Lamartine and French Masonry ⬩ Lambert de Lintot ⬩ Landmarks ⬩ Latin Freemasonry ⬩ Lectures ⬩ Lesser Masonic Personalities ⬩ Link and Chain ⬩ Lodge
Lamartine and French Masonry
On March 19, 1848, when the fall of Louis Philippe and the Second French Revolution were accomplished facts, Paris witnessed the unusual spectacle of some three hundred Masons proceeding, two by two, from the Place de la Bourse to l’Hotel de Ville. They are said to have included members of the Supreme Council, and the national flag went before them adorned with Craft emblems and inscribed with the device: Francs-Maçons. On reaching their destination seven of the Brethren assumed the distinctive badge of Entered Apprentice, chief among whom was Jules Barbier. They passed into the hall and were received by Lamartine and others, whom Barbier addressed as follows:
“Citizens and Members of the Provisional Government, a deputation of Masons belonging to all Rites comes betore you wearing the apron for insignia—the symbol, that is to say, of equality in labour. We are all in effect workers toiling with the same zeal at the construction of a social edifice where each has his share in that happiness which is his due. Accustomed to recognize brothers in all mankind and penetrated with the sublimity of those divine words, ‘Love one another,’ we hail with most lively acclamations the Republican Government which has inscribed on the Banner of France a triple device which has been always that of Masonry: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. Yes, citizens, our own modest banner is one of union, of sympathy between all Frenchmen and also all nations. Under such title we present it to the Provisional Government, crying: Long live the Republic.”
Masonry and Revolution.—The reply of de Lamartine was exceedingly significant and may be quoted, so far as it concerns us, thus:
“I have not the honour of understanding the particular language which you speak, as I am not a Freemason, having never had occasion to be affiliated to any Lodge. In thanking you therefore I shall be using on my own part a tongue which may be strange to you. I know enough of the history of Freemasonry, however, to be assured that it is from the bosom of your Lodges there have issued—at first in darkness, then in a half-light and at length in broad day—those sentiments which finished by producing the sublime upheaval witnessed in 1789 and of which the Parisian people have given to the world a second and, as I trust, the last example a few days since. The convictions of fraternity, liberty, equality which make up the gospel of human reason, have been zealously and valiantly penetrated, propagated and professed by you in the particular enclosures where your sublime philosophy has so far been restricted. The things which you have been forced to conceal may now be proclaimed openly, and their diffusion will be the more potent now that they are on every lip, spreading through the whole nation, no longer needing the dissimulation of symbols. Reason needs these no further; to-day it is a sun without clouds; and if—for some years to come—you continue to use such draperies, it will be no more as a matter of necessity but as a faithful and glorious memorial of the labours which Freemasonry has sustained in the difficult times, and of which it offers now and henceforward the witness to the human race.”
The Coup d’État.—The Republic—which French Freemasonry came out of its Grand Orients and Supreme Councils, its Lodges and Chapters to welcome and acclaim as its own—was short-lived as we all know, for the Coup d’État followed in 1851. There was a time when Lamartine was regarded as himself a Freemason, so that the incident clears up one point of error. It is of course much more important in another sense, but as to this it speaks for itself with a force which might be weakened by comment.
Authorities.—See Le Franc-Maçon, a monthly review which began to be published in Paris, 1848, Vol. I. Also Alphonse de Lamartine: La France Parlementaire, Vol. V., p. 194.
Lambert de Lintot
Whether of foreign nationality or extraction I do not know, but the bearer of this name should be held in fair remembrance for his zeal in the foundation of the Girls’ School. He was active otherwise in Masonry and was connected with the St. George Observance Lodge. Some mythical stories affirm (1) that he was a political agent of Prince Charles Edward Stuart, and (2) that he worked for many years—seemingly in England—seven alleged Templar Degrees of the French Clermont Chapter. He was initiated in 1743 and, according to one account, was alive in 1788.
It should be obvious in the first place that a landmark is not per se irremovable. Deut. xix. 14, and xxvii. 17, are enactments and penalties respecting boundaries of estates indicated by certain objects, as e.g. stone pillars; but the curse pronounced on those who remove their neighbour’s landmarks has reference to an unlawful act. Such a landmark could be changed or taken away by agreement between the parties, as in sale by one to another. The modern use of the word has become wide and figurative, and has reference usually as such to permanent indicative objects: it is understood also in various symbolical senses, and this is its use in Masonry. Rule 4 in the “General Laws and Regulations for the Government of the Craft” lays down (1) that all Laws emanate from Grand Lodge; (2) that having sole power of enactment, so also it only can alter, repeal or abrogate; but (3) in so doing, that it shall always take care “that the antient Landmarks of the Order be preserved.” There is but one further allusion to these Landmarks, and there is no recitation of their number or nature. If we turn to the original Book of Constitutions, 1723, we shall find a similar reference in No. 39 of Payne’s General Regulations, and so also in the second edition of 1738; but in neither case is there any word of explanation. They are held to be irrepealable for the very plain reason that the Rule says that they are to be preserved, whatever new Laws are enacted and whatever old Laws are altered or repealed. In what they consist and why they cannot be changed have been matters of debate for over one hundred years. It will be seen that they did not belong to the class of Rules or Laws, and although in certain so-called Antient Charges we learn that “it is not in the power of any Man or Body of Men to make innovation in the Body of Masonry,” they were not part of that Body in the opinion of the original Grand Lodge which is responsible for making this decree on June 24, 1723, but qualified it by adding: “without the Consent first obtained of the Annual Grand Lodge.” It follows that it is possible to alter the Body of Masonry, but not its old Landmarks. In what consists the Body of Masonry is, however, as much a moot question as is that of the Landmarks, owing to the want of definition. It is possible that the latter are identical with those “Antient Rules of Masonry” mentioned in the Minutes of June 24, 1723, and in the second Book of Constitutions, but again not otherwise formulated.
Many Inventions.—Oliver held that they belonged to oral tradition; thirty years later he admitted that they had never been clearly defined, and yet later that “we are grovelling in darkness on the subject.” The fact did not prevent him from enumerating forty Landmarks in the Freemason’s Treasury, together with twelve others which were either spurious or obsolete. In the year 1858 Mackay enumerated twenty-five which have been approved generally in America, but not elsewhere, except by Kenneth MacKenzie, who—with characteristic intellectual crookedness—reproduced them without acknowledgment as an authorised and unchallenged view. It is sufficient to say that “modes of recognition” are put first in the series as things that admit of no variation; but they differ in different countries and are therefore neither invariable nor universal. It has been suggested by Mr. W. B. Hextall—Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, Vol. XXV, pp. 91, et seq.—that they were old Operative trade secrets, but in this case they have passed out of sight and there is no reason why Payne should have referred to them. The terms of reference, moreover, exclude the notion. It has been thought otherwise that they are any tenet of the Craft—ibid., Vol. XXIV, pp. 151 et seq.—e.g. the existence of a God and resurrection but in this case the original and irrepealable Landmark would have ordained that every Mason should be “true to God and Holy Church.” Under all the circumstances it must be recognised that there are Old Landmarks, but as the original authority failed to specify concerning them, no one knows what they are, and hence it is impossible that they should be repealed. I infer personally that George Payne had nothing definite in his mind when he made the reference.
The Great World-War has welded fresh bonds of union between America, France and Belgium, which in their turn have raised, and in a spirit favourable thereto, the question whether a rapprochement is possible between Freemasonry in Latin countries and that of the English-speaking race at large. On the part of the former it may be assumed that the chain of union was broken unexpectedly in the past and that they have always wished it to be made perfect once more. Of such a desire on the other side there is no substantial evidence prior to the year 1918, when the Grand Master of Manitoba, U.S.A., published certain correspondence which had passed between himself and the President of the Council which is a governing body of the Grand Orient. It told us nothing otherwise unknown, but the outcome was that the Grand Master of Manitoba put forward a plea for reunion on a point of casuistry, being the alleged relationship between an extract from the modern Constitution of the Grand Orient and an extract from Anderson’s Constitutions of 1723. According to the first, Freemasonry is an essentially philanthropical and progressive institution “which has the pursuit of truth as its object, together with the study of morality and the practice of solidarity.” It insists on absolute liberty of conscience and “considering metaphysical conceptions as belonging exclusively to the individual judgments of its members,” it refuses to accept any dogmatic affirmation. As God is—for most people—a metaphysical conception, I can imagine no statement which rules out more completely all that Freemasonry stands for in English lands. So falls for the Grand Orient that “house not built with hands, eternal in the heavens.” So is there stultified also that prayer of the true Mason, “by patient continuance in well-doing,” to be “built up as living stones into a spiritual house,” meet for God’s service. But it is not alone what is said in the extract; it is above all that which is to be inferred therefrom. The “Divine in Man” and the “Divine in the Universe” of Plotinus, “God known of the heart,” are “metaphysical conceptions,” for the Grand Orient, not matters of experience, while the faith which is guide of the paths leading into light is ruled out as “dogmatic affirmation.” Under the inspiration of such formulae, the President of the Council suggested in one of his letters that the United Grand Lodge of England “desires to make a belief in God in some manner compulsory.” It does nothing of the kind, but it does not open the doors to those whose “dogmatic affirmations” are counter to that belief and to the realisations which arise therefrom.
Masonry and Religion.—Passing from the Grand Orient and its Constitutions to those of Anderson, the extract quoted recites as we know too well—that “a Mason is obliged by his tenure to obey the Moral Law, and if he rightly understands the Art he will never be a stupid atheist, nor an irreligious libertine.” For the rest, “in ancient times Masons were charged in every country to be of the religion of that country,” but “it is now thought more expedient only to oblige them to that religion in which all men agree . . . ., to be good men and true . . . . by whatever Denominations or Persuasions they may be distinguished.” The commentary of the Grand Master of Manitoba on the two contrasted extracts is that by the change made in 1877 the Grand Orient “reverted back” to the Anderson Constitutions rather than “went farther away.” The inward truth is of course in the very contrary sense, but we have seen that, even for Anderson, the particular “constitution” is a pitiable specimen of loose wording and confusing sense. I have admitted that the Grand Orient is technically right on the wording, but one thing stands out clearly, that Masons were obliged or pledged by the meaning “to that religion in which all men agree,” namely, belief in God, apart from which it is obvious that there can be no religion. The wide field of Denominations and Persuasions did not hence include but implicitly separated those of atheism and its variants. The casuistry therefore fails and the construction of the clauses is precisely that to which the English Grand Lodge has always and unwaveringly held.
Freedom of Conscience.—Let it be remembered, in justice to all parties, that neither in 1877 nor at any subsequent time has official Freemasonry in France categorically denied God. The charge against it is that it made the question open for every one to think as he liked and proclaimed that “its only principle is an absolute respect for freedom of conscience.” I will not dwell upon the point that the last observation stultifies the whole position, for the word conscience postulates the eternal sanction of an absolute and intelligent Court of Appeal, in conformity with which, and so only, the individual abides intelligently, “knowing with” that standard. Grand Obediences are not expected to be acquainted with etymologies any more than with a literate sense of English.
Grand Orient.—It remains that in 1877 the Grand Orient, without denying God, proclaimed its atheism, which word is negative like the later denomination agnostic. A theist is one who affirms God and an atheist is one who does not so affirm. Now, in England the charge of Freemasonry to every one of its members is: “Fear God and honour the king.” But French Freemasonry has neither a king to honour nor a God to fear. There is no ground of union between two institutions so diverse as these are, and any proposition for healing the breach between them by a process of restoring communion—presumably without stipulations is on the face of it foredoomed to failure while in the heart of it there is sown already the poisonous seed of insincerity.
American Views.—When the Grand Lodge of Iowa issued its Quarterly Bulletin in April, 1918, it reported that less or more Grand Lodges had already “taken action looking toward closer fraternal relations between the Masons of America and those of France.” The Grand Lodge of California, having affirmed that “the universality of Freemasonry”—no less than “the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man”—ought to be more than empty phrases, had resolved to appoint a special committee to report on some plan whereby the breach might be healed “without the sacrifice on either side of any essential principle or matter of conscience.” On the other hand, the Grand Lodge of Missouri refused to entertain recognition, on the ground that “the Grand Orient of France is an atheistic and political body,” while the Grand Lodge of France “is not strictly an atheistic organisation” and yet “it is not deistic.” The Bulletin on its own part called to mind that the strongest advocate for removing the name of God from the Grand Orient Constitution was “a Protestant minister of the Gospel,” because he thought that a profession of belief in a Divine Being signified for many a “belief in the God of the Roman Catholic Church.” The distinction is valuable as a gauge of that minister’s mind and for the quality of the counsels which prevailed in the French Commission of the period; but the fact is nothing to the purpose in any other respect.
Fatherhood of God.—The question is whether Masonry is or is not a Theistic institution. If it be, then those bodies which have ceased to be such are not of or within Masonry: they have ruled themselves out. But if it be not, our “Anglo-Saxon” doctrine of the Fatherhood of God, our consecrations, our prayers, our exhortations are all redundant to Masonry, expressions of pious opinion or feeling, beside the mark of Brotherhood; and when it ceases to signify whether we retain or remove them, their removal will be preferable on the score of common consistency. But as a spokesman of the Great Quest I am certain that there is no true Masonry, no real and living Brotherhood of Man, outside the eternal sanctions, and that apart from these there is no meaning in our solemn ceremonies. Finally, it is for those only who are content to regard God as a “dogmatic affirmation” to seek a modus vivendi, much less a point of union between Theism and Atheism.
Latin Obediences—It will be convenient at this point to mention quite briefly the Latin Masonic Obediences outside France and Belgium. In a work on the political hand in Continental and South American Freemasonry there would be a large scope for development, but the subject lies otherwise within measures which are in strict correspondence with its intellectual and spiritual outlook.
Italian Masonry.—We hear of Lord George Sackville, otherwise Charles Sackville, Earl of Middlesex, otherwise Duke of that County, otherwise Duke of Dorset, establishing a Lodge at Florence m 1733, and of a medal being struck to commemorate the alleged fact. The authority is Thory, whom others followed, producing variations on their own part. An alternative date is 1729. We hear also of Lodges in Tuscany, of the initiation of a Grand Duke of Tuscany, and of Lodges in Upper Italy. Whether these stories are true or false there is no means of knowing: antecedently their truth is unlikely, but the question is of no consequence. The first evidential Masonic fact in Italy is the first Papal allocution issued by Clement XII, appointing an Inquisitor to deal with a Lodge at Leghorn in 1737. To account for this action it is not only probable but certain that there were other Lodges in the country, and the Pope must have heard of Masonic activities much nearer to the gates of the Vatican. We have seen, as an unquestionable point of fact, that an English Lodge was working at Rome between 1735 and 1737. As to what ensued at Leghorn no deponent certifies, but the second evidential instance belongs to the year 1738, when the Bull In Eminenti was published by Benedict XIV. When the See of Peter fulminated the Inquisition went to work in the wake, carrying rope and faggot—symbolically at least. Sporadic Lodges sprang up and fell like mushroom growths. Masonic activity seems to have centred at Naples, onward from 1754, but the life of the Order must have manifested in several directions to justify the Bull Providus of 1751. The King of Naples intervened in the same year with a general proscription. It is historically certain that about 1775 the Strict Observance came over the mountains, bearing its Templar banners and carrying all before it, as usual at that time: we hear of Chapters established at Turin, Modena, Ferrara, Padua, Verona, Milan, and at numerous other places which I forbear to mention because of their obscurity and their antecedent unlikelihood, in the case of a Rite which had enough to concern it in the great cities. There is no question also that Venice was a Masonic centre in 1780 and one of literary activity in connection with the Craft. About the period of the French Revolution I conceive that Masonry had taken a considerable hold of Italy, though statistics reproduced by one writer from another do not seem to have been verified by any one. I pass therefore to the year 1805 when the Scottish Rite founded a Supreme Council for Italy under the auspices of Comte de Grasse-Tilly. In 1820 a Bull of Pope Pius VII suppressed the Order everywhere in Italian territory for nearly forty years. There were momentary and pitiful resurrections, without meaning or history, as at Palermo in 1848. The French Grand Orient warranted a lodge at Genoa in 1856, and another sprang up at Turin in 1861. A year later Turin saw the foundation of a Grand Lodge called Armorica. It could have had little to influence there and less to rule; but the aspirations and forces of the time were maturing the unification of Italy, and Garibaldi was already a Mason. I pass over the feuds and dissensions of the Lodge Armorica and the defeat of the liberator of Italy at the election of a second Grand Master. Garibaldi established a Grand Orient or Grand Lodge of his own and adopted the Scottish Rite. This experiment either developed into a Supreme Council, or such a Council was formed independently at Naples. In 1873 a Convention was held at Rome to lay the foundations of Italian Masonry, which became and remains to this day a political institution, the activities and history of which it would be interesting and important to trace; but the undertaking is here impossible. It remains only to add that the chief Obediences are the Grand Orient of Italy, having headquarters at Rome, and a Scottish Supreme Council. There should be no need to say that there is little communion with England.
Spain.—The history of Spanish Freemasonry, from the second quarter of the eighteenth century to the year 1869, is a byway of the Holy Inquisition, and may be tabulated shortly thus: (1) Reign of Philip V: Masons were sent to the galleys. (2) Reign of Ferdinand VI and his coadjutor, the Grand Inquisitor Joseph Tarrubia: the crime of Masonry was that of high treason, and the punishment was death. (3) Reign of Joseph Napoleon: the proscriptions ceased and the Holy Office was no longer a power in the land. (4) Reign of Ferdinand VII: the Holy Office was restored and Masonry was suppressed. (5) Civil War and its aftermath: persecution ceased, and there was a certain growth of the order. (6) Reign of Queen Isabella: intermittent persecution, uncertainty, clandestine activities, decay. (7) In or about 1869 Masonry emerged into the light. The internal history can be also summarised shortly. (1) According to Anderson’s second Book of Constitutions, a Lodge at Madrid was warranted by Lord Coleraine in 1728. (2) We hear of others at Gibraltar in the same year; a second at Madrid in 1731; and one at also Valenciennes in 1732. (3) There is no need to say that the long story of persecution did not suppress the Order, but it was driven into dark places. (4) A National Grand Lodge of Spain is said to have been founded at Madrid in 1809. (5) Gould states that in 1811 there were two Spanish Grand Orients and two Supreme Councils. They fell asleep in due course or perished. (6) An American witness, speaking from information received, registers that a surviving Supreme Council was united with a surviving Grand Orient in 1817. (7) In 1820 we hear of a Grand Orient and in the following year of a restored Council, but there is nothing in the nature of evidence. (8) Gould mentions tentatively and as matter of mere report—a Grand Orient, Grand National Orient and Symbolical Grand Lodge as coexisting in 1887. (9) The latest testimony, circa 1916, deposes to a Grande Oriente de Espana exercising a considerable and wide jurisdiction. There are no statistics available for any period, including to-day, and so far as active recognition by English Masonic bodies is concerned there might be no Spanish Freemasonry.
Portugal.—All available authorities agree that a Lodge under English Obedience was instituted at Lisbon in 1735; but the Inquisition was at work, as we have seen in the case of John Coustos, and the story of its counter activities continued with little interruption till 1761. There was a certain respite in the reign of Joseph II, followed by renewed persecution, in the midst of which Gould mentions the existence of Lodges at Lisbon, Oporto and Coimbra. A Grand Lodge is said otherwise to have been founded in 1805, but in 1818 King John II “issued a decree of death against all Masons.” There was a revival of Masonic activity about 1834. The result is tabulated, under 1848, as follows: (1) A Grand Orient of Lusitania; (2) three Grand Lodges; (3) two other Grand Orients; (4) an Irish Provincial Grand Lodge. They are represented, all and several, as in an internecine state of feud. In 1869 their forces were combined to create the United Grand Orient of Lusitania. There were schisms, however, in 1883 and 1892, begetting rival Obediences, but nothing is known of their history. In this case also very little recognition is extended by British authorities to any Portuguese body whatsoever.
Brazil.—There is no certitude whatever, for there is no evidence; but the first Lodge in Rio de Janeiro is said to have been warranted from France. As in 1821 it still stood alone, this unity unfolded as a triplicity and created a Grand Orient of Brazil. The Emperor Pedro I became its Grand Master, but finding that the body was political he shut up the three Lodges in 1822. Masonry was revived about 1832, though it is doubtful whether the lesson had been put to heart. A new Grand Orient was created, the previous obedience was brought again into activity, and a Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite was also organised—all in the year mentioned. To this triad there were added illegal Obediences, while the legitimate Supreme Council was itself rent by schism. It is said that at the present day the dissentient parties are united under a single Grand Orient, working the Scottish Rite presumably.
Mexico.—We may take our choice between two rival affirmations or more wisely suspend our judgment, there being no evidence to offer a ground of settlement. According to one, three Lodges in the city of Mexico were warranted from New York about 1825, and a Grand Lodge was formed. According to the other, Mexico was first colonised by the Scottish Rite before 1810. We hear also of the Grand Lodges of Pennsylvania, Louisiana and South Carolina granting Charters to Lodges in various Mexican towns between 1816 and 1826. All obediences were naturaUy at issue with one another, though in communion by the fact that they were aU political cabals. As such, they were suppressed in 1833. It is said, however, that they continued secretly. As time passed on the French Grand Orient intervened for the foundation of Lodges at Vera Cruz and Mexico, respectively in 1843 and 1845. Albert Pike also intervened and founded a Supreme Council in 1859. A Grand Lodge of the York Rite appeared in 1865, and Gould states that in 1906 there were at least five distinct Grand Lodges, in addition to the Supreme Council. In 1911 the York Grand Lodge was split up, and this is the last story that I have met with concerning the Royal Art in Mexico.
Minor Statistics.—The other divisions of Central and South America must be grouped together. (1) Masonry entered Peru under the aegis of French Warrants about 1807. It was suppressed in 1813, for the usual South American reasons. In 1825 a Grand Lodge was formed and was reorganised in 1852, apparently with daughter Lodges in Chile, Ecuador and Bolivia. A Supreme Council was established in 1830 and an independent Grand Orient in 1831. The Grand Chapter of Scotland warranted a Royal Arch Chapter in 1852. (2) The French Grand Orient was the sponsor of Masonry in Chile, where it originated in 1841. The Grand Lodges of Massachusetts and California warranted Lodges respectively in 1850 and 1857. A Grand Lodge was formed in 1862, but the country seems to be under the obedience of a Grand Orient at the present day. (3) For all that I can ascertain to the contrary, the Republics of Central America—Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras and San Salvador may be governed at this day by a single Grand Orient located in Guatemala, so far back as 1887. There is nothing concerning them in available American records. It remains to be added that in Southern America and in Nicaragua there are Lodges—and presumably Chapters—under English obediences. In conclusion, we have seen that the Legenda magna et aurea of the Holy Graal is held to have degenerated under German influence into what I have termed the mysteries of iniquity belonging to the Venusberg; and an analogous declension into a “shameful pasturage” has characterised the Sacred Art of Masonry in the Latin countries. It wears the outward form of our Mysteries, but inward likeness there is none: it has the mark of the beast on its heart, if not on its forehead, instead of the seal of Christ. I am prepared at need to think that we have hardly seen the beginning of the mischief at work in its Temples. So the end is not yet.
There are Three Lectures attached to the Three Degrees in Craft Masonry, and they are subdivided officially as follows: First Degree.—(1) Introductory Address; (2) The Seven Sections; (3) The Charges. Second Degree.—(1) Introductory Address; (2) The Five Sections; (3) The Charges. Third Degree.—(1) Introductory Address; (2) The Three Sections; (3) The Charges. It should be explained that a Charge is attached to each Section of each Lecture, and that the Lectures are in the form of Catechisms, being instructions set forth by way of Question and Answer. It is explained that their object, as a whole, is to draw aside the veil of allegory and symbolism which clothes Masonic Science and to exhibit the underlying principles, being those of purest morality. The principles do not happen to underlie the so-called veil, for they are manifested openly on the surface, or side by side with the symbolism; and as I have sought to indicate in these volumes that the true principles of Masonry are not comprised within the measures of ethics, it is my duty to add that the Lectures do not—as claimed—penetrate through its deeper Mysteries, or indeed betray any consciousness of their existence.
Historical Note.—The literary history of the Lectures tells us: (1) That they were revised by Desaguliers and Anderson, but this is on the authority of Oliver and stands as such at its value; (2) That they were revised by Martin Clare in 1732, but of this there is no evidence; (3) That Clare’s revision was revised again by Dunckerley, and this again is a legend; (4) That they were altered, remodelled or rewritten by William Preston, and it is certain that he had a hand in so shaping them that they approached their present form; but according to some he was influenced largely by Hutchinson; (5) That immediately after the Union there was another revision begun by Hemmings, a Grand Warden of the period, and completed by Williams, a Grand Steward and Provincial Grand Master of Dorset. For their further reconstruction under the auspices of T. Smith Webb the scene shifts to America and exceeds the province of this brief notice. The intervention of Hemmings and his successor, under the auspices of the Duke of Sussex, accounts for the Lectures in their present doctrinal position—denuded, that is to say, of their Christian elements, so far as the perspicacity of the revisers allowed them to go. As it happens, they did not eradicate the allusion to the Bright and Morning Star, whence it follows that in the Craft Degrees the seal of Christ is affixed to the most important event in Symbolical Masonry, even as after all revision the Royal Arch is still that which it was at first, almost militantly Trinitarian.
Points of Origin.—The question that remains over is whether Desaguliers and Anderson revised the Lectures or whether they were devised by them. It is not an uncritical speculation to suppose that they found a few archaic fragments there and here, and if we are to take seriously any statement in a book so ridiculously planned as Oliver’s Revelations of a Square, the definition of a Free and Accepted Mason in the First Section of the First Lecture is the reflection of an Operative Formula which Oliver refers in his reverie to the reign of Henry VI. If it was not foisted upon him by a wag of his own period, it has the air of being something earlier than the beginning of the eighteenth century. Otherwise its elements of antiquity are comparable to Sloane 3329, written on watermark paper of the early eighteenth century but suggesting a somewhat earlier date by its manner of wording. If this view is correct, it is out of those fragments which came into the hands of Desaguliers and Anderson that the Lectures were developed, and their traces are imbedded in the text. In the great bulk it is certain that the First and Second Lectures were the work of these twain, or otherwise of those like them, if Oliver was in error on the point of names. The authorship of the Third Lecture depends on the date and authorship of the Third Degree.
Lesser Masonic Personalities
Some account of Masonic literati in the lesser grades of distinction will be found in another section. The lesser personalities who are enumerated very briefly indeed under the present heading are those who call for mention in a comprehensive handbook but do not appear to have made any contribution to the Masonic subject, on the side of its records. I lay no claim to especial research concerning them. They are names which a student will meet with in one or another direction, and I have come across them for the most part as he will do also. He is not likely to need exhaustive particulars respecting them, and I should act unwisely by taking the pains to furnish them or occupying space with the result which is needed for more important matters. The encyclopaedists, good and bad, who have preceded me are included in the sources from which I have been content to draw.
Achet, Louis Francis.—An Officer of the French Grand Orient at the end of the eighteenth century and a founder of the Scottish Philosophical Rite. He belonged to the legal profession.
Agdalo, Peter A.—Whether a Provincial Grand Lodge of Saxony was founded under the English obedience in 1762 seems open to some question, but the statement is on record, and the first Provincial Grand Master is said to have borne this name. He has been described as a Saxon officer, and his death is referred to the year 1800.
Albans, Earl of St.—The mythical President of a mythical General Assembly referred to the year 1663, when the New Regulations of Harl. MS., 1942, are affirmed to have been passed on St. John’s Day in December. The story further affirms that Sir Christopher Wren acted as one of the Wardens, and so more fully betrays itself.
Alexander I of Russia.—In common with other Secret Societies, Masonry was prohibited under the Emperor Paul I, and when his son Alexander succeeded he renewed the edicts. In 1803 the strictures seem to have been relaxed, because—according to Thory’s Acta Latomorum—a certain Counsellor Boeber explained to his royal master the true purport and doctrine of the Order. This stands at its value and would not be worth disputing; but Thory adds that Alexander I sought and obtained initiation, the event taking place at Petrograd. An alternative story substitutes Erfurt, in the presence of Napoleon I, time 1808. But the best of all the fables proposes Paris in 1813, Frederick William III of Prussia being the Emperor’s fellow-Candidate on the momentous occasion. Woodford says feebly that he doubts the fact—a typical instance of Masonic courtesy towards inventions, however egregious, which make for the good of the cause.
Alincourt, Francois D’.—According to Thory, this French officer was imprisoned by the Governor of Madeira in 1776 for the crime of Masonry.
Amelang, C. W. F.—-Grand Master of the Grand Lodge Royai York of Berlin. Nat. 1792, ob. 1858.
Antin, Duc d’.—Clavel is one of the authorities for the story that this noble and peer of France was Grand Master of the French Grand Orient from 1738 until his death in 1743. But the Duc d’Antin who is known to history died in 1736, and there seems no record of a successor.
Arcambal, Marquis of.—(1) An Active member of the Grand Orient towards the close of the eighteenth century; (2) Vénérable of the Loge Candeur in 1779; (3) a patron of Adoptive Masonry.
Arundel, Thomas Howard, Earl of.—One of Anderson’s supposititious Grand Masters, his alleged rule being from 1633 to 1635.
Audley, John Touchet, Lord.—Grand Master between 1540 and 1548, but again and only in the reverie of Anderson.
Bachoff von Echt. Two brothers of this name were among the founders of the Lodge Archimedes at Altenburg, in 1742.
Beckmann, J. P. B.—(1) Initiated at the Lodge La Vertu of Leyden in 1776; (2) joined the Lodge Ferdinand Karoline of Hamburg in 1777; (3) was its Master in 1787; (4) became Provincial Grand Master of the Provincial Grand Lodge of Hamburg, under the English obedience, in 1790; (5) was first Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Hamburg from 1811 to 1814.
Bentinck, Count.—Was Grand Master of Holland in 1758. A descendant, born at Varel in 1809, was Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Hanover for a considerable number of years, ending in 1857.
Bernadotte, Jean Baptiste.—Ascended the throne of Sweden and Norway as Charles XIV, in 1818. Had been elected Grand Master of Sweden in 1811. Otherwise a Marshal of France in the days of Napoleon I.
Beseler, J. A. von.—Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Hamburg from 1816 to 1825. Nat. 1769, ob. 1845.
Beurnonville, Marquis de.—Was some time Grand Mâitre adjoint of the Grand Orient. Nat. 1752, ob. 1821, a marshal and peer of France.
Blaerfindy, Baron.—Otherwise Grant. A Jacobite in the French military service who was a person of activity in the Scottish Philosophical Rite and was connected as founder or otherwise with the Sublime Masters of the Luminous Ring.
Boetzlaer, Baron van.—Was Grand Master of Holland between 1759 and 1798.
Boeuf, J. J. de.—Important for the influence of France on German High Grade Masonry, which he imported into Brunswick, where he founded the Lodge of St. Charles in 1764.
Bohemann, Karl.—A Swedish Mason, born in 1770 and died subsequently to 1815. He was a warm adherent of the High Grades and was concerned especially with promoting the Order of Asiatic Brethren; but he combined politics with Masonry and was expelled his native country.
Böse, Franz der.—Was a founder of the Lodge Baldwin of the Lindens at Leipsic in 1776, a member of the Strict Observance and an active Rosicrucian during the days of Frederick William II.
Boswell, John.—He was laird of Auchinleck and his presence at the Lodge of Edinburgh in 1600 is the earliest known instance of a non-Operative Mason.
Bouillon, Gottfried, Duke of.—Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Luxembourg, but it was the comet of a brief season.
Bourbon, Prince Louis de.—He was otherwise Comte de Clermont and Grand Master of the Grande Loge de France at its inception in 1756.
Bousquet, Jean.—Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Holland during 1810-12.
Brandenburg, Margraves of.—(1) The Margrave Charles, 1712-57—said to have been made a Mason in 1741 and to have joined the Three Globes. (2) His son, who belonged to the Strict Observance. (3) The Margrave of Brandenburg Kulmbach, 1711-63, who founded the Lodge at Baireuth. (4) The Margrave of Brandenburg Baireuth, protector of that Lodge.
Bronner, J. K.—A founder of the Eclectic Union, who is said to have been made a Mason at Lyons in 1759.
Brun, Abraham van.—A Hamburg Mason, who died in 1748 or 1768 and was a zealous member of the German Rosy Cross. The authority is Thory.
Brunswick, Ferdinand Duke of.—Important in the German history of Masonry and that especially of the High Grades. Nat. 1721, ob. 1793. Was made a Mason in the Three Globes, 1740, and joined the Strict Observance in 1770. Is said to have been enthroned at Brunswick in 1772 as Grand Master of Écossais Lodges. Presided at the Convention of Wilhelmsbad in 1782 and was General Master or Overseer of the Asiatic Brethren. He was concerned with Hermetic studies. His three sons Frederick, Augustus Maximilian and William all became Masons.
Buckingham, George Villiers, Duke of.—One of Anderson’s mythical Grand Masters, referred to the year 1674.
Cerneau, Joseph.—According to the German Handbook, he was born at Villeblerin in 1763, was a jeweller by trade and proceeded to New York before 1807. Others say that he arrived there from St. Domingo, having fled that place. The Scottish Rite was in evidence, and in the year mentioned he founded a Sovereign Grand Consistory of the United States of America, its Territories and Dependencies, working—according to the Handbook—under authority from the French Grand Orient. It is identified as a rival Supreme Council of the 33rd Degree and was naturally denounced as spurious by Charleston. A prolonged feud followed, the Cerneau foundation dying hard and slowly, notwithstanding the fact that a Northern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite had been established in due course.
Charles XIII.—The Duke of Südermanland became King of Sweden in 1809. Two years later he instituted the Royal Order of Charles XIII, restricted to twenty-seven of the principal Masonic dignitaries, with himself and his successors as perpetual Grand Masters. A preamble to the constituting decree specifies the foundation as a proof of his “gracious sentiments” towards the Masonic Brotherhood, of which he was a zealous member and patron.
Chartres, Duc de.—Afterwards Due d’Orléans and notorious in history as Philippe Égalité. He succeeded the Comte de Clermont as Grand Master of France in 1771, exhibited the uttermost negligence in that capacity and in 1793 denounced and repudiated Freemasonry in the Journal de Paris. The revolutionaries signalised their view of him and his parade of equality by guillotining him in the same year.
Chesterfield, Earl of.—Was Ambassador at the Hague in 1731, where he is said to have been present at a Lodge of Emergency, convened for the initiation of the Grand Duke of Lorraine and Tuscany. The whole story is doubtful, and it has been pointed out that Grand Lodge has no record of the event outside Anderson.
Coustos, John.—The Holy Inquisition at Lisbon, which persecuted Da Costa, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, was of course more powerful and irresponsible in 1743, when—according to his story—Coustos was imprisoned, tortured and condemned to the galleys for the crime of Freemasonry and for refusing to betray its secrets. He was born at Berne in Switzerland, but was brought by his father to England in 1716 and became an English subject. It was this which proved his salvation, for in 1744 his release was demanded by the English ambassador, Coustos being then the denizen of an infirmary, presumably of that kind which was provided for galley-slaves. In 1746 he published at London and in English a very full account of The Sufferings of John Coustos for Freemasonry, etc., a graphic narrative. Every kind of accusation against the Inquisition is antecedently probable from the nature of that institution and from its known history. The execrable work of Dominic is reflected into Masonry by the story of Coustos, but in justice to both sides—if justice can indeed be mentioned in connection with the Holy Office—it is necessary to recognise that while the general outline of his story is borne out by the fact of his deliverance, he is the sole witness to that which he suffered during the course of his imprisonment.
Dalberg, K. T.—Prince Elector of Mayence, Coadjutor of the Archbishop of Mayence and subsequently Prince Primate. Nat. 1754, ob. 1817. Was a member of the Strict Observance and also of the Illuminati. Goethe, Schiller, Werner and Wieland were numbered among his friends.
Dancker, G.—Was Grand Master of the Eclectic Union for several years, ending in 1861.
Daniel, Sir Francis Columbine.—Nat. 1765, at King’s Lynn, date of death uncertain. Was apprenticed to a surgeon of Wapping in 1779 and began his career as a doctor in that place, 1788. Was made a Mason in “Ancients” Lodge No. 3, but in 1791 joined the Royal Naval Lodge, No. 61, under the “Moderns”—now No. 59. Was Master of this Lodge for seventeen years, ending in 1808. In 1798 assisted in founding a Masonic Charity for clothing and educating the sons of indigent Freemasons. Was expelled by the “Ancients” in 1801 for issuing Certificates on his own authority, as Master of the Royal Naval Lodge of Independence—so-called in the documents. The fact did not at that time imperil his position with the “Moderns,” and he himself laid a complaint in the same year against various persons for “encouraging irregular meetings and infringing on the privilege of the Ancient Grand Lodge of all England, assembling under the authority of H.R.H. the Prince of Wales.” It is suggested that from this small beginning there issued the Union of 1813, for the complaint led the “Moderns” Grand Treasurer to make the first proposal. Daniel himself worked zealously in the good cause, but before it attained fruition, or in 1810, he was again in trouble on the same charge, the “Moderns” on this occasion moving against him. The fact that he had initiated in the Royal Naval Lodge almost a thousand persons of maritime professions had doubtless suggested to his mind that the Lodge could stand alone. The matter closed definitely in 1814. The Charity which he had founded and another of similar aims were muted in 1817 and became the Royal Masonic Institution for Boys.
Decazes, Elie Duc de.—Nat. 1780, ob. 1860. This peer of France was elected Sovereign Grand Commander of the Scottish Rite in France, and so remained from 1818 till his death.
Degand, Vicomte de.—Grand Master of the Scottish Philosophical Rite in 1786.
Derwentwaters, The.—(1) James Radcliffe, Earl of Derwentwater, beheaded in 1716 for the Jacobite Rebellion of the previous year. (2) Charles Radcliffe, his brother, who was similarly involved and condemned, but escaped to France, only, however, to be executed on his return in 1746. (3) His son, James Bartholomew, 1725-1786, was taken with the father but was released and became Earl of Newburgh in 1755. Masonic tradition in France has had something to say of the first and has long regarded the second as its earliest French Grand Master. At most, however, he would appear to have presided over a single Lodge in Paris.
Dickey, William.—Was Master of “Ancients” Lodge, No. 14, in 1766. His father, William Dickey the elder was Grand Junior Warden in 1760-62, Senior Grand Warden in 1763 and 1764, and Deputy Grand Master from 1765-71—when he was succeeded by Dermott. The son became Deputy Grand Secretary in 1768 and Grand Secretary in 1771, a position which he retained till his resignation in 1776. At the end of 1777 he was appointed Deputy Grand Master and filled this office till 1782. It was restored to him in 1792 and so continued till his death in 1800. It has been said of him that few did more than he to place “Ancient” Masonry on a stable basis.
Dietrichstein, Count.—Was National Grand Master of Austrian Lodges in 1784, according to the German Handbook.
Ditfurth, Baron von.—A member of the Strict Observance, the Illuminati of Bavaria and a founder of the Eclectic Union. Was born in 1738 and died at an uncertain date subsequent to 1791.
Dodd, Rev. William.—He officiated as Grand Chaplain when Freemasons’ Hall was consecrated or opened in 1776. There was no breath of accusation in respect of his private or Masonic life, till he suffered the extreme penalty of the period in 1777 for the crime of forgery.
Dolgourouki, Grand Prince of.—A distinguished Russian military commander in the days of the Empress Catherine II. Also an important member of the Strict Observance.
Drake, Francis.—Was chosen Junior Grand Warden of the so-called Grand Lodge of All England, when the Ancient Lodge at York assumed that title in 1725. The Grand Lodge became dormant but was revived in 1761, and after more than forty years Dr. Drake was elected its Grand Master. He was a Fellow of the Royal Society.
Durkheim, Count.—A high Officer of the Strict Observance in and about the year 1777. Was present in that interest at the Convention of Wilhelmsbad.
Ernest, Prince of Mecklenburg Strelitz.—Another illustrious member of the Strict Observance.
Exter, T. G.—Nat. 1734, ob. 1799. Was Provincial Grand Master of Hamburg from 1781-99. Belonged also to the Strict Observance and is said to have been tinctured deeply by Hermetic and Rosicrucian teachings.
Eyben, A. G.—Was an official of Saxe-Meiningen and an active member of the Strict Observance, which drew from all quarters and all ranks, but especially from the higher intellectual, official and princely classes.
Fabre, Comte.—An Officer of the Grand Orient in and about 1814, and also a peer of France.
Falck, Baron von.—Nat. 1776, ob. 1843. Is described as a Dutch diplomatist. State official and zealous Freemason. He was, furthermore, Deputy Grand Master of Holland for the ten years ending in 1840. There was also a burgomaster of Hanover who bore the same name and was of the same period. A contemporary described him as “ the soul of Masonry “ in his city and one who “ reverenced truth with zeal.” He was a member of the Strict Observance and other Rites, including the Illuminati.
Falcke, E. H.—A burgomaster of Hanover, who appears to have been made a Mason about 1774. He was held in high honour by all who knew him. He belonged to the Strict Observance, the Illuminati and the Asiatic Brethren.
Falkenshausen, Count.—A State official at Ansbach in and about 1765 and belonging also to the Strict Observance.
Fiedler, J. F.—Grand Master of the Eclectic Grand Lodge of Frankfort in 1834.
Finch, William.—He was a working tailor of Canterbury, who died in or about 1816. He was made a Mason but was expelled from the Fraternity under circumstances which have not transpired. Thereafter he appears to have earned a certain measure of financial competence for several years—at the beginning of the nineteenth century—by working on his own authority, by “clandestine” traffic in Degrees, and by the publication of Masonic pamphlets at an exorbitant price. These tracts are, I believe, undiscoverable rather than scarce. Some of them were printed in ciphers of his own construction, a key to which was discovered by Mr. H. C. Levander. It has been published several times and there would be no purpose in its reproduction. Unfortunately for himself, he brought an action against one of his victims, and it led to a complete exposure. He was a Masonic impostor of a singularly venal kind, and as it is necessary to mention him I have done so in this place and not among Masonic literati. He was equally illiterate and impudent.
Fitz Peter, Geoffrey.—A fabulous Deputy Grand Master, cited by Anderson in his second Book of Constitutions.
Folkes, Martin.—Nat. 1690, ob. 1754. He is something of a legendary character, who is credited with great activity at the period of the Revival. The Masonic encyclopaedias follow one another in stating that he was an intimate friend of Wren and Desaguliers, but none of them give their authority. He was Deputy Grand Master of the Grand Lodge in 1725, and this is the sum total of our real knowledge respecting his Masonic career. In other directions he was a man of distinguished attainments, a graduate of Cambridge, successively Vice-President and President of the Royal Society, President of the Society of Antiquaries and a member of the French Academy. In numismatics he was a leading and presumably the chief authority of his day on English coins. He was born in Westminster and seems to have died in Norfolk, as he was buried in the chancel of Hillingdon Church, by Lynn.
Fouché, Joseph.—He was Grand Conservator of the French Grand Orient. He was, moreover, Duke of Otranto and Minister of Police in the days of Napoleon and also under Louis XVIII. Nat. 1763, ob. 1820.
Francken, H. A.—Was, according to Mackey, the first propagator of the High Grades in America. The same authority tells us that he was made a Mason at Kingston, Jamaica, by Stephen Morin, not later than 1767. Subsequently he established a Council of Princes at Albany, U.S.A.
French, Benjamin Brown.—Nat. 1800, ob. 1870. An illustrious American Mason, he was elected Grand Master for the Washington District in 1845, Grand Master of the Templars in 1859, and in the Scottish Rite was Lieutenant Grand Commander of the Supreme Council for the Southern Jurisdiction.
Freudentheil, H. G. W.—Was Provincial Grand Master of the Provincial Grand Lodge of Lower Saxony at Hamburg, for the five years ending in 1823.
Gagarin, Prince.—Is described as Grand Master of the Provincial Grand Lodge of Russia and belonged also to the Strict Observance.
Gand, Vicomte de.—Second Grand Master of the Scottish Philosophical Rite at Paris for nineteen years, ending in 1807. The story seems apocryphal, more especially as he is said to have been "a Spanish grandee," notwithstanding his French name and title.
Geisenheimer, S.—A Jewish merchant of Frankfort-on-the-Maine, nat. 1774, ob. 1828. Is notable for his untiring efforts to secure the admission of Jews into Masonry, of which he was himself a member and also Master of a Lodge.
Gersdorf, E. G. von.—Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Saxony, from 1838 until his death.
Gèvres, Duc de.—Is said to have been “Grand Conservator of the Masonic Order in France,” under the Duc de Chartres.
Gilkes, Peter William.—Nat. circa 1756, ob. 1833. Is regarded as substantially the founder of Emulation working and a great teacher of Masonic Ritual.
Gogel, J. P.—A merchant of Frankfort-on-the-Maine, nat. 1728, ob. 1782. Is said to have been Provincial Grand Master of “the Upper and Lower Rhine” and the Circle of Franconia from 1766 until his death. The patent of appointment was that of the London Grand Lodge.
Gourgas, J. J. T.—Was a member of the Scottish Rite in 1806 and Sovereign Grand Commander of the Northern Jurisdiction in 1832. Nat. 1777 in France, ob. 1865, at New York. The authority is Mackey.
Grasse Tilly, Comte de.—Was born at Versailles about 1766 and died subsequently to 1818. Is said to have been made a Mason at the Loge du Contrat Social. Was in Charleston about 1796 and joined the Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite in 1802, one year after its creation. About the same time he established a second Supreme Council at Port-au-Prince, as “Grand Commander for life of the French West India Islands.” In 1804 he returned to Paris, where he founded yet another Council and became Grand Commander of the Scottish Rite in France. He carried the Rite subsequently to Milan and Madrid. He resigned his official position at Paris in 1818, and this is the end of his story. The Supreme Council was rent with dissensions during his rule.
Hadly, Benjamin.—Was, according to Preston, one of the Wardens when a Special or Emergency Lodge was held by dispensation at the Hague in 1731, for the initiation of the Duke of Tuscany and Lorraine, who became subsequently the Emperor Francis I of Austria. The other Warden was a Dutchman, on the same authority. But according to Anderson's second Book of Constitutions and two later editions, the Wardens were John Stanhope and John Hollzendorf.
Hamilton, Hon. Robert.—Nat. 1820, ob. 1880. Was District Grand Master of Jamaica and Provincial Grand Master of the Royal Order of Scotland.
Hardenberg, K. A. F.—Nat. 1750, ob. 1822. A member of the Strict Observance, Prussian Chancellor and Prince.
Harnouester.—An English noble under this name is said to have been second Grand Master of France in 1736, succeeding the Earl of Derwentwater. The name occurs continually in the history—so-called—of French High Grades and is either a French corruption or invention. It is needless to say that there is no such name in the English peerage. Gould suggests that Derwentwater is intended. The reference in this case would be to Charles Radcliffe and would imply that his brother James was first Grand Master. The whole story is one of muddle and mendacity in equal proportions.
Hartitsch, J. F. von.—In 1754 he became Sub-Prior of Drossig in Bohemia, under the obedience of the Strict Observance. He was a Saxon officer in the Guards.
Hastings, George, Earl of Huntingdon.—English Grand Master from 1588 to 1603, in the amazing list of Anderson.
Hemming, Samuel, D. D.—He has been called founder, reviser and framer of a new system to replace the old Prestonian Lectures, after the Union. He was at one time Senior Grand Warden. We have to thank him for expunging all references to St. John the Baptist and St. John the Evangelist, those time immemorial patrons of English Masonry—a creditable work for a supposed Doctor of Divinity at that unholy period, and no doubt very pleasing to the Duke of Sussex.
Henckel von Donnersmark, Count.—A Prussian Grand Master who initiated King William of Prussia in 1838.
Hesse Cassel, Prince Charles of.—Nat. 1747, ob. 1836. He was Grand Master of the Strict Observance, in succession to Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick. This was about 1792. He became Provincial Grand Master of Denmark in 1782, under the English obedience. There was also Prince Frederick of Hesse Cassel, nat. 1747, ob. 1847, but these dates are doubtful. He joined the Strict Observance in 1779, founded a Provincial Chapter of this Order at the Hague and promoted its cause in Holland.
Holstein Beck, Frederick William, Duke of.—Is said to have been made a Mason by Frederick the Great in 1740 and became Grand Master of the Three Globes in 1747.
Jermyn, Henry, Earl of St. Albans.—One of Preston's contributions to the mythical Roll of Grand Masters. He is referred to 1663. Preston follows Anderson.
Johnson.—Otherwise Johnstone, Johnson à Fünen, George Friedrich von Johnson and Becker, but in reality named Leucht, an Englishman—by his claim—who did not know English and is believed to have been a Jew. He was first heard of at Jena in 1758, claiming authority from Scottish Knights Templar “to extend their system in Germany." He deceived Baron von Hund, founded a Chapter of the Strict Observance and acted as a Grand Prior. It is said that many German Lodges—presumably those in connection with the Three Globes—“succumbed to his pretensions." He was exposed at the Convention of Altenburg in 1764, was arrested at the instance of von Hund and imprisoned in the fortress of Wartzburg, where—to the honour of the Strict Observance—he was maintained at the cost of the Order till his death in 1773.
Jones, Inigo.—Nat 1573, ob. 1652. The famous English architect and an irresistible temptation for Anderson, who accordingly represents him as Grand Master in and about 1607, quoting Nick Stone—on the authority of a MS. which had the misfortune to be burnt in 1720.
Kalm, J. N. von.—Nat. 1720, ob. 1770. A Senator of Brunswick, who was initiated at Copenhagen and became an active member of the Strict Observance.
Kielmansegge, Graf von.—(1) Friedrich, nat. 1728. (2) K. R. A., nat. 1731, ob. 1810, an official of Hamburg. (3) L. F., Master of a Lodge in Hanover. The two others belonged to the Strict Observance.
Lacorne.—Described as a dancing-master and by many opprobrious terms. He was the substitute in 1761 of the Comte de Clermont for a period when the latter was Grand Master of France. The French Grand Lodge refused, it is said, to recognise him, and the Chevalier de Joinville was appointed ultimately in his place. Lacorne is alleged further to have founded a rival Grand Lodge in 1762, but the two Obediences were amalgamated in the same year. The story seems to be spurious, and in recent years French criticism has exonerated the dancing-master and done much to clear his character.
Landsberg, Baron von.—Was born in 1739, became Master of a Lodge at Strasburg and also joined a Chapter of High Grades in that city. In 1773 he was appointed Grand Prior and Vicar General of the Strict Observance, presumably for Alsace-Lorraine.
Langes, Savalette de.—A** founder of the Rite of the Philalethes in 1775, a chief contributor to its success, importance and influence. His name recurs continually in the Masonic activity of his period.
La Rochefoucault, Marquis de.—Not to be identified with the Duke, though both were of the same period and both notable Freemasons. Was Grand Master of the Scottish Philosophical Rite in 1776.
Latour d’Auvergne, Prince de.—Was President, otherwise Grand Master, of the same Rite in 1805.
Lechangeur.—We know nothing concerning him prior to his appearance at Milan in 1805, where he took some Degrees of the Scottish Rite, at the hands of its Supreme Council, but was refused further advancement on account—it is said—of his character. The story is that, by way of reprisals, he constituted the Rite of Mizraim. The authorities are Rebold and Clavel—at their value. In 1810 he granted a patent to Michael Bedarride for the dissemination of the Rite in France, doing nothing otherwise on his own part outside the city of Naples. He is supposed to have died in 1812.
Leonhardi, J. P. von.—Was Grand Master of the English Provincial Grand Lodge at Frankfort, about 1787, and seems to have promoted the introduction of the Royal Arch.
Lernais, Gabriel Marquis de.—It is necessary to mention this French High Grade Mason, because the German Handbook has gone seriously astray. He was a prisoner of war at Berlin in 1757 and is supposed to have introduced the Rite of the Chapter of Clermont and the Council of Emperors; but the latter was not in existence, while it appears otherwise that the former was unknown in Germany until 1760. De Lemais belonged also to the Strict Observance.
Leytham, M.—(1) Initiated in 1831; (2) Worshipful Master in 1838; (3) Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Darmstadt; (4) Member of the Eclectic Union; (5) Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Frankfort in 1859.
Lumley, Hon. James.—Was present when Frederick Prince of Wales was initiated at Kew Palace on November 5, 1737. So also was the Hon. Major Madden.
Magnan, B. P.—Was a Marshal of France and nominated as Grand Master by Napoleon III, though he had to be initiated previously to his installation. He was elected in 1862 and remained in office till 1865.
Marschall.—(1) August D. Graf von Marschall, nat. 1749, ob. 1795; (2) Marschall von Bieberstein, nat. 1732, ob. 1786; (3) C. G. Marschall. These were all active members of the Strict Observance and well known in connection therewith. (4) E. A. F. von Marschall, a Mason and army officer of Anhalt Bemberg; (5) H. W. von Marschall, appointed English Provincial Grand Master of Upper Saxony—so at least it is said. The above enumeration is that of Woodford.
Massena, Andre.—-(1) Duke of Rivoli; (2) Prince of Essling; (3) Marshal of France; (4) officer of the French Grand Orient. Born at Nice in 1758, and famous in the military annals of France.
Matheus, Jean.—According to Thory, he was appointed Provincial Grand Master of the Order of Heredom Kilwinning, meaning the Royal Order, in France. This was in 1786. He derived, it is said, from Edinburgh.
Mecklenburg Schwerin and Strelitz.—(1) Friedrich Ludwig, Grand Duke of Mecklenburg Schwerin, initiated 1819. Of Strelitz: (2) Grand Duke Adolphus Frederick IV, initiated 1772; (3) Grand Duke Carl, initiated 1780; (4) Prince Ernst, initiated 1773; (5) Prince George Augustus, initiated 1768.
Meynil, Marquis Chastellier du.—Member of the Strict Observance Directory of Strasburg in 175-.
Mokranowski, Andrzej.—Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Poland, 1784.
Montmorency, Comte de.—Was nominated as his substitute in 1771 by the Duc de Chartres, Grand Master of France. About 1785 he became Protector and—it is said—Grand Master of Cagliostro’s Egyptian Rite. The authority is Thory.
Mount-Hermer, Ralph, Lord.—Referred to the reign of Edward I in Anderson’s list of unhistorical Grand Masters.
Mozart, J. C. W. G.—The great composer and musician, who was made a Mason about 1780 and belonged to a Lodge in Vienna. He wrote several musical pieces for Masonic occasions or with Masonic motives.
Murat, Joachim.—Nat. 1771, ob. 1815. Napoleon’s general of cavalry, whom he made King of Naples. Was an officer of the French Grand Orient in 1803 and subsequently Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Naples.
Napoleons and Masonry.—(1) It is a matter of affirmation or mere statement that Napoleon the Great was made a Mason at Malta. Nothing that is found in Clavel on this subject carries the least conviction. There was, however, a traditional feeling ab origine among French Brethren which at least deserves respect. It is certain in any case that the Order flourished in Napoleon’s reign and that it counted for something in his mind is shewn by actions within his own family groups. (2) Joseph Napoleon Buonaparte, successively King of Naples, King of Spain and Comte de Survilliers in America. Was nominated by his illustrious brother for Grand Master of the Grand Orient. (3) Louis Buonaparte Napoleon, made King of Holland in 1806, was appointed Grand Master adjoint of the French Grand Orient. (4) The initiation of another brother, Lucien Buonaparte Napoleon is a matter of report. (5) Jerome Buonaparte Napoleon, accredited as King of Westphalia in 1807, became Grand Master of the Westphalian Grand Orient. (6) His son, of the same name, was, I believe, unquestionably an initiate. (7) On the other hand, Napoleon III was almost certainly not, though there is a common opinion to the contrary.
O’Connell, Daniel.—Was at one time Master of the Dublin Lodge, No. 189, but withdrew from the Order at the instance of the Catholic Priesthood and is said to have published his reasons, which the world has long since forgotten.
Parvin, Theodore S.—Nat. 1817, ob. 1901, a native of New Jersey. Was made a Mason in 1838 and became Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of Iowa in 1844, an office which he held till his death, one year excepted—1852, 53—during which he was Grand Master.
Passavant, P. F.—Nat. 1738, ob. 1756. Was Provincial Grand Master of Frankfurt-on-the-Maine in 1780, and so remained till his death.
Pembroke, Marquis of.—An alleged English Grand Master in 1618, according to Anderson.
Peuvret, Jean Eustache.—An Officer of the Grand Orient of France and of immortal memory as a Masonic and Hermetic bibliophile. His private accumulation of Rituals is in all men’s ears—I mean, the ears of all Masonic Students. His MS. collection devoted to Hermetic Masonry alone comprised six quarto volumes. The titles of his Ritual treasures are in all nomenclatures of Grades.
Pirlet.—The Council of Knights of the East, in opposition to the Council of Emperors, was instituted in 1762 by this French Mason, who followed the trade of a tailor at Paris.
Price, Henry.—Nat. circa 1697 in England, ob. 1780 in Massachusetts. In virtue of what is called a “deputation” by Viscount Montagu, as English Grand Master, he instituted a Provincial Grand Lodge in the Massachusetts district, in 1733.
Rosa, Philipp Samuel.—A Lutheran clergyman, who was made a Mason in the Lodge of the Three Globes. Is said to have assisted a certain Baron von Printzen to institute a Chapter of High Degrees analogous to that of Clermont. He travelled for the propagation of the system in Denmark and Sweden, where the experiment proved a failure, but also in Holland and Germany, where he is said to have organised many Lodges. The system came in time to be known as the Rosaic Rite. It was largely Hermetic and Alchemical, but appears to have been regarded by its emissary more especially as a source of revenue. He is usually termed a Masonic impostor, but the evidence is insufficient against him. In 1765 he issued a protest against Johnson and the Congress which he had convoked at Jena. Thereafter he and the Rosaic Rite faded out of public view.
Sackvllle, Sir Thomas W.—Was Grand Master, according to Anderson, from 1561 to 1567, and also attended an assembly of Grand Lodge in 1561, being 156 years before Grand Lodge was founded.
Saint-Germain, Comte de.—He is rather an occult than Masonic personality, though he who, by his hypothesis, had lived through the ages, seen and done everything, could not be otherwise than acquainted with Freemasonry at first hand and fully in all its phases. He admitted as much on occasion, but it was long ago and he had forgotten.
Schröder, F. L.—Nat. 1744, ob. 1816. Was Grand Master of the English Provincial Grand Lodge of Lower Saxony at Hamburg. He reformed the Ritual of Masonry—presumably of the Craft Grades. It is said that his recension is still used in the Grand Lodge of Hamburg and otherwhere in Germany. There was also his brother, F. J. W. Schröder—nat. 1733, ob. 1778—who was concerned with a Rectified Rose-Croix, compounded of theosophy, alchemy and magic.
Sellentin, F. W. A.—Was Grand Master of the Grand Lodge Royal York of Berlin, from 1798 to 1801.
St. Clair, William, of Rosslyn.—Was Earl of Orkney and Caithness. The traditional story is (1) that in 1441 James II, King of Scotland, appointed St. Clair Patron and Protector of Scottish Masons; (2) that the Office was hereditary; (3) that after his death, circa 1480, his descendants held annual meetings at Kilwinning; (4) that such appointment notwithstanding, the nomination of Craft Office-Bearers remained a prerogative of the Kings of Scotland; (5) that it was neglected by James VI when he became King of England; (6) that Scottish Masons, being thereby embarrassed, appointed by charter, circa 1600, the William St. Clair of that period and his heirs as their patrons and judges; (7) that, many years after, the said William St. Clair left Scotland for Ireland and in 1630 a second charter was issued, giving similar powers to his son, Sir William St. Clair, who thereupon administered the affairs of the Craft; (8) that in 1736 the William St. Clair of that period, being without issue, was in fear that the Office would become vacant at his death; (9) that he summoned the members of Lodges in Edinburgh and thereabouts, and at a formal assembly recommended them (a) to form a Grand Lodge of Scotland and (b) to choose a Grand Master, he himself tendering a deed of resignation; (10) that this deed being accepted, he was forthwith elected Grand Master, which Office he held for one year and was succeeded by the Earl of Cromarty. It is obvious that the early part of this story stultifies itself, for if James II appointed the St. Clairs patrons and protectors in perpetuity, no negligence of James VI could make it necessary for Scottish Masons to invest the same family on their own part by charter, nor was a second charter needed in 1630, as the Office would devolve on the son in the father’s absence. The tradition about James II is therefore apocryphal and is so regarded by Masonic scholarship. The charters appear to be genuine, but they are undated. The conclusion is that, as from 1600, a Masonic jurisdiction was resident in the St. Clairs, and—like others—I do not doubt that William St. Clair of 1736, knowing that there was a Grand Lodge created recently in London and having a Grand Master, took such steps as would elevate him to that rank in Scotland and raise also the status of Scottish Masonry.
Thoux, Comte de la.—Otherwise Thoux de Salverte, he was in the Polish military service, and his Masonic dedications led him into the Strict Observance. Moreover, he is said to have founded an Academy of the Ancients, or of Secrets, on the basis of an experiment by Johannes Baptista Porta at the end of the sixteenth century. The institution was at Warsaw and nothing is known concerning it. The alleged date is 1767.
Van Rensslaer, K. H.—Nat. 1799, in the State of New York, ob. 1881. Became an Inspector-General of the Scottish Rite in 1845, but formed later on an independent Supreme Body in the Northern States. Matters were adjusted in 1867.
Waechter, Baron von.—Nai. ob. 1825. He was prominent in the Strict Observance and Chancellor of the German Priories comprised in the Seventh Province; but the imbecility of the period suspected him of Jesuitical connections, and he lost caste, not only in the Order itself but in general Masonry. Mossdorf relates a not very probable story that Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick, as Grand Master of German Écossais Lodges, or alternatively the Lodges themselves, commissioned Von Waechter to visit the Pretender at Rome, Prince Charles Edward, to investigate the antecedents of the Strict Observance and clear up the mystery connected with its Unknown Superiors. The mission failed, as there is no need to tell, and the emissary is said to have brought back information which was unfavourable to Baron von Hund. One alleged result was that Von Waechter made enemies innumerable, was accused of trafficking in Masonry, of becoming wealthy in this manner and of practising magic. The truth of these allegations is likely to remain dubious, unless and until Mossdorf rises from the dead or his Duke Ferdinand, and perhaps *afterwards, seeing that the return of the departed is over-frequent and cheap in these our days. Moreover, the Duke of Brunswick is himself supposed to have studied occult sciences, and being much the senior might have served as Von Waechter’s instructor.
Washington, George.—Was initiated at Fredericksburg, Virginia, in 1752. Was nominated Grand Master of Virginia in 1777, but declined this Office. Is said to have been a frequent attendant at Military Lodges during the War of Revolution. When a movement was on foot for the creation of a single governing Grand Lodge for the whole of the United States, Washington was of course looked to as the first Grand Master, and in 1780 the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania is said to have elected him. The entire project lapsed—fortunately no doubt for Masonic history in America. On May 29, 1788, Lodge No. 39, at Alexandria “transferred its allegiance” from the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania to that of Virginia, and on May 29 elected Washington as Master. He remained in the Chair till his death. There is some evidence also that he officiated therein. His zeal for the Craft and its ideals is otherwise beyond question.
Wellington, Duke of.—Was made a Mason in Lodge No. 494, circa December, 1790.
White, William.—Was appointed Grand Secretary of the “Moderns” in 1780, having been Joint-Secretary for about four years previously. In 1810 his son, William Henry, became Joint-Secretary with him and so continued till the death of his father, in May, 1813. William Henry White was sole Secretary till the Union in December of that year, and again from 1839 to 1857. Both were eminent in a high degree for their service to the Order.
William IV.—-Was initiated, when Duke of Clarence, at Lodge No. 86, Plymouth.
Wollner, John Christopher.—Nat. 1732, ob. 1800. Was a Provincial Grand Master in the Rite of the Strict Observance, a Canon of the Lutheran Church and a Prussian Minister of State. But he belongs more especially to the later history of the Rosicrucian Brotherhood.
Wright, Judge Waller Rodwell.—Was made a Mason about 1795, became Provincial Grand Master of the Ionian Isles, Grand Master of the Masonic Order of the Temple and Grand Sovereign of the Red Cross of Constantine, which he is said to have “revived” in 1804.
Yates, G. F.—Nat. 1796, in the State of New York, ob. 1859. Became Grand Commander of the Scottish Rite, Northern Jurisdiction, in 1851.
Zinnendorf, J. N. von.—Nat. 1731, at Halle, ob. circa 1782. Was made a Mason in his native place, joined the Three Globes, and threw himself ardently into the wide activities of the Strict Observance. Is said to have controlled the funds of the Order, but his refusal to produce the accounts led to an investigation, on which he withdrew and was thereupon illogically “expelled” or “excommunicated.” I find no suggestion that the inquiry produced anything dishonourable to Zinnendorf. He denounced subsequently the Templar theory of Masonry, condemned the Observance as an imposture and established a Rite of his own, based on materials derived from Swedish Masonry. In 1770 twelve Lodges of this system united to form a Grand Lodge of Germany, with the Prince of Hesse Darmstadt as Grand Master, and the King of Prussia as Protector in 1774. An alliance was formed with the Grand Lodge of England in 1773, and continued for some years. Zinnendorf himself became Grand Master in 1774 and so remained till his death. He had an antagonist in the Duke of Sudermania, Grand Master of Sweden, who affirmed that the materials obtained from that country were imperfect and were given under a spurious Warrant. It is a question which remains for settlement and no such settlement is likely.
Link and Chain
I suppose that in one crude form of symbolism Masonry is like a great chain, to which at every initiation a new link is added. In earlier days it is said that a Degree was conferred in a Mark Lodge under this name, or alternatively in a Royal Arch Chapter. Its sole remaining vestige has been gathered into the general and inchoate refuge of the Early Grand Rite, which opens, however, to confer it in the Grade of Royal Ark Mariner, so that the Candidate has the confusing experience of being advanced by Noah, Shem and Japhet in the history of an episode belonging to the building of the Temple, and of hearing a patriarch who passed through the epoch of the Flood discoursing of "our Grand Master, King Solomon." Here is a link in a chain of peculiar folly: it illustrates the imbecility of the grade and the kind of education which had been attained by those who constructed it. The procedure is confined to a pledge and a brief inconsequential legend. It appears that King Solomon was accustomed "to visit and inspect all parts of the building," while the Temple was in course of erection and that on a certain occasion, “he lost from his crown one of the jewels forming the Sacred Name of Deity.” A great hue and cry followed, the incident being regarded as ominous by the Operative Brethren. But a certain skilful craftsman, of whose chequered experiences we hear much in the Mark Degree, discovered the lost stone and—presumably by way of reward—was caused by Solomon to mark its name upon that other and most mystical stone with which he was concerned intimately at the beginning of his Masonic career. The jewel from the king's crown was an amethyst, and the title of Link and Chain is explained by the Grip of the Grade.
The official explanation is known, in respect of those who form a Lodge. The meaning which lies behind the arrangement has been unfolded in one of its aspects by a French Mason, who says (1) That three rule a Lodge, because man is constituted of body, spirit and soul, the last being an intermediary or bond of union between the two others; (2) That five compose it, because the soul of man has interior and spiritual senses, in analogy with those which are physical, namely: (a) the sentiment of humanity; (b) moral sense; (c) the intellectual awareness of that which is true and just; (d) aesthetic sense, or sentiment of the beautiful and sublime; (e) religious sense, or sentiment of the Holy and Divine; (3) That seven make it just and perfect, because this is the number of harmony, the root of equity, the basis on which the social structure rests, and finally that golden rule out of which come beneficence and prudence. An American definition explains that three form a Lodge, five improve it, and by seven it is made perfect.