One of the first things that we are taught in Freemasonry is that it is “a peculiar system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols”. One can therefore only understand the real meaning of Freemasonry by investigating its allegorical meaning.
A most obvious example of an allegory in Freemasonry is the question of “Age” made to the candidate by the Worshipful Master with the following words: “Are you a free man of the full age of twenty-one?”. To which the candidate is prompted by the Junior Deacon to reply: “I am”.
In Hebrew language “I am” translates “Eheieh” , which according to the numeration of the Hebrew letters of the alphabet , adds up to twenty one.
Such method of interpretation can be applied not just to the Masonic Rituals – Craft , Royal Arch, MM etc – but also to the Sacred Scriptures. It is a method that computes the numerical value of words based on their constituent letter. This method is called Gematria or Geometria and is used in the Kabbalah.
The Kabbalah is described as an esoteric theosophy based on the Hebrew Scriptures and the mysterious doctrine even influenced Freemasonry in the XVII century.
In Hebrew the meaning of the word Kabbalah is “to receive”. There is a curious myth that claims God himself taught this doctrine to a selected company of angels who , after the fall of man, communicated it to men so that they could learn how to return to the original state of happiness and communion with God. The great prophets Noah, Abraham and Moses received it and passed it on to their successors, among who was of course King Salomon.
The contents of the Kabbalah are believed to have derived from a mixture of ancient superior cultures like the Greek, the Egyptian and the Oriental. Even the Christianity adopted it , initially believing that it was Hebrew rather than Pagan.
The Kabbalah has three distinct facets. It can be :
“theoretical” when it teaches man about God;
“enigmatical” when it is based on the interpretation of the arrangements of words and letters in the Bible ;
“practical” when it professes to cure disease in man by interpreting the arrangement of words and letters.
For the Kabala every word can be reduced to a numerical value and be explained by means of another word of the same value.
A LOOK AT GEMATRIA
Gematria , or Geometria in Greek language, is a kabbalistic practice , essentially it is the Hebrew science of Numerology used mainly as a method for interpreting biblical texts. In Gematria each Hebrew letter represents a number.
Through those numbers one can calculate the numerical value of a word and by computing that value with one or more other words, a connection is established that can prove larger conceptual conclusions. One example of Gematria can be found in the interpretation of Genesis 14:14.
The verse mentions that to defeat the armies that had recently attacked his brother Lot, Abram (later in Genesis, God changed Abram’s name to Abraham), sent to fight the 318 men that made up his household. The numerical equivalent of Abram’s trusted household steward ‘s name “Eliezer” is 318; therefore, the text can also suggest that it was not an army of 318 that accompanied Abram, but only Eliezer. To prove that there can be more than one interpretation revealed by Gematria and the Kabala by the computation of words-values, let us consider the numerical value of the word “siach” which in Hebrew means “speaking” or “conversing”. It matches that of “Eliezer” and so it is now possible to argue that the interpretation of the Genesis 14:14 may also be that Abram defeated his enemies on his own just by speaking to them in the name of God !
In the Hebrew language the word “God” translates “Elohim” and Gematria returns for it a word- value of 86 which is also that of the word “Nature” , thus concluding that the divine presence manifests itself also in the physical world.
And finally, did you know that the term GOD is composed with the first letter of three Hebrew words : Gomer, Oz and Dabar ?
Gomer means Beauty; Oz means Strength; Dabar means Wisdom …… the Three Pillars of Freemasonry !
Gematria gives the word GOD a value of 810 which is also the result of the enumeration of : God+is+you = 810 and The+Holy+digit = 810
Throughout history, some people have believed that the Bible contains secrets that can be revealed by Gematria and used it to predict historical events. This belief continues to this day and it has been made famous by Michael Drosni’s best-selling book The Bible Code, published in 1997. At page 85 , the book recounts the poisonous gas attack that occurred in Tokyo on 20 March 1995 by a lunatic religious cult called Aum Shinrikyo. Twelve people were killed and more than 5000 injured when the nerve gas Sarin was released in the subway trains of the morning Tokyo rush hour. The book’s author claims that the name of the Cult’s leader was encoded in the Bible together with : “Tokyo”, “Japan” and “ subway”. Even the word “plague” is mentioned therein and indeed less than a year later, we had in South Africa the outbreak of the haemorragic fever Ebola.
SOME MORE ALLEGORIES
We opened this paper by explaining that the Kabbalists recognise that “I am” translates “Eheieh” in Hebrew . “Eheieh” is also the divine name associated with the first of the Holy Sephiroth[1] and it is also how God described himself – “Eheieh asher Egeieh” , “I am what I am” – to Moses when he appeared to him in the midst of the burning bush[2].
In Gematria, “Eheieh asher Eheieh” enumerates to 5 4 3. If you have been paying attention to the regalia your Past Master wears, you will have noticed that the jewel is a representation of Euclid’s 47th proposition , otherwise known as Pythagoras’s Theorem whose postulation is proved by the ratio 3-4-5 or 5-4-3. ”I am what I am” !
Have you noticed the letter “G” that in some Lodges hangs from the ceiling centre and others is depicted in the East above the master’s pedestal ?
AllegorThe letter “G” can signify Geometry, which is the root and foundation of all Sciences. “G” has also a symbolic meaning of God as synonymous with Geometry and it may also stand for the “Great” or” Grand” Architect of the Universe . In the words of our Brother W.L. Wilmhurst [3]:
“When the Lodge is opened , the mind and heart of every Brother composing it, should be deemed opened to the “G” and all that it implies and to the desire that those implications may eventually realise themselves by becoming facts (…) and when the Lodge is closed, the memory of the symbol “G” and its implications should be the principal things to be retained and pondered over in the repository of the heart”
— *** —
It is therefore entirely appropriate that the Masonic “Charge after the Initiation” delivered to the EAF, should state : “As a Freemason I would first recommend to your most serious contemplation , the volume of the Sacred Law”. It is only by contemplating the scripture with perseverance, that one will find and recognise symbolism. It cannot be attained by simply memorising and repeating to an esponential degree , the words of the Masonic ritual.
But sadly there is a large number of Freemasons who never actually consider the presence of allegories in the ritual and in the VSL.
On the Continent of Europe the Entered Apprentice has to wait a number of years after his initiation before being passed to the second degree. And during that time he is expected to do Masonic research and write papers to be presented to his lodge and in the Lodge. It is only when his Brethren are convinced that he has attained a relevant and sufficient Masonic knowledge that he is allowed progression to the next degree.
If you were to ask an Entered Apprentice Freemason here to make research on symbolism, he would probably not even know where to start. By contrast , in France and in Italy there has always been an intellectual tradition. Philosophy is taught in secondary school there, so there is a tendency to recruit from people who have such kind of interest and education. And if you go to France, you will discover that every bookshop – whether in Paris or in any provincial town – has shelves stacked with books and magazines on Freemasonry written by Freemasons and covering the subject of Masonic symbolism.
The philosopher Thomas Carlyle once wrote: “In a symbol there is concealment and yet revelation, silence and speech acting together. (…) infinite blending itself with the finite, to stand visible and, as it were, attainable there.”
So mote it be.
The author forbids any reproduction or publication of this article, in full or in part, without his explicit authorisation.
[1] According to the Kabbalah there are ten creative forces – the Holy Sephiroths – that intervene between God and our world. Through these powers God created and rules the universe, and it is by influencing them that humans cause God to send to Earth forces of compassion or severe judgment .
[2] The burning bush is an object described by the Book of Exodus as being located on Mount Horeb. According to the narrative, the bush was on fire, but was not consumed by the flames, hence the name. In the biblical narrative, the burning bush is the location at which Moses was appointed by Yahweh (God) to lead the Israelites out of Egypt and into Canaan.
[3] In the words of our distinguished Brother and author Robert Lomas , William Leslie WIlmhurst was one of the greatest thinkers about Freemasonry in the last century. Born in Chichester in 1867, he died in London in 1929. He wrote the book “The meaning f Freemasonry” and within it he tried to explain the inexplicable.
Sources
D.M.Study Circle 2016 transactions
“The Holy Acronym and Gematria” by Bro. R. Johnson (from “The Midnight Freemasons” blog)
Wikipedia
The Blog universalfreemasonry
A fortnight ago I published the letter of a Spanish Freemason who criticized the current state of the Grand Lodge of his Country and castigated the actions of its leader. This time I am submitting for your reading an article by an anonymous English former Brother, that The Square magazine published in its issue of September 2016.
The author of it does quite a good self analysis of the reasons he resigned from the Craft. He has also listed the justifications – and there are many ! – that other brothers told him they had for quitting Freemasonry and never return to it.
It makes an interesting reading .
Aldo Reno
Why I left Freemasonry
I met the editor of the magazine The Square at a formal dinner, where he learned that I had been a Freemason but had severed all ties with it and he persuaded me to write down the real reasons for leaving the Craft.
Here is my story.
l joined Freemasonry after meeting the owner of a shop in my town. We got on well together and I bought various books from him. From time to time we would also talk about Freemasonry , provided that no one else was on the premises. He was quite a keen Brother and he wondered if I might be interested. I had no connection at all to Freemasonry and no one in my family had ever been a member of the Order, but after reading about it (the good and the bad) I decided to join and find out for myself.
My problems started very quickly.
At my Initiation,I could hardly stop myself from laughing aloud when the penalties were presented. What nonsense! However, after my second degree I became very involved and went into offices and visited quite a lot. I also attended a research lodge, which was usually quite boring, and I even went to a Masonic conference. I met some members who I got on with and whose company l enjoyed, but unfortunately none of them were in the lodge I belonged to.
I started to become bored and disenchanted with what I was experiencing and with the people I was in the lodge with. When I quietly talked with others from different lodges about it , I found that quite a few of them felt the same way.
In time I joined another lodge and a Chapter.
The second lodge was a little better than my first but I found the ritual of the Royal Arch Chapter virtually incomprehensible. No one could explain what any of it meant.
l began to miss meetings and eventually I just resigned from all my lodges. I don’t think I was missed at all. When I left I was asked to give my reasons and I gave a politically correct answer on the line that l did not have the time to participate properly because my work commitments had to take priority. They accepted my excuse because I think they were not really that bothered whether I stayed or I left.
Over the next few years, I met many men who had also left Freemasonry. Some of them had not even been asked why they were leaving, or the question was put to them in a way that showed that the questioner was only going through the motions of asking.
I enquiried those former brothers for the real reason(s) they had left the Craft and I have reported them at the end of this article. Most of what I have listed , however, is drawn from the memory I have retained of the conversations held because I obviously did not keep notes or write down what the brothers were saying.
My recollections are that there were those who had enjoyed Freemasonry but whose circumstance had caused them to fall away. For example, they had moved to another locality where it was more difficult to get to a lodge; they had become ill and thus did not attend for quite a while and just got out of the habit; they had a wife to care for; had changed their job or the membership of their lodge had changed and their mates were no longer attending. I could not talk with the dead but some commented that with the death of some of their brother(s) their interest had declined. Many had reached a point where they were paying subscriptions and never attending and since in many cases the subscriptions included the cost of a meal – their financial loss was high. There were some younger men who really did have to put work before Freemasonry because the lodge meeting times and places were such that they could not get there. For someone who worked 9-5 in an office, it would be very difficult to get leave earlier.
But I also heard of many other reasons and some of them were similar to my own thoughts. Perhaps it is best if I just list them , but please bear in mind that these are not exact quotes.
The membership is too old and stuck in its ways. I don’t want to spend my evenings with pedantic old men.
The whole thing is too pompous – all that bowing and scraping to people who are nobody.
It is too hierarchic. Decisions are just made and imposed – yet I pay to belong to this.
There are too many pontificating hypocrites. Senior people are shown to be very questionable – but they really do not like to be questioned.
There is so much politicking and back-biting going on.
The ritual is too old fashioned and frankly often stupid. Many say it but do not believe it. I know plenty that do not believe in God, for example.
It is far too religious – if I want the Bible and prayers, I can go to church.
We do the same thing over and over again (usually badly). Does anybody ever talk about it?
The whole thing is far too time-consuming. It can take over your life.
The meals are poor, the speeches are worse and we have to do the same thing over again every time.
The members are not important in the community. Most are really nobody. Some are worse – we had two alcoholics in my lodge and one member committed suicide. So much for love and support!
I can use my time in other ways and much better. They got really upset when I did not want to spend months learning ritual – yet we never had a candidate. What is the point?
I am tired of always being asked for more charity – where does it really go ?
All those ranks and titles for people who have never done anything.
Some can’t even open and close a lodge. The intellectual level is very poor.
The same people seem to have been running it for years – are they ever asked to take responsibility for problems?
The sucking up to get higher rank is very sad and shameful.
What is the point of Freemasonry? What is it really trying to provide? It seems to be wanting to be all things to all people and it finishes up doing much of it badly.
It had no relevance in my life especially as it largely does not involve my wife or family. It brings no benefits.
It seems to be living in the past. They are always talking about the great Masons who lived centuries ago.
Our Hall is of poor quality. I am not happy taking my wife and friends there.
My friends just laughed when they knew I was a Freemason; it is seen as ridiculous by quite a few and others have such wild ideas about it. I tried to tell them we were not Satanists or esoteric nutters but then you read books written by Freemasons themselves which are ludicrous.
(…)This is the reality of what ex-Freemasons confided to me. I realise that some may have had isolated experiences and their dissatisfaction was not ‘all or nothing”. However, these are the issues that were raised and the end result had been in all cases that those Freemasons had eventually left. Not one of them ever said to me that they missed it and wished they had stayed. I did learn very quickly that large numbers do leave and that there is a steady decline every year.
I was also asked by the magazine’s editor what would have kept me in Freemasonry, as he, like many others, seems to be happy and very involved in it. The answer to that is that I am not sure. l think that at the core, my membership was not leading to anything that had any value or meaning for me. It did not help me spiritually. Socially I did meet some new people but I only ever invited one to my home and this is the only person I have kept as a friend. The lodge rhetoric did not seem to be translated into real action. When I left, there were members of the lodge I had never met. I suppose I expected Freemasonry to benefit me in some way and as it never did , I became frustrated.
I think that change, if it ever happens, will have to come at the lodge level with every member committed to being part of a supportive brotherhood, which must continue outside the lodge. This is not easy when you do not choose the members of the lodge you join. There are enough problems in families to show how similar problems can arise. Maybe I joined the wrong lodge – but there were plenty of other brothers who seemed to have joined the wrong lodges too.
I think I expected that Freemasonry wanted much more of me and that it would have provided the proper support. What ,instead , I found was that I was on my own ! and so I met with strangers every so often and met them again some time later to go through the same routines.
I just got bored with it all.
How can the lodge and the officers live with this? Perhaps one starts by admitting the problems and then admitting that most are caused by the members and the rulers themselves. I suspect that some simple things could be done immediately like, for example, let everybody wear a simple white apron – no decorations. It would be a lot cheaper for many but I think it would also send out a clear message that we are all equal brothers.
I also would remove all the religious trappings and present Freemasonry simply as a moral organisation.
I think lodges need to carry out projects in the community ; doing good would unite its members. I would also involve wives and families far more than they are now. But most of all you need to have the courage to jump on any member who is strayìng from the Masonic principles – for example anyone who is backstabbing, is being derogatory, is finding faults in everything and every brother. Freemasons, therefore, need to be very careful in who becomes a member. Frankly, for me I think it is too late and I am sorry to say that, whatever the Freemasons do, it will never include me again.
On March 15th CY, the English language weekly newspaper for British expats who live on the Costa Blanca – appropriately called Costa News – published a letter to the Editor that has captivated me. Its contents is harshly critical of the situation of Freemasonry in Spain and it must have taken a large measure of courage for the author to have exposed himself and for being so disapproving of the GLE.
The letter in question is titled Freemasonry: The Grand Lodge of Spain. It is likely to have been originally written in Spanish by a Spanish Brother but then translated into English language using a free translator software.
Having adjusted the grammar form and condensed the letter, I am now re-proposing its contents for your consideration. But let me inform the readers that the views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text of the letter belong solely to its author and that the publication of such letter on this website does not necessarily imply that Tetraktys endorses the opinions expressed therein .
Have a good reading!
Aldo Reno
***
Finestrat, March 12
We are living moments of increasing internal tension in the Grand Lodge of Espana (GLE) as it is moving towards self-destruction.
Of its three Past Grand Masters, two are no longer members of the GLE and all of them are in total disagreement with the current Grand Master.
In an article that Freemasonry.com published last month , a Brother from the United States of America writes about the issue of diminishing masonic membership in his Country. Why should we in England be concerned ? Because unless measures are taken that go beyond a soft recruitment campaign , even Freemasonry on this side of the Atlantic Ocean will experience a similar crisis.
It is not that Freemasonry isn’t pure in its aims, its values and beliefs ; just that those assemblies of good men who meet on the square , resemble more and more social clubs rather than Masonic lodges.
Recently – says Bro. Milliken – Freemasons are dismayed at all the talks of membership, lodge dues, dress, Grand edicts and other issues that they believe bring (…) undue debates and divisions in the Craft.
For them the symbolism, the virtues, morality and the positive effect that all of these things have on our soul, are the only things that should be talked about within the Masonic community.
They are the Philosophical or Intellectual Masons.
Who cares where we meet, they say, or what we look like and how many of us are present at our meetings (…). They see Freemasonry as a philosophy that can exists regardless of its structure because a philosophy requires no administration or infrastructure. It requires thought, enlightenment and personal practice without incumbencies. It does not need a building or a leader or any authority imposed on it. Freemasonry is indestructible; it is a personal journey (…) that only requires a personal commitment to its ideals and life changing message.
On the other side of the divide we have theStructural & Administrative Freemasons, who tell us that (…) a Society, a Brotherhood without structure is anarchy. Indeed it ceases to be a Brotherhood because what is lost is the interpersonal relationship, the personal contact, the camaderie.
(…) But if you are going to have infrastructure like a temple, a ritual, a dogma, a catechism, a leadership, then – say those Masons – you are going to have rules and enforcement. Membership dues, budgets, dress, qualifications, etc. thus become justifiable issues.
L’interesse per i Rosa Croce di Ashmole fa parte di una più generale riscoperta degli scritti rosacrociani nella seconda metà del XVII secolo. Nel 1652 John Heyden pubblica la prima traduzione inglese della « Fama fraternitatis », mentre Thomas Vaugham – sotto lo pseudonimo di Eugenius Philalethes – diffonde i suoi scritti alchemici di carattere rosacrociano. Pertanto entrambi possono aver influenzato le nascenti logge massoniche. Le similarita’ nel linguaggio e nella liturgia tra le due associazioni sono riconducibili ad un fondo comune ovvero l’Esoterismo.
In effetti i primi Rosa Croce parlano di casa dello Spirito Santo, di costruzione visibile o invisibile, intangibile e indistruttibile, di edifici senza finestra né porta, di pietra angolare, di fondazioni, ma questo sembra essere un insieme di metafore che hanno origine dalle Sacre Scritture, con saltuari prestiti dall’Alchimia, ben diverso quindi dall’obbligo del silenzio e dai segni di riconoscimento che la Massoneria riprende dalle gilde degli artigiani edili.
Le associazioni Rosacruciane si svilupparono parallelamente alla nascente Massoneria e per entrambe le confraternite si pose il problema di darsi lustro rinvenendo le proprie origini lontano nel tempo. Vi sono poi personaggi che vestono la doppia affiliazione cosicche’ l’assimilazione delle strutture rosacrociane nella Massoneria promuove l’impulso verso la costituzione di gradi sempre più elevati. Nel 1710, cioè sette anni prima della pubblicazione della Costituzione di Anderson, « Sincerus Renatus » (un alias di Samuel Richter, pastore luterano, che si ritiene discepolo di Paracelso e di Jakob Böhme) pubblica « La vera e perfetta preparazione della Pietra Filosofale della Fraternità dell’Ordine della Croce d’Oro e della Rosa-Croce » , un trattato d’alchimia sulle pratiche di laboratorio.[1]
Nella prefazione, egli precisa che il testo non è opera sua, ma di un Professore dell’Arte del quale non può rivelare l’identità, e che i membri dell’Ordine hanno lasciato l’Europa per le Indie al fine di vivere più tranquillamente. In realtà, l’Ordine descritto da Sincerus Renatus sembra non sia mai esistito. Ad ogni modo, il termine «Rosa-Croce d’Oro» avrà una certa fortuna e alcune sue regole si ritroveranno più tardi nelle istruzioni del grado massonico-rosacrociano dei Principi Cavalieri Rosa-Croce.
Nel 1749, Hermann Fictuld pubblica « Aureum Vellus », nel quale parla di una Società dei Rosa-Croce d’Oro che si presenta come l’erede dell’ « Ordine del Vello d’Oro » fondato da Filippo il Buono nel 1492. Verso il 1757 egli crea un rito massonico a tendenza alchemica e la chiama « Società Roseæ et Aureæ Crucis o Fraternità dei Rosa-Croce d’Oro », composto da un insieme di gradi rosacrociani:.
Questa Società migra in diverse città come Francoforte sul Meno, Marburg, Kassel, Vienna e Praga, sembra spegnersi verso il 1764 e si riforma grazie a Schleiss von Löwenfeld e Joseph Wilhelm Schröder ; infine dà origine ad un altro rito massonico rosacrociano che si manifesta tra il 1770 e il 1777 in Baviera, Austria, Boemia e Ungheria. Tale Rito e’ dapprima adottato da una loggia massonica di Ratisbona, la « Mezzaluna dalle Tre Chiavi » poi nel 1771 anche da una loggia di Vienna « La Speranza » che darà origine a quella delle « Tre Spade » la quale diviene il vivaio di tale rito massonico-rosacrociano coltivante l’alchimia e la teurgia.
Dal 1776 alcuni membri della loggia delle « Tre Spade » [2] instaurano un nuovo Ordine massonico-rosacrociano che chiamano « Ordine della Rosa-Croce d’Oro d’Antico Sistema » e fara’ della loggia dei « Tre Globi » di Berlino il centro delle sue attività. Quest’Ordine adotta una gerarchia di nove gradi [3]:
Juniores
Teoretici
Pratici
Philosophi
Minores
Majores
Adepti Exempti
Magisteri
Magi
L’insegnamento degli Juniores riproduce centodieci pagine dell’ opera “Opus mago-cabbalisticum et Theosophicum” del 1719 di Georg von Welling[4]. L’istruzione e il rituale dei Teoretici riprendono il « Novum laboratorium medico-chymicum » di Christopher Glaser (1677). Le operazioni alchemiche insegnate ai Magistri, sono recuperate da due libri dell’alchimista paracelsiano Henrich Khunrath: « La Confessio de Chao Physico-chemicorum catholico » (1596) e “L’Amphiteatrum sapientiæ æternæ” (1609).
I rituali e gli insegnamenti di quest’Ordine sono dunque orientati nettamente verso l’Alchimia. In questo ambiente in cui si mescolano Alchimia, Rosacrocianesimo e Massoneria nasce il celebre libro dei « Simboli Segreti dei Rosacrociani » del XVI e XVII secolo (Altona, 1785 e 1788) il quale, composto essenzialmente di trattati alchemici illustrati in modo magnifico, è spesso presentato come il libro rosacrociano più importante dopo i tre manifesti.
Il vero Ordine massonico della Rosa-Croce d’Oro d’Antico Sistema [5] possiede una caratteristica che lo differenzia dal Rosacrocianesimo del XVII secolo: rivendica una filiazione risalente a Ormus, o Ormissus, sacerdote egizio battezzato da San Marco. Ormus, quindi, avrebbe cristianizzato i Misteri dell’Egitto e fondato l’Ordine degli Ormusiani dandogli come simbolo una croce d’oro smaltata di rosso. Nell’anno 151 gli Esseni si sarebbero uniti a loro e l’Ordine avrebbe preso il nome di “Guardiani del Segreto di Mosè, Salomone e Ermete”. Durante il XII secolo tale Ordine ammette i Templari e quando nel 1118 i Cristiani perdono la Palestina, i membri dell’Ordine si disperdono per il mondo con tre di loro che vengono a stabilirsi in Europa e fondano « L’Ordine dei Costruttori d’Oriente ».
Lo spagnolo Ramon Llull e’ ammesso in tale Ordine e ivi inizia all’Arte un certo Edoardo I dei Plantageneti d’Inghilterra . In seguito solo i membri della casa di York e di Lancaster diverranno dignitari dell’Ordine; ecco perché alla croce d’oro – utilizzata come simbolo dell’Ordine – viene aggiunta anche la rosa che figura negli stemmi delle due famiglie. Così sarebbe nato l’Ordine massonico della Rosa-Croce d’Oro. Qualunque sia la sua filiazione mitica, quest’Ordine nasce in Germania nel XVIII secolo e si sviluppa essenzialmente nella scia della Stretta Obbedienza Templare, il rito massonico più importante nel paese.
Se finora il Rosacrocianesimo ha dato vita solo a gruppetti dei quali non si conosce alcun rituale sino ad oggi, l’Ordine Massonico della Rosa-Croce d’Oro di Antico Sistema ha invece lasciato vari documenti sulle sue attività. Conosce una grande diffusione nell’Europa centrale e numerose personalità come il principe Federico Guglielmo o Nicolai Novikov in Russia ne sono membri. L’Ordine viene messo « in sonno » dai suoi fondatori nel 1787, dopo aver dato nascita ai Fratelli Iniziati dell’Asia (1779), di cui è Gran Maestro Charles de Hesse-Cassel , allievo e protettore del Conte di St Germain.
In pratica con la nascita dell’Ordine della Rosa-Croce d’Oro d’Antico Sistema compare nella Massoneria l’alto grado di Rosa-Croce. La sua esistenza è attestata per la prima volta nel 1757 – nelle attività della Loggia dei « Figli della Saggezza » e della « Concordia » – col nome di Cavaliere Rosa-Croce e viene subito considerato il non plus ultra dei gradi della Massoneria. Esso diviene anche il settimo e ultimo grado del Rito Francese del 1786, e il diciottesimo del Rito Scozzese Antico e Accettato. Tuttavia il grado presenta una particolarità che susciterà molti dibattiti. Mentre tutti i gradi massonici insistono sull’universalità della saggezza, quello del Cavaliere Rosa-Croce è propriamente cristiano. Ecco perché alcuni massoni cercheranno di de-cristianizzarlo nel XIX secolo proponendo un’interpretazione filosofica del suo simbolismo. Nella sua « Stella Fiammeggiante » il barone di Tschoudy nota «il Cattolicesimo sotto forma di grado». Il suo simbolismo non evoca i temi del Rosacrocianesimo del XVII secolo e non parla di Christian Rosenkreuz, ma mette in scena il calvario del Golgota, la Resurrezione del Cristo e comporta due agapi nelle quali si condivide il pane e il vino, una cerimonia che ricorda l’Ultima Cena. Durante l’iniziazione a tale grado il candidato rivive le peregrinazioni successive alla distruzione del Tempio di Gerusalemme. Egli cerca la Parola Perduta e il suo viaggio gli consente di scoprire tre virtu’ : la Fede, la Speranza e la Carità e gli viene svelato il senso segreto di « I.N.R.I ».
I più antichi rituali del grado Rosa-Croce risalgono al 1760 (Strasburgo) e 1761 (Lione), ossia solo pochi anni dopo la comparsa della Societas Roseæ et Aureæ Crucis di Francoforte. Uno scambio di corrispondenza del giugno 1761 tra i Massoni di Metz e quelli di Lione rivela che i Lionesi praticano un grado sconosciuto ai loro fratelli di Metz, quello di « Cavaliere dell’Aquila » o « Massone di Eredom », altra designazione del grado massonico Rosa-Croce.
Per chiudere : I Rosacroce sono indicati come gli eredi di una catena di iniziati i cui anelli sono gli Egizi, Zoroastro, Ermete Trismegisto, Mosè, Salomone, Pitagora, Platone e gli Esseni. Un lineaggio questo che ricorda quello evocato da Michel Maier nel « Silentium Post Clamores » il quale riprende l’idea di Tradizione Primordiale tanto cara all’Ermetismo del Rinascimento. Si ritroverà questa nozione nel « Regolatore dei Cavalieri Massoni » o i quattro Ordini Superiori secondo il regime del Grande Oriente.
Vi abbiamo riproposto il testo scritto da autori invisibili e pubblicato anni orsono nel sito Axis Mundi (non quello odierno,che non ha alcunche'a vedere con quello originale) il quale rappresento' un riferimento sapenziale di rara profondita'.
Aldo Reno (The Editor)
[1] Che ha in appendice le cinquantadue regole alla base dell’Ordine della Rosa-Croce d’Oro, le quali indicano che l’Ordine – diretto da un Imperator eletto a vita – non deve avere più di sessantatré Fratelli.
[2] Johann Rudolf von Bischoffswerder (1714-1803), ufficiale prussiano, poi ministro della guerra alla morte del grande Federico, e Jean Christophe Wollner (1732-1800), pastore.
[3] I cui aspetti simbolici sono presentati nei testi della Riforma adottati durante un Convegno dell’Ordine tenutosi a Praga il 1777.
[4] Il libro attraverso il quale Goethe si inizierà al pensiero rosacrociano
[5] Precisiamo «massonico» per distinguerlo dai gruppi recenti che usano lo stesso nome senza tuttavia alcun legame con questi Rosacrociani del 18° secolo.
La Massoneria è una un’istituzione iniziatica avente come fine l’emancipazione dei suoi aderenti attraverso l’acquisizione della conoscenza. Il termine loggia deriva dall’antico tedesco laubja, che a sua volta deriva da laub (fogliame) e significa capanna o baracca di boscaioli. Laubia indica il luogo accanto a un tempio in costruzione dove si custodiscono gli attrezzi di lavoro e dove ci incontra. Nell’Europa centro-occidentale, quando si tratta di costruire una cattedrale gotica, la loggia viene costruita parallelamente alla chiesa ed è, come questa, rivolta da est a ovest (ex oriente lux). La più antica loggia di cui abbiamo notizia è quella di Kilwinning, in Scozia, operante già nell’anno 1150. I maestri muratori, gli artigiani edili e gli architetti formano – a partire dall’alto medioevo – delle gilde esclusive o logge fortemente gerarchizzate il cui scopo è la difesa degli interessi professionali, la disciplina dei suoi membri e soprattutto la trasmissione dei segreti del mestiere, tra cui la sezione aurea o numero aureo di Pitagora, che è alla base di tutta la filosofia pitagorica e si ritrova come fondamento delle armoniche proporzioni delle cattedrali gotiche. D’altra parte, le gilde provvedono anche alle necessità di mutuo soccorso, che la società del tempo non riesce a soddisfare in altro modo.
Un’altra gilda è documentata a Strasburgo, e sul suo esempio altre se ne ritrovano in città tedesche, austriache, svizzere, ungheresi, finché il 25 aprile 1459 i maestri architetti di tutte le logge si riuniscono a Ratisbona, dove elaborano uno statuto comune alla professione e alle logge. Nel 1563 , settantadue maestri di logge si riuniscono a Basilea per dare alla confraternita un nuovo statuto, che conferma la gerarchia interna di maestri, compagni e artigiani che costituiranno i primi tre gradi della Massoneria. S’istituiscono dei segni di riconoscimento tra i gradi e all’interno dei gradi un simbolismo rituale.
Controverso è il passaggio dalle logge operative, costituite dagli architetti, dai maestri muratori, dagli artigiani edili alle logge speculative, che ammettono al loro interno un numero sempre più preponderante di persone estranee alla loro professione, i membri accettati. Qual’è l’interesse che muove questi ultimi, in genere intellettuali o gentiluomini ricchi e istruiti, ad affiliarsi alla corporazione di un mestiere sicuramente inferiore alla loro condizione? Probabilmente l’esoterismo delle tradizioni degli architetti, di cui la sezione aurea è un esempio, e il loro vanto di un’origine antichissima, risalente addirittura alla costruzione del Tempio di Gerusalemme al tempo di Re Salomone, la rendono affascinante a loro occhi; mentre l’afflusso di denaro liquido, e conseguentemente il ruolo di promozione sociale, i divertimenti e la patina culturale che questo garantisce costituiscono un buon affare per i massoni operativi. Sta di fatto che ad un certo punto questi ultimi si accorgono che nelle loro logge non solo essi sono in minoranza, ma in alcune non vi sono affatto.
Il primo massone speculativo è Sir Robert Moray (1608-1675), che entra nella Massoneria nel 1641 e alla fine diviene gran Maestro della sua loggia, ad Edimburgo. Elias Ashmole (1617-1692), studioso dell’occultismo e tra i fondatori della Real Society, entra nella Massoneria nel 1646 a Warrington nel Lancashire. Egli pubblica dei manoscritti di alchimia col nome di Thearum Chemicum Britannicum e un’apologia della Fama fraternitatis e dei Rosa Croce.
Il 24 giugno 1717 avviene l’atto ufficiale di nascita della Massoneria: quattro logge londinesi, The Goose and Gridiron, The Crown, The Apple Tree e The Rummor and Grape, così chiamate dal nome delle taverne presso le quali ciascuna si riunisce, decidono di darsi una nuova organizzazione centralizzata, cui danno il nome di Grande Loggia di Londra, eleggendo come Gran Maestro il gentiluomo Anthony Sayer. Della logge fanno parte il pastore anglicano Theophile Desaguliers (1683-1744), brillante volgarizzatore delle teorie newtoniane e membro della Royal Society, presso la quale, oltre che all’interno della loggia, organizza per tutta la vita esperimenti e dimostrazioni scientifiche con l’uso di macchine per istruire affiliati e uomini di cultura, e il pastore presbiteriano James Anderson (1684-1739), cui si devono le Costituzioni adottate dalla società il 14 gennaio 1723. In esse si dichiara tra l’altro che la Massoneria è “il Centro d’unione e il mezzo per annodare una sincera amicizia tra persone che sarebbero rimaste in perpetuo estranee”. Questa affermazione, in un paese dilaniato dalle lotte religiose, la dice lunga sui principi di tolleranza, egualitarismo e umanitarismo che animano i fondatori della Massoneria.
Fin dai suoi inizi, la Massoneria cerca delle origini illustri, bel al di là delle gilde di architetti, maestri muratori e lavoratori edili che si tramandano i segreti dell’arte. La storia dei Templari, con i contatti che questi ebbero con la cultura araba ed ebraica, ivi incluse delle ipotetiche ricerche nelle vestigia sotterranee dei templi ebraici, è in questo senso l’ideale per poter dare un contesto alla trasmissione dei segreti dell’arte muratoria. Secondo la leggenda, due giorni prima che Filippo il Bello emanasse l’ordine di arresto dei Templari, un carro di fieno tirato da buoi lasciò il Tempio di Parigi, e sotto il fieno si nascondeva un gruppo di loro, guidato da un certo Aumont. Essi si portavano dietro un grosso carico d’oro, forse di produzione alchemica, e i loro oggetti iniziatici. Si rifugiarono in Scozia, dove si sarebbero uniti alla loggia massonica di Kilwinning. In un certo senso essi ripetevano la storia del mitico Hiram, che fu ucciso perché si rifiutò di rivelare i segreti dell’arte, dopo di che il Re Salomone inviò i maîtres elus (maestri scelti) a vendicarne la morte. Ora ad altri maestri sarebbe toccato il compito della vendetta, che sarebbe infine ricaduta sui discendenti di Filippo il Bello, i Re di Francia (tanto che quando Luigi XVI fu ghigliottinato, qualcuno dalla folla balzò sul patibolo e gridò: “Jacques de Molay, sei stato vendicato!”).
Inizia pertanto un’interpretazione agiografica della storia, che reinventa le gesta dei Templari, dei Rosa Croce, o di altri antenati mitici dei Massoni. Ad esempio la battaglia di Bannockburn (1314), in cui il Re scozzese Robert sconfisse le armate inglesi, superiori di numero, dopo essere stato sul punto di essere sbaragliato, viene attribuita alla carica di un distaccamento di Cavalieri Templari, versione a cui mostrano di credere anche degli autori moderni, Baigent e Leigh (1989). Questa ricerca si traduce nella produzione di una mole di documenti, di dubbia autenticità, tesi a suffragare queste illustri filiazioni. In realtà quello che si vuol ricostruire più che una storia è una metastoria, un resoconto simbolico delle origini, atto a calare la vicenda dei Massoni in un contesto mitico, dove i rituali ricostruiscono il tempo fuori dal tempo delle origini. Da qui, come per i Rosa Croce, all’idea di una antica sapienza che si è tramandata lungo i secoli attraverso l’esoterismo il passo è breve, e per conseguenza l’arruolamento nelle fila dei precursori di una lunga serie di iniziati, il primo dei quali è addirittura Enoch, e dopo di lui i costruttori delle piramidi, Mosè, Pitagora, gli Esseni, gli Gnostici, gli Alchimisti, i Catari, infine i Rosa Croce. Una caposaldo in questo senso è rappresentato da Andrew Michael Ramsay (1686-1743), un giacobita scozzese esule in Francia, membro cattolico romano della famiglia Stuart. Nella sua opera più importante, Les voyages de Cyrus (1727), colloca l’origine dell’intero Corpus Hermeticum non in Egitto, ma in Cina. In una conferenza del 1737, egli innesta la cultura massonica nelle crociate medioevali, suggerendo che alcuni cavalieri fossero stati anche spaccapietre, e così avessero avuto accesso alle fondamenta del Tempio di Gerusalemme e ai segreti ivi custoditi, risalenti ai patriarchi dell’Antico Testamento e ai costruttori del Tempio. Egli riprende l’idea di Christopher Love (1618-1651) – poeta e occultista presbiteriano gallese, giustiziato per aver partecipato a un complotto lealista contro il governo puritano – dell’esistenza di un pilastro di bronzo istoriato, che sarebbe stato eretto prima del diluvio universale dal figlio di Adamo ed Eva, Seth, e dal profeta Enoch. L’idea segue la tesi di Josephus (37-100 ca.), considerato un autorevole intermediario tra il Vecchio e il Nuovo Testamento, secondo cui Seth avrebbe costruito delle colonne di mattoni o di pietra per preservare dal degrado degli elementi naturali la conoscenza dei corpi celesti e delle loro proprietà. Su questo materiale si costruisce il Rito Scozzese Antico e Accettato, il cui quarto grado è appunto detto “dell’Arco Reale”, dall’arcobaleno, simbolo dell’alleanza tra Dio e il popolo eletto. Si inizia così a sviluppare una gerarchia che va al di là dei tre livelli iniziali di apprendista, compagno e maestro, e prende il nome di Massoneria Scozzese, per l’asserita filiazione dell’ordine dai Templari attraverso le logge scozzesi; in realtà, l’unica cosa scozzese è il fatto che il rito fu introdotto in Francia dagli esuli giacobiti (Katz, 2005). Comunque, con questa nuova versione si va al di là del mito di Hiram, risalendo ad Enoch, patriarca biblico dei cui viaggi celesti si occupano gli scritti apocalittici: egli avrebbe avuto una visione nella quale gli si ordina di edificare un tempio sotterraneo sorretto da nove archi, e contenente una targa d’oro in cui sono incisi dei caratteri occulti rivelatigli nel sogno. Anche fuori dal tempio vengono eretti così dei pilastri, costruiti in modo da poter resistere al diluvio, uno dei quali è di marmo e reca incisi i segreti del tempio, l’altro è di bronzo e reca incisi i segreti delle arti liberali, e in particolare dell’arte muratoria. Migliaia di anni dopo, gli architetti del tempio di Salomone scoprono il tempio ad archi costruito da Enoch sottoterra, con le preziose iscrizioni, e vengono così in possesso della conoscenza degli antichi misteri.
La storia di Enoch sottolinea la conoscenza di tutte le cose di cui dispone nel giardino dell’Eden, un’onniscenza che ha prodotto i segreti incisi sulle colonne, e che adesso viene tramandata con i misteri dei Massoni. Però apre anche un altro capitolo: Seth, il figlio virtuoso di Adamo, comprende questi concetti fondamentali e li trasmette correttamente alla generazione successiva. Invece, il suo malvagio fratello, Caino, inquina il pozzo della conoscenza e vi introduce numerosi errori e falsità. Pertanto accanto alla iniziazione si profila la minaccia della contro-iniziazione, ossia di un insegnamento esoterico sì, ma difforme dai principi originali, e ciascun sedicente maestro può tacciare i suoi concorrenti e i loro discepoli di praticare la contro-iniziazione. Comunque Enoch, discendente di Seth, preserva fedelmente le proprie conoscenze e le trasmette al genere umano in modo che esse sopravvivono al diluvio, incidendone i principi nel tempio ad archi che egli costruisce. Noè trasmette una parte di questa dottrina alla sua progenie, ma solo quando gli architetti di Salomone rinvengono la targa e i pilastri di Enoch sepolti essa è ripristinata nella sua interezza. I Templari divengono i depositari della conoscenza a seguito dell’esplorazione delle rovine sotterranee del tempio di Gerusalemme; essa è tramandata attraverso la Massoneria “primitiva” delle corporazioni medioevali, fino alla nascita della Massoneria speculativa, che la rende accessibile a chi vuole istruirsi nei suoi misteri.
Vi abbiamo riproposto il testo scritto da autori invisibili e pubblicato anni orsono nel sito Axis Mundi (non quello odierno,che non ha alcunche'a vedere con quello originale) il quale rappresento' un riferimento sapenziale di rara profondita'.
La prossima pubblicazione trattera’ “I Rosacroce”.
For well over a century the larger part of Freemasonry in the French republic has not been recognised as regular by the United Grand Lodge of England, and by most other adherents to what has been described as “the American-English” style of Freemasonry. The reasons for this are largely well-known, and are chiefly connected with the abandoning, in 1870, by The Grand National Orient de France, the oldest and largest masonic group in France, of a requirement to believe in a Supreme Being as a prerequisite for Initiation into the Order. Further problems of recognition have continued to crop up in more recent times, right up to 2007.
Related to this is the fact that whereas our institution has sedulously ensured its apolitical nature over the past three centuries – we can all recollect being adjured in the Charge After Initiation to “refrain from all political and religious discussion” – French Freemasonry has been characterised by a readiness to express, as a body, official lines on all manner of political, social and cultural issues. This preparedness to put their heads above the parapet in such an open way has, I fear, led to a feeling in some quarters that the persecution of such a conspicuous organisation was inevitable under a totalitarian dictatorship, and almost courted.
I hope that the present paper will redress some of that neglect, and I would like to think that it may serve Freemasons of whatever background two useful functions: firstly, it will preserve the memory of the many thousands of French Freemasons who were brutally persecuted during the German occupation of France and secondly it will provide us with a picture of what would have happened had our island been invaded by Nazi Germany, a picture which is an extension of the fate of Freemasonry in the Channel Islands which has previously been described eloquently in this lodge.
Background: the Fall of France
France declared war on Germany on 3rd September 1939, at the same time as Britain, in accordance with the terms of the Franco-Polish Military Alliance of 1921, which, like the Anglo-Polish Alliance, required French support against the invasion of Poland by Germany on 1st September.
There followed some eight months of what is now referred to as the “Phoney War”, (Drole de Guerre or Sitzkrieg) during which neither Britain nor France launched any significant land offensives against German forces.
This ended on 10th May 1940, with the invasion by Germany of the Low Countries, drawing in the British Expeditionary Force which had been stationed on the French side of the border of neutral Belgium since October 1939. Over the next few days, German armour and troops poured into France on two main fronts, supported by the Luftwaffe, and in spite of initial stiff resistance by some French divisions, they easily overwhelmed the less well-equipped and trained French. The B.E.F. retreated to Dunkirk, and was of course evacuated in Operation Dynamo between 27’” May and 4th June.
The French government was in a crisis of indecision: Prime Minister Paul Reynaud wanted the government to flee abroad, to French North Africa, and to continue the war from there, supported by the formidable French Navy.
He was opposed by the Commander in Chief of French forces, General Weygand, and the Deputy Prime Minister Marshall Philippe Petain. Churchill flew to France on 11th June to meet Reynaud, Petain and Weygand; he discussed with them the defence of Paris by guerrilla warfare and house-to-house fighting, not knowing that Weygand had already ordered that Paris, which by now was almost deserted, be surrendered to the Germans. Petain and Weygand, who shared right-wing, anti-republican authoritarian and vehemently anti-communist views, were concerned that if the government went abroad the country would be broken up and easy prey for German and Italian colonisation. They wanted the French forces to retain enough power to repel communist overthrow. When Churchill returned to England that evening, it was clear that France was about to fall. He returned to Tours on 13th June, and Reynaud asked for a release from a previous agreement that he would not seek an armistice with the Germans without Britain’s consent.
German troops entered Paris unopposed on 14th June. Reynaud was in Bordeaux with the rest of the fleeing government, and resigned as Prime Minister. On 16th June, President Albert Lebrun appointed Marshal Pertain as his successor.
On 22nd June an Armistice, the Second Compiegne Agreement, was signed with Germany. The Northern and Western parts of France, constituting about 60% of the country, were occupied by Germany. The remainder was under the direct French control of a new government based in the town of Vichy. Both the Zone Libre (Vichy) and the Zone Occupee (North and West) were nominally under the control of the Vichy government. One of the conditions of reaching the armistice was that France would not have its territory divided up between Germany and Italy. The demarcation lines existed until the invasion of North Africa by the Allies in Operation Torch on 8th November 1942, when Germany took control of the whole of France.
On the 10th July the government in Vichy voted Marshal Petain “extraordinary powers” effectively making him President and an absolute ruler. Petain appointed Pierre Laval as his Prime Minister.
The Germans in many ways “left the French to it”. Much of the Vichy administration comprised of men like Petain, who were reactionary, anti-republican, anti-democratic, and vehemently anti-Semitic, and favoured an authoritarian and Draconian regime. Without specific instructions from the Germans, they instituted policies of persecution, internment and deportation of Jews, Gypsies, Protestants, homosexuals and Freemasons.
Persecution of Freemasons
The Third Reich already had a long history of anti-Masonic activity, and this was quickly expoused by the Vichy government. In addition to the belief that Freemason and Jews were involved in plots for world domination, there was also a conviction that lodges were the owners of untold treasures, which would be confiscated by the Reich.
In Freemasonry the term lodge has at least three meanings. It can be a room or a building in which Freemasons meet , the society of Freemasons that meets or it may be the actual gathering of that body of Freemasons. In the days of the operative masons, our ancestors, the lodge was a structure erected on a building site , where the workmen spent their break, stored their tools and received instructions for the execution of the architect’s plans and designs.
The Ancient Charges tell us that “A Lodge is a place where Masons assemble and work” to improve themselves in the mysteries of their ancient art. Nowadays, it is a place where like-minded men meet to work altogether ,in peace and love, towards a common goal, thus turning the lodge into a living organism, a creative body. The lodge should also be a place for the instruction and improvement of man, a place where the Freemason learns the ideals enshrined in the charges and lectures of our rituals and ceremonies. In other words the Lodge should be like a classroom wherein , at every meeting , a mason can attain a small advancement into masonic knowledge.
The lodge is constituted by a minimum number of members, it is rectangular in shape – although we have examples of it being circular and even triangular in the days gone – has the principal entrance facing east and can only be held in a venue sanctioned by its Grand Lodge. But I will not expand further on this aspect for it is not in the scope of this article – which may be considered controversial by the time you finish reading it – to unveil all about a Masonic Lodge. So I will close this section by enouncing that the word lodgeis clearly just an aphorism for defining the gathering of a group of men who share a common purpose and who believe in a common ideal.
— &&& —
At the opening of the second degree assembly, the Worshipful Master declares that the purpose of the meeting is the improvement and instructions of Craftsmen. With those words he is reminded that it is his duty to “employ and instruct the Brethren in Masonry” and his success or failure depends entirely on his leadership ability and the support he will received from the Officers of his Team.
The 18th century was an age of wars and social changes. In Europe in particular it was also the time that marked the birth of the Enlightenment – or “Age of Reason” – which inspired the drama of the French Revolution. To that bloody upheaval there followed a revolution of a different kind and one that saw the beauty and terror of science sweeping through Britain and Europe, producing a new vision of the world, of nature and religion.
The whole Era was one of revelation and vision for man.
London was then a European Capital city which shockingly and generously also provided entertainment of a sophisticated and extraordinary sexual nature. In his book entitled “The Secret History Of Georgian London” the historian Dan Cruickshank writes: “Although Georgian London evokes images of elegant buildings and fine art, it was, in fact, the Sodom of the modern age…Teeming with prostitutes – from lowly street walkers offering a ‘ threepenny upright’ to high-class courtesans retained by dukes – Georgian London was a city built on the sex trade“.
Georgian London hosted many whorehouses, “Bagnios”, flagellation brothels and homosexual clubs called “Molly houses”. The latter were dwellings were young men, or “mollies”, dressed as women and assumed effeminate voices and mannerism. They addressed each other as “my dear” and sold unnatural sex to wealthy male patrons. They even enacted, for entertainment, childbirth scenes in which a “molly” delivered a doll at the end of the proceedings.
The Molly Houses were frequented, indifferently, by both intellectuals and randy rascals; they were mostly inner city inns but parties were also held in private houses, the most famous being “Mother Clap’s” in Holborn. It catered, every night, for up to 40 mollies!
England ‘s society was renown to be one of the most tolerant in Europe and it was one where cross-dressing and homosexuality were not just exclusive to the wealthy and bored gentry. It is therefore not surprising to find in such scenario that sexually and morally deviated individuals, after they had come to visit England, were unwilling to return home and choose instead to remain.
One such individual – the Chevalier – is the subject of this essay. He was a Frenchman and a diplomat who, whilst living in London, was even allowed to join the Order of the Freemasons, albeit for all the wrong reasons. His life can be described as extraordinary in every respect and separating facts from fiction in it remains, to this day, still a huge task.
THE EARLY LIFE
Born in Tonnere, Burgundy, on 5th October 1728, D’Eon was baptised with a string of mixed male and females names: Charles Genevieve Louis Auguste Andre’ Thimothee de Beaumont. It was almost as if his life had been sealed with ambiguity from birth!
His father Louis was a penniless lawyer and his mother – Francoise de Chevanson – came from a noble family and stood to inherit a large estate at the birth of a male heir from her union. For unknown reasons Francoise dressed up Charles-Genevieve as a girl and kept calling him Marie for the first seven years of his life, after which Louis took charge of the child and started treating him as a boy. Had Francoise behaved that strangely because she considered her husband unworthy of inheriting her wealth, or had she simply recognised and accepted the effeminate features and nature of her offspring? We shall never know.
Charles-Genevieve was a clever child and at the age of twelve was sent to the College Mazarin in Paris, where he received an education that included the Classics and where he learned to hold himself against the bullies who would target him for his girlish appearance.
At college he also cultivated the art of fencing in which he later excelled and which became the principal passion of his life. Charles-Genevieve was blond, of medium height and slim but with unusually developed breasts and with a pair of small feminine hands and feet.
A document found in the French Foreign Ministry describes him so: “(He) stood out because of his blue eyes, unusual high pitched voice and especially because of his youthful and fresh face complexion”, the latter characteristic being rather rare in an age when the populations were vexed by smallpox, venereal diseases and illnesses of other kind and also suffered from the side effects of the dangerous pot-pourri of chemicals used in the makeup products. Charles-Genevieve left college in August 1748 and a year later he obtained a degree in Common Canon Laws.
A good orator, fluent in foreign languages, excellent in the art of fencing and blessed with an exceptional memory, Charles-Genevieve possessed all the abilities that make a good diplomat and an excellent spy. Soon he was brought to the attention of King Louis XV who recruited him in his personal secret service called “Le Secret du Roi”. It was a private network of spies who answered solely to the King.
THE POLITICAL SITUATION IN RUSSIA
Since 1684 Russia had been co-jointly ruled by Peter the Great and his brother Ivan V. After the death of the former, his brother became the sole sovereign of all Russia in 1696. But when the latter also met his maker in February 1725, it was Anna Ivanovna [1] – Duchesse of Courtland [2] and second daughter of Ivan V – who became Empress of Russia over the head of her cousin Elizabeth Petrovna[3].
Elizabeth was the young daughter of Peter – who had been the real artificer of Russia’s greatness – and thought the she was the rightful heir to the throne. When she discovered in 1740 that she was again going to be overlooked by Anna’s choice of heir in Ivan de Brunswick [4],she begun to plot. A year later, aided by two hundred faithful grenadiers, Elizabeth stormed the Royal Palace and declared herself Empress of all Russia.
Meanwhile in France Louis XV was being concerned by the fate of Poland, the Country of birth of his Queen, on whose throne he was hoping to place his cousin the Prince de Conde and thus take that geopolitical area away from Russia’s control.
Elizabeth had always been an admirer of France and liked its Ambassador, M. De La Chetardie. But when the pro-England Chancellor, Alexis Bestucheff, intercepted a letter in which De La Chetardie criticised Elizabeth, all Frenchmen were barred from Court.
The way things were shaping up in Europe, Russia had to be prevented from aligning itself with England or it would have become too strong an adversary. It was imperative that France retained someone at the Court of Saint Petersburg who would report back on any political and military development; but after Bestucheff’s exclusion order, only French females were allowed in the presence of the Tsarina. This was a setback for France‘s intelligence but not for King Louis XV whose next move proved to be a stroke of genius!
Fully aware of the physiognomies and brilliant social skills of Charles-Genevieve, the King sent him on a mission to Russia in a female role, to play the part of the clever and flirting Lea de Beaumont. D’Eon won the trust of the frail forty-six years old Tsarina and persuaded her to write a letter to her cousin King Louis XV in which she promised to continue supporting France. With that accomplished, D’Eon returned to Paris and personally delivered that letter to Louis XV, expecting some recompense in return. But the King ignored him and, instead, sent him straight back to St. Petersburg to continue the negotiations. Except that this time Charles-Genevieve D’Eon was to play the part of Lea de Beaumont’s own brother (or uncle, some say) as the Secretary to the French Ambassador!
D’Eon’s permanence in Russia lasted a total of four years and required a number of return trips to Paris together with a long and extenuating game of cross-dressing; D’Eon had to appear as Lea de Beaumont when she attended the Russian Court and himself when he had to report matters to the French Ambassador.
In the end a treaty between England and Russia was never signed, much to the satisfaction of Louis XV!
Charles-Genevieve D’Eon’s last trip from St Petersburg to Paris took place in 1760. He was feeling exhausted and with his health weakened by his repeated extenuating journeys and the stressful game of spying , fell seriously ill with smallpox just outside Paris. The King realized it was time to withdraw the character of Lea Beaumont
character of Lea Beaumont from stage and he retired Charles-Genevieve from his private spy network. The cross-dressing game had been going on for too long and now that D’Eon had been struck by an illness that would have, no matter how superficially, scarred his face and body for life, the risk of detection had increased exponentially. Louis appointed D’Eon captain of his elite troops the Dragoons, and sent him to fight with them in the Severn Years War that was raging in Europe. Perhaps D’Eon’s detractors were hoping that the effeminate but brilliant individual would have found life difficult on the battlefields and in the war camps. Hopefully he could have been killed or he would evaded the responsibilities and rigors of military action by fleeing abroad to live incognito.
But despite all expectations Charles-Genevieve distinguished himself in battle – D’Eon was wounded a number of times – and later he even displayed great skills in conducting the diplomatic role that he played in the Anglo-French peace negotiations.
It was the year 1761. This time King Louis rewarded D’Eon with a handsome sum of money and retired him from the Dragoons. D’Eon’s military career was over, much to his displeasure. But in the meantime the political European events had begun to take a different turn!
LONDON
By the year 1762 France was bankrupt and had lost most of its colonies to the English who were ruled by the Hanoverian King George III. Elisabeth of Russia had died and had been succeeded by Peter of Holstein [5] who reversed all her policies and allegiances. Louis XV wanted to have peace and in order to know England’s intentions with regards to the negotiations he sent D’Eon to London as the Secretary of the French Ambassador, the Duke de Nevers or Nivernais [6]. Both men arrived in September of 1762.
According to D’Eon, His Majesty’s undersecretary Mr Wood – who was said to be very fond of the wine from Burgundy – naively accepted the Duke’s invitation to dine at the French Embassy one night. Nivernais was just another character considered to have very little manhood.
On his arrival in England the newspapers had sarcastically commented that France had sent “a preliminary of a man to conduct the preliminary negotiations”.
By now the dinner at the French Embassy , to which even the cross-dresser D’Eon took part , appears as some excuse licentious games to take place , albeit it was undoubtedly accompanied by some very good food and by an interrupted flow of the excellent Burgoigne wine , Tonnere. D’Eon recorded in his memoirs that whilst the meal was being consumed’ , he noticed in Mr Wood’s diplomatic bag an official document of great importance. Taking advantage of the situation in which the inebriated English diplomat and the Duke were engaged, he copied the missive and dispatched it to Versailles on the following morning. That document detailed the way England intended to conduct the peace negotiations and it proved to be of an extraordinary importance for France.
King Louis XV this time rewarded D’Eon with a life annuity and invested him with the Cross of Saint-Louis which gave the right to call himself “Chevalier”, the equivalent of “Sir”.
After the treaty of Paris[7] was signed in 1763, the King appointed the aristocrat de Guerchy as the new France Ambassador to London. Nivernais was recalled and D’Eon was sent to London with the title of Ministre Plenipotentiary, to manage the Embassy whilst awaiting the arrival of the Comte de Guerchy.
DISMISSAL
The Comte de Guerchy was from Burgundy like D’Eon and a wealthy nobleman. He was a snobbish, mean and ambitious man who had been nominated Ambassador by the King only on the insistence of Madame de Pompadour who was jealous of and wanted him disgraced. Charles-Genevieve would later describe Guerchy as and individual: “timid in war, brave in peace, ignorant in the City, tricky at Court, generous with other people’s money but stingy with his own” [8] .
The two men never got on well together and became mortal enemies. To expect that they should work closely together was pure illusion.
D’Eon arrived in London in May 1763 and immediately started acting as if he was the Ambassador for France.
Both Charles-Genevieve and his imaginary sister Lea de Beaumont soon became regular and welcomed visitors at the English Court although, for obvious reasons, they never made an appearance together. D’Eon even spent long evenings in the company of Queen Charlotte as her French reader and always wore the Cross of Saint-Louis on his female dresses. D’Eon also organised galas at the French Embassy, bought expensive wines, took on servants. In short, he lived on a grand scale whilst earning only 25,000 livre. He worked zealously and at all hours of day and night. He did so only for the love and interest of France, often at the cost of his own health; but when he fell in debt by 20,000 livres and asked the French Ministry for a refund, his letters went unanswered. In contrast to D’Eon’s salary, Guerchy’s emoluments as Ambassador had been set at 150,000 livres a year plus another 50,000 for gratuities. For D’Eon this represented an injustice and an insult and in retribution he continued spending lavishly. Except that he would no longer use his own money, but that from the French Embassy’s chest.
When Louis XV officially wrote to George III to inform him that D’Eon was being removed from his diplomatic post – which to D’Eon meant the loss of his title of Ministre Plenipotentiary with all the privileges that came with it – and that the Comte de Guerchy was to take charge of the Embassy’s affairs, Charles-Genevieve realised that, for his safety, he needed to double play.
He left his apartment at the Embassy and retrieved in a house in Dover Street with all his secret and important correspondence, refusing to return to France as he had been ordered. He never accepted that he had de facto been “deposed” as Ministre Plenopotentiary. The “Ordre de Congede” bore a royal stamp but not the King’s original signature and D’Eon considered it to be a fake for as long as he lived. He believed that the document had been forged by Guerchy himself.
One day, whilst Guerchy was away, D’Eon had dined at the Embassy and fallen ill for two lengthy weeks. He believed that an attempt to poison him had been perpetrated and when he discovered that his locksmith had taken an impression of the locks of his Dover Street residence, he suspected that kidnapping was also on the cards. In a letter to King Louis XV D’Eon wrote: “Subsequently I discovered that M. Guerchy caused opium – if nothing worse – to be put in my wine, calculating that after dinner I should fall into a heavy sleep onto a couch and instead of my being carried home, I should be carried down to the Thames where probably there was a boat waiting ready to abduct me”.
For the next six year D’Eon went to live at 38 Brewer Street, Golden Square and kept his secret documents locked up in the basement, constantly guarded by some faithful grenadiers who had fought with him in the Dragoons. He mined the rooms and he kept a lamp burning day and night to show that the premises were constantly occupied. When the King of France wrote to George III to ask him to seize those papers from D’Eon, the Chevalier openly complained of his treatment to a number of his influential friends. But nobody helped him and he decided to retaliate. He gathered all his secret documents and correspondence – minus France’s plans to invade England, of course – and published them in a book which he called “Lettre , memoires et negotiations particulieres”. It became a best seller in Europe and made the Chevalier famous.
Although for different reasons – D’Eon accused Guerchy of attempted poisoning and Guerchy accused D’Eon of libel – they both began litigation in Court and both lost. But whereas Guerchy was able to call upon his diplomatic indemnity and carry on with his official duties, it cost D’Eon an exile from France of fifteen years.
Whilst he lived in London, Charles-Genevieve was initiated into Freemasonry in May of either 1766 or 1768. He joined the London based French speaking “Loge de l’Immortalite de l’Ordre” also known as the “Lodge of Immortality No. 376”, which met at the Crown and Anchor Tavern in the Strand. The records show that he served the office of Junior Warden in the Masonic year 1769-70.
Charles-Genevieve joined the Order because he was searching for a safe heaven from a society that was pushing him to a reclusive life but also to seek protection from France’s repeated plots to have him killed or kidnapped.
D’Eon always mentioned the Craft in a most flattering manner and there are many portraits of him dressed in female attire, wearing both the Freemason’s apron and the Cross of St Louis. However the initiation of by the Moderns in the Masonic Order, gave the traditional Ancients Freemasons room for ample criticism. The Modern’s practice of “initiating women” was seen as a clear sign of extravagance and allowed the Ancients to claim that they were the only faithful preservers of the traditional usages and customs of Freemasonry.
But the phenomenon of women joining Freemasonry was nothing new. From the early part of the 18th century women had attempted to be initiated or to obtain the secrets of Freemasonry. The Grand Lodge of Scotland has posted on its website some of the cases of women who were initiated in the Craft. For example:
Case 1 – In 1710 the Viscount Duneraile , a Freemason, was carrying out some repairs to Donaraile Court. One night the Viscount’s daughter, Elizabeth St Leger, awakened by the voices of the masons who were engaged in a meeting, decided to peep through a hole made in the wall , whilst at the same time causing noises herself and be found out. On trying to escape, she was caught by the Tyler and to ensure that the Freemason’s secret did not became public, she was initiated there and then. From thereafter she was sworn to silence.
Case 2- Melrose Lodge No. 1Bis, preserves a tradition that Isabella Scoon “had somehow obtained more light upon the hidden mysteries that was deemed at all expedient and after due consideration, it was resolved that she must be regularly initiated into Freemasonry”. She later distinguished herself for her charity work.
In France, on the other hand, women were freely allowed to join the Order; a tradition that continues to these days. Although the French Brotherhood initially remained within the letter of Anderson’s constitution – which excluded women from joining – it saw no reason to ban women from their banquets or religious services. During the 1740s, there appear to have been Lodges which were attached to regular ones (i.e. for men only) but which allowed women, although those admitted were mainly wives or relatives of Freemasons. The lodges were called Lodges of Adoption and in 1774 they fell under the jurisdiction of The Grand Orient of France. The system was made up of four degrees:
Apprentie, or Female Apprentice.
Compagnonne, or Journeywoman.
Maîtresse, or Mistress.
Parfaite Maçonne, or Perfect Masoness.
The idea of women Freemasons spread widely in Europe, but whereas the practice never established itself either in England or in America, it flourished in France at the start of the French Revolution. Even Napoleon’s wife Josephine presided over one of those Lodges of Adoption in Strasburg in 1805.
The English Freemasons never forgot D’Eon and allowed him to remain a member even after he had been legally declared a woman. There is evidence that the Master of the London Lodge of the Nine Sisters, who enlisted famous English and foreign respectful characters, invited him to celebrate the departure to the Gran Lodge above of a one of their Brothers.
The Master wrote this note to D’Eon :
“I endorse an invitation to this fete where you have a place reserved for you, as Mason, as belletrist (intellectual) as one who is an honour to her sex after having been an honour to ours. It is permissible only for Mlle to surmount the barrier which forbids access to our work to the most beauteous (charming) half of humanity. The exception begins and finishes with you; do not refuse to enjoy you right” [9]
It is not recorded whether D’Eon ever took part.
THE HELL FIRE CLUBS
In the 18th century there were a number of clubs in the British Isles which engaged in violent and sometimes murderous pranks. Drinking and whoring were regular activities for their members. The clubs were frequented by Aristocrats as well as by members of the political world and often they also enlisted Freemasons. Indeed it is reported that none other than the Grand Master of the English Grand Lodge from 1722/23 – the Duke of Wharton – had co-founded the first Hell Fire Club in 1719. After Wharton’s Club was closed down by Walpole’s government Proclamation against “obscene” associations in 1721, the Duke set up a so called “Schemers Club” in 1724. The latter being just another assembly of mischievous men who proclaimed themselves dedicated to the “advancement of flirtation”.
There was a Hell Fire Club also in Dublin and it too had been founded by an aristocrat – the 1st Earl of Rossen – another Freemason and Ireland’s Grand Master in 1725. But the most well known of the Hell Fire Clubs was the one called “The Order of St. Francis” , which was founded around 1740s by Sir Francis Dashwood, a member of the Parliament as well as a Freemason.
It met initially in a disused Cisternian Abbey in the village of Medmenham (Buckinghamshire) but later moved to some caves situated above the village of West Wycombe (Buckinghamshire), not far from the Estate of the Dashwoods. Secret meetings and week-end parties are said to have been held in that underground labyrinth of caves which led to a chamber called the Inner Temple , situated directly beneath the local Church of St.Lawrence where mass is still being celebrated on Sundays to these days.
Some of those “Franciscans” were notable Freemasons like John Wilkes, William Hogarth, Benjamin Franklin and our intriguing Chevalier .
The sexual games, orgies and perverted acts that went on in those underground vaults must have appealed to the ambiguous genre of the Chevalier who later had the boldness to claim that he had joined Freemasonry only for a chivalric reasons!
RETURN TO FRANCE
Following the death of Louis XV, D’Eon was recalled to France by his successor Louis XVI who was anxious to gather back all those secret and dangerous documents that the Chevalier had been guarding back in London, as well as removing for good from the scene the embarrassing character of Lea de Beaumont.
But D’Eon dumbfounded France by deciding to blackmail the King. He declared he would not give up any of those sensitive documents – among which were the plans to invade England – unless His Majesty paid him an enormous amount of money and promised to protect him from his enemies. Louis XVI wanted to stop waging wars and heal the financial state of his Kingdom, so in 1775 he sent over his top secret agent Pierre Augustin Caron de Beaunarchais, to negotiate with the Chevalier.
An agreement was reached whereby , when back on France soil, D’Eon would have been publicly and legally declared a woman and be in receipt of a sum of money large enough to pay off all his debts and to provide him with a comfortable living. At the age of forty seven, with a pension and a debt free status, Charles-Genevieve D’Eon deemed himself to live the rest of his life as an individual of the opposite sex; but at least he could again attend the French Court and be allowed in the company of the Queen Marie Antoinette. Indeed the Queen even helped Charles-Genevieve with the choice of a female wardrobe, his wigs and make up. D’Eon lived in Versailles for many years and whilst there he wrote his autobiography: “La vie militaire, politique et privee de Mademoiselle ”.
However when France joined the American War of Independence against the English, D’Eon’s love for the military life resurfaced and he wrote to the French Minister for permission to re-enter service. He was immediately arrested and put into a dungeon from where he was released only after he solemnly promised never to wear male clothes again, abandon Versailles and return to his home in Tonnerre, Burgundy, to live with his mother.
Yet in 1785, D’Eon appeared once again to betray his promise and he was seen riding in his estate dressed in a dragoon uniform. The King, noting Charles-Genevieve’s restlessness and unwillingness to settle down in an anonymous life, decided to send him back to England to continue the work of gathering and returning to France his compromising documents. This time, however, D’Eon never returned to France. It was the dawn of the French Revolution and he did not share those ideals, nor would anyone who saw all of his friends guillotined by the Jacobins !
Furthermore, the Revolution deprived him of his annuity and he had to spend seven months in prison for debts.
On his return to London in 1785 , D’Eon had declared that England was “a Country more free (sic!) than Holland and well worth visiting by any man (who is) a lover of liberty. …” and libertinage, I would add!
He had returned as Lea de Beaumont and was never to dress as a man again. He had made his final choice of gender and perhaps done so at the wrong time of his life, when his voice had turned deep and cavernous and his mannerism vulgar and noisy. The writers Horace Walpole and James Boswell were never taken in by feminine attire and portrayed him as a transvestite, a cross-dresser ante litteram in total contrast to the great philander Giacomo Casanova who wrote in his memoirs: “It was at that ambassador’s table that I made the acquaintance of the Chevalier , the secretary of the embassy, who afterwards became famous. This Chevalier was a handsome woman who had been an advocate and a captain of dragoons before entering the diplomatic service; she served Louis XV as a valiant soldier and a diplomatist of consummate skill. In spite of her manly ways I soon recognized her as a woman; her voice was not that of a castrato, and her shape was too rounded to be a man’s. I say nothing of the absence of hair on her face, as that might be an accident.”
Later on in his memoirs the great lover took the opposite view and recounted the story of a 20,000 guinea bet placed on the gender of the Chevalier. The bet was never either won or lost because the Chevalier refused to be examined.
LATER YEARS
D’Eon supported his income whilst living in London by challenging men at duel for monetary prizes. On April 9th 1787, at Charlton House, Lea Beaumont confronted a French sword champion twenty years his younger and won. The publicity he gained from that event enabled him to set up a successful fencing Academy which toured the Country and performed in packed public halls.
Life was again good to Charles-Genevieve until on a tragic day at Southampton in August 1796, an opponent wounded him and made him bedridden for two long years.
D’Eon never recovered from that mishap and spent the last years of his life in misery and poverty, sharing a house with a Mrs Mary Cole, an admiral’s widow he had met in 1795. D’Eon passed away peacefully in his bed on May 21 1810 having spent forty nine years of his life passing as a man and thirty three as a woman. At his death, Mrs Cole’s priest – Father Elysee – made the following account of the body of the Chevalier as he laid on the bed:
“The body presented unusual roundness in the formation of the limbs; the appearance of a beard was very slight, and hair of so light a colour as to be scarcely perceptible was on the arms, legs and chest. The throat was by no means masculine; shoulders square and good; breast remarkably full; arms, hands, fingers those of a stout female….and she has a cock”.
Later on a cast was taken of his body and a thorough examination carried out in the presence of the Prince de Conde, the Earl of Yarmouth Sir Sidney Smith and a number of surgeons, lawyers and former regimental friends of D’Eon . Afterwards, the witnesses signed a declaration that certified that “the body is constituted in all that characterises man , without any mixture of sex”.
How mystifying !
Charles-Genevieve ‘s body was buried in St Pancras’s cemetery and his tombstone is still present there today.
It is curious to note that now the phenomenon of transgenderism is in the open, a Society called “The Beaumont Society” has been set up in UK to support the cross-dressing and transsexual’s community. In its website it is stated that the Society “keenly promotes the better understanding of the conditions of transgender, transvestism and gender dysphoria in society, thereby creating and improving tolerance and acceptance of these conditions by a wider public.” The same tolerance that even the United Grand Lodge of England has displayed by declaring in August 2018 that if transgenders had joined the Order as men, they should be allowed to remain Freemasons. The UGLE’s guidance warns that using a mason’s transition as a reason for excluding him/her from a man-only Lodge, would constitute “unlawful discrimination”. A decision that only time will tell whether it has been harmful to the image of the Order and cause it a downfall.
The Chevalier told the world that he was a woman who had disguised herself as a man. In fact he was a man pretending to be a woman who was now admitting to be a man. – by Richard Bernstein, New York Times
By W.Bro. Leonardo MonnoAnglisani– IPM of NHL 6557 in the Prov. of Middlesex, England
The author forbids any reproduction or publication of this article, in full or in part, without his explicit authorization.
[1] Moscow 7/2/1693 – St Petersburg 28/10/1740
[2] Now western Latvia
[3] Moscow 29/12/1709 – St Petersburg 5/1/1762
[4] Anna Ivanovna ‘s German grandnephew. Born in Saint Patersburg 23.08.1740, he died in Shisselburg 16.07.1764. Only two months old when he was proclaimed Emperor and after Elizabeth Ivanovna seized power in 1741 he was put into prison and killed twenty three years later, whilst still confined.
[5] Born in Kiel in the Dukehy of Holstein in February1728 and died in July 1762 in Ropsha. He reigned as Peter III, Emperor of Russia for only six months in 1762.
[6] Louis-Jules Barbon Mancini-Mazarin, Duke de Nevers (16 December 1716 – 25 February 1798)
[7] The Treaty of Paris in 1762 ended the Revolutionary War between Great Britain and the United States, recognized American independence and established borders for the new nation.
[8] Royal Spy by Emma Nixon, page 80
[9] « La Femme du Grand Conde’ » by Octave Homberg et Fernand Jousselin and a mentioned by Edna Nixon in « Royal Spy » page 222.
Sources
- “Royal Spy” by Emma Nixon
- “Initiation in male Lodges” – Grandscottishlodge.com
- “The strange destiny of the Chevalier ” by Wm E. Parker – The Northern Light magazine, June 1983
- “Hell Fire and Freemasonry” – angelfire.com
- “Sir Francis Dashwood “by David Harrison, The Square magazine, March 2014
- Noonobservation.com
- BeaumontSociety.org.uk
- Gay.it/cultura
- Lastampa.it/2006/08/17/cultura
From our initiation into Freemasonry we are made very aware of the story of the First Temple, the building which is the very basis of the rituals that permeate our entire Craft. In the three degrees of Craft Masonry we learn that it was built on land acquired by King David, by his son, Solomon, aided by his friend King Hiram of Tyre and the Architect, Hiram Abiff.
On reaching the dizzy heights of Master Mason, we are then encouraged to complete our three degrees by joining the Royal Arch which deals with the rebuilding of the Temple that had been destroyed by the Babylonians. Other aspects of the actual building work occur in the Mark degree which some of us also join. As far as I know, there is no reference in our rituals to the rebuilding of the Second Temple by King Herod -the Temple which the Romans destroyed.
Little is known of King Herod despite the fact that he was one of the most glittering figures of one of the spectacular periods of human history. There are few characters of the time of which so much is recorded but who are so little remembered. As the stories of the first and second Temples form the basis of the Craft and the Royal Arch it is perhaps surprising that the story of the “Third Temple” – for, that is what it really was – and its builder, has never been told in Freemasonry.
Certainly neither he nor his works have ever been the subject of an extension to an existing degree or a separate degree in Masonry, but as I hope I will show, Herod was undoubtedly a Master Mason. He not only rebuilt the Temple but he also organised much rebuilding of Jerusalem and in many other parts of the Kingdom of Judaea which he ruled on behalf of the Romans. What is more, whereas there is absolutely no trace of the First Temple and only a little of Second Temple, some of Herod’s building is available for inspection today, 2000 years after his death.
Of course, one of the reasons for Freemasonry ignoring this final aspect of the Temples in its rituals, is the nature of the man himself. For all of us, the name Herod immediately indicates cruelty. He was the man who massacred the Innocents, he was the one before whom Christ appeared for trial, and who procured the death of St. John the Baptist to satisfy the adulteress, Salome.
Not a good example for moral and upright Masons. Can you imagine our enemies’ joy if it were shown that the Heroes in our Masonic Rituals included not only Solomon, Hiram, Zerubbabel, and the rest, but also Herod?
The massacre of the Innocents of which Herod is considered the perpetrator, however, is only mentioned in one of the four Gospels – the one written by Mark – and is almost certainly not true, or perhaps relates to a minor incident. There is no mention of it either in the other Gospels or in the writings of Josephus, who hated Herod, and would certainly have included such a story in his History of the Jews. It is possible that it relates to an incident from one of the succeeding generations because of the custom of sons being named after their fathers, and it is easy to blur all the Herods into one. It is possible that it was an invention of Mark, to make Herod seem even more wicked than he was. The balance of opinion in the researches I have made on this particular subject leaves me thinking that it possibly never happened, and if it did, it was to a very small number (probably not more than ten) of boys in the small town of Bethlehem.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.