Contents
Cyril Batham To Be Featured
Hiram Had To Die--And So Must
You
Oh Masonry
Universality A Masonic Barnacle
PYTHAGORAS
Another Bonus From Your Society
The Mystery of Masonry
Louisville -DeMolay
Commandery No. 12, K.T.
Kinnamon's Fraudulent
Egyptian Masonry
The Secrets of Freemasonry
FULL OF SOUND AND FURRY
Existential Freemasonry
The Paradox of Prince Hall
THROUGH Masonic Windows
the philalethes
The Journal of Masonic Research and Letters
Jerry Marsengill, FPS Editor
401 Masonic Temple, 1011 Locust St.
Des Moines, IA 50309 (515) 244-6011
FAX (515) 244-2540
OFFICERS
John Mauk Hilliard, FPS, President
Lehman College
Bronx, New York 10468 (212) 960-8713
Wallace E. McLeod, FPS, 1st Vice President
Victoria College University of Toronto
73 Queen's Park Crescent
Toronto, Ontario Canada M5S 1K7
Forrest D. Haggard, FPS, 2nd Vice President
Overland Park Christian Church 7600 W75th St
Overland Park, KS 66204 (913) 677-4646
Allen E. Roberts, FPS, Executive Secretary
Drawer 70, 110 Quince Ave.
Highland Springs, VA 23075 (804) 737-4498
FAX 804/328-2386
Henry G. Law, FPS, Treasurer
2608 E. Riding Dr. Wilmington, DE 19808
(302) 737-9083
Harold L. Davidson, FPS, Librarian
The Philalethes Society 1903 10th St. W.
Billings, MT 59102 (406) 259-1552
LIVING PAST PRESIDENTS
Philalethes Society
William R. Denslow FPS
Robert V. Osborne, FPS
Eugene S. Hopp, FPS
Dwight L. Smith, FPS
Robert L Dillard Jr., FPS
Bruce H. Hunt, FPS
Allen E. Roberts, FPS
John R. Nocas, FPS
Jerry Marsengill, FPS
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EMERITUS
Carl R. Griesen, FPS
S. Brent Morris, FPS
CONTENTS
Cyril Batham Featured – Topic - "The Origin of Freemasonry: A New Theory"
Hiram Had To Die - And So Must You
Oh Masonry
Universality - A Masonic Barnacle
Pythagoras
Another Bonus From Your Society
The Mystery of Masonry
Louisville-DeMolay Commandery
150 Years of Service
Kinnamon's Fraudulent Egyptian "Masonry"
Semi-Annual Meeting of the Executive Board
The Secrets of Freemasonry
Full of Sound and Fury
"Existential Freemasonry"
The Paradox of Prince Hall
Through Masonic Windows
ON THE COVER
Brother Rodney M. Larson, MPS created this unique Masonic verse which is sung to the meter of "Oh Tannenbaum". Your editor fells that brother Rodney's work deserves national attention. His prose is outstanding and he has captured the Masonic spirit and the essence of the fraternity in theses verses. Our congratulations to him for sharing his talents with the members of the Society.
----o-----
TOPIC
"The Origin of Freemasonry: A New Theory"
The twelfth Annual Philalethes Lecture will be delivered by Cyril Batham, the distinguished English scholar. He was born in Warwickshire and became a Master Mason in 1955. He served as Master of the famous Quatuor Coronati Lodge No. 2076, London, England, in 1973. He filled the demanding post of Secretary of this Lodge, and Editor of its Transactions, from 1975-1985.
Brother Batham is also a Past Master of Phoenix Research Lodge of France. He holds Grand Rank under the United Grand Lodge of England, the National Grand Lodge of France and the Grand Lodge of Spain. In 1981 Brother Batham was named as Prestonian Lecturer, delivering one of the only lectures sanctioned by his Grand Lodge.
He is well known throughout the Masonic world having lectured in many countries. His understanding of the Craft is broad and deep, but perhaps his greatest contributions to our knowledge have dealt with early Freemasonry in France, the Grand Lodge of the Antients, and the evolution of the Royal Arch.
A kind and gentle man is Cyril Batham. He makes friends wherever he goes. You will not want to miss this rare visit.
Here's how you can meet him - and scores of other Masonic dignitaries and scholars:
AT: The Assembly/Feast/Forum of The Philalethes Society
WHEN: February 14, 1992
THE FEAST: (Recreating the Festive Board of yesteryear): starts 6 p.m. sharp
THE ASSEMBLY: Philalethes Society business; presentations; awards; followed by The Philalethes Lecture
THE FORUM: Masonic scholars answer Masonic questions
THE INVESTMENT: $26 for reservations received by February 1, 1992 by the Executive Secretary, P.O. Box 70, Highland Springs, VA 23075 (If space is available tickets will be sold in the lobby until 12 o'clock noon on the 14th at $31 each)
Make checks payable to The Philalethes Society
Note: The Society subsidizes the additional cost.
----o----
Hiram Had To Die--And So Must You
by Roger A . Kessinger, MPS
Hiram had to die--and so must you. Why? Because the fate of Hiram Abiff is the story of all mankind and of all Masons. The life of Hiram reveals many lessons but his death teaches the most significant. Listen to the story and its message for you.
Hiram is an initiate. This means he was a man, who, of his own free will and accord, entered upon a path of study and action which taught him how to live a proper life to be acceptable to God. But God is unwilling to accept any man until he offers up a sacrifice: not of blood, not of money, but of something far greater in value--himself. Man must sacrifice himself if he is to permanently unite with God and remain in his kingdom from whence he was banished. How is this accomplished? Only by death.
The initiate must die to the corruptions of his outer self and be reborn to the divinity of his inner self, or soul. This means that his whole perception must be radically changed to accommodate his new life--the spiritual life. He must realize that physical life is only a temporary phenomenon whose sole purpose is to reveal the existence of a higher state of being--spiritual immortality, and that although this spiritual existence is promised to everyone, it must be earned here and now. The initiate accomplishes this mission by correcting his thoughts, words, and actions (or deeds). This alone makes him acceptable to God.
Hiram subdued his own passions, by thinking proper thoughts, speaking acceptable words, and performing exemplary deeds. Allegorically, this happened when he was struck in the chest (the seat of the passions), throat (the place of words), and head (the center of thoughts). The latter "killed" him. The three fellowcrafts were not assassins but spiritual principles: spiritual force, spiritual power, and spiritual will.
But what was it that was killed? It wasn't the man himself, it was his outer nature. It wasn't his physical body, it was his physical nature. Death didn't send him to the cold, dark, depths of the grave but raised him to the brilliant sunshine of Light & Illumination. His "death" gave him life.
The acacia tree provides further testimony to help Masons understand this seeming paradox. After the death of the outer nature the true nature of the inner man still survives. Why? Because our purpose here on earth is to discover and unite with this Godly nature within us. The bible speaks of this when it refers to the marriage of the lamb, bride, or groom.
Masons! This is the true purpose of Freemasonry: To square the rough ashlar and thus attain spiritual perfection! This can only be accomplished by the death of our outer, or crude, rough animal natures, which creates a refined spiritual and mental existence.
Only by being free from debasing influences will you truly be a Freemason: free from vanity, fear, religious dogma, greed, hate, lust, jealousy, and in general, free from all of the errors that chain the spiritual existence. Until you accomplish this most difficult task, you will only be a Mason, not a Freemason.
So you see, Hiram had to die--and so must you. Salve fraters.
----o----
by Rodney M. Larson, MPS
(A Song to be sung to the meter of "Oh Tannenbaum"
Oh Masonry, Oh Masonry, how lovely are thy branches, With side degrees and Grand Decrees Excluding all the wenches. In sixty trips around the floor We have not learned what we stand for, We only know we want more than sitting on the benches.
Oh Masonry, Oh Masonry, Your Rites are York and Scottish, And then we have the Eastern Star,
They're marching to the schottisch. We take our oaths, we give our smiles, We circumambulate for miles,
And always will endure the trials For something Camelotish.
Oh Masonry, Oh Masonry, I wish I could remember, The secrets that you taught to me,
The ways to be dismembered, The words that I have never used, The signs that left me so confused,
I think I should have been amused, I wish I could remember.
Oh Masonry, Oh Masonry, Your doors have all been shattered, By those who came to join your ranks,
And learn the things that mattered They've learned the knocks and paid their fees, For ninety eight point six degrees,
And wear the blisters on their knees to show that they've been flattered
Oh Masonry, Oh Masonry, The world would be your lover. If only you did not insist,
On staying undercover. But then, I guess we're not that wild, We still insist our doors be tyled,
And never will it be our style, to Solicit of another.
Oh Masonry, Oh Masonry, How fondly I remember, The night I took my first degree,
I think it was December. The Master wore his overcoat, The organ froze on the first note,
I couldn't even smell the goat, AH, How fondly I remember.
Copyright September 1989
----o----
Universality A Masonic Barnacle
by John Mauk Hilliard, FPS
Great institutions are often born of great ideas and become the vessels by which they are transmitted to the world. Sometimes, however, great institutions accrue great ideas much in the way a great ship collects barnacles. The vessel may yet move at a serene and stately pace through calm waters, but the tenacious adherence of these strange and alien masses to its otherwise smooth and sleek conformation alters the ship' s once pristine shape, and ultimately changes the way it handles in all waters, lowers its speed, decreases its maneuverability, and lends a subtle and awkward drag to its forward progress.
So it has been with Freemasonry and the concept of Universality--the notion of the Fatherhood of God expressed through the Brotherhood of Men. At some point during the 18th Century Enlightenment, this arcane, obscure, and thoroughly British and Christian guild or trade union of stone cutters, carvers, and craftsmen found itself both encumbered and exalted by the accretion of the ideal of universal brotherhood, and its subsequent voyage through history has never since proceeded at a comfortable or untroubled pace.
A comfortable little club became an uneasy society of high ideals. A tool was borrowed from the ancient operative craft, and a symbol was born: Freemasons began to meet upon the "level." The concept was put to its first great test in the 18th Century when Gottfried Lessing confronted and challenged German Freemasonry with an insistence that Jews be permitted to join the heretofore traditionally Christian Craft. Lessing won his battle, and Jew joined Christian on the benches of the Lodge. That relationship is not always a happy one even today, but the precedent which it created gave the Craft the first historical justification for its claim to be an embodiment of true brotherhood.
Yet still, the gap between ideal and reality remains enormous. Masonic orators constantly prate about brotherhood, our writers as frequently invoke it, our ritual dwells incessantly on it. We stand upon the level, act by the plumb and part upon the square. We are adjured to regard a man for his internal qualities, and not his external characteristics. We celebrate, in myriad ways, the concept of universality--an ideal borrowed from the Age of Voltaire and Rousseau, nurtured by the powerful sense of l9th Century propriety and rectitude, and grounded in the assured Victorian confidence in the perfectibility of man...an idea inevitably promoted and endorsed in every public forum of our own day.
In the terrible 20th Century with its manifold viciousness, its horrors, its wars and rumors of wars, the ideal of brotherhood, no matter how feebly realized, is everywhere persistently evoked at the highest political levels as the measure of all societies. The rhetoric of liberation and equality pervades all aspects of our politics, both national and global. Liberation from the yoke of oppression and exclusion is perhaps the major element in the political agenda of most modern states, if not as a true goal, at least as an omnipresent propaganda tool.
Yet in Masonry, as in the world at large, universality is honored more in the breach than in the observance, as the critics of the modern Craft are all too quick to point out. A number of years ago in a discussion group on Masonry attended by a number of younger New Yorkers, I mentioned the notion of universality as an ideal of the Craft, and was rudely, and I expect, rightly interrupted by an indignant voice demanding to know where, in this particular group of young urban professionals assembled that evening, was this mighty principle at work? Where, the speaker, went on, were our Black members, where were our persons of differing economic strati? Where, the speaker concluded on a note of distinct triumph, were the women, and the elderly?
I responded with some tame and thoroughly defensive remarks about the variety of professions and geographic and cultural backgrounds represented in our group, and pointed out, rather lamely, that this provided a starting point for the creation of a posture of greater acceptance. The point made by my relentless interlocutor was all too valid: English-speaking regular Freemasonry is exclusively male, and tends to be predominately White, Protestant, and middle class. In much of America, there are no Blacks in Lodges, and few Jews and Latinos. The thought of women members in the ranks of the regular Craft leaves many of us, including me, seized by a paroxysm of horror! Against this background of exclusion, our emphasis on universality seems weak indeed.
We are obliged to measure these facts against Dean Roscoe Pound's splendid restatement of the Masonic ideal of universality:
My brethren, we, of all men, owe it to ourselves and to the world to be universal in spirit. Universality is a lesson the whole world is learning and must learn. But we ought to know it well already. We ought to be upon the front bench of the world 's school, setting an example to our more backward schoolfellows. Wherever in the world there is a Lodge of Masons, there should be a focus of civilization, a center of the idea of universality, radiating reason to put down prejudice and advance justice in the disputes of peoples, and in the disputes of classes, and making for the peace and harmony and civilization that should prevail in this great Lodge of the world.
Clearly, it does little good for me or anyone else to continually bemoan how short the Ancient Craft falls from this major idea. Freemasonry is, after all, an institution of human beings, not angels. But it is essential to keep firmly embedded in our conscious minds the fact that we do fall short, and to develop in each brother some consciousness of the "leaven of wickedness and malice," as The Book of Common Prayer so powerfully puts it, which can work so disastrously in our hearts.
I firmly believe that "nothing is real unless it is local." Lord Chesterfield's dictum is no where more true than in Freemasonry where the ballot is placed in exactly where it should be, in the hands of each individual brother in each individual Lodge. The sanctity of the Masonic ballot implies, by its very nature and by age-old tradition, the power to choose, and therefore the power to exclude. It is undeniable that each healthy Lodge has its own peculiar personality, its own unique identity, and that its members may use the power of acceptance and exclusion to maintain its harmony and health, and may (and should) judge these things by their own lights and values .
But the leaven that must work in the heart of each elector before a ballot is taken must be actuated by the strong remembrance that he, the elector, by his vote elects to the brotherhood a man who shares the values of toleration, affection, restraint, and charity that characterize the Mason. The elector must know, insofar as he is able, that he who exercises the power of choice must continually question any tendency in himself to decide a ballot on the issues of race, class, wealth, or social connection. He must carefully hold in mind the idea that differences of personal status and condition can often enrich the internal social dynamic of the Fraternity. The elector must consider that a seamless progression of sameness in human beings can be dull, if not deadly, to institutions; and that risk-taking in the choice of potential brothers, while dangerous, can enhance the marvelous random and rich possibilities that God designs into his creatures.
The old Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times, " has a positive corollary: "May you be surrounded by interesting personalities. " Any of us who have been thoroughly committed to the Gentle Craft know that the diverse personalities we have encountered there have often made us uncomfortable and perhaps occasionally unhappy. On the level of the Lodge, we meet Masonic zealots, mystics, scholars, pedants, ritualists, glad-handers, thieves, politicos, prevaricators, saints, Lodge fiends, stolid souls and hysterics. But this lively and free exposure to a wide variety of humanity ultimately challenges us to refine our own values as human beings, and both engages and tests our own personal gifts.
That leaven which should work in our hearts turns us to the acceptance of Freemasonry as more than an extension or expression of our own egos, or even of the peculiar and special identity of our own Lodges. How many of us could name the Masonic notables of an earlier day? Powerful Masters in any Lodge, even Grand Masters who are the much vaunted purple of the Craft, are soon submerged in the implacable level created by time and history. Save for the very famous, most of us will not live in memory very long. What we build by our ballots, what we erect by our choices, must be something bigger than the individual. We build toward a Freemasonry that might continue to do the work of God's world after us, even long after the memory of us as individuals is faded beyond recall.
Many things about the human beings around us may anger us, disgust us, confine and confuse us. Class, race, sex, and wealth all form part of the crucible in which character and values are born. But it is necessary to remember that there are certain values on which all good men agree. In order to arrive at that level of agreement, we are obliged to believe in a fundamental fairness, and a sense of the common justice that surely must prevail among us in all our Masonic doings if we are to transcend those differences which divide us. Universality is threatening. It is a dynamic which demands that we seek a commonality of moral and spiritual values among those whose appearance, class, station, and cultural folkways we may find to be either threatening or reproachful.
Finally, we Freemasons must know in our hearts that whatever universality we achieve is born, at the last, in tender mercies, in a host of small, quiet, even fleeting individual kindnesses. There is surely not a man in Freemasonry who has not, at some point in his life, felt the pain of exclusion. And I hope there is no brother of the Gentle Craft who has not occasionally felt the healing balm of a kind spirit who eased that pain, whether it be a kinsman, a lover, a chance acquaintance, or a brother of the Lodge who helped assuage that hurt.
A good many years ago, when I was a young Mason, I chanced to find myself in a large eastern city. A casual friend, who was then the Master of a local Lodge, called to invite me to attend a neighboring and quite well-known Lodge in that town. He explained to me that it was an ancient and renowned Lodge with a tradition both of elegance and exclusivity, and that as a young and relatively new brother, I should visit there to broaden my experience of the Craft.
I accompanied him and a small delegation of the officers from his Lodge to the communication. We were met at the door of the Lodge chamber by a formidable old Tyler who cast what I can only characterize as a jaundiced and rather cold eye on our little band. I had already been warned that this particular Lodge expected special attire for its members and its visitors, so I had borrowed a formal dinner suit from a non-masonic friend. Formal attire is rarely worn in the southwestern Lodges where I grew up. There, Masters often preside in stetsons, bolo ties, and cowboy boots, and polyester is the very height of fashion, so I was already somewhat uncomfortable with the arrangements of this particular evening.
We were ushered by this dignified old functionary into the most magnificent Lodge room I had ever seen. It was a far cry from the cinderblock and casement windows of southwestern Masonic temples. A room of truly splendid proportions opened before us, covered with lavish 19th Century plasterwork, and rich with polychrome and gilt ornamentation. Magnificent allegorical murals and art work covered the walls and ceilings. I was quite simply awestruck.
The officers and members of the Lodge, many attired in white tie and tales, the rest in black tie, were standing in quiet clusters talking and visiting in low, well-bred tones, waiting for the rap of the Master's gavel. The moment we entered, I knew something was wrong, and that feeling not only persisted but waxed stronger with every passing minute. We were not greeted with the hearty handshakes and booming voices of welcome customary to the western Lodges of my previous experience, but rather, we were met with a very few diffident handshakes, the occasional cool not of a well-groomed head, and one or two absolute expressions of alarmed and barely restrained annoyance and indignation.
By then, I realized that some of my companions had also begun to feel very uneasy as we all stood in an uncomfortable, tight little island in the icy midst of this stylish assemblage. Of course, I discovered afterwards to my great regret that this Mason who had urged me to accompany him did not have an explicit invitation from his fellow Master to visit this Lodge. Indeed, this casual Masonic acquaintance later proved to possess that unfortunate combination of thoroughgoing obtuseness and cunning which always enabled him to invariably hear what he wanted to hear, and no more.
And so, there we were! Mercifully, the meeting commenced within a few minutes, but I could neither enjoy it nor follow it, and distractedly spent my time trying to sink as unobtrusively as possible into the supple leather of the bench on which I sat. I occasionally glanced miserably about me, but hesitated to meet the eyes of anyone around.
And then, something fascinating, and rather splendid happened. On the opposite bench, directly across the Lodge room sat an elderly, immaculately dressed man who deliberately, I think, caught my eye, gave a vigorous nod, and smiled with great warmth. A few minutes later, when the Lodge was called to refreshment by the Junior Warden's rap, the old brother immediately rose and strode directly across the room to me. I was not at all sure, given our earlier reception, what to expect. He came toward me with firm steps, slender, handsome, ramrod straight, beautifully attired in immaculate black-tie, extended a firm hand, and said: "How good of you to come to our Lodge tonight. I am pleased that you are here ! " He introduced himself, asked my name then proceeded with what I felt was a truly genuine interest, to ask me about myself, my job, my Masonic history, and my new life in this city.
He remarked that he had only been a Mason and a member of that Lodge for a short time, but that it had come to mean much to him. He pointed out to me with great pride a young officer in the Lodge who was his son, and spoke of his delight that he and his boy had shared the special experience of the Gentle Craft. He then very kindly excused himself, and went to each of my companions, in turn, and held a similar conversation . On each face, I saw the same gratitude and relief, and pleasure that surely must have been displayed on mine during that brief talk.
I did not have the opportunity to speak to him again that evening. Apparently, he was ailing, somewhat, and left shortly after the closing. I never saw him again. Indeed, I learned later that he died not long after our meeting. Several months later, I had occasion to recount this incident to a friend, a non-mason, who was particularly well-connected in the social, business, and political circles of the city. When I told him this man's name, he looked at me rather startled. My friend informed me that the old man was very well-known and highly regarded in circles in that city and elsewhere in the nation; that he had originally come from the Old World where early in this century he had seen much of his own family, wealth, life and culture swept away by a revolutionary order and alien spirit; that he had made a new life in the United States, and had become renowned for his charm, his gaiety, his verve. He had reestablished himself in this country, had refounded his family here, and had won an honored record in World War II in the American Armed Services.
I do not presume to know what sort of man he really was. I only know that I have always heard good report of him from those who did know him. He had come to Freemasonry late in life, but I think his graciousness, and his kindness to me and my friends proved that perhaps he had indeed come to it in spirit long years before. I doubt seriously that he even thought of, or remembered the incident the next day, and certainly not the week. You see, I think he was a gentleman, and his interest, his grace, his kindness was not forced or at all contrived, but was a natural and comfortable part of him. He, in a casual moment, taught me something. His kindness cost him nothing, for real kindness is always freely given. But to me, it was worth much.
Over twenty-five years ago, the night I was raised in a little cow-country Lodge in New Mexico, I heard a piece of ritual, part of the Master's work in the closing of the Lodge, that is probably the finest encapsulation of the spirit of Masonic universality I have ever heard, and perhaps the most splendid definition of the Gentle Craft to which I have ever been privy. I learnt it by heart, and have used it to close any Masonic meeting over which I have been privileged to preside, whether as Master of my Lodge, Independent Royal Arch Number Two, or any of the York or appendant institutions. I believe it should be part of the standard work in all Lodges.
It is a small paragraph written two centuries ago (circa 1792) by a Yankee clergyman Mason, The Rev. Thaddeus Mason Harris. Versions of it are found all over the world of Freemasonry. Interestingly, it is one of the few portions of American ritual to have been widely adopted in British Lodges. It is given by the Worshipful Master after he steps down, in the Closing, from the Chair of Solomon to the Level of the World, after bidding all his brethren to join him on the level. When the closing prayer ends, the Master raises his hand in the ancient gesture of Masonic benediction, and says:
Brethren: You are now to quit this sacred retreat of friendship and virtue to mix again with the world. Amidst its concerns and employments, forget not the duties you have heard so frequently inculcated and forcibly recommended in this Lodge. Be diligent, prudent, temperate, and discreet. Remember that around this altar you have promised to befriend and relieve every worthy Brother who shall need your assistance. Remember that you have promised to remind him in the most tender manner of his failings, and aid his reformation. These generous principles are to extend further. Every human being has a claim upon your kind offices. Do good unto all. Recommend it more especially to the household of the faithful. Finally, Brethren, be ye all of one mind; live in peace; and may the God of love and peace delight to dwell with and bless you.
----o----
by Thomas W. Olzak
As we part the veils of history's portals, we find that many men and women of the past are known to us only through legend and the sometimes biased reporting of their contemporaries. To learn of the man or woman behind the legend is difficult; and sometimes impossible. Such is the case with Pythagoras.
What we know of the life of Pythagoras is, for the most part, a combination of religious myth and legend. (1) I attempted to take what I believe to be the slender threads of truth which run through the colorful tapestries portraying his life, and weave a new tapestry. This composite representation of Pythagoras' life includes his early life, his travels, his school, and the possible Pythagorean influence on Freemasonry. Although there may be no direct link between Pythagoras and Freemasonry, the teachings of Pythagoras have greatly influenced its structure and its teachings.
The Beginning
Pythagoras was born, as far as we can tell, in the year 600 B.C. His birth was allegedly foretold by Pythoness, then the Oracle of Delphi. The Oracle told Pythagoras' parents, the merchant Menesarchus and his wife Parthenis, that they would have a child destined to surpass all men in beauty and wisdom. They were also told by the Oracle, that throughout his lifetime, their son would contribute much to the benefit of mankind. When he was born in Sidon, in Phoenicia, Pythagoras was named in honor of the Oracle. (2)
The story of Pythagoras' birth is often accompanied by stories of a virgin birth. Sacred writings indicate that Pythagoras' mother conceived through a specter or holy spirit which appeared to her. His father had revealed to him through a vision that his wife would bear a son through divine conception and that he would be a benefactor to mankind.(3)
Legends of a virgin birth may have surfaced after the death of Pythagoras to help raise him to a status above normal man. As will be shown later, Pythagoras was thought by many to be a "Divine" teacher.
The Preparation
Not much is known of Pythagoras' childhood. However, there is much written about his travels during his early adult life. It seems he was initiated into the mysteries of several countries. These included the mysteries of Isis, Adonis, the Eleusinian Mysteries, the Chaldean Mysteries and the secrets of Babylon. In addition, he studied for several years in Hindustan where the Brahmins who taught Pythagoras named him Yavancharya, the Ionian Teacher.(4)
It was from the Brahmins that Pythagoras probably learned of the transmigration of souls. This concept played a major role in his future teachings. But, it was in Egypt that Pythagoras learned the sciences upon which he would build his explanation of the world; mathematics and geometry.(5) As was partially evident from his later teachings, he was thoroughly familiar with oriental and occidental, or western, philosophies. Nevertheless, Pythagoras did not exalt himself because of his knowledge. According to Albert G. Mackey, in his Encyclopedia of Freemasonry,
"Disdaining the vanity and dogmatism of the ancient sages, he contented himself with proclaiming that he was simply a seeker after knowledge, not its possessor, and to him is attributed the word philosopher, or lover of wisdom, as the only title he would assume."(6)
In fact, Pythagoras was the first to use the term philosopher as a description of himself.
After preparing himself through the study of the mysteries and religions of the seats of wisdom of the ancient world, it was time for Pythagoras to teach his world view to those who were worthy.
The School
Sometime during the second half of the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras travelled to Crotona, Italy where he opened a school. The word school may be a misnomer, however. The Pythagoreans, as they would soon be called, were a religious group or community. Further, Pythagoras was thought to be more than a philosopher.(7)
Iamblichus, in his life of Pythagoras, calls him "leader and father of divine philosophy," a superhuman being, a divine man. This description of Pythagoras is not unique. He was also given these attributes in accounts written by Porphyry, a Tyrean philosopher and author (circa 232-301 A.D.), and Diogenes Laertius, a notable third century A.D. biographer of the Greek Philosophers.(8)
The followers of Pythagoras were also convinced of his divinity. They called him the "son of god. " Every word Pythagoras spoke was noted and considered important. In his book Masonic, Hermetic, Qabbalistic and Rosicrucian Symbolical Philosophy, Manly P. Hall gives us an example of his legendary stature,
"In height he exceeded six feet; his body was as perfectly formed as that of Apollo. Pythagoras was the personification of majesty and power, and in his presence all felt humble and afraid. As he grew older, his physical powers increased rather than waned, so that as he approached the century mark he was actually in the prime of life. The influence of this great soul over those about him was such that a word of praise from Pythagoras filled his disciples with ecstasy, while one committed suicide because the Master became momentarily irritated over something he had done. Pythagoras was so impressed by this tragedy that he never again spoke unkindly to or about anyone." (8)
Life at the school was highly structured and discipline was considered of great importance. Silence, Secrecy, and unconditional obedience were cardinal principles of this great order. This does not mean that there was a lack of warmth and friendship among Pythagoras' students. Pythagoras taught that friendship was the truest and nearest perfect of all relationships. He believed "...that relationships were essentially mental rather than physical, and that a stranger of sympathetic intellect was closer to him than a blood relation whose viewpoint was at variance with his own.(9)" Consequently, the Pythagoreans became a brotherhood with each member caring for the others.
To enter the school at Crotona did not give the new student the right to come into direct contact with Pythagoras. A neophyte was required to pass through three degrees before he could enter into Pythagoras' presence. The first, Mathematicus, assured the student of proficiency in mathematics and geometry. The second, Theoreticus, dealt with the superficial applications of the exact sciences. The third, Electus, "entitled the candidate to pass forward into the light of the fullest illumination which he was capable of absorbing." (10) It was only after a candidate reached the level of Electus that he was allowed personal contact with Pythagoras. "The study of music, Geometry and astronomy was considered essential to a rational understanding of God, man, or nature, and no one could accompany Pythagoras who was not thoroughly familiar with these sciences. " (11)
The Way
As members of the school passed through the three degrees, they learned the great teachings which would be identified by later philosophies as Pythagorean. The greatest of these teachings may have been Pythagoras' system of numbers.
According to Dagobert D. Runes, "There is general agreement that Pythagoras is regarded as the initiator of mathematical demonstration and deduction." (12) The Pythagorean philosophy is based on numbers. Aristotle also commented on the importance of mathematics to Pythagorean thought,
"...the Pythagoreans, as they are called, devoted themselves to mathematics, they were the first to advance this study, and having been brought up in it they thought its principles were the principles of all things. " (13)
Not only did Pythagoras apply mathematics to logic and science, but he also used it to explain the world.
" . . . Pythagoras combined rational science and religious mysticism, and endeavored to use mathematical concepts and axioms for other worldly speculations. He influenced Plato and Plotinus, and, through them, many mystics and metaphysicians up to the present day. (14)
In addition, the Pythagoreans developed a form of algebra from their study of mathematics. "...Pythagoras has been not only credited with a method common in value to all branches of mathematics but to be personally comparable himself with Descartes who decisively combined geometry and algebra." (15)
Pythagoras used numbers to explain material phenomena. The first four numbers are of great importance. The number one represents the point, number two the line, number three the surface, and number four the solid (16) These are the fundamental Pythagorean geometric figures.
Combinations of the geometric elements constructed from the first four numbers were used to construct geometric shapes. These shapes were also used as symbols to explain the gods and existence. According to Plutarch, this was as a result of images Pythagoras had seen in Egypt. (17)
Two of the shapes used by Pythagoras were the triangle, or triad, and the square, or tetrad. The triangle represents the monad, 1, and the duad, 2, the monad representing the male and duad representing the female. Further, the tetrad, 4 represents the soul of man and the most perfect number. The concept of the triangle and the square was later adopted by the 17th century Rosicrucians. Some say that these two concepts, possibly influenced by Rosicrucian teachings, are represented by the Masonic apron. The triad, which in total represents spirit, mind, and soul, descends into the four, the world.(18)
Pythagoras' most important contribution to the world of geometry was the Pythagorean Theorem. This theorem describes the relationship among the three sides of a right triangle.
There are two more teachings of Pythagoras which must be mentioned. The first describes the concept of one god. The second describes the belief in the immortality of the soul.
In the Greece of Pythagoras, many gods were worshipped. In fact, there was a god for each important aspect of human endeavor. Pythagoras believed that transcending these popular gods was the absolute deity. This absolute deity was indescribable, without beginning or end, and without form. This deity of Pythagoras must not be confused with the Judeo-Christian Yahweh. Blavatsky infers in her "The Secret Doctrine" that the god of the Pythagoreans, and many other great schools of their time, may have influenced the Judeo-Christian concept of god. (19)
The last teaching of Pythagoras we will examine is his belief in the immortality of the soul. The system of gods which the Greeks worshipped did not allow for a blissful life after death. Instead, the essence of a person was confined to Hades and an eternity of meaningless, suffering existence. Pythagoras believed that man had a soul which was one with God.
"Late in the sixth century, Pythagoras taught that souls migrated after death into other bodies, both human and animal. Meat-eating was therefore an abomination, a form of cannibalism. (20)
The Pythagoreans believed that the soul should be tended and purified. "The practice of silence, the influence of music, and the study of mathematics were all looked on as valuable aids in tending the soul. (21)
After returning to a material form enough times to purify the soul, the soul would eventually become one with God and discontinue its journey through successive bodies.
It can be seen that the Pythagoreans described their world in terms of geometric and mathematical symbols. They believed in a supreme God of which all men's souls were a part. Their community, or school, was based on caring, study and purification. But how did Pythagorean thought of the 6th century B.C. influence Freemasons of the 17th and 18th centuries?
Influence on Freemasonry
The ritual, teachings and system of morality of Freemasonry can be said to be derived from the teachings of the Greek philosophers. According to William Hutchinson, called by many the "Father of Symbolic Freemasonry,"
"Our morality is deduced from the maxims of the Grecian philosophers, and perfected by the Christian revelation. (22)
The scholars of 17th and 18th century Europe were greatly influenced by classical studies. These studies particularly concentrated on Plato and Aristotle. Plato was greatly influenced by the Pythagoreans.(23) Aristotle, his pupil, was also affected but to a lesser extent.
Plato also believed that the world could be described in terms of numbers. It is possible that he borrowed this concept from the Pythagoreans;
"In Italy he (Plato) stayed for a time with a Pythagorean community, vegetarian and communist, which had for generations controlled the Greek colony in which it lived." (24)
The study of geometry was also very important to Plato. Will Durant describes the possible combination of Pythagorean and Platonic numbers in a story about a bridge;
"There is, as the gentle Spinoza would say, a world of things perceived by sense, and a world of things inferred by thought; we do not see the law of inverse squares but it is there, and everywhere; it was before anything began, and will survive when all the world of things is a finished tale. Here is a bridge: the sense perceives concrete and iron to a hundred million tons; the mathematician sees, with the mind's eye, the daring and delicate adjustment of all this mass of material to laws of mechanics and mathematics and engineering, those laws according to which all good bridges that are made must be made; if the mathematician be also a poet, he will see these laws upholding the bridge; if the laws were violated the bridge would collapse into the stream beneath; the laws are the God that holds up the bridge in the hollow of his hand. Aristotle hints something of this when he says that by ideas (idealistic representations of things or phenomena as we know them) Plato meant what Pythagoras meant by "number" when he taught that this is a world of numbers meaning presumably that the world is ruled by mathematical constancies and regularities...To Plato...mathematics is therefore the indispensable prelude to philosophy, and its highest form; over the doors of his Academy Plato placed...these words, 'Let no man ignorant of geometry enter here." (25)
It is true that geometry played a fundamental role in the operative craft from which speculative Masonry was born. In addition, the system of morality and philosophy upon which speculative Masonry is based must have been influenced to some extent by the teachings of Pythagoras and Plato.
Pythagoras can be directly linked to Freemasonry through the writings of some of the early Masonic authors. James Anderson, author of "Anderson's Constitutions of 1723, " makes this comment;
"Nor do we find the Grecians arrived to any considerable knowledge in Geometry, before the Great Thales Milesius, the philosopher, who died in the reign of Belshazzar, and the time of the Jewish captivity. But his scholar, the Greater Pythagoras, proved the author of the 47th problem of Euclid's first book, which, if duly observed, is the Foundation of all Masonry, sacred, civil and military."(26)
Although Anderson's grasp on actual historical events is not without doubt, it is clear from this early Masonic work that the link between the speculative mathematics of Pythagoras and the speculative craft was established.
Hutchinson, in his work "The Spirit of Masonry," first published in 1775, again establishes the link between Pythagoras and speculative Masonry, but in more familiar terms;
"It is known to all the learned that Pythagoras travelled into Egypt, and was initiated there into several different orders of priests, who in those days kept all their learning secret from the vulgar.--He made every geometrical theorem a secret, and admitted only such to the knowledge of them, as had first undergone a five-year silence.--He is supposed to be the inventor of the 47th proposition of Euclid, for which, in the joy of his heart, it is said he sacrificed a hecatomb." (27)
It is probable that Pythagorean teachings, either directly or indirectly, affected the development of speculative Masonry. The use of mathematics and geometry to explain the world is as fundamental to Freemasonry as it was to the Pythagoreans .
Aside from the connection between the teaching of Pythagoras and speculative Masonry, there may be a connection between the structure of Pythagorean schools and Masonic Lodges. According to Mackey,
"The schools established by Pythagoras at Crotona and other cities, have been considered by many writers as the models after which Masonic Lodges were subsequently constructed. They undoubtedly served the Christian ascetics of the first century as a pattern for their monastic institutions, with which institutions the Freemasonry of the Middle Ages, in its operative character, was intimately connected."(28)
This possibility is provided for your consideration. I was unable to find proof of its validity.
Conclusion
Even though the "real" Pythagoras may never be known, I believe this to be a reasonably true representation of his life and the affects of his teachings on the world.
His beliefs concerning numbers as they relate to the material world and morality influenced the greatest minds of recorded history. In addition, I believe I have shown that his concept of geometry and mathematics played a significant part in the development of speculative Masonry. Further, the system of morality upon which Freemasonry is based may be traced to the classical Greek Philosophers, who were influenced by the Pythagoreans.
Although this last point was not expanded here, I leave it to the reader to seek out the basic writings of these great minds. For it was on the teachings of Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and many more that the framework of western civilization was built. As we travel to the East, we can only benefit from the help these great teachers can give us. And who knows, maybe that for which we have so long wrought is hidden in the geometry of Pythagoras or the Ideals of Plato.
Footnotes
1. Runes, Dagobert D., A Treasury of Philosophy, Volume 11, (Grolier, New York 1955), P. 979.
2. Hall, Manly P., Masonic Hermitic, Qabbalistic and Rosicrucian Symbolical Philosophy, (The Philosophical Research Society, Los Angeles, 1977), P 65.
3. Spencer, Lewis H., Ph.D., F.R.C., Mystical Life of Jesus, (Supreme Grand Lodge of Ancient Mystical Order Rosae Crucis, San Jose, 1953), P 84.
4. Hall, Masonic. . . Philosophy, P. 6s.
5. Hutchinson, William The Spirit of Masonry, (The Aquarian Press, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, 1987), P 39.
6. Mackey, Albert G., Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, Volume II, (Macoy Publishing and Masonic Supply Company, Richmond, 1966), P 823.
7. Hall, Manly P., Masonic...Philosophy, P. 66.
8. Ibid, P. 66.
9. Ibid, P. 66.
10. Ibid, P. 66.
11. Ibid, P. 66.
12. Runes, Dagobert, A Treasury of Philosophy, P. 979.
13. Coppleston, Frederick, A History of Philosophy, Volume 1, (Doubleday, New York, 1985), P. 32.
14. Runes, Dagobert, A Treasury of Philosophy, P. 979.
15. Mackey, Albert, Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, P. 824.
16. Hall, Manly P., Masonic...Philosophy, P. 67.
17. Ibid, P. 69.
18. Ibid, P. 72.
19. Blavatsky, Helena Petrovna, The Secret Doctrine, Volume 1, (The Theosophical University Press, Pasadena, 1988), P. 613.
20. Boardman, John; Griffin, Jasper; Murray, Oswyn, The Oxford History of the Classical World, (Oxford University Press, New York, 1986), P. 269
21. Coppleston, Frederick, A History of Philosophy, P. 31.
22. Hutchinson, William, The Spirit of Masonry, P. 23.
23. Runes, Dagobert, A Treasury of Philosophy, P. 979.
24. Durant, Will, The Story of Philosophy, (Washington Square Press, New York, 1961), P. 42.
25. Ibid, P. 30.
26. Anderson, James, Anderson's Constitutions of 1723, (The Masonic Service Association of the United States, Washington, D.C., 1924), P. 50-51
27. Hutchinson, William, The Spirit of Masonry, P. 39-40.
----o----
Another Bonus From Your Society
You Requested This...
Masonic Lifeline is coming! It's an updated sequel to More Light in Masonry, a highly praised audio Masonic leadership program. It's a ten lesson manual, loaded with plans and goals for Masonic leadership and education, with hundreds of questions (and even suggested answers).
Here Are The Lessons:
1. Who Needs More Light in Masonry?; 2. A Plan for Action; 3. Working With Goals; 4. Teamwork Makes the Difference; 5. Growing the Leader; 6. Communication - a Road to Success; 7. Planning for Progress; 8. Dedication Through Education; 9. Masonry's Important Ingredient: the Individual; 10. Tying it all Together (by Conrad Hahn and never before published).
Plus charts, guides, and cartoons.
All (but No. 10) are written in the inimitable style of Allen E. Roberts, whom the late Harold V.B. Voorhis, FP$ said has done more than anyone else in modern times to further and encourage Masonic education.
Masonic Lifeline will contain about 130 pages, wire bound to lie flat as a workbook should. It is intended to supplement (not supplant) Grand Lodge educational and leadership programs. In fact, this manual strongly encourages the reader to learn all about the laws, customs and programs of his Grand Lodge. It's excellent for individual or group study
The price has been kept low because of the cooperation of The Philalethes Society, The Masonic Service Association, and Anchor Communications.
Here's a prepublication offer (too good to pass up) valid only until January 15. 1992:
$4.00 (foreign, $5.00 U.S.) per manual, postpaid. For group study you may take 5% off this price for orders of 10 or more copies. Order from: The Philalethes Society, Dept. ML, PO Box 70, Highland Springs, VA 23075-0070.
(Note: This same offer is being made through The Masonic Service Association. The manual will be available in March, 1992.)
----o----
by Thomas E. Weir, FPS
We take Freemasonry very much for granted. We know what the Fraternity does and what it stands for. However, we judge mostly by our own experience and what we have heard from our immediate predecessors. What do we really know about our Fraternity and the heritage from which it springs? What great forces were at work to shape both Masonry and other social institutions of eighteenth century England? What vestiges are there in custom and usage of those early Lodges? The Mystery of Masonry is how and why the forms, uniforms and symbols of an ancient Craft became, in a few short years, a social force of widespread appeal and considerable impact.
The ritual of Freemasonry gives valuable clues, although differences in ritual are apparent. Those who travel from one American jurisdiction to another see many incidental differences in ways Lodges are opened and closed and degrees conferred. The sojourning Mason finds that the modern American version of Masonry is very much the same in spirit and practice from coast to coast, even though details differ. The typical American Lodge opens at 7:30, closes when the Worshipful Master and Brethren see fit and serves non-alcoholic refreshments after Lodge is closed. Are all Lodges alike?
For a different sort of Lodge, go to London. Attending a Lodge in London is relatively easy, and the welcome is most cordial. Before leaving home, obtain a letter of introduction from the Grand Secretary of your Grand Lodge. It is also courteous to ask one's Grand Secretary to write ahead to advise the Grand Secretary of the United Grand Lodge of England of your intended visit. Visitors to London Lodges are expected to bring aprons and gloves and to wear dark suits and black ties. Visitors who wish to participate in the dinner following the tiled meeting will, of course, be responsible for the cost of the meal.
Call at the Grand Secretary's office at the Grand Lodge building in Great Queen Street, near the Strand. The staff will advise names, locations and programs of Lodges meeting that evening. I was fortunate enough to be invited in by a Lodge that conferred both the first and second degrees on two separate candidates. Instead of the 7:30 opening usual for most American Lodges, the Lodge opened at 4:30 in the afternoon in one of the many Lodge rooms in the Grand Lodge building and closed, having conferred both degrees, about 6:00. We passed through an arch into the Connaught buildings, a complex of dining rooms adjacent to Grand Lodge. Wine was served with dinner, another difference from American practice. The Lodge dinner continued until 10:00 o' clock .
A second London Lodge, composed of Scout leaders and other youth workers and of which a close friend was Master proceeded in much the same manner. The Lodge met in the headquarters building of the Supreme Council, Scottish Rite, then went to the nearby Overseas League for dinner.
If the form of meetings of Lodges here and in London differ so much today, what were Lodges and Masonry itself like at the beginning? What are the roots from which we have grown? We may have mythical beginnings in King Solomon's Temple, but we, as a social rather than a professional body, have perceptible roots not much earlier than the formation of the Premier Grand Lodge in London in 1717 . Accounts of the deliberations of the early Grand Lodge do not indicate an interest in operative Masonry. The forces that shaped the institution of social Freemasonry must have lain beyond the community of operative Masonry.
In 1717, when the Premier Grand Lodge was founded, the Scottish Bishop's Wars, the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution which brought William & Mary to the throne were well past. King George, a German reputed not to speak English, had survived the "Fifteen," a primarily Scottish revolt in 1715, intended to return a Roman Catholic to the throne. "Bonnie Prince Charlie, " the romantic hero of the " Forty-five," had not yet been born. The Duke of Marlborough and British troops were regularly beating the French. Optimism was surging. Private fortunes were blossoming, mansions were being built by many on a scale never before equalled. The economy was booming. On the other hand, the ordinary London citizen was menaced by rampant poverty, drunkenness (whiskey was eight cents a quart; gin was cheaper), prostitution and crime. For much of the population, life was regularly threatened by a mixture of depravity and horror.
The Church of England was the Established Church. After the religious civil wars of the seventeenth century, other Christian denominations were tolerated, but Roman Catholics and Jews were disenfranchised. Deism was the socially and intellectually acceptable form of Christianity. Deism has been explained by describing the relationship of God and the universe as similar to that of a watchmaker and a watch. A watchmaker makes a watch according to established principles, winds it and lets it go. Thereafter, if the watch is well-made, he need not take any interest in the watch except a paternal satisfaction. The contention was that God had fashioned the complexities of the universe according to His immutable laws, then wished it well. For those who benefitted from the expanding economy and the dawning of the Agricultural Revolution, this was a comforting theology. In Deism, God was more or less the god of the comfortable.
John Wesley, an Oxford Don who could have withdrawn into academic isolation, felt, as the result of his ministry to miners and other laborers, that a God not involved in the lives of mortals is too distant to be of practical value to ordinary human beings. The Established Church of his day was described in The Spectator as, "The Conservative Party at worship." Wesley felt that self-satisfaction was not the goal of Christianity.
Thus Methodism and Masonry are certainly the product of the same socio-economic ferment and can be said to have been generated by the same religious and social concern. Wesley, not intending to leave the Church of England, organized societies of Methodists within the Established Church. Masonry cast a wider net, adapting the concept of the club, an idea flourishing at that time in London, to serve the ends of friendship, truth, morality, brotherly love and relief.
Man must have had clubs from his earliest days. Certainly, cavemen had clubs. The ancient Greeks had clubs [hetaireia]. In ancient Greece, the most common clubs were probably religious groups organized for the worship of obscure gods not recognized by the government. There were also political, commercial and athletic clubs, as well as social dining clubs [symposia] whose members met to eat and debate. The meeting and the conversation of one of these clubs is immortalized in Plato's essay, "The Symposium." Instead of being like modern clubs, these groups were simply haphazard fellowships of like-minded persons, meeting without schedule at the call of a leader.
The Romans imitated the Greeks in this as in other matters, then the Dark Ages succeeded the Roman Empire and clubs fell into disuse. In the Middle Ages, the English were unique in that they organized what amounted to fairly complicated clubs designed to meet the needs of members. In spite of the opinions of most historians, who feel that the common people of the Middle Ages were too limited in ability and opportunity or intimidated to organize for any purpose, the English yeomanry organized groups called parish guilds which cared for the sick, buried the dead, provided opportunities to win and exercise leadership, attend special church services and help support the local church. Clergymen were usually forbidden membership and the Nobility were tolerated, but only as ordinary members. There was no national organization. Although the gilds were popular and kings patronized them, the parish guilds were finally wiped out by Henry VIII in 1535. After the destruction of the parish gilds, their structure was perpetuated by the craft gilds of major cities, particularly London. The idea of the club persisted. Within a hundred years of the dissolution of the parish gilds, clubs began to be popular again in England.
In fact, the earliest known English club was le Court de Bone Compagnie, a dining club which flourished in the early 1400's in the time of Henry IV, meeting in a house near the Temple Church. In the late 1500's, the Friday Street or Bread Street Club met in the Mermaid Tavern and is thought to have been founded by Sir Walter Raleigh. In 1616, the Apollo Club was founded by Ben Johnson. Although exclusively male, it admitted women on special occasions. These early English clubs tended to be ad hoc organizations, in which a leader and his followers met to enjoy each other's company
In the mid 1600's, coffeehouses became popular in the London that replaced Oliver Cromwell, the Lord Protector, with King Charles II. Coffee houses made it convenient for clubs to have regular (stated) meetings at a fixed location. The landlord usually set aside a special room for the club. Usually, the price of the food and drink covered the rental of the room. One may imagine the proceedings of a Club during the reign of Charles II to be similar to the proceedings of the dinners enjoyed today by modern London Masonic Lodges. Early clubs were often political, like their Greek predecessors, emphasizing the association of people who thought alike. There were also purely social clubs. In one of these, the Wednesday Club, founded by William Patterson at the Dog and Whistle Tavern, members drew up the scheme that resulted in the founding of the Bank of England.
During the reign of Charles II, a preeminent club was formed: The Royal Society, or The Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge. Virtually every distinguished British scientist of the seventeenth century belonged to the Royal Society or its predecessor, The Philosophical Society. Qualification for membership was rigorous. Regular membership was limited to those noblemen with the rank of baron or greater. Medical doctors and science professors at "the two universities" (Oxford and Cambridge) could apply for supernumerary membership. The success of the Royal Society was assured not only by the landmark scientific achievements of its members, such as Sir Isaac Newton, but also by the King's application for membership a year after its chartering. The popularity of the Royal Society provided the spur for the organization of further societies for purposes other than entertainment. The proliferation of clubs in the eighteenth century was not altogether beneficial. The Hell Fire Club included many of the leading men of the early 1700's, including an early ducal Grand Master, and specialized in outrageous conduct. The Mohock Club terrorized the London natives by behavior little short of barbarism.
Perhaps the unconscious model for the best British clubs was the King and his court. The court, under the leadership of the sovereign, had rituals, ceremonies, degrees to be conferred, offices, honors, banquets, revelry and fellowship, as well as charity to be bestowed. Is it not logical to model the ideal club after the royal court, with all the attributes described above. The presiding officer would represent a king! However, in the social and philosophical ferment which were to produce the Wesleyan revival and Paine's RIGHTS OF MAN, an assembly of king and courtiers was not enough. A club that caught the excitement and dynamics of the Enlightenment and expressed a conviction of the inherent dignity of man, created in the image of God, must recognize the brotherhood and equality of all men by having as its keystone the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man. Membership should be based not on social rank, wealth or possessions, but on the moral worth of the individual. As at court, charity would be an important concern in such a club. Imagine then, a group of men, as concerned as John Wesley about the moral and social welfare of the country, as dedicated to the inherent brotherhood of men as Thomas Paine and as reverently conscious of the Fatherhood of God as the established church.
Was it possible to organize a "club" with a set of values such that the members would daily " increase in faith, hope and charity?" Could they devise a system whereby the prerequisite for membership would be moral integrity rather than social position or wealth? Could they devise a strategy whereby such an organization could be passed from generation to generation rather than perish with the founders? By chance or predestination, there was such a group of men, Londoners who were "accepted" members of four Lodges of Free (operative) and Accepted (speculative) Masons, named after the taverns where they met: the Goose & Gridiron (in St. Paul's Church-yard), The Crown (in Parker's Lane near Drury Lane), The Apple Tree (in Charles Street, Covent Garden) and the Rummer and Grapes in (ChannelRow, Westminster) . In 1717, they met to form a Grand Lodge.
Why choose Masonry as the pattern for the perfect club? Certainly, the inspiration did not come from London's Worshipful Company of Masons. For all practical purposes, the gilds of masons to be found in every major town were not essentially different from the other gilds of that town. Why not form a Lodge or guild of operative and speculative mercers, grocers or goldsmiths? The important factor was the distinction between "itinerant" Masonry and the masons' guilds was critical to the formation of the first Grand Lodge. Itinerant Masonry built the great ecclesiastical and civil buildings of the Middle Ages with Masons who were free to go from job to job. They had developed a brotherhood and means of recognition which offered to every Mason a job where workmen were needed or hospitality and a day's wages if there were no jobs.
In the sixteenth century, there was a tendency for Masonic Lodges to settle down in a particular location. In the seventeenth century, Masons had opened the doors of their Lodges to men who had formed a good opinion of the order, but had no intention of putting one stone upon another. Masonry provided the framework upon which the ideal club could be built. The Worshipful Master sat in the East, representing a king. Officers and honors, with splendid regalia, were available to those who could earn them. Degrees and rituals rivalled the impressiveness of those practiced by the Court. Ceremonies were elaborate and inspiring. The fellowship enjoyed by Masons at banquets and other gatherings were sometimes spontaneous and sometimes formal, but always designed for the enjoyment of all participants. Revelry, if we may judge by the accounts of witnesses within and outwith the eighteenth century Craft, got out of hand and had to be restrained. Charity was regularly practiced within the Craft and the potential for charity to all in need was unlimited. Other advantages of Masonry included the attractiveness of the "mystery" which surrounded it and gave the members a feeling of election in an almost theology sense, its demonstrated ability to survive for centuries and a system for perpetuating leadership and ritual.
London was unable to confine the ideals and practice of Freemasonry. Quickly, the Fraternity spread into the English countryside, across national boundaries until it spread everywhere under the canopy of heaven. Our Founders, asserting the brotherhood and equality of men and avowing our dependence upon God, established the Grand Lodge system of Masonry and provided the materials and the tools for satisfying our social and achievement needs, and have passed on those tools and materials to us. We face a world different from theirs with new values, new opportunities and new challenges. Let us build today a structure for tomorrow, worthy of the trust they have placed in us.
----o----
Louisville -DeMolay Commandery No. 12, K.T.
150 Years of Service
by Momson L. Cooke, MPS
In the year 1805 a Grand Encampment was organized at Providence, R.I., for "the State of Rhode Island and the jurisdiction thereunto belonging. " Thomas S. Webb was the first Grand Master. The first General Grand Encampment was formed in New York on June 22, 1816. (Later on in 1856 after the Constitution was adopted the title was changed to "The Grand Encampment of the United States.")
An application for a charter was granted to Webb Commandery at Lexington, KY., obviously named for the first Grand Master, by Thomas Snow, Grand Generalissimo of the Grand Encampment. This was confirmed by the Grand Encampment in September 1822, and Daniel E. Cowan was named the first Eminent Commander. However, the commandery was short-lived, and ceased operations entirely from 1828 until March 1841 .
In the meantime, an application was made to the Grand Encampment in December 1839 to form a commandery in Louisville, and dispensation was granted for this purpose on January 2, 1840, and a charter was issued by the General Grand Encampment on September 17, 1841 . Thus began Louisville Commandery, or Louisville Encampment, as it was called then. Since Webb No. 1 was defunct at the time, Louisville became No. 1.
A convention of Knights Templar was held in Frankfort on October 5, 1847, and the Grand Commandery of Kentucky was formed. It so happens then that Louisville-DeMolay Commandery, Frankfort Commandery, and Webb Commandery pre-date the Grand Commandery of Kentucky.
A group of Knights of Louisville No. 1 met at a regular Conclave on March 26, 1867, requesting a demit in order to form a new commandery. On April 13th Sir Kt. Charles R. Woodruff, R.E. Grand Commander, meeting in Louisville, granted Dispensation to set the commandery to work. It was named after our last Grand Master, Jacques Demolai, and was to be known as DeMolay Commandery, Richard G. Hawkins was the first Eminent Commander.
The two Commanderies continued to grow and distinguish themselves individually, both winning national drill competition at the Grand Encampment, and many local and state-wide drill competitions.
After many years of honorable service, during which time they functioned separately for a period of 66 years, the two commanderies merged on May 18, 1933. Although Webb Commandery in Lexington had been re-activated in 1841, Louisville-DeMolay Commandery, the new name agreed upon, could have continued to be known as Number 1. But Sir Kt. William Armstrong, a Past Grand Commander, and staunch member of DeMolay Commandery and a leader in the merger, did not want to give up the famous "number 12" so the newly merged Commandery received the title it holds today--Louisville-DeMolay No. 12.
While Templary and Masonry everywhere have lost some of their glamour of the past, Louisville-DeMolay has a long and honorable history. Many of the great leaders of our city, of all professions, as well as Masonic leaders, have been active members of the Commandery. Among them were such outstanding names as Bishop Thomas U. Dudley, Rob Morris, H.B. Grant, Isaac T. Woodson, Willis Stewart, and John R. Cowles, later to be Grand Commander of the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite. He and W.J. Watkins gave us our cannon, in the front hall, affectionately called the "Orator," in 1894. Louisville No. 1 and DeMolay No. 12, collectively, produced 31 Grand Commanders and one M.E. Grand Master, Solomon K. Grant, nephew of President U.S. Grant, was the first from Louisville No. 1 and James A. Beattie was the first from DeMolay. Rodney Williams is our 31 st. William Ryan, for whom Ryan No. 17, Danville, is named, Warren Larue Thomas, later Grand Master, and William L. Dawson, were knighted in Louisville before Ryan and Rob Morris were in existence, later demitting to those Commanderies. In addition many Grand Masters of Grand Lodge, Grand High Priests, and Illustrious Grand Masters were members of these two commanderies. Their roster looked like a Who's Who of Louisville elite.
Louisville Commandery was started in a building on the south side of Main St. between 5th and 6th Sts. John R. Hall was the first Eminent Commander. Then they moved to 3rd and Jefferson (probably Green, or Liberty) over the Post Office. In 1842 they were in the Old Masonic Hall at 5th and Green, where the Federal Reserve now stands. The Building was jointly owned by the Masons and the 1st Baptist Church, later Walnut St. Baptist. In 1850 they moved to the Jacob Building on the S.E. corner of 3rd and Market. In 1857 they moved into the beautiful Masonic Temple on 4th St. between Liberty and Jefferson. They were forced to leave there because of a fire, and resided in the Scottish Rite Temple on 6th and Walnutin 1897. They were temporarily in the Elks Bldg. on Walnut between 3rd and 4th Sts. In 1900. In 1904 they occupied the new Masonic Temple on Chestnut between 3rd and 4th Sts. This was the Shubert Building which housed the Strand Theatre below.
In 1933, when Louisville No. 1 and DeMolay No. 12 merged, they were meeting in their new building at 212 W. Broadway, which they had purchased in 1909. They stayed there almost 50 years, when hard times struck and they had to sell that wonderful property. They then moved back to the present Scottish Rite Temple, later moving to Preston Lodge's new building on East Broadway. They stayed there until Preston Lodge sold the building and they moved to Crescent Hill Lodge on Frankfort Ave. In 1959 they bought a residential building on Newburg Road, which proved economically impractical, and they sold it after one year and moved back to Crescent Hill Lodge Hall where they remained almost 25 years before moving to Parkland Temple on 2nd and Kentucky.
And now with our dream come true and celebrating not only 150 years of continuous operation, but 1 year in our beautiful new' Asylum, and a Grand Commander from our midst, we look forward to the next sesqui-centennial with great excitement and anticipation.
Please send all editorial for future issues of The Philalethes to:
Allen E. Roberts, FPS 110 Quince Avenue Highland Springs, VA 23075
----o----
Kinnamon's Fraudulent Egyptian Masonry
by Jerry Marsengill, FPS
Editor's Note:
This article was written more than 25 years ago. After five years of research and correspondence, I thought it was needed
It was originally published in the "Iowa Grand Lodge Bulletin" and was later reprinted in the "Royal Arch Mason," Vol. XI No 3 Fall 1973. It was again reprinted in my collection "How to Kick a Sacred Cow. " I thought at that time although 150,000 people had an opportunity to read it, that it would make no difference to those who would rather believe the false stories which caused me to write it. I have not been disappointed A number of publications have picked up the old Kinnamon stories and reprinted them. I first noticed it in the "New Mexico Freemason, " and since that time in 10 or 12 other publications. I would doubt that it will have any more effect than it did the first time around
JEM
One problem of the Masonic Fraternity seems to be that many brethren cannot accept the simple fact that our order originated with a group of operative builders sometime in the middle ages. To escape the supposed stigma of being spiritual descendants of a building guild, they invent many wonderful and ingenious explanations of the origin of the Masonic institution. Not only do they endeavor to supply a supposed esoteric meaning to all of the Masonic symbols, they will believe any tale, however implausible, which tends to establish a more mystic or occult beginning for the science of Freemasonry.
Ancient Egypt, being one of the repositories of the so-called ancient mysteries, has been a fertile field for the imaginative theories of these "searchers." Naturally, men, whose chief objectives is to separate the gullible from their money, have found that they can play on these false values and thereby enrich themselves.
One of the most ingenious of these frauds was the late (Dr.) O.J. Kinnamon. It was supposed, for a long while, that the expose of Doctor Kinnamon as a fraud had settled the question of alleged Egyptian "Masonry" for all time. Recently, a new spate of articles has appeared in the Masonic press, stating the same old theories, even though disguised in new forms. The original Kinnamon articles have also been resurrected and are again being presented as factual studies. Not only is this a disservice to the entire Masonic institution, it is practically a crime against our newly made Masons, many of whom have no other criteria by which to establish a theory of Masonry, except that which they read.
The following article has recently appeared in no less than seven varied Masonic publications.
"Did The Egyptians Really Have Masonry?"
Dr. O.J. Kinnamon, one of the two survivors of the 22 who opened the Tomb of King Tutankhamen and examined its contents and who spent 20 years in work on the tombs and temples of ancient Egypt, said:
"Masonry did not have its beginning in Europe in the seventeenth century. I do not know where or when the principles of Masonry had their beginning but years of archeological study in Egypt show that it came there in the days of pharaohs, maybe from India. There are signs that it came into India from the lost continent of Mu."
He described the unwrapping of the king's fabric had been unwound from its midsection a Masonic apron was found in its proper place.
Whether rituals of the Egyptian mysteries were anything like what we now know as Masonry cannot be determined, but it is nonetheless true that many of the symbols now employed by the Craft were used then and probably had much the same significance.
It is recorded that when the two monoliths known as "Cleopatra's Needles" were sent by the Khedive from Alexandria, one to the United States and the other to England, the workmen found in their original bases two ashlars, an apron, a trowel, and other evidence that something closely akin to speculative Masonry was practiced in Egypt at least 15 centuries before the birth of Christ. (End Quoted article)
It would seem that no intelligent Freemason could possibly be convinced by the preceding article that there could possibly be any connection between our Freemasonry and what the supposed "Doctor" alleges.
This, unfortunately is not the case. In the Freemason's Guide and Compendium by Bernard E. Jones, Macoy, New York, 1950, it is stated in Chapter 30 on page 449 that:
"From ancient days the apron has been an emblem, a symbol, as well as part of a Craftsman's working-dress. It was worn by candidates in many ancient mysteries, Egyptian, Persian, Jewish, Indian, etc.--and there is an echo of such usage in the wearing of an apron by the church dignitary, and in the Freemason's custom of wearing an apron at all times in Lodge. Dr. O.J. Kinnamon (one of the two survivors of the group of 22 men who, on January 3, 1924, opened the sarcophagus of King Tutankhamen) relates that the unwrapping of the mummy of the King revealed an apron, but, of course, we have no ground for presuming that it was a Masonic apron."
Now, since the falsehoods of the alleged doctor have pervaded even what should be an absolutely authoritative treatise, one which could be relied upon at all times, the claims of Kinnamon should be examined in the hope of finding whether or not there is the least grain of truth in his statements.
Approximately ten years ago the Masonic Service Association issued the following:
Warning To Masonic Editors (Confidential)
The recent reappearance in Masonic periodicals of stories quoting the late Dr. O.J. Kinnamon as "a famous Egyptologist" who "spent 20 years in work on the tombs and temples of ancient Egypt" suggests the need for another warning about his doubtful reputation.
The late " Doctor" Kinnamon fraudulently asserted that he had been present at the opening of King Tutankhamen's tomb and he charged lecture fees to tell the story of his experience. A similar imposter was Dr. James C. Hollenbeck. Their statements about Masonic evidences in the tombs of Pharaohs are a mixture of fact and fantasy.
Serious scholars of ancient history can only regard Freemasonry as careless and gullible if the Fraternity uses such "authorities" to establish Masonic "history," especially as it concerns ancient Egypt.
One would think that this warning would be the final word and that, after reading this, no Masonic editor, nor any Masonic speaker, would give any credence to the Kinnamon allegations. Yet, in spite of this warning, about every ten years, the Kinnamon stories are again unearthed.
The supposed Masonic emblems on the obelisks can be fairly easily disposed of. The Philalethes, December 1991 From the drawings and the photographs of these alleged "Masonic" emblems, we must draw the conclusion that a good deal of active imagination is needed even to suppose that these have any connection with the Masonic institution. In the Builder, in the early years of the century, a number of articles by various brethren including Thomas Ross, PGM of New Zealand, and Geo. W. Baird, of the District of Columbia tried to show that there was some Egyptian influence on Freemasonry, but most of these articles were merely hypotheses by the authors. No connection can be shown between any Egyptian symbols and any symbols which are used by the Masonic institution. Merely because a square is invested with morality by some people, and again by another, is no proof that there is a connection between the two incidents.
This is also true of the supposed use of the square by the Chinese to teach morality. Whether or not this is true, and it would appear that most of the brethren who make this extravagant claim are not Chinese scholars, the use of the square in this context may have been borrowed from the Chinese sages, but this simple act does not make a connection with the Masonic institution, any more than our use of Shakespeare's "that undiscovered country, from whose bourne no traveler returns, " makes Shakespeare a Freemason.
One might as well state that, because the example of the camel and the eye of the needle are mentioned in the New Testament, this proves that the Shrine sewing circle existed in ancient Judea.
First the allegation that the mummy of King Tutankhamen wore a Masonic apron must be examined. The tomb of King Tutankhamen was located, discovered, opened, and explored by the Carter-Carnarvon expedition under the direction of Howard Carter. Since Lord Carnarvon, who financed the expedition and who was the real head of the expedition, did not mention any Masonic symbols in or near the tomb, it would be a piece of evidence that none such existed, since Carnarvon was the son of the 4th Earl of Carnarvon, who had served as pro-Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England. Such a man certainly would have noticed any symbols which resembled those with which he was familiar.
King Tutankhamen was an unimportant monarch, who ruled for approximately seven years and died at the age of 18 . The only significance which he has to history is the fact that his was the only royal tomb which had not previously been despoiled by grave robbers and therefore, for the first time, Carter was enabled to study the actual burial customs of the Egyptians and the manner in which they cared for their royal corpses. It would appear that if Masonic aprons were to be found in ancient Egypt, they would have been found on one of the more important Egyptian sovereigns, and not on such an obscure monarch as Tutankhamen was. Yet, the manner of the finding of the tomb of King Tutankhamen and the treasures contained within it whetted the appetite of the public for knowledge of the tomb, and to a lesser extent, knowledge of archeology. Consequently, men of the type of Kinnamon were enabled to find a ready made audience for their fantasies.
Carter and A.C. Mace, who assisted him in the final examinations, wrote the first volume of a three-volume set entitled The Tomb of Tutankhamen. Carter later completed the second and third volumes. According to Carter, whose word we have no reason to doubt, the first incisions into the wrappings of the mummy of the king were made by Doctor Derry at 9:45 a.m., November 11, 1926. In the second volume, The Tomb of Tutankhamen, 1927, Carter describes the actual work on the body of the king thus:
Judging from the external appearances of Tutankhamen's outer coffin, from the preservation of the royal mummies formerly discovered, and now in the Cairo museum, after all the depredations they had suffered, one was led to expect that this untouched king would be in almost perfect condition. Unfortunately, that was not the case. We found him in a terrible state. There was every proof that care had been taken in his mummification; he was swathed in masses of the finest cambric-like wrappings, he was literally smothered with every kind of ornament and amulet, he was enclosed in a sold gold coffin, but the very custom of those burial rites proved his destruction.
The mummy, as well as the gold coffin, had been subjected to consecration unguents that had been poured over them in great quantities. The unguents were of a nature of fatty matter, resin, and possibly wood pitch, originally in a liquid or semi-liquid condition. In the course of time, the composition of these unguents acted destructively upon the contents. The consolidated residue of the unguents also formed a hard black pitch-like mass, which firmly stuck both the mummy and its mask to the bottom of the coffin, and no amount of legitimate force could move them. The mummy had to be examined as it lay "in situ" in the coffin. Thus any systematic unwrapping for which we had hoped was rendered impossible.
Carter goes on to describe how the wrappings of the body of the king had carbonized and how there was no possible way of unwrapping them systematically. He continued to write about the mummy of the king for some 33 pages, over half of them devoted to describing the ornaments found with the body of the king.
Doctor Derry later contributed a monograph detailing the inspection of the body from an anatomical point of view, in which he expressed the theory that Tutankhamen was the son of the heretic king, Ikhnaton. He also surmised, from the degree of ossification of the internal condyle of the humerus and the condition of the bony union of trochanter and femur and the end of the tibia, that Tutankhamen was somewhere between 17 and 18 years of age at death, 18 being the nearest estimate. Again we return to the work of Carter to describe the unwrapping.
The outer wrappings consisted of one large linen sheet, held in position by three longitudinal (one down the centre and one at each side) and four transverse bands of the same material, corresponding in position to the flexible gold inlaid trappings already mentioned. These linen bands had evidently been fastened to the linen covering by some such adhesive as Herodotus has described. They were doubled, and varied from 2-3/4 to 3-1/2 inches in width. The central longitudinal band beginning in the middle of the abdomen (in reality thorax) was passed under the lower layer of each of the three transverse bands, over the feet, under the soles, and doubled back below the second layer of transverse bands. At each side of the feet, the linen wrappings had been rubbed, the result probably of friction against the sides of the metal coffin during transport to the tomb. The mummy lay at a slight angle, suggesting that it had been subjected to some shock when lowered into the sarcophagus. There was also similar evidence to imply that the unguents had been poured over the mummy and coffin before they were lowered into the sarcophagus--the liquid being at different levels on the two sides, suggesting the tilting of the coffin.
In consequence of the fragile and carbonized condition of the linen swathing, the whole of the exposed surface was painted over with melted paraffin wax of such a temperature that, when congealed it formed a thin coating on the surface, with minimum penetration of the decayed wrappings beneath. When the wax had cooled, Dr. Derry made a longitudinal incision down the centre of the outer binding to the depth penetrated by the wax, thus enabling the consolidated layer to be removed in large pieces. Nor did our troubles end here. The very voluminous under-wrappings were found to be in even worse condition of carbonization and decay. We had hoped, by removing a thin outer layer of bandage from the mummy, to free it at the points of adhesion to the coffin so that it might be removed, but in this we were again disappointed. It was found that the linen beneath the mummy and the body itself had been so saturated by the unguents which formed a pitch-like mass at the bottom of the coffin and held it embedded so firmly that it was impossible to raise it except at risk of great damage. Even after the greater part of the bandages had been carefully removed, the consolidated material had to be chiselled away from beneath the limbs and trunk before it was possible to raise the king's remains.
From this we can plainly see there was no possibility of there being any type of "Masonic" apron on the body of King Tutankhamen. There is one slight reference to an apron in the work of Howard Carter, which, by the use of a liberal imagination, and by a person who wished intentionally to deceive others, might be made to appear that such a garment was on the body. Carter describes the garment thus: "Encircling the waist, the two front ends as low as the hips, was a narrow chased gold girdle, to which, in all probability, belong a ceremonial apron."
We must note that Carter referred to the "chased gold girdle" which he said was found on the mummy as " in all probability" being or belonging to a ceremonial apron. He did not state this as a definite fact. So we may conclude that rather than being an emblem of any society, it was merely a part of the dress of an Egyptian monarch, and had no esoteric significance.
The Oriental Institute of Chicago, whose director, James Henry Breasted, was present at the opening of the tomb, gives us the information that we sought as to the presence of Doctor Kinnamon and as to the possibility of there being such an apron:
Due to a discontinuity of curators over the years, we do not have Dr. Boyce's files here in the Museum Office. I have, however, referred to a recent book on the tomb of Tutankhamon by Christine Desroches-Nobelcourt, and also to Carter's own accounts of the excavation. They include Carter, Lord Carnarvon, his daughter, Lady Herbert, Callendae, Davis, Ibraham Effendi of the Antiquities Department; Lady Allendy, Abd el Aziz Bey Yehia, Mohamed Bey Fahmy, Mr. Tottenham, and Pierre Lacau were also present at the official opening. Mr. Kinnamon's name seems to be nowhere included in these accounts as being present at the opening of the tomb or involved in subsequent work. The mummy itself was encased in several coffins, wrapped in a linen shroud and wrapped in bandages...Sincerely, Susan J. Allen.
In searching for any connection with the elusive Doctor Kinnamon and the tomb of King Tutankhamen, over 60 of the public libraries in the major cities of the United States were consulted. None of them have any record of an O.J. Kinnamon, nor of any Doctor Kinnamon. We have also checked the current listings of all periodical literature as well as those of the past. In no place does the name of Dr. O.J. Kinnamon appear, neither as a participant, nor as a commentator. Were he such a famous Egyptologist as our Masonic editors of the various magazines would have us believe, he would have certainly published something, or one of the other explorers would have made mention of him. To further explore this, no books have ever been published bearing the name of Kinnamon as either author or co-author.
In Howard Carter's own listing of those present at the opening of the tomb, Doctor kinnamon's name does not appear. Carter states that those who were present at the time were: Lord Carnarvon; Lady Evelyn Herbert; H.E. Abd el Halim Pasha Suleman, Minister of Public Works, M. Lacau, Director General of the Service of Antiquities; Sir William Garstin, Sir Charles Aust; Mr. Lythgoe, Curator of the Egyptian Department of the Metropolitan Museum, New York; Professor James Henry Breasted, Director of the Oriental Institute, Chicago; Dr. Alan Gardiner; Mr. Winlock; The Hon. Mervyn Herbert; The Hon. Richard Bethell; Mr. Engleback, Chief Inspector of the Department of Antiquities; three Egyptian Inspectors of the Department of Antiquities; the representative of the Government Press Bureau, and the members of the staff, about 20 persons in all. The staff includes A.C. Mace; Callander; Burton, the photographer; Hall and Hauser, the draftsmen, and Lucas.
Further evidence that Kinnamon was not present is contained in a letter from Lindsley F. Hall, the Carter expedition's draftsman, to Bro. Carle H. Kummer, of New York on August 16, 1966:
"I must say that I never heard of Dr. O.J. Kinnamon. He certainly was not one connected with any work at the original opening of the Tomb. During the years that followed he was probably in Egypt, but could hardly have had any official status. I wonder whom he considers the other survivor is. Carter does not mention Doctor Kinnamon in his first Tutankhamen volume. You can see the index. I wonder if the Scottish Rite News mentioned all 22 openers--no, of course not! With the possible exception of some native diggers hired by Carter, I know of no one who, survives of the original party--except yours truly "
Endeavors to contact Brother Hall at this time have proved unsuccessful. Apparently, if he is still living, he is no longer in the Portland, Oregon, area. The Kummer manuscript, obtained from the Masonic Service Association, caused a problem in research since C.W. Ceram in Gods Graves, and Scholars, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1958, had written on page 204: "When Lady Elizabeth Carnarvon died in February 1929 Howard Carter remained the only surviving co-worker." Following Carter's death in 1939, this would have appeared to have ended the active list of the tomb openers, were it not that Brother Kummer had known of Brother Hall.
It would appear that no knowledge of Doctor Kinnamon was had by any of the workers on the tomb of King Tutankhamen, nor that Doctor Kinnamon was ever anywhere near the vicinity of the tomb. His statements must, then, be dismissed as intentional falsehoods, whose primary purpose were the enrichment of Doctor Kinnamon, by allowing him to exploit the gullibility of those Freemasons who will grasp at any straw in endeavoring to establish some type of connection between our institution and the ancient mysteries.
As one final thought: We have been unable to ascertain with any certainty just what the ceremonies of the Masonic institution were, so far as concerns ritualistic work, etc., at the time of the founding of the premier Grand Lodge. Why, then, do we have the enormous conceit which is necessary to make us believe that we are able to state what the ceremonies of the so-called ancient mysteries were? There may be vestiges of old religions, etc., contained within the ceremonies of the Masonic institution, but if any items of similarity appear it is when the philosophy of Freemasonry and that of the various ancient religious impinge upon one another, not in the finding of a supposed " Masonic" apron, or the finding of a so-called " Lodge room" of the "ancient mysteries." Probably, the endeavors of many to determine the truth of these claims are doomed to failure, since most of us believe exactly what we wish to believe, documentary evidence to the contrary. It will, no doubt, be within the next ten or so years that Doctor Kinnamon's "Masonic" mummy will rise again.
----o----
Semi-Annual Meeting of the Executive Board
The Executive Board of The Philalethes Society met in the Holiday Inn North hotel, Indianapolis, Indiana, at 9 p.m. on Friday, September 13, 1991. It was called to order by the President, John Mauk Hilliard, who called on the Reverend Brother and Doctor Forrest D. Haggard to ask for Divine guidance. Other members of the Board present were Wallace McLeod and Allen Roberts. The President said that Jerry Marsengill wasn't present because he was to receive a high award from the Commandery in Iowa.
The first order of business was a discussion for a Second Vice President to be installed at the February 1992 Assembly. Royal C. Scofield, FPS, a Past Grand Master of Masons in Ohio, vitally interested in Masonic education, was unanimously elected to this important position. Royal was invited to join the Board for the remainder of the meeting.
The selection of Fellows for the Society is always an important decision. After much discussion the Board unanimously chose Dr. Norman Vincent Peale of New York to be a Fellow of the Society. He will fill the vacancy created by the death of Albert L. Woody. The Board also chose William H. Koeckert of Ohio to fill the next vacancy.
The financial position of the Society has improved significantly in recent years. With the increase in dues it will improve even more. A lengthy discussion was held to determine how the Society could be of greater service to its members and Freemasonry in general. The results:
1. Continue to provide bonus books.
2. Add four pages to our magazine twice a year, the issues to be determined by the Editor. *
* It was strongly suggested that each issue of the magazine containing (if the Editor agrees) prominently displayed a means for subscribing to the magazine, or joining the Society. Such a display to be worked out by the Editor and Executive Secretary.
3. Agreed to have copied the only known copy of a dissertation on Albert Pike. History: Forrest searched widely for this dissertation, written for a doctorate in the 1920s. He found the only copy in Nashville, Tennessee, after a diligent search in what was formerly Peabody College (now Vanderbilt U.) The Board agreed to underwrite the cost for copying this dissertation. Later it will be copied and made available to pertinent interested parties, such as the House of the Temple library, and the library of the Northern Jurisdiction.
4. The Board agreed to handle as a bonus book a forthcoming manuscript (covering the Folger manuscript) by S. Brent Morris, provided it is published by a publisher who will make the book available at a reasonable cost. It was suggested that Anchor Communications would be the ideal publisher because it charges practically nothing above its actual cost. (Note: Those connected with Anchor did not enter this discussion.)
Wallace McLeod was congratulated on the excellence of his book (a bonus book of the Society) The Grand Design. The Executive Secretary said the second printing will be available shortly.
The President urged the members of the Board to seriously consider ways and means by which this Society may help preserve the Masonic periodicals and other treasures being discarded by Grand Lodges. He wants to make this an important part of the business session of the Board in February. Allen mentioned that Richard Fletcher, FPS, Executive Secretary of The Masonic Service Association, is willing to head up a Masonic installation, provided the funds can be found for the necessary equipment and personnel.
Although it wasn't necessary, the Board granted the President permission to present The Award of Merit to those connected with this Semi-Annual meeting, and other deserving attendees.
The meeting was closed at 10:30 p.m. The Forum Saturday, Sept. 14, 1991
Roger VanGordon, President of the York Minster Chapter of The Philalethes Society, opened the Forum at 9 a.m., Saturday, September 14, 1991, in the Holiday Inn North, Indianapolis, Indiana. He called on the Reverend Doctor Forrest D. Haggard, FPS, to open the session with prayer.
William J. Whalen, author of Christianity and American Freemasonry, told the group why he believed Freemasonry is not compatible with Christianity. He claimed four out of five Christians belong to churches that believe as he does. The questioning period was lively.
John R. Robinson, author of Born in Blood: Thc Lost Secrets of Freemasonry, expanded on his theory of the beginnings of Freemasonry came about after the then Pope and Philip the Fair conspired to murder all Knights of the Temple. He discussed many of his appearances on radio and television to praise and support Freemasonry. The questioning period that followed was also lively.
Following lunch members of the Executive Board of the Society, along with Joseph A. Walkes, Jr., President of The Phylaxis Society, Robinson and Whalen, answered and discussed many questions concerning Freemasonry in general. The period was productive indeed.
The sessions were video taped. If the quality proves suitable, copies of this video tape will be made available to all who desire them.
At the dinner in the evening the President presented several Awards of Merit to those who had made the Semi-Annual meeting a success. He also presented Awards to others present who had worked for the Society and Freemasonry over the years, including Joseph Walkes of The Phylaxis Society.
Allen Roberts, FPS, was the speaker of the evening. He spoke on the philosophy of Freemasonry. He used Harry S. Truman, the 33rd President of the United States, and a Past Grand Master of Masons in Missouri, as an example of a Freemason who had lived this philosophy.
The session was closed with prayer by Forrest Haggard, FPS.
----o----
John H. Yingling, MPS
Freemasonry is not a Secret Society in the usual sense of the word. No attempt is made to hide or deny the existence of the Order. Its members do not deny their affiliation with it. The time and place of its meetings are advertised and men publicly wear on their person and property the emblems of the Order. There are many books and periodicals written by and primarily for other Freemasons that describes what is known about the history, philosophy and aims of Freemasonry and these circulate freely among the general public.
It is more accurate to describe Freemasonry as a private fraternity that does not disclose their ceremonies nor broadcast their deliberations. They do not tell how they identify brother masons and swear not to reveal the secrets of the hidden mysteries of Freemasonry. It is this insistence on privacy and the sharing of secrets that arouses the suspicion and antagonism of others. The formal prayers, ethical teachings, and use of the same universal symbols used by religious denominations causes sectarians to view Freemasonry as an heretical religion competing with them for the energies and resources of men.
Just as there is a difference between the road to Rome, and Rome itself, so there is a difference between the means of keeping a secret and the secret to be kept. Passwords, tokens, and signs, are means of keeping a secret. They have little intrinsic philosophical value in themselves. Disgruntled former Freemasons have in the past and still are collaborating with promoters who display in published form, television broadcasts and video tapes what is purported to be all such means of keeping a secret. If their disclosures are true, (Freemasons usually neither confirm or deny it) new means of keeping a secret needs to be devised and communicated to brother masons to prevent them from disclosing the secrets of the hidden mysteries to outsiders. This collaboration also unveils what is said to be the ritual drama, charges, lectures and catechisms. This distresses many Freemasons who fear the secrets of Freemasonry may now be lost. Others feel that since the lessons to be learned are taught by contemplating symbols and allegories non masonic viewers who pursue the subject may become enlightened without paying dues, but then general enlightenment is one of the aims of Freemasonry.
But what are these hidden mysteries to be kept secret? No where in the ritual does it specify in outline or detail what those mysteries are. It is assumed that the elusive great mysteries whose illumination has preoccupied men from the beginning of time are self evident. They are: Who is man, what is his origin and destiny? What is his relationship to God, other men, other forms of life, and the inanimate micro and macrocosm? What are the physical and spiritual laws of God and what is good and what is evil? Freemasonry sheds light on these hidden mysteries in much the same manner as was done by the Mediterranean mysteries at the turn of our era. It asks far more questions than it gives answers. More light can be gained from what is implied than from what is expressed. It believes that men who insist on freedom of enquiry and choice have both the God given right and capacity to scientific reasoning to apply their own spiritual insights and experience and understand those mysteries. Freemasonry is merely a vehicle men can use to transport them on their own search for enlightenment. Masons often describe themselves as "traveling east" toward light.
In seeking answers to these mysteries, great sages and philosophers have probed the outer perimeters of the human intellect. Theologians and artists have sought means of experiencing and communicating the love and spiritual truths of God. Mathematicians and physicist have tried to discover and understand the laws that govern inanimate matter. Rulers have tried to enact laws to enforce the will of God.
Early man found solace and guidance in their myths, legends, astrology and alchemy. New means of transportation and communication have brought those creative and speculative concepts that sprang from the hearts and minds of men everywhere into a great world market place of ideas. New theologians seek more kind and loving ways of experiencing God and expressing truths. Artists are finding more meaningful ways of portraying what was nebulous and inarticulate. Scientists have probed and unveiled the structure of atoms and genes and are coming to understand the great forces governing distant stars. Statesmen are conceiving more equitable ways of governing men that leave them more free and less violent. What then is Freemasonry that distinguishes it from religion, art, science and politics and justifies its separate existence? It is their great unifying capacity to bring dichotomies into balance, to distinguish between myth and history and see the unity that lies behind the tribal masks of God. To encourage men to worship God in his chosen way or tradition, but to respect other mens concepts and not separate themselves over doctrinal differences.
To encourage scientific enquiry into the essence of matter and to restrain the use of that information to the service of brotherly love and compassion. It encourages politicians to understand the necessity of balancing the opposing inclinations of men when enacting laws to enforce the principles of justice and mercy. It encourages artists in the passionate portrayals of their spiritual insights and support for art forms where men can unite and share in the feelings that are uniquely human. It promotes the education of children in the arts, sciences, and cultural values.
How does it do all this? By gathering the knowledge, insights, and wisdom acquired by men of great heart and mind from every age and culture and express it by symbols and allegories in their ritual dramas and lectures. Its structure creates an atmosphere of trust, respect, and appreciation for others and a genuine concern for the welfare of all men. It inculcates those basic virtues that make pursuit of these aims possible. But what is the necessity for men who have been enlightened by contemplating the symbols and allegories to keep it secret and only unveil it to approved candidates? It is because even in this advanced age, there are political and religious despots who deal in ignorance, superstition, and bigotry. Men who equate disagreement with treason or heresy to be punished even by death. Prudence dictates knowing the difference between "spreading bread upon the water" and "casting pearls before the swine". Because of its benign appearance, Freemasonry can subdue the passions of men and be a mighty force for good. Because despots perceive its power, they quickly ban and persecute it. Freedom from despotism cries out of every human heart so something like Freemasonry will always be there to see and expose those indignities and point to love and truth. Pray God we do not squander or let decay the patrimony of our fathers but bequeath it undiminished to our sons so this venerable Order may endure. There is some hope yet, we can find ways of maintaining our structure while disdaining image in favor of reputation built on substance and virtue. If we can, we may again be a magnet rather than a fish net.
DEFINITIONS
1. SYMBOL
A material object used to represent something immaterial or spiritual.
2. ALLEGORY
A literary, pictorial, or dramatic representation, the apparent or superficial sense of which both parallels and illustrates a deeper sense.
3. MYSTERY
Anything enigmatic, inscrutable, or inexplicable the truth of which may be experience mystically through symbols or allegories.
----o----
A column wherein our gentil readeres shake a lance at ignorance, at one another, at ye olde editor and on rare occasions even succeed in hitting ye naile on ye heade.
Dear Brother Marsengill:
I read Brother Morris' article on the "landmarks" (Philalethes, June 1991) with great interest, not only for his thoughts on the subject but also for the impact of these statements upon the conduct of Masonic business within a Grand Lodge. It occurred to me that at least a part of the problem he describes is due to the definition of the term "landmark" itself. Bro. Morris states that "A landmark should be something so fundamental, so basic to the fabric of Freemasonry, that any deviation merits immediate condemnation. " This seems to me to be a definition based upon the surveyors art the delineation of fixed and known boundaries for purposes of establishing (or denying) ownership. Such boundaries are, when established, not to be deviated from without some form of "immediate condemnation. "
Suppose that, rather than the " surveyor's landmark," Dr. Mackey had in mind a "navigator's" or "explorer's landmark, " that is, a distinguishing feature which serves to describe, in general terms, the most recognizable features of a landscape or surface for the guidance of others. Such landmarks would be "navigational aids" and not limits or boundaries. In this sense, Mackey's landmarks would represent those significant features that serve to identify, in aggregate, that area of philosophic research known as Freemasonry. They would not be inflexible boundaries beyond which one cannot pass without being condemned, but rather guideposts that serve to locate a point within an area of study and research. They would permit communication using a standardized set of reference points, permitting the identification of specific items of interest by their relative distance from one or more of the "landmarks." Could this have been what Dr. Mackey meant when he posited his list of 25 "landmarks?" Could a medical doctor have used the term "landmark" in another (and more Masonically useful) sense?
The study of human osteology is an important component in the training of a medical doctor. Within this subject, the structure of the human skull is an important topic. Quantitative description of the human skull demands that certain points on the skull be recognized as standard locations from which various measurements and indices are taken. These points are studied by medical students, physical anthropologists, etc.; they provide the coordinate system within which discussions of cranial morphology and pathology are conducted. All human skulls possess these measurement points their precise relationship to each other (distance, angle, etc. ) serve to define the individual human. These points are referred to in medical literature as "landmarks."
If this is the sense in which Dr. Mackey used the term "landmark," then his intent would have been to define certain points from which the past and current morphology of Masonry could be assessed and any "pathological" (nonMasonic) condition located and discussed. Mackey would have been simply stating that any philosophic structure which possesses these landmarks may be defined as Masonic; any structure in which these critical points do not, or could not, exist cannot be defined as Masonic.
Further, in the same sense that one cannot "repeal" the osteological landmark called Gnathion (the lowest median point on the lower mandible), one cannot repeal Mackey's Fourteenth Landmark. Just as measurements taken from Gnathion will vary from human to human, so the position of the Grand Lodge of Maryland regarding Mackey's Fourteenth Landmark may vary from that of other Grand Lodges but (given the full set of landmarks and their definition) the medical student will never doubt that a human skull is being described and the Masonic student will surely recognize The Grand Lodge of Maryland as a Masonic organization.
If this interpretation is employed, Mackey's landmarks are seen as a system of reference points located upon an evolving and dynamic structure permitting discussion and debate to take place based upon common concepts, not a set of rigid, inflexible points from which no deviation is permitted. Their value lies in their definition and relationship to each other as reference marks, not as fixed locations considered in isolate. The Gnathion cranial landmark described above has value as a point from which cranial measurements such as facial height can be made; Mackey's Fourteenth Landmark (right of visitation) is of value when considered in relationship to his Seventeenth (compliance with the laws of the local Masonic jurisdiction). As facial height serves to provide a quantitative measure of a particular aspect of a human skull (a dimension which normally changes as the individual ages), so does the relationship between the two cited Masonic landmarks serves to describe the current situation in one individual Grand Lodge a situation which can be clearly described and discussed in terms of landmarks as established and agreed upon points from which assessments can be made. I suggest that this is the sense in which Dr. Mackey listed his standard points of measurement and analysis his landmarks.
In the situation which Bro. Morris describes, a Grand Lodge need only formally recognize Mackey's Landmarks as points from which philosophic positions may be located, described and discussed, not to which laws and regulations force compliance. Points which, in Mackey's own words preserve "that general uniformity of character and design which constitutes the true universality of the Institution. " To the extent that a "landmark" provides a useful point of departure for a discussion of Masonic morphology (or pathology) its continued use constitutes its justification. In time, should this usefulness disappear, the landmark need not be repealed; it would remain as a part of our heritage a true student's landmark permitting us to measure and describe our past, our present and our future to ourselves and to others.
Thank you for your time and your consideration of my thoughts. Joseph W Weitzell, MPS
Dear Brother Marsengill:
RE: "The Masonic Lodge-From Another Point of View" April, 1991
Freemasonry is for Men. It's purpose is to take a good man and make him better. Yes, make him a better Man, Son, Husband, Father and Citizen. It may be Trite, but this I was taught and this I believe.
Too many Do-gooders have said too much, too long and too loud about promotion, advertising, soliciting and mixing with the profane--and the Ladies.
The obligations I made, and the Lectures received, contained nothing suggesting all the folderol we keep hearing.
We do not need anything except Freemasonry. We don't need Ladies, Youngsters and Socials.
We do need Festive Boards and Table Lodges. We need dedicated officers that know the ritual. The use of Code Books in the Lodge is a terrible thing. Some Lodge Masters can't open Lodge without the Code Book or prompting and we address them "Worshipful Master. " It is a shame and a travesty.
We need "Thousands" like P.G.M. Dwight L. Smith. Ones that can think it through and tell it like it was, and like it should be.
I prefer Masonry as it was.
Wayne L. Overall, MPS
Dear Bro. Marsengill.
I have just received the August issue of The Philalethes, and by chance opened it at page 7. There, almost in the center, when Bro. King writes of the enforced departure of Bro. the Revd. William Dodd from this world, he states that "It was the last public hanging in England. "
Alas, no!
Dr. Dodd was executed at Tyburn, the principal place in London in his day for the carrying out of the sentence, in 1777 . (The site of the gallows is marked by a stone in the road at the junction of Bayswater Road and Edgware Road, near Marble Arch.) Tyburn, in fact, had since 1388 been a site for this purpose but in 1783 it was decided that, for the future, executions should take place outside Newgate Prison (in East Central London, demolished in 1902 to make way for the Criminal Courts of the Old Bailey). Thus would be avoided the long and fearful journey by cart (or coach, for those important enough) from this gaol to the other side of London, and the crowds en route and who had gathered around the triangular gibbet at Tyburn would somehow have to pack themselves into Newgate Street and at windows opposite the prison to see the condemned step through a door on to the scaffold and meet his (or her) end.
It was not until 1868 that public hangings, here and elsewhere in the country, were brought to an end and at Newgate the apparatus of death was moved inside the walls, where only the prison staff and those otherwise entitled could witness its use.
Bro. King might be interested in a short paper in AQC 20 (1907) by Bro. W. Wonnacott (pp. 352-5) in which a claim is reported that Dr. Dodd was revived after the execution and escaped to France! Yours Fraternally,
Frederick Smyth
----o----
by William H. Stemper Jr. MPS
One of the most important recent Christian theologians has described the unique nature of theological belief in a way which illuminates the nature of Freemasonry:
This religious question of God is not a theoretical one raised by the intellect alone, but a practical question posed by the whole being of man...Perhaps the question of God can be raised in a purely theoretical way, but this would not be of any interest to theology, and perhaps it would not even be a meaningful question. The religious question of God has an existential structure. (J.M. Macquarrie, The Honest to God Debate, London: S.C.M. Press, n.d.)
Dr. Macquarrie's point is more simple than it sounds. In terms of Freemasonry, which teaches by symbols, it might be expressed as follows:
Freemasonry is not only a voluntary organization. Its method of teaching as well as the content of its teachings relate to human existence: its problems, opportunities, and its exact nature. The Masonic question of God has a practical nature.
There is no question that Freemasonry's essence is related to the structure of initiation, notably the progress of the individual from darkness to light. This has profound significance when applied to the human being's journey from childhood to mature, aware, and responsible existence. Freemasonry's framing of the question of the threats and pitfalls facing such a progress, the ruffians for example, underscores the precarious nature of such a journey, as well as it rewards.
The result of such an understanding of the nature of Masonic initiation is its simple aspect: one begins such a journey with no clear understanding of the rewards or the pitfalls. Rather, one has an intuitive grasp that the symbols are significant, and will serve as signposts along the way. What is needed, therefore, is a commitment both to progress, as well as to risk. One acts as it the path will lead to a meaningful end, and symbolically it does.
The use of symbolism and its collective aspect, "myth," is important to understand in terms of "progress" and "risk." Masonic symbols embody moral freedom. The lesson of the degrees is essentially the following:
If you will follow the teachings, and deeper meaning of the degrees, and their content, you will inherit a capacity to approach life with moral trust. This is not only faith, as religion understands faith. It is also perception. That is, our symbols enable us to see capacities for human freedom which other persons do not see. And, not seeing such capacity, their lives are not lived to the fullest.
This understanding of the vitality implicit in Masonic ideas is existential: it enables life to be lived in the light of its potential at any given moment. Conversely, it also enables the individual Freemason to act with a deep sense of moral and personal autonomy. The role of Freemasonry in the creation of the American Republic discloses the importance of a myth of freedom and possibly as a catalyst to creative change, as does the relationship of Freemasonry to the process of moral self-discovery.
Only when Freemasonry is examined in terms of its relationship to religion is its genius fully disclosed. This relationship, which can be characterized as that of 'harmonious ambivalence' from the Masonic viewpoint has always been difficult precisely because Freemasonry claims an independent, universal access to a myth of freedom for the individual, and for societies. Religion, even at its most liberal, invites at best and compels at worst an ethic of moral submission. In general, a religious ethic is the result of a given approach to exact ideas about the nature of human salvation.
By contrast, Freemasonry, which is not religiously concerned about human salvation, has at its best been concerned with the moral linkage between the divine and human: "the brotherhood of man under the Fatherhood of God."
It has attempted to avoid a transcendent synthesis between theology (God) and anthropology (Man), at the same time it has preserved the symbolic, mythic idea of the essential unity between spiritual and human efforts.
In existential terms, the word "attempt" is crucial. Religion promises certitude, albeit through a travail of faith. Freemasonry has never promised certitude, as for example, "salvation" or "success." Rather, it has only promised that living life symbolically enhances the individual's perception of what is right, fitting, and proper.
The element of moral freedom is, again, paramount. Freemasonry posits that divine truth is inherent within the human condition. That is, there is a "mystic" spark within each human creature which reflects the intent and design of the Creator. The function of initiation is to disclose the interconnectedness which already exists, and to provide "hints" and "clues" for making this implicit relationship explicit. By contrast, the function of religion is to establish a relationship which exists only potentially.
Historically, Freemasonry's roots in Renaissance humanism through ideas absorbed, mostly through Enlightenment rationalism, in the 18th, and possibly the 17th, centuries explain its existential nature. From this era, the symbols within ritual tended to express the essential dignity and capacities of the human potential. In contrast, most Protestants, and all of Roman Catholicism, adopted a view of human nature which stressed the inherent limitations and flaws of humankind, much of which stems from the writings of St. Paul and Augustine of Hippo.
The comparison of Freemasonry with religious faith also discloses the uniquely existential manner in which it utilizes mystic inspiration: an element which appears in several Masonic "higher" degrees (the Rose Croix, for example). This mysticism should not be understood as the same approach to mysticism often associated with religious figures. It does not provide an alternative to courageous moral labor against adversity, and is certainly not an escape into ethereal heights of inspired consciousness. Rather, it is the "spark" of insight which motivates moral action, and begins the process within the human being which might lead him to seek further 'light in Masonry.'
Masonic "mysticism" inspires more intentional moral progress. Religious mysticism, as a whole, seeks the release of the human self into the "sea" of the divine.
Such reflections as these are important for the survival of Freemasonry; not it should be emphasized because they will be widely understood, or emulated, but because there must always be a discrete minority of Freemasons who assent to the essential premise that the meaning of the Craft can not be reduced to its institutional, or historical, fragments. Rather, that the entire Masonic enterprise is a distinct initiative to comprehend 'practical questions posed by the whole being of man,' and to suggest ways in which responses, if not answers, might be found.
----o----
by Denis Scott, MPS
This is the First of two installments of this article. The balance of the story will appear in the February, 1992 issue.
Once upon a time, a young man came to America. There is no record of his entry, of his family, or where he came from. We do not even know how old he was when in the 1700's, he first stepped onto the shores of what was then regarded as Colonia, England.
Little did he know the great mystery and unfortunately, controversy, his life's word would generate. He was a black man, born in an era of evil slavery. He settled in the area of Boston, Mass., and when a man was introduced to Freemasonry his great love of the Craft transformed him. The tools of the Craft enriched him and educated him. He became a compassionate and courageous advocate for the rights of the black people. His name was Prince Hall.
The story of this man has been written and re-written over the years. Controversy has raged over the legitimacy of his actions, and the resulting legitimacy of the fraternity he founded. Due to the unprecedented action undertaken by the Grand Lodge of Connecticut in 1989, the story will become all the more important to regular Freemasons in America.
On October 14, 1989, the Grand Lodge A.F.&A.M. of Connecticut overwhelmingly accepted the following resolution:
"It is mutually agreed by the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge A.F.&A.M. of Connecticut and the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge, F.&A.M. of Connecticut, Inc., on this 14th day of October 1989, that we dwell together in Peace and Harmony, and each do here after fraternally recognize the other as legitimate proponents of Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth, within the State of Connecticut and do accord to the other, Rights of Visitation in Grand Lodge and Constituent Lodges wheresoever assembled, subject to the rights, powers and authority of the Grand Masters and the Masters of the Constituent Lodges to preside over their respective Grand Lodges and Lodges. " (24)
By their actions, the regular Freemasons in Connecticut have created a Siamese Masonic Fraternity in their State by conceding that there are two Masonic Fraternities in Connecticut, one for the black man, and one for the white man. The Grand Lodges of Nebraska, Wisconsin and Washington have also conceded that in their State there exists a Siamese Masonic Fraternity, one white and one black, by voting to accept a similar resolution with the respective Grand Lodges of Prince Hall in their states .
Since "time immemorial" there has existed one system of Freemasonry. Its philosophy does not discriminate between black and white. Masons who discredit the true principles of the Craft by practicing discrimination, should not be allowed to be the catalyst whereby a new order is created.
Regular Freemasons all over America will soon be affected by this sincere attempt to accommodate the desires of the Prince Hall fraters for recognition. The action by the Connecticut Grand Lodge not only endangers the accepted doctrine of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction amongst neighboring Grand Lodges, but requires the modification of some Grand Lodge's Code for Recognizing other Grand Lodges if Connecticut, et al, are to retain their regularity. It also severely curtails the visitation privileges of Master Masons and therefore damages the Peace and Harmony that exists in the Craft. It is conceivable that at some future date, many other Grand Lodges will present a similar resolution to their members, therefore it is important that a review of the literature and its ramifications be presented so that the Brethren may be better informed. Before reviewing the literature, it is important to note the severe criticism that one book in particular has generated. It was written in 1903, by William H. Grimshaw, a Past Grand Master of the Prince Hall fraternity. It is also important to comment at this point, that in researching the literature, one cannot fail to notice a common theme espoused by the authors who favor legitimizing the Prince Hall fraternity. It is that they either follow Grimshaw's story in its entirety, or disclaiming his fantasies, quote him any way, embracing and sustaining his deliberate fabrications in the legend producing term, "TRADITION. "
Wesley(8) writes, "An observation by a Prince Hall Mason on Grimshaw's writing appeared in the Proceedings of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts for 1905 as follows: 'Now in regard to the severity of our censures of the Grimshaw history. Something more is necessary in the writing of a book than good intentions: and if good intentions are misdirected, serious mischief will result, as is the case with the book in question, the misstatements of facts in which are already being quoted."
Walkes (13B) writes, "Grimshaw was probably well meaning in his attempt to enlarge beyond the bounds of truth regarding Prince Hall's life. The stories cooked up by him are inexcusable and cannot be justified. Such falsehood as Prince Hall's 'being born in Bridgetown, Barbados on the 12th of September 1748, the son of Thomas Prince Hall, an English...He converted to Methodism and became an ordained minister.' All were figments of Grimshaw's overly active imagination and cannot be overlooked as an innocent stretching of the truth. "
Wesley(8) also writes, "Masonic historian, Harold van Buren Voorhis, in his Negro Masonry in the United States (1946 and 1949), at first accepted the Grimshaw presentation, and later abandoned it....Voorhis stated in a letter...that his book was 'withdrawn from circulation and sale a long time ago' and that 'this was due to the fact that the early "history" was found to be useless as it came from Grimshaw's book, an item which has done more harm to the colored Masons than to us."
Coil(5) writes, "The book is replete with errors and inaccuracies, containing much hearsay and myth. Grimshaw did not originate all of his material, but he selected, marshalled, construed and dated it so to give the appearance of truth, while actuating falsity."
Walkes in reviewing literature on Prince Hall states, "It seems that Prince Hall Freemasons are determined to hold on to the Grimshaw lies come 'hell or high water."(27)
IRRELEVANT DATA
Birth Date of Prince Hall.
There are various dates given as the birth date of Prince Hall. The actual date has no bearing on the legitimacy of Prince Hall being a Mason, but it demonstrates the disparity in the literature. The dates given by various writers are as follows:
W.H.Grimshaw. (1) "about Sept. 12,1748."
W.H. Upton (2) "the earliest (1738) seems the best authenticated."
H.E. Davis.(3) "The generally accepted date of his birth is Sept. 12, 1748."
A. Cerza. (4A) "1735."
H.W. Coil. (5) "which should be stated as about 1735."
J.M. Sherman.(6) as H.W. Coil above.
C.H. Voorhis (7) as H.W. Coil above.
C.H. Wesley.(8) "born in 1735."
G. Draffen.(9) "would infer a birth date of about the year 1735."
R.H. Dragat. (11)"about September 12, 1748."
Prince Hall Masonic Year Book.(9) "about Sept. 12, 1748."
Place of Birth
Grimshaw. (1)"at Bridgetown, Barbados."
Upton.(2) "Unknown."
Davis.(3) "He was born in Bridgetown, Barbados."
Cerza. (4A) "Prince Hall was born in Africa around the year 1735."
Coil. (5) "we do know not when or where."
Sherman.(6) see Coil above.
Voorhis.(7) as stated by Coil and Sherman above.
Wesley. (8) "Where Prince Hall was born is not known. His country may have been Africa from where he was brought as a slave. . . His place of birth may have been England to which he gave some attention in a letter to the Countess of Huntington. . . Prince Hall may have been born in the Colony of Massachusetts, but no actual record of his birth has been found."
Draffen. (9) "West Africa."
Dragat. (11) "He was born in Bridgetown, Barbados."
Walkes. (13A) "The place of his birth is unknown "
Obituary
The record as reported in the Boston Gazette, as well as other Boston newspapers, on Dec. 7, 1807,(5) states that Prince Hall died on Dec. 4, 1807. Someone inscribed on the back of the headstone of Sarah Ritchery's grave,(6B) one of Prince Hall's many wives, the following inscription;
"Here lies ye body of
Prince Hall
First Grand Master of the
Colored Grand Lodge of
Masons in Mass.
Died Dec. 7, 1807. "
Many Masonic writers initially used this erroneous date, following Grimshaw, which is actually the date the newspapers reported the death.(2)
Prince Hall the Soldier?
Whether Prince Hall served in the Revolution or not, has no bearing on his Masonic regularity, however it is mentioned here to emphasize the extent to which Grimshaw tried to create a "legend." It has never been substantiated.
Grimshaw. (1) "He entered the Revolutionary Army in February, 1776, joining Captain Benjamin Dilingham's company, and also served in Captain Joshua Welbore's company, which was attached to Ebenezer Francis' regiment. In 1778 he was in Thacker's regiment."
Dragat. (11) "He enlisted in the Revolutionary army on the call of April 20, 1775."
Prince Hall the Minister?
This again has never been substantiated, but is promulgated with the majority of historical background surrounding Prince Hall as "tradition," as first created by Grimshaw. (1)
Grimshaw. (1) "He joined the ministry and became an eloquent preacher...Rev. Prince Hall's first church was located in Cambridge, Mass."
Dragat. (11) "Eventually he was ordained and became the minister of the Methodist Church at Cambridge, Massachusetts. "
Wesley. (8) "There is no documentary evidence that Prince Hall was a Methodist Minister nor the pastor of a church. This may be a figment of Grimshaw's imagination."
RELEVANT DATA
The Slavery Question
The ancient "Charges of a FreeMason" printed in Anderson's Constitution in 1723, "Part III-Of Lodges" states
"The Persons admitted Members of a Lodge must be good and true men, free-born, and of mature and discreet Age, no Bondmen, no Women, no immoral or scandalous Men, but of good Report." (25) These stipulations were in force when Prince Hall was introduced to Freemasonry, and remained throughout his lifetime.
"In all the old Constitutions, free birth is required as a requisite to the reception of Apprentices. Thus the Lansdowne MS. says, 'that the prentice be able of birth, that is freeborn. '...and in every other manuscript that has so far been discovered. And hence, the modern Constitutions framed in 1721 continue the regulation." (19)
Of all the determinations to be made in deciding the legality of the Prince Hall fraternity, this is the most sensitive and controversial. All the contributors to Prince Hall literature agree that Prince Hall was not a slave when introduced to Freemasonry, but there is a disagreement as to whether he was born free, born a slave, or even that he was ever a slave at all. The views expressed in the literature are as follows:
Grimshaw (1) "His father, Thomas Prince Hall, was an Englishman, and his mother a free woman of French descent."
Davis (3) "Hall's father was an Englishman, Thomas Prince Hall,... It is well to digress here to emphasize that Prince Hall came of free parentage and was not a slave."
Cerza (4A) "Prince Hall...was sold into slavery when he was 14 years old, and was brought to Boston."
Coils (5)"There is little doubt that Prince Hall was born in slavery, though fortunately of a mild form, " but we do not know when or where. At about the age of fifteen years, he entered the service of William Hall, a leather dresser of Boston,...remaining there and learning the trade until his manumission in 1770."
Sherman(6A) see Coil above.
Sherman(6B) "In writing about Prince Hall, Davis states; (page 16) "The date of the first marriage is not known, yet it is established that his first wife was one Sarah Ritchery. " And he quotes the previously mentioned epitaph (see Obituary above) as the proof. But this marriage is recorded in the official records of the City of Boston, Document No. 101 1902, Boston Marriages 1752-1809, page 422, as follows" Prince, neg. svt. William Hall & Sarah, neg. svt Francis Richie. Nov. 2, 1763." Can there be any doubt but that this was the Masonic Prince Hall and that his wife was the same Sarah Ritchery mentioned in the epitaph. "
Voorhis(7) See Coil above.
Wesley (8) "He may have been born a slave for a manumission paper was filed for him in 1770 by his owner."
Wesley (8) "This incident may have motivated his Master William Hall, to grant freedom to Prince Hall in April, 1770."
Wesley (8) "it was significant that he who had been a slave 21 years."
Draffen (9) "Grimshaw states, again a statement repeated ad nauseam by subsequent writers, that Prince Hall was freeborn. The fact is that he was not. . . . Prince Hall seems to have always referred to himself as an 'African. ' And probably with some pride for, in my view, he was an African, having been seized in some part of West Africa as a lad of between eleven and fourteen and brought to New England by a slave-trader and sold as a slave."
Dragat (11) "of free parentage, not a slave. "
Walkes (l3A) "Can Sherman support with proof-fact that the William Hall family and slave Prince resided and did live in fact in Boston in 1749 as he asserts in his premise? Can he produce documents or papers supporting acquisition of slave Prince by William Hall family in 1749? Can he? If he, Sherman, can't produce any of the said documents and proof, he ought to go tell his thinking on a mountain, somewhere, where only he can hear it....It is quite obvious, too, that coupled with his effort to promiscuously assign a date to the appearance of Hall in Boston, Sherman is determined to allege that the Founder of Negro Freemasonry was a slave which automatically raises the " Freeborn" question (as I reject his allegations that Hall was a slave, it is unnecessary for me to treat the theory....Our only purpose then and now was/is to be intellectually honest. The same cannot be said of Sherman. "
Walkes (13A) "It is this writers contention that slavery was a part of the life and times of Black America...Slavery is the illegal kidnapping of human beings, and the illegal holding into bondage of same. Prince Hall Freemasonry has never accepted this, and has never denied into membership, ex-slaves. " (emphasis added).
Walkes (13B) "There has not been on the American Masonic scene, or in the pages of its history, so unique a Black Freemason as Prince Hall. His lack of a formal education, his bondage (emphasis added), and the racial conditions of the time merely enhance the character of this outstanding individual."
Marsengill (l4) "I believe that Prince Hall was most probably a slave. My main reason for so thinking is the name. Prince was not a name given by Africans. "
The stipulation of being "freeborn" was legislated by the Grand Lodge of England in 1723. The very essence of Freemasonry is a man' s freedom of thought and freedom of action. A Bondman or slave is unable to act freely and he is therefore not qualified to be a Freemason. The color of a man's skin was not the issue then, his station in life was. The American Lodges did not create this Masonic law to keep out the men of color, it was mandated by the Mother Grand Lodge. It wasn't until September 1, 1847 that the United Grand Lodge of England changed the word "freeborn" into "freeman," forty years after the death of Prince Hall.
The Prince Hall fraternity continues to resist making the distinction that in 1775 or 1778, "freeborn" was an absolute requirement for becoming a Freemason. Was Prince Hall aware of this when he became a "mason?" Perhaps not, as Wesley states that Prince Hall in 1779, prior to having a Warrant, developed his own Regulations for African Lodge which included the following: "The General Regulations of the African Lodge #6. No man can be admitted a member of this Lodge for less money than three pounds and two good Bondsmen (emphasis added) for his good behavior within and without the Lodge." (5) Does this mean that Bondsmen were members of his " lodge? "
Prince Hall must have been in no doubt of the "freeborn" requirement after he received a copy of the Constitutions, together with the Warrant, for his instruction from the Grand Lodge of England in 1787 . His letter thanking Bro. William Moody in England, (who was responsible for obtaining the Warrant for Hall) dated May 18th, 1787, states, "together with the constitution and calendar for the Lodge, and the book you sent me, "Dear Brother, nothing could give me and the Lodge more pleasure than when we open'd the constitution... But the contents thereof and the precepts therein contained shall be our chief study and guide"(2) In 1797, he sanctioned the formation of African Lodge No. 459 in Philadelphia. "I received your letter of the 2 which informs me that there are a number of blacks in your city who have received the light of Masonry, and I hope they got it in a just and lawful manner. If so, dear brother, we are willing to set you at work under our charter and Lodge No. 459, from London" (2) It is recorded in the literature that black men born into slavery were made "Masons."
"Rev. Absalom Jones, the first Master of African Lodge of Philadelphia, was born a slave in Sussex, Delaware, " Grimshaw. (1)
"Jones had been born a slave in Sussex Delaware," Wesley (8)
From the minutes of African Lodge No. 459 Philadelphia, "open'd in due order and form on the first step of Masonry the Revd Absalom Jones, Master," Wesley (8)
"Richard Allen had been born a slave in Philadelphia a decade before the Boston Massacre, and was a slave of Benjamin Chew, who fell on hard times and sold Allen and his family into Delaware. " Wesley(8) Allen was one of the first members of African Lodge No. 459 of Philadelphia) (1,8)
All the writers believe that Prince Hall was a "freeman" when introduced into Freemasonry. If Prince Hall was born into slavery, i.e. his parents were slaves at the time of his birth, he was not eligible to become a Free-Mason. However if he was free-born, captured and forced into slavery, then as he was not a "Bondman" or "Slave" when he met Sergeant Batt, then one could readily accept that Prince Hall was eligible to become a Freemason.
The Initiation
"IV. No Lodge shall make more than Five New Brethren at one Time, nor any Man under the age of Twenty Five, who must be also his own Master; unless by a Dispensation from the Grand Master or his Deputy" (25) This was the English Masonic Law governing the number of men who could be made Freemasons at one time. The Irish Constitution at that time may have allowed more than five men to be made Masons at one communication.
"Sec. 2. No warranted lodge shall make more than five members at one communication nor any one under the age of 21 years, unless dispensation from the Grand Master or his deputy-and no more than two degrees shall be in any one day or one night."
This is from the Constitution of a Prince Hall Grand Lodge (National Compact) (26)
The initiation is the most important issue, for this determines if Prince Hall and his fourteen companions were initiated regularly into Freemasonry, or were duped by a peddler of clandestine Masonic degrees. The points of contention are whether the person recorded as responsible for the initiation, a John Batt, was Master of his Lodge or even a Mason, whether the initiation took place in a Lodge of Master Masons and of lesser importance, the actual year the initiation took place. The views of the previously noted contributors are as follows:
Grimshaw (l) "In the year 1775,...Prince Hall, then twenty seven years of age, wended his way to the quarters of General Gage, on Copp's Hill, Boston Harbor, Mass....In that travelling British Lodge No.58,...he received the light of Masonry, and was raised to the sublime degree of Master Mason-the first one of African descent. . . "
Upton (2) "He and fourteen other negroes were initiated, May 6th, 1775, in army Lodge. . . "
Davis (3) "On March 6, 1775, Prince Hall and fourteen other free colored men were initiated into Masonry in Boston by an army lodge of a British regiment stationed in that city. It is quite probable, as is generally asserted, that Prince Hall was initiated alone a short time before that date, but the minute of the transaction records only one initiation as of March 6, 1775." "But the Grand Secretary of Ireland, R.W. Henry C. Shellard, advises that their old register lists John Batt as a member of Lodge 441 in the 38th Regiment of Foot....The register does not record him as Master of the lodge, but the first minutes of African Lodge No. 1 refer to him as Master in 1775. "
Cerza (4A) "There is no evidence that a lodge conferred the degrees, the date stated (1775) is clearly wrong, and there is no evidence that J. Batt was Master of that Lodge or any other lodge....On March 6, 1778, a John Batt went through some sort of ceremony with Prince Hall and fourteen other colored men....The date of the claimed ceremony is in dispute. The Prince Hall members claim it took place on March 6, 1775; they select this date because at that time the British Army was in the Boston area with its military lodges and it lends credence to their claim that the ceremony was conducted by a lodge. The original records when examined in 1950 were not clear as to the last figure in the date, but when examined in five years later the figure had been tampered with and showed the figure "5. " Apparently the change was made by a Prince Hall advocate to fortify their claim. Other evidence indicates that the 1778 date is correct, and at that time the British were no longer in the Boston area and the military lodges had moved with the army. Prince Hall in his letter dated March 8, 1784, seeking assistance in securing a Charter from the Grand Lodge of England, stated that the lodge had been founded "almost eight years" ...The word "almost" means "not quite" so it cannot mean the year 1775. "
(Reference J. Batt) "No record has been found that he was a Mason, or that he was an officer of a military lodge, or that it was a lodge that conducted the claimed ceremony. Furthermore, this claim that it was a military lodge performed the ceremony was first made in 1858 when it was so stated in a speech without any supporting evidence and this speech is often cited as 'evidence.'"
Coil (5) "There is no evidence to prove Prince Hall and his companions were initiated on March 6, 1775, which has been claimed by their writers. A loose paper found among the earlier records of African Lodge indicates that the date was March 6, 1778, and that the three degrees were conferred on Prince Hall and fourteen other men by one John Batt,...It is probably true that the whole transaction of initiating the Blacks was conceived and performed by the amiable John Batt for his own profit alone and on his own authority and guile....To support the initiation of Prince Hall and associates, it was necessary to have a lodge to which John Batt belonged and it had to be in Boston, so the affair had to on a date when the British Army was in Boston which was in the spring of 1775, all of which is futile, because Masonic lodges do not and did not make Masons in groups."
Sherman (6) See Coil above.
Voorhis (7) See Coil above.
Wesley (8) "On March 6,1778, (emphasis added) Prince Hall and fourteen other free blacks were initiated in Masonry through John Batt, a representative of the Irish Military Lodge No. 441, working under the authority of the Grand Lodge of Ireland."
Draffen (9) "There were fourteen military lodges in and around Boston in 1775. Of these one was English, four were Scottish and the remainder were Irish. There seems to be very little doubt, having consulted the Grand Lodge Registers that Irish Lodge No. 441, in which John Batt was a member, (emphasis added) was the lodge in which Prince Hall was initiated....Any minutes of the lodge while working as a military lodge are lost and it is impossible to say if John Batt was the Master in 1775. It is equally impossible to say whether or not the meeting at which Prince Hall was initiated was held regularly under the lodge warrant or was a clandestine affair with John Batt 'initiating' some gullible Negroes and pocketing the money they paid him. None of those made Masons by John Batt on 6 March 1775 are recorded as being members of the lodge in the registers of the Grand Lodge of Ireland. I do not say this is what happened, merely that it is possible....No other evidence has been produced to show that Prince Hall's initiation was in any way irregular and it must be presumed that he became a Mason in the normal and regular way according to the customary manner of the times."
Dragat (11) "In Boston, Massachusetts, on March 6, 1775, 15 free Black men including one named Prince Hall were initiated into Masonry in Castle William (now Fort Independence) in Boston Harbor by Masonic Lodge #441, attached to the British garrison 38th Regiment of Foot as a military Lodge from the Grand Lodge of Ireland. Sergeant John B. Batt is listed as Worshipful Master. "
McLeod (15) "In 1775 or 1778 the Mother Lodge, African Lodge, it is claimed, was formed illegally, and the man who initiated the blacks, Sergeant John Batt, was a confidence man, a trickster. It may be so, but by any standard you choose, the granting of a Charter by the Mother Grand Lodge made the Lodge regular, and ensured that its members were legitimate Masons." (Note: Only the members raised after the Lodge was constituted. See Warrant below.)
Walkes (13A) "When and how did Prince Hall become a Mason? This is not definitely known as documentation showing dates have not been found. Tradition (emphasis added) has it that he was initiated March 6, 1775. Harry E. Davis, in his history of Prince Hall Freemasonry, wrote that Hall was initiated in Lodge No. 441...It is difficult to ascertain the validity of this. (emphasis added) The minutes of African Lodge which have survived raise many questions as they answer. "
----o----
This application may be photocopied, cut out, or simply send the information requested
Application for Membership/Subscription for the Philalethes Society
PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE CAREFULLY
NAME __________________________
LODGE (if applicable) _________________________________
LOCATION ___________________________________
ADDRESS __________________________
CITY ________________ STATE ___________ ZIP _________
DATE OF BIRTH ________________
DATE MADE A MASTER MASON __________________________
Type of Membership Requested:
__ LIFE $300.00 (Make checks payable in U.S. funds)
__ SUBSCRIPTION $30.00
__ MEMBER $30.00 (Includes $10.00 joining fee)
Mail completed form with check for appropriate amount to:
The Philalethes Society
P.O. Box 70
Highland Springs, VA 23075-0070
----o----
"...I, Charles E. Forsythe, Grand Master of Masons in West Virginia, do by this edict forbid members of the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of West Virginia, Ancient Free and Accepted Masons, to be present in Lodges under the Grand Lodges of Colorado, Minnesota and the state of North Dakota. This edict shall not prohibit members of the Lodges under the Grand Lodges of Colorado, Minnesota and the state of North Dakota from visiting Lodges under the jurisdiction of the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of West Virginia, Ancient Free and Accepted Masons." Thus reads a lamentable epistle that was directed to be sent to every Grand Lodge of North America "and to the United Grand Lodge of England." Nothing is mentioned about the selection of only three jurisdictions out of the eight that have recognized Prince Hall to date.
* * *
Albert J. Christopher, MPS, writes: "I am taking your 'We Are Guilty' article. . . to heart. Please enter subscriptions for [13] Brothers, all members of Ionic No. 94, Cherry Hill, NJ. " Wonderful !
* * *
Congratulations to our International Treasurer, Henry G. Law, FPS. He is now the first Grand Commander of the new Grand Commandery of Delaware. He has also served as Grand Master and Grand High Priest of that jurisdiction. The old cliche holds true: "If you want something done, give it to a busy man. " He continues to faithfully serve The Philalethes Society.
* * *
And our Fellows continue to serve Freemasonry in general. Herman Nickerson, FPS (a retired Lt. Gen.) is now the National Commander of the Heroes of '76. Royal C. Scofield, FPS (a PGM, OH) received the Rufus Putnam award, the Grand Lodge of Ohio's highest award, because he didn't retire from Masonic action after serving as Grand Master. George H.T. French, FPS, does little traveling anymore, but he's still active. He's answering Masonic questions in his column "Let's Talk Masonry! " that appears regularly in the Texas Mason.
* * *
Danny R. Calloway, MPS, Grand Master of Masons in New Mexico, writing for all of his officers in The New Mexico Freemason, asks all Freemasons to cooperate with the Shrine. He points to the good works done by this organization. He mentions the efforts of some in the Shrine Hierarchy who want to break away from Masonry. He feels this will be a calamity. Many of us believe it would be disastrous--for the Shrine--not the Grand Lodges.
* * *
The Grand Orient of France is heavily into politics. This I have learned from varied and unbiased sources. Unfortunately this must prevent non-political, legitimate, Freemasonry from according recognition to that vast body of men. Firmly do I believe that task of causing the hierarchy of this group to see the light of Freemasonry is not unsurmountable. Men of goodwill can solve any problem. This is especially so if they have absorbed the teachings of Freemasonry.
* * *
"Without a doubt, the Open House Program of Texas Lodges held March 10 was stunningly successful," said the Texas Mason. Thousands of non-Masons visited a Masonic Lodge for the first time ever. One Lodge set up a large popcorn machine and let the aroma drift through an open window. That brought in hundreds of visitors. "And the publicity was truly unbelievable, " the article said. "There were over 400 stories printed in Texas newspapers and an unknown amount of air time on radio and television stations." Those concerned expect the second Open House Program to be even more successful.
* * *
Southern California Research Lodge continues to send out excellent Masonic material. In the October batch was a reprint of "Masonic Leadership: It's Time to Set the Pace" by John R. Graham, a public relations consultant. It's a hard-hitting account of Freemasonry's miserable leadership--and what can be done to salvage it . I loved it ! Brother Graham says what I've been saying for over three decades---but he says it much better and more forcefully. "The problem is not Masonry. The problem is not our beliefs or our ideals. The problem is one of leadership. Or, more to the point, our lack of leadership at every level!" "If you do what you're told, attend a thousand meetings, and stay in line (in more than one way), you'll get a jewel hung around your neck. " " . . .he learns how to play the game so that by the time he gets to the top he has achieved total ineffectiveness. He is completely useless as a leader." " . . .we are experts in putting the emphasis in all the wrong places." "We're expert at putting men on committees. . .They lack talent, skill and ability. For the most part they have no power or authority. They are to do as they are told. For the most part, they do nothing." "...the Masonic leadership message is clear: Behave yourself. Put in the time. Don't rock the boat. Do as you're told. Keep your mouth shut. If you speak, just echo what the 'leader' has just said. Don't come up with new ideas. Bow and scrape. Don't question anything. And, if you're a good fellow, you'll get the Masonic goodies. " Want solutions? Read Key To Freemasonry's Growth, The Search for Leadership; and the forthcoming Masonic Lifeline, a bonus book of the Society.
* * *
It is with a great deal of saddness that we inform you that our beloved editor, Brother Jerry Marsengill, FPS was killed in an auto accident late Thursday, November 21, 1991. Jerry was a giant among Masonic scholars and was editor of this magazine and the Royal Arch Mason for many years. Look for additional details in the next issue.