Path to this page:
THE
OPERATIVE MASONS Part 1 of 2
History of Freemasonry
by H.L. HAYWOOD
IF the date assigned by scholarship is
correct, the oldest
existing Masonic manuscript, the Regius
poem, was penned
in the year 1390. In that year King Richard
II was on the
throne of England; the battle of Agincourt
had not yet been
fought; the War of the Roses as yet in the
future and the first
voyage of Columbus to the New World was not
to begin for
more than another century. Almost
three-quarters of a
century were to pass before Martin Luther's
birth. All over
Europe men were still building cathedrals
in the Gothic style,
although that school of architecture had
entered upon its
final phases of decline. The guild system
was in its heyday in
England and on the continent. It had not
yet become
fashionable - in England at least - to burn
heretics at the
stake. Legal issues might still be decided
in trial by combat.
The Regius manuscript contains a set of
rules and
regulations for the government of what was
obviously a guild
of craftsmen; in the light of modern
research it is possible to
ascertain that the society was organized
upon much the
same general plan as were the majority of
operative guilds of
that day. But the Regius poem is of far
greater importance
than that. It was a patent attempt to
account to the English
members of an English institution for an
antiquity of that
institution in which they already believed.
Presumably it was
to be read to men whose fathers and
grandfathers and
probably great grandfathers had belonged.
It gave naive
credence to a tradition that the society
had been in
continuous existence on English soil since
the days of
Athelstan - which was to say since before
the Norman
conquest. It is clear from the rhymed
narrative itself that its
author had no real sense of the passage of
time. What he
did know, however, was that the society was
very old - or at
least so old that the traditions and
memories of persons then
living did not run back to a time when it
did not exist.
In some manner this particular manuscript
was lost to sight,
to remain lost for some 450 years. At any
rate when the first
Grand Lodge was formed, about 325 years
after it was
penned, and diligent search was made for
all the writings
having to do with Operative Masonry, this
one for the time
escaped attention. There were other and
later ones,
however, and these contained substantially
the same
material, thus indicating the persistence
of the Regius
tradition. At least six of these were in
possession of the old
"immemorial" Lodge at York - a lodge which
held itself out to
be the direct lineal descendant of the
masonry of Athelstan's
day. Not a few such lodges were scattered
about England
and Scotland at that time, unmistakable
survivors of the guild
system of the Middle Ages. One of the first
tasks the new
Grand Lodge set for itself was to gather,
digest and publish
in literary form all that could be learned
of the operative
guilds and particularly their legends,
customs, laws and
regulations. More than a century after that
had been done,
the Regius manuscript was rediscovered, to
bear eloquent
testimony to the fact that there had been
no great alteration
in the practices and beliefs of the
operative masons between
the reign of Richard II and the reign of
George I, a period of
more than three centuries.
Taking the year 1400 as a point of
departure from which to
measure English Masonic history both
forward and
backward, it is therefore clear: (1) that
before that time, and
probably for a considerable period before
it, operative
masonic guilds were in existence in
England; that they had a
substantial literary tradition and customs
established by
immemorial usage; (2) that they continued
to exist for
another 300 years with relatively little
change in either
customs or traditions; and (3) that
surviving units or "lodges"
of them participated in the
eighteenth-century movement
which centered on the formation of the
first Grand Lodge,
from which Speculative Freemasonry dates
its present form
of existence.
For purposes of discussion it may be
assumed that even if
there had been no operative societies
coming down from a
remoter antiquity, the guild system itself
would have
produced them. When artisans of all other
classes and
callings were uniting themselves into such
groups, it would
have been strange indeed if the stone
masons had not done
so also. If not a single record of their
medieval existence
could be found, it still would be safe to
infer they did exist. As
a matter of fact there are records of
Masonic guilds both in
England and on the continent. The term
Freemason occurs
in the fabric rolls of Exeter Cathedral in
the year 1396. The
guild at London in 1537 called its members
Freemasons; at
Norwich in 1375 masons appear to have been
attached to
the guild of carpenters; whether that was a
purely local or a
general arrangement at the time there is no
way of knowing.
It is interesting to observe, however, that
in the year 1350
two separate classes of masons were
recognized. A statute
of that period describes a mestre mason de
franche pere - a
master mason of free stone - as being
different from other
masons and entitled to higher pay. That
distinction is
maintained in a statute of 1360 except that
in the later one
the preferred workman is called a "chief
mestre" of masons.
The common mason appears to have been
classified
generally with "carpenters, tilers,
thatchers, daubers and all
other labourers." As late as 1604 an
incorporation at Oxford
included freemasons, carpenters, joiners
and slaters. It is
evident from the records of smaller towns
that mason guilds
were not numerous or particularly
important, a fact which in
itself is illuminating. It marks one great
respect in which
these bodies differed from all other craft
organizations, for
they were essentially local institutions,
made up of workmen
who remained in one town and usually in one
quarter of the
town, whereas the skilled masons who worked
in the
building of the Gothic cathedrals had from
the nature of their
calling to be more or less itinerant,
moving about from place
to place as work was to be found.
In an enumeration of the guilds entitled to
representation in
the Common Council of London in 1370, a
Company of
Freemasons was listed and a Company of
Masons, standing
respectively as No. 17 and No. 34 on a roll
of forty-eight. The
Company of Masons appears to have been of
greater
numerical strength than the Company of
Freemasons, since
it had four representatives as against two
for the other.
Whether, as Mackey's History of Freemasonry
suggests, this
indicates that the Freemasons formed a
smaller and more
select society, is pure speculation, since
no proof one way or
the other has been found, but as a guess it
is decidedly
plausible. In any event, the list
establishes the existence of
two separate guilds. Ultimately they were
merged, taking a
coat of arms which displayed three white
castles with black
doors and windows on a black field,
together with a silver or
scalloped chevron and on it a pair of black
compasses.
It is therefore possible to be reasonably
sure of the following
facts pertaining to the general situation
of Operative
Masonry at the time the Regius manuscript
was presumably
written, that is, in the year 1390:
I. That it was occasionally divided into
two general classes
respectively mentioned as Freemasons and as
Masons;
II. That town guilds of masons were small
and relatively
unimportant as compared with town guilds of
other kinds;
III. That town mason guilds frequently
united with, or formed
parts of, guilds of other workers employed
in the building
trades;
IV. That it is probable no wide gulf
separated the two classes
of Masons, since separate guilds of them in
London found
no insuperable obstacle in the way of union
and particularly
since the Old Charges mention their common
art as
Masonry, without drawing invidious
distinctions between
Masons and Freemasons;
V. That the rules laid down for practical
guidance of
members of the Craft corresponded in the
main with similar
rules laid down in other craft guilds of
that period.
But when the Regius poem was drafted, the
active period of
Gothic architecture was already drawing to
a close. That
period for centuries had given to the stone
masons of
Northern and Western Europe their principal
occupation. Its
work required a high degree of skill, which
for the most part
could not be acquired except by actual
practice in the labor
of building just such edifices as the great
churches
themselves. The stonework of successive
cathedrals
discloses that as fast as problems of
construction were
solved, the solutions were passed along to
succeeding
builders. From quarry to the finished task
every stone had its
separate purpose, and preparation of every
stone involved
conscious and more or less skilled
direction at the hands of
every workman through whose hands it must
pass.
When the curtain first rises on the stage
of organize
Operative Masonry, it discloses a society
proudly an
profoundly self-conscious. It is a society
of aristocrat among
workmen, boasting of an ancestry of
incredible age and
distinction. It has noble traditions, and
it has dignity of a high
order to maintain. Moreover, it has secrets
which at all costs
must be preserved, and a esoteric
philosophy which is
rooted in the lore of the past. True, it is
a guild and in many
respects like all the other guilds which
then flourished as
such societies had not flourished before
and as they have
not flourished since. But it is more than a
guild; it is also a
cult, for it practices mystical rites which
are now known to
have been survivals of magic rites and
religious
observances, coming down from a past which
was
indefinitely remote.
The Old Charges bear abundant witness to
all these things.
Most of them prescribe the ritualistic
manner in which oaths
of secrecy must be administered. One
reveals that the
candidate was compelled to swear, "in the
presence of
Almighty God and my Fellows and Brethren
here present"
that he would not by any act or under any
circumstance,
"publish, discover, reveal or make known
any of the secrets,
privileges or counseIs of the fraternity or
fellowship of Free
Masonry." (Harleian MSS.) Those secrets
were indeed well
kept; so well, in fact, that the modern
Freemason is much in
doubt as to what many of them were and can
only suppose
that they had to do with the mechanical
science of the
operative calling. As Operative Masonry
fell into disuse,
some of them undoubtedly became imbedded in
the
symbolism and allegory of rite and ritual,
where they remain
to this day. Of their origin, practical
use, and indeed of their
scope, the present day knows almost
nothing. It is by no
means unlikely that as cathedral building
masons merged
with the guild masons of the towns, they
saw no reason to
impart to their less skilled companions
more of their own
secret art than was necessary to give it
symbolical or
emblematical preservation; and as
"accepted," or non-
operative, masons came in time to outnumber
them both, the
value of purely mechanical secrets
naturally tended diminish
and ultimately to disappear.
The modern student must bear in mind also
that from their
very nature it was unlawful for these
things to be written,
carved or engraved upon any movable or
immovable thing,
in such fashion that they might become
legible or intelligible
to a "cowan," or outsider. The Old Charges
must therefore
be studied for what they may suggest
"between the lines" as
well as for what they openly say. In actual
practice Masons
appear always to have been singularly
tenacious of their
secret ritualistic "work." Although no
particular care appears
to have been taken to keep the Old
Manuscripts from public
inspection, secretaries of many immemorial
lodges burned
their records rather than have them fall
into the hands of
historians appointed by the first Grand
Lodge. Even today
conservative brethren, fearing improper
disclosures will be
made, look askance upon public discussions
of esoteric
matters, and although various Monitors have
been published
officially for guidance in the ritualistic
labors of the Craft, by
far the greater part of modern ritual may
not be lawfully
written even in cipher; Masons who compose
ciphers for that
purpose or make use of them are subject to
the severest
penalties. The only legal method of passing
these secret
things from man to man and from generation
to generation is
that of mouth-to-ear communication. It is
truly astonishing
how accurate and uniform these oral
transmissions have
been, and this accuracy is in itself the
best justification of a
jealous zeal which forbids oral alteration
or other innovation
upon the fundamentals of Craft Masonry.
