# Organized crime as the foundation for Freemasonry



## hanzosbm (Mar 11, 2016)

*Organized crime as the foundation for Freemasonry*

*By Steven McAfoose*​


Many papers have been written regarding the birth of Freemasonry.  Its unique blend of secrets, morality, and roots in working guilds is such an odd mix that a great number of theories have been advanced on the subject.  What almost everyone agrees on is that what we know today as Freemasonry is an amalgamation of a number of different sources and causes throughout hundreds of years.  Exhaustive studies on all of potential sources and their impact on the order can, and has, filled libraries.  While a laudable goal, this paper will not attempt to answer all those questions.  Instead, the purpose of what is now to be presented to the reader is to put forth a theory on the secrecy built into the original operative guilds in England.  It should be noted that the seed for this theory was put forth by Jasper Ridley in his book The Freemasons.  Ridley put forth some ideas but did not seem to really explore all of the potential links that will be discussed here.  Whether he held these beliefs but left them out of his book is unknown.


In the 14th century, the bubonic plague swept through all of Europe killing massive portions of the population.  In England, mortality rates indicate that 30-50% of the population had died off and by the middle of the 14th century, the survivors found themselves in an odd predicament.  On the one hand, many nobles found themselves inheriting or able to buy new plots of land cheaply as the previous owners had died.  However, those fields still needed to be worked, as did many other jobs, and there were now significantly fewer workers.  Such was the demand for these workers that they soon began to charge exorbitant wages for the work they did.  The nobility at the time, sick of paying high prices and not at all about to allow peasants to have any kind of upper hand, had the English parliament create a set of laws.  The first was the Ordinance of Labourers 1349.  This law included several aspects, but germane to the scope of this paper are two key factors.  First is the setting of maximum wages which the ordinance of 1349 does at pre-plague levels and later the statute of 1351 does at actual prices. 

“Item that carpenters masons and tilers and other workmen of houses shall not take by the day further work except in the manner as they were wont to do, that is to say, a master carpenter 3 d and other carpenters 2 d; a master mason 4 d and other masons 3 d and their servants 1½ d; tilers 3 d and their boys 1½ d; and other coverers of fern and straw 3 d and their boys 1½ d; plasterers and other worker of mud walls and their boys, in the same manner without meat and drink that is from Easter to Michaelmas and from that time less according to the rate and discretion of the justices who shall be assigned thereunto. And those who carry by land or by water shall take no more for such carriage to be made than they were wont to do in the said twentieth year and four years before."

The second is the prohibition against a worker leaving the job before it is completed or a lord attempting to entice a worker away from another job.  Needless to say, these laws were not popular with the laborers and some have claimed that it was one of the factors leading to the Peasant’s Revolt of 1381.  Reports vary about the effectiveness of the laws.  On one hand, according to Gregory Clark in his paper The Long March of History: Farm Wages, Population and Economic Growth, England 1209-1869, of the 20 manors that reported payments for wheat threshing between 1352 and 1353, 15 of them were above the maximum set by law.  On the other hand, Bertha Haven Putnam in her book entitled Enforcement of the Statutes of Labourers: During the First Decade after the Black Death 1349-1359 concludes that:

“it is impossible to doubt that during this first decade the wages and price clauses were thoroughly enforced.  The fact that rates remained high after the plague by no means proves that the thorough enforcement had no effect; on the contrary, it may prove that, had it not been for the deterrent influence of the levying of penalties under the statutes, the rise would have been even greater”. 

Stonemasons in particular were affected by this law due to the traveling nature of their career and the typically long projects they’d be working on.  A blacksmith creating a gate might be stuck with his employer and the wages they were offering for a month, but a stonemason working on a castle could spend the rest of his life there.  Furthermore, the skills necessary to be a stonemason came only after a significant amount of time making them more valuable, and the jobs differed greatly.  Being paid 4 pennies a day, as was the maximum for a Master Mason, for a small church is one thing, but that same pay for working hundreds of feet in the air on a cathedral might not be worthwhile.  Yet, here was a law saying that they had to take the work and at the prices as they were fixed.  Most other guilds could easily be held accountable to these laws as they worked out of a fixed shop with the same master running that shop for life.  Refusing to take a job was illegal, and they couldn’t easily lie saying that they already had another job when the lord can walk in and see that no work is being done.  But this was not the case for stonemasons.  A lord approaching a master for work at the legal limit of pay could easily be told that unfortunately the master had recently been contracted to another job and wouldn’t be able to work on his project.  However, for the right pay, maybe he knew of some masons who would be willing to take the work. 

Considering the traveling nature of their work and the fact that the master for a specific job was just one of many master masons chosen for that particular job meant that it was next to impossible to pin down individual workers.  While illegal, if masons working on a job found work elsewhere at a better rate, they could leave in the night and work on another project, even as the master of the project if need be.  Only the master of that particular project could easily be held accountable and even then, only after he had accepted the commission.  In fact, Tony McAleavy in his book Life in a Medieval Castle says that Edward III had the masons working on the rebuilding of Windsor made to wear distinctive red clothes so they could be identified if they attempted to flee.  He also includes a quote (which has not been able to be verified) which shows this picture continue. 

“Almost all the mason and carpenters throughout England were brought to Windsor Castle, so that hardly anyone else could have any good mason or carpenter, except in secret” (supposedly from the Polychronicon, but which this author was not able to find within that document). 

Now we see that stonemasons were working in secret on other projects.  But if wages were capped, why would it matter which project a mason was working on?  And why risk punishment by refusing to work for the king?  In the Calendar of Close Rolls of Edward III, Volume 11 1360-1364, there is an entry on membrane 36d dated March 12, 1362 in Westminster which reads:

“To the sheriffs of London.  Order, under pain of forfeiture, upon sight of these presents, to cause proclamation to be made forbidding any religious person or other master, clerk or layman, on pain of forfeiture, to hire or retain masons for cutting or laying stone without the king’s special command, to make inquisition what masons, craftsmen and workmen have withdrawn from the king’s works in any place, and to take them wherever found, within liberties or without, and safe keep them in Neugate prison until further order be taken for their punishment, certifying under their seals in chancery from time to time the names of those so taken; as for excessive gain and gifts taken by such men for salary and wages in divers parts of the realm contrary to the statute, almost all the masons and craftsmen hired for the king’s works in his castles of Wyndesore, Haddeleye and Shepeye and in other manors and places have secretly withdrawn, and are retained with religious persons and other masters, clerks and laymen, to the king’s hurt and the hindrance of his works, whereat he is moved to anger.”

From these examples we can see that there was a history of masons leaving their jobs and being hired away by more profitable ventures.  But is there any evidence that this was anything other than a few individual masons not conforming to the rules?  There is.  In about 1383, John Wycliffe wrote the following:

“Also men of sutel craft, as fre masons and othere, semen openly cursed bi this sentence.  For thei conspiren togidere that no man of here craft schal take lesse on a day that thei setten, thoug he schulde bi good conscience take moche lesse, and that noon of hem schal make sade trewe werk to lette othere mennus wynnyng of the craft, and that non of hem schal do ougt but only hewe stone, thoug he mygt profit his maistir twenty pound bi o daies werk bi leggyng on a wal, withouten harm or penyng himself.  See hou this wicked peple conspireth agenst treuthe and charite, and comyn profit of the lond, and ponyschith hem that helpen frely here neigeboris.”

Now the story begins to emerge of a group of workers conspiring together to fix prices and collectively, and illegally, bargain.  Much like a modern day union, the stonemasons were able to band together in illegal activities to make more money than the law would allow. 

This too explains the need for secrecy.  Within the Masonic community there has always been the story told that secret modes of recognition were used to ensure that a mason travelling from a long distance had truly been trained correctly.  Unfortunately, this explanation really doesn’t hold up.  An inexperienced man trying to pretend he was a mason would be found out as soon as tools met the stone.  Not only would he be found out within a day, thus ensuring he would not receive any pay, but he would likely be punished for his lies. However, when looking at this in the light of a group that had conspired together for higher wages, it begins to make sense. 

Remember that many of the men on the worksite might not know each other and there were many different trades working side by side, yet all under the direction of the master and his wardens.  At a given interval the workers would come to collect their pay.  It might be daily or weekly, but whenever it was, the craftsmen would come to the warden to be paid their wages.  Different jobs had different wages, and the masons were secretly getting a much higher wage.  Obviously, it needed to be communicated to the warden that the man was a mason and of what level in order that he get paid his illicit wages.  Was this the original purpose of the secret grips and words that Masons use to identify one another?  We don’t know.  In fact, we don’t really know if there were any kinds of modes of recognition at that time.  The earliest indication of any signs, grips, or words is from the Harleian Manuscript in 1650. 

“There is severall words & signes of a free mason to be reveiled to yu wch as yu will answr before God at the Great & terrible day of Judgmt yu keep secret & not to revaile the same in the heares of any person or to any but to the Mrs. & fellows of the said society of free masons so helpe me God, &c.”

So is there any evidence of any secrets at all in the timeframe we are discussing?  The earliest Masonic texts are histories of the Order and a list of charges.  One might assume that if there were secrets that keeping those secrets would be one of the charges.  And in fact, there is something to that effect.  The earliest Masonic document we have is the Regius Poem dated to 1390.  In it are a list of charges including the ‘Third Point’:

“The third point must be severly,

With the ‘prentice know it well,

His master’s counsel he keep and close,

And his fellows by his good purpose;

The privities of the chamber tell he no man,

Nor in the lodge whatsoever they do;

Whatsoever thou hearest or seest them do,

Tell it no man wheresoever you go;

The counsel of hall, and even of bower,


Keep it well to great honour,

Lest it would turn thyself to blame,

And bring the craft into great shame.”


This naturally begs the question ‘why would the secret discussions within the lodge bring great shame to the craft if non-Masons were to learn about them?’.  Freemasons have long said that our secrets are not shameful, yet here in the 14th century, we have indication that they felt otherwise at the time.  Was it due to price fixing or something else?  We will likely never know, however here at least we have a theory that could reasonably explain the secrecy within operative masonic lodges. 

This theory also offers a possible motive for nobility and later aristocrats to begin close association with these guilds.  There is no way to know when the first speculative members started to join.  The earliest documentation we have of a group of speculative masons is the initiation of Elias Ashmole in 1646 into a lodge.  However, he names those present at his initiation and none of them belonged to the stonemason’s trade.  Could there have been operative masons not in attendance?  Perhaps, but it seems odd that every man there was speculative; not a single operative.  How long had speculative masons been around prior to Brother Ashmole’s initiation?  We have no way of knowing.  However, we do have a very long line of notable people endorsing the masons, and if anything of the old origin myths is to be believed, even belonging to the craft.  In 1736 William St. Clair publically tendered his resignation of the office of hereditary Grand Master of Masons in Scotland claiming that this title went back to Sir William St. Clair in 1441.  While the fact of this matter has been contested by historians, it is worth noting.  While it is not likely that nobles attended the meetings of operative masons, it would not be a far stretch to imagine some kind of recognition for the nobility that was willing to play along with the masons in terms of the price fixing that was happening; a kind of quid pro quo exchanging the patronage of notable figures for a discount in wages or at least willingness to work on their projects when they could be working elsewhere.

This paper has been written to present a theory; one which will almost certainly never be able to be verified.  However, in great tradition of the freethinkers who came before, it is felt that this paper opens a new avenue and perhaps some constructive dialogue.  Hopefully this paper prompts some thought on the behalf of the reader and sparks a desire to seek out more light.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Mar 13, 2016)

I have heard this theory before. Do not know what to make of it. Could be, as with most things, that there is a kernel of truth in there somewhere.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Mar 13, 2016)

Good read....

Sent from my LG-D415 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## Bloke (Mar 13, 2016)

Interesting read


----------



## hanzosbm (Mar 18, 2016)

I found another interesting piece of information, but I relay it with some hesitation because I can't locate the original.

In Knoop and Jones' The Medieval Mason, p.138 it discusses an act of parliament passed in 1425 (3 Henry VI c 1) which I have found listed in other sources as pertaining to laborers which specifically forbid illegal congregations of Masons because they were undermining the Statute of Laborours of 1351.  I can find multiple references to this act all summarizing it in roughly the same way, but, alas, I cannot find the actual text of the act.


----------



## Luigi Visentin (May 23, 2016)

hanzosbm said:


> I found another interesting piece of information, but I relay it with some hesitation because I can't locate the original.
> 
> In Knoop and Jones' The Medieval Mason, p.138 it discusses an act of parliament passed in 1425 (3 Henry VI c 1) which I have found listed in other sources as pertaining to laborers which specifically forbid illegal congregations of Masons because they were undermining the Statute of Laborours of 1351.  I can find multiple references to this act all summarizing it in roughly the same way, but, alas, I cannot find the actual text of the act.



It is not very difficult to be found. I did it but I have not done much work: it is in the year 1424 and you can find it in the book "Statutes at Large from Magna Charta to the end of last parliament 1761" Owen Ruffhead (page 531 of volume or 579 of Google book PDF). However the curious thing is that the first one who cite this act is Dr. Plot in his famous work. The Freemasons at the time seemed to ignore the existance of this paper as they said that Henry VI was supporting them. I think that they were right as this act was against the real stone cutters, not against ancient Freemasons.


----------



## hanzosbm (May 24, 2016)

Luigi Visentin said:


> It is not very difficult to be found. I did it but I have not done much work: it is in the year 1424 and you can find it in the book "Statutes at Large from Magna Charta to the end of last parliament 1761" Owen Ruffhead (page 531 of volume or 579 of Google book PDF). However the curious thing is that the first one who cite this act is Dr. Plot in his famous work. The Freemasons at the time seemed to ignore the existance of this paper as they said that Henry VI was supporting them. I think that they were right as this act was against the real stone cutters, not against ancient Freemasons.


First and foremost, thank you for the information.  That being said, I'm having some trouble finding it.  I've found several copies, but they all seem to be the volumes towards the end dealing with the reigns of Kings George I & II.  Might you have a link you could share?


----------



## Luigi Visentin (May 24, 2016)

It is another edition: 
https://books.google.it/books?id=Mu...HE Statutes at Large, henry the sixth&f=false
page 95. In any case is the cap 1 of the third year of Henry VI (the king at the time was an infant)


----------



## hanzosbm (May 24, 2016)

Luigi Visentin said:


> It is another edition:
> https://books.google.it/books?id=MuwuAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA307&dq=THE+Statutes+at+Large,+henry+the+sixth&hl=it&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwimwtnPr_PMAhUEWhQKHSczBD4Q6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=THE Statutes at Large, henry the sixth&f=false
> page 95. In any case is the cap 1 of the third year of Henry VI (the king at the time was an infant)


That is PERFECT!  Thank you!


----------



## hanzosbm (May 24, 2016)

For those who have been following this and don't wish to look it up on their own, the passage that Luigi Visentin so graciously found and shared is this:


“Masons shall not confederate themselves in chapiters and assemblies:

FIRST, whereas by the yearly congregations and confederacies made by the masons in their general chapiters and assemblies, the good course and effect of the statues of labourers be openly violated and broken, in subversion of the law, and to the great damage of all the commons: (2) our said lord the King willing in this case to provide remedy by the advice and assent aforesaid, and at the special request of the said commons, hath ordained and established, That such chapiters and congregations shall not be hereafter holden.  (3) And if any such be made, they that cause such chapiters and congregations to be assembled and holden, if they thereof be convict, shall be judged for felons.  (4) And that all the other masons that come to such chapiters and congregations, be punished by imprisonment of their bodies, and make fine and ransom at the King’s will.”


----------



## dfreybur (May 25, 2016)

So at some point Masons were holding annual meetings rather like modern professional conferences.  As they were probably held across borders the kings did not like that so they made it a crime.  No wonder speculative lodges have always held elections and have always opposed tyrants.

But this is a case of some out of control tyrant king creating a crime out of thin air.  It's not about organized crime.  Maybe it's about resisting tyranny.  Very much not about organized crime.


----------



## Luigi Visentin (May 25, 2016)

Sorry if I correct you, but that act was not written by the king, as it was about 3 years old, but from someone else (the parliament is said). In all our constitution the first rule was "to be true to the king", therefore old Brothers were very far from an organized crime band and likely did not consider the king as a tyrann. Matter likely changed a lot with modern Freemasonry in the sense that most revolutions of eighteen and nineteen century have seen Brothers in the first line against absolutism.


----------



## Warrior1256 (May 25, 2016)

dfreybur said:


> But this is a case of some out of control tyrant king creating a crime out of thin air. It's not about organized crime. Maybe it's about resisting tyranny. Very much not about organized crime.


Agreed!


----------



## hanzosbm (May 26, 2016)

dfreybur said:


> So at some point Masons were holding annual meetings rather like modern professional conferences.  As they were probably held across borders the kings did not like that so they made it a crime.  No wonder speculative lodges have always held elections and have always opposed tyrants.
> 
> But this is a case of some out of control tyrant king creating a crime out of thin air.  It's not about organized crime.  Maybe it's about resisting tyranny.  Very much not about organized crime.



The reason laws were levied against them had nothing to do with crossing borders.  As you can see from the various passages cited, the thing they didn't like was that the masons were not following the laws regarding price fixing and which jobs they were and were not taking.  In other words, the masons collectively were refusing to follow the law.  So, if they're making illegal decisions collectively...I stand by calling that organized crime.  Now, I'm not saying that's the end all, be all of the situation, but I think it is difficult to say that it wasn't at least one aspect of what was going on.


----------



## Luigi Visentin (May 26, 2016)

Middle age guilds  were very determinated to defend owns rights and works. Contrary to what is said commonly, the protective action was also against foreign workers because they could "steal" the job to local workers. Only if the stranger was called by the local lord he was allowed to work and this was only for very specialized experts or for very big projects.

However I would like to underline one aspect related to this document: if we accept that this act of English Parliament was against the Freemasons that have give the birth to modern Freemasonry, the problem to find the roots of the Institution is solved. However, according to Dr. Plot (who was an employee of Elias Ashmole), Freemasons didn't know this document and thought that Henry VI was a supporter of Freemasonry. Even Ashmole seemed to ignore it but he should know it, as it is reported that he affirmed that at the time of the War of the Roses, Fremasons were mainly "yorkists". Later, many masonic writers reported this document, but they did not explain if the knowledge of its existence came from ancient Freemason's tradition or not. In other words the search of masonic origin in the middle age guilds is, in my opinion, a dead end road because they could not ignore a document that should have created them many problems.


----------



## hanzosbm (May 26, 2016)

Luigi Visentin said:


> However I would like to underline one aspect related to this document: if we accept that this act of English Parliament was against the Freemasons that have give the birth to modern Freemasonry, the problem to find the roots of the Institution is solved. However, according to Dr. Plot (who was an employee of Elias Ashmole), Freemasons didn't know this document and thought that Henry VI was a supporter of Freemasonry. Even Ashmole seemed to ignore it but he should know it, as it is reported that he affirmed that at the time of the War of the Roses, Fremasons were mainly "yorkists". Later, many masonic writers reported this document, but they did not explain if the knowledge of its existence came from ancient Freemason's tradition or not. In other words the search of masonic origin in the middle age guilds is, in my opinion, a dead end road because they could not ignore a document that should have created them many problems.



Well, a few things.  First of all, I think that the route to modern Freemasonry is a very long and winding one, so I in no way am saying this is the whole story.  Regarding Freemasons not knowing about the document and thinking Henry was a supporter, I have also read theories that they very much knew about the document, but were _claiming_ that he was a supporter as a way of justifying their disregard for the law.

I personally still think that this is somewhat akin to longshoremen; a group of working class people who are doing things of questionable (to put it nicely) legality as a closed off group.  Now, how, when, and why the secrecy used to conceal illegal activities turned into a secret society surrounding moral lessons is definitely a mystery.

In some of the early catechisms, there are very detailed and arguably overly complex methods of identifying each other out and about.  This was for speculative Masons.  Yet, even in those days, some of the methods had to do with interacting with operative Masons to identify themselves.  Here, we can see that the two were working together under one umbrella.  Why?  Who's to say.  There are a lot of theories out there.


----------



## Luigi Visentin (May 26, 2016)

The idea that "secret" means something of wrong or questionable is the one that has been used from the first excommunication "For if they were not doing evil they would not have so great a hatred of the light." citing the papal ban. In the army the secrecy is a virtue, for example, as un Tzu or Empereor Mauritius teached.


----------



## Luigi Visentin (May 26, 2016)

Maurice, sorry for my english.


----------



## hanzosbm (May 26, 2016)

Luigi Visentin said:


> The idea that "secret" means something of wrong or questionable is the one that has been used from the first excommunication "For if they were not doing evil they would not have so great a hatred of the light." citing the papal ban. In the army the secrecy is a virtue, for example, as un Tzu or Empereor Mauritius teached.



I completely agree with you.  But in this case, we can see that at least for early operative masons, they were in fact doing something wrong.  Now, was that the _reason_ for the secrecy?  Hard to tell.  And even if it was, what happened in the middle?  We have a group of operative masons doing something illegal.  We have modern speculative masons who are doing good deeds.  At some point in the middle, the reason for the secrecy changed.  Was it just for tradition?  Were they trying to hide something different during that time?  I doubt we'll ever know.


----------



## Warrior1256 (May 27, 2016)

Luigi Visentin said:


> The idea that "secret" means something of wrong or questionable is the one that has been used from the first excommunication "For if they were not doing evil they would not have so great a hatred of the light."


Agreed.


----------



## hanzosbm (Aug 25, 2016)

Sorry to revive an old thread, but I came across something interesting regarding the operative masons and practices that may have filtered down.

In the History of the Masonic persecutions in different quarters of the globe, with an introductory essay; and Masonic Institutes by George Oliver from 1867, he talks about possible origins of the name Freemason, he writes the following:

"Others have derived the institution of Freemasons from a combination among the Masons, not to work without an advance of wages, when they were summoned from several counties, by writs of Edward III., directed to the sheriffs, to assist in rebuilding and enlarging the castle, together with the church and chapel of St. George, at Windsor. Accordingly, it is said that the Masons agreed on certain signs and tokens, by which they might know one another, and assist one another against being impressed, and not to work unless free, and on their own terms."

Going back to my argument in the original paper, the operative Masons didn't want the powers that be forcing them to work on jobs against their will.
Is it possible that our modern requirement that the request be of a man's own free will and accord is a way of allowing the lodge to safeguard against unwilling workers?
Let's say Bob is told by his local Sheriff that he MUST report for a building project that he doesn't want to work at. Legally, he can't refuse, so, against his will he reports to the job site. Upon first gaining entrance, he is asked if it be of his own free will and accord. Bob answers that, no, it is not. No problem, the Master denies him admission. Bob avoids being pressed into work he doesn't want in a legal way by benefit of the lodge.

I this there is strong evidence for this.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Aug 25, 2016)

hanzosbm said:


> Sorry to revive an old thread


I do it frequently. If I see an old thread and the topic really interests me then I revive it for further discussion.


----------



## Luigi Visentin (Aug 26, 2016)

hanzosbm said:


> Let's say Bob is told by his local Sheriff that he MUST report for a building project that he doesn't want to work at. Legally, he can't refuse, so, against his will he reports to the job site. Upon first gaining entrance, he is asked if it be of his own free will and accord. Bob answers that, no, it is not. No problem, the Master denies him admission. Bob avoids being pressed into work he doesn't want in a legal way by benefit of the lodge.



Inigo Jones Manuscript: 
"And He gave them a Charge in this Manner.
FIRST that they should be true to the King and to the Lord, that they Serve; and To the Fellowship whereof they are Admitted; And that they should Love and be true to one another; And that they should Call Each other his Fellow, or Else BROTHER; and not his Servant Knave, nor no other soul Name; And that they should truely deserve their Pay of the Lord; Or the Master of the Work, that they Serve."

Please note that this charge is indicated as "FIRST". In all versions of the Legend of The Craft there is a similar statement. Freedom it is not exactly arbitrariness. Surely it was not for ancient Brothers.


----------



## hanzosbm (Aug 27, 2016)

Luigi Visentin said:


> Inigo Jones Manuscript:
> "And He gave them a Charge in this Manner.
> FIRST that they should be true to the King and to the Lord, that they Serve; and To the Fellowship whereof they are Admitted; And that they should Love and be true to one another; And that they should Call Each other his Fellow, or Else BROTHER; and not his Servant Knave, nor no other soul Name; And that they should truely deserve their Pay of the Lord; Or the Master of the Work, that they Serve."
> 
> Please note that this charge is indicated as "FIRST". In all versions of the Legend of The Craft there is a similar statement. Freedom it is not exactly arbitrariness. Surely it was not for ancient Brothers.


I'm not sure I understand your meaning. Are you saying that early operative Masons must have obeyed the laws because of that first charge?


----------



## Luigi Visentin (Aug 28, 2016)

What I'm saying is that ancients Masons had to respect these charges. Obviously I cannot say anything about the personal ethics of each Mason, but why I should assume that they were not honest and they were only "obliged to be honest"? The indications left in the Legend tell the contrary, that is that they had a big respect of the law. Moreover in many versions of the Charges there is the clear advice to invite the Sheriff to take part to the assembly when there were difficult disputes to be solved. 

From Cooke's manuscript, for example:

The 9th Point,--If he be wiser, 
and subtler than his fellow 
working with him in his 
lodge, or any other place, 
and he perceive it that he should 
leave the stone that he worketh up- 
on, for default of cunning, 
and can teach him and a- 
mend the stone, he shall in-/form 
him and help him, that the more 
love may increase among them, 
and that the work of the lord be not 
lost. When the master and the fel- 
lows be forewarned [and] are 
come to such congregations, 
if need be, the Sheriff of the 
Country, or the Mayor of the 
City, or Alderman of the Town, 
in which the congregations is 
holden, shall be fellow, and [as] soci- 
ate, to the master of the congre- 
gation, in help of him, against re- 
bels and [for the] up-bearing the right 
of the realm.

Perhaps I can have translated bad but it seems to me that the Sheriff or the Mayor or the Alderman were not necessarily Masons, but they can be invited to support the Master of the Lodge (an in this case they had to be considered as fellows) and I have big difficulties to image seriously a band of criminals that call the police to assist to one of their secret meeting in their den to discuss about the behavior of one of the member of the band.


----------



## hanzosbm (Aug 28, 2016)

Well, while I completely agree with you, my original post is packed full of very specific references to Mason's specifically circumventing the laws.


----------



## Luigi Visentin (Aug 29, 2016)

Which masons? There is no doubts that guild of masons existed, like guild of carpenters, tailors, bakers, fishermen, weavers etc. In Italy every town had plenty of them, like in all Europe. It is likely that they have tried to "adjust" or "circumvent" laws for their interests but this does not means that ancient masons (construction workers) were connected with Freemasonry and I'm pretty sure about this. The example above was simply to show that the principle to respect the law was one of the basic elements of Freemasonry.

One of the aspects that I think that none has noted is that in case of needs ancient Freemansons did not go to the Authority but the Authority was invited to attend to the meeting, which means that they role in the society was enough "powerful" to allow them to decide to let the Authority in or not. I do not think that this was possible in a worker's guild.


----------



## bro cue (May 4, 2017)

I believe you to be upright in your assertion. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------

