newcastle. The plan was for the king dress as a
commoner and escape via a boat that William Moray had brought to the
castle wall. The King however was more concerned of being discovered in
a disguise than in freedom. He returned to his quarters and was executed
in 1649. It was an act of loyalty that was not forgotten by King Charles
II and in 1661 William was also Knighted and later became Master of
Works. Of course, all of this may be the result of a great many
coincidences all coming together at this particular point in time. I
choose to believe otherwise.
Where there no English
Freemasons in the 17th century? Obviously there were. We know of the
initiation of Elias Ashmole in 1646 at Warrington in Lancashire but next
time I will make a case for the recruitment of Freemasons in a place you
might not expect the Roundheads.
For an in depth look at
the Covenants read A concise History of Scotland by Fitzroy MacLean I am
also indebted to Richard S. Westfall, Department of History and
Philosophy of Science Indiana University whose outline on Sir Robert
Moray pointed me in the right direction.
The problem with writing a
book where the predetermined goal is to support one position over
another is that you usually paint yourself into a corner at some point.
This is exactly what David Stevenson does in The Origins of Freemasonry.
He builds a case for Scottish Freemasonry’s dominion over English
Freemasonry by stating that entered apprentices existed only in Scotland
prior to 1700. Here he confuses operative masonry with speculative
Freemasonry and fails to take into consideration Queen Elizabeth’s
Apprentice Statute on 1563 which made it illegal for any person to enter
a craft without first becoming an apprentice. It is a common mistake and
easy to make. Just because we do not have a written record of an event
does not mean it could not have happened. It only means we do not have a
written record of it happening. Sometimes it requires some deductive
reasoning and thoughtful conclusions to make sense of events that are
not fully documented. For instance, suppose you found coral jewellery in
the artefacts of an American Plains Indian tribe. You may not have a
written record of any contact with another people who lived close to the
ocean. By the same token you can be pretty sure the coral did not get
there by itself. All of which brings me to a point I wish to make. In
1776 we know that at least one third of the framers of the American Bill
of Rights and Constitution were Freemasons. We also know that the
following ideas were well represented in these important documents.
·
Right for
all people to vote for their representatives
·
Right
against self-incrimination
·
Freedom of
religion and press
·
Equality of
all persons before the law
·
No judgment
touching life, liberty or property but by jury trial
·
Abolition of
capital punishment except for murder
·
No military
conscription of conscientious objectors
·
No
monopolies, tithes, or excise taxes
·
Taxation
proportionate to real or personal property
·
Grading of
punishments to fit the crime
·
Abolition of
imprisonment for debt
Where did these ideas
spring from? After doing a considerable amount of research I have
concluded that they did not originate in the Highlands of Scotland but
from a Lt. Colonel in Cromwell's army. John Lilbourne AKA “freeborn”
John. Lilbourne is the only man in the history of England to be put in
the Tower of London not once but three times and walk out free on every
occasion because the Lords of England could find no Judge or jury to
convict him. Read what he has to say for himself and his movement.
“Yet thus have we been
misconceived and misrepresented to the world, under which we must suffer
till God sees it fitting in his good time to clear such harsh mistakes,
by which many, even good, men keep a distance from us . . .. Whereas it
is said, we are atheists and antiscripturalists, we profess that we
believe there is one eternal and omnipotent God, the author and
preserver of all things in the world. To whose will and directions,
written first in our hearts and afterwards in his blessed Word, we ought
to square our actions and conversations.” . . .
On the execution of King
Charles I “I refused to be one of his (Charles I) judges... they were no
better than murders in taking away the King's life even though he was
guilty of the crimes he was charged with... it is murder because it was
done by a hand that had no authority to do it.”
One of the amazing aspects
of his struggle with Oliver Cromwell was that they were friends and
Cromwell actually believed in many of Lilburne’s ideas. For his efforts
against the egregious acts of the nobility, Lilbourne was branded a
communist and his followers derided as “levellers”. From 1637 when he
was but twenty-three years old… until his death twenty years later, he
managed to keep his government in a hectic state. In successive order he
defied king, parliament, and protectorate, challenging each with
libertarian principles. Standing trial for his life four times, he spent
most of his adult years in prison and died in banishment. Yet he could
easily have had positions of high preferment if he had thrown in his lot
with the Parliament of Cromwell. Instead, he sacrificed everything in
order to be free to attack injustice from any source. He once accurately
described himself as ‘an honest true-bred, freeborn Englishman that
never in his life loved a tyrant or feared an oppressor.’ There is no
record of Lilbourne ever becoming a Freemason but there is ample
evidence that he espoused the same kind of beliefs.
The Levellers like the
Freemasons, met in Taverns and reading rooms. Was there the opportunity
for an exchange of ideas? Could this be how so much of his manifesto for
constitutional reform in Britain ended up being so deeply embodied in
the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights? The answer to this is the same
as the one in regards to the coral in my original example. They did not
get there by themselves.
The one thing we can
deduce from the evidence of the Levellers and other groups that
flourished at this same time, that is England in the 17th century was a
very fertile ground for the growth of Freemasonry. So we come to the
close of this series with but one question left unanswered. What
happened to the operative masons?
Many of the events of the
17th century created a vast separation in styles of architecture in
England and Scotland.
Brick building was
re-introduced to England by Flemish immigrants in the late 16th century
and the great Elizabethan homes of this era used this technique to
change the earlier fortification style of housing to conspicuous
displays of wealth. Building with bricks did not require digging
quarries and massive amounts of labour to hew, dress and carry stone
blocks to construction sites. Bricks were made right on the spot and
came out perfectly square. Much of the science and techniques of the
master mason were no longer required. Now semi-skilled tradesmen “cowans”,
became bricklayers.
Scotland saw the building
of castles and fortified houses continue into the 18th century. In fact,
fortification became a style in its own right, and the turrets and
strongly vertical emphases of Scottish Baronial houses mark one of
Scotland's most distinctive contributions to British architecture.
The need for Master Stone
Masons decreased rapidly in England and the Great Plague and Fire that
engulfed London in 1665-6 accelerated this rate. Architect and
Freemason, Christopher Wren worked almost entirely with brick in
rebuilding St Paul’s Cathedral, Greenwich Hospital and his other works
after the great London fire.
The heavy handed rule of
Cromwell’s Parliament created an ever widening gulf between the classes
and bricklayers in England turned from the guild halls to the new trade
union movement.
By 1700 the Freemasons of
England were left with only the traditions of the craft they had
patterned their secret fraternity on, while their counterparts north of
their border still enjoyed the fellowship of operative masons.
In this article I have
attempted to the best of my ability to sketch the beginnings of
Freemasonry. How well I have done, I leave to the reader. For me the
task was one of learning. In writing down what I learned I was forced to
draw conclusions from the facts I discovered. That I drew these
conclusions for myself does not in and by themselves make them facts;
they are my conclusions alone. They are subject to interpretation and
modification as new facts come to light.
It is said that the
universe consists mostly of matter or anti-matter, we cannot see.
History too consists mostly of events we cannot see, that were not
written down. It is impossible to look back over the centuries and
understand exactly what happened and when. We see only faint images in
the swirling mists and attempt to make sense of them ever remembering
that in doing so we must always bear in mind we may miss far more of the
picture than we see.