FREEMASONRY AND ESOTERIC MOVEMENTS
by
Bob Gilbert
We all know, of course, what Freemasonry is. The United Grand Lodge of
England, in a leaflet published by the Board of General Purposes in 1984,
defines it as:
One of the worlds oldest secular
fraternal societies . a society of men concerned with spiritual values. Its
members are taught its precepts by a series of ritual dramas, which follow
ancient forms and use stonemasons customs and tools as allegorical guides. The
essential qualification for admission and continuing membership is a belief in a
Supreme Being. Membership is open to men of any race or religion who can fulfill
the essential qualification and are of good repute. (What is Freemasonry?)
Now this is fine as far as it goes
but we all know - or think that we know - that there is more to it than this.
Does not Freemasonry have an esoteric side reserved for the elect?; are there
not secret doctrines hidden within the symbolism of the ceremonies?; are not the
ceremonies of Initiation, Passing and Raising quintessential rites of passage,
with a basic structure having elements in common with similar rituals of other
cultures distant in both time and space ? To the last question I would answer
yes, but to the others I give a decided 'No'.
Freemasonry is avowedly concerned
with morality. Its symbols are interpreted for the candidate in moral terms
(thus, when the working tools are displayed in the first degree, the candidate
is told that 'we apply these tools to our morals') and its ceremonies are
effectively morality plays, stressing particular virtues. Of course one can
argue that the Third Degree is also a mortality play, in that the candidate is
reminded of his mortality when he is raised - he is not symbolically resurrected from the
dead, any more than Hiram Abiff (whose sterling qualities of courage, integrity
and steadfastness the candidate is taught to emulate) is literally raised from
the dead in the traditional history that is related during the course of the
ceremony. Hiram Abiff is simply decently re-interred with the honour and respect
due to him.
But what of the Tracing Boards ? Are
there not esoteric interpretations of the symbolism in these complex visual
images ? Undoubtedly there are, but they are not Masonic. The explanations given
in the rituals of the three Craft degrees relate solely to the legends of those
degrees and to the symbols that the candidate encounters in the course of the
ceremonies (and here I fully appreciate that I have put my audience in a 'Catch
22' situation; not all of you are masons - or, at least, are not recognised as
such by masons owing allegiance to United Grand Lodge of England - and thus any
mason who dissents from my opinion cannot justify his dissent without breaching
his various Obligations. Of course he can, and probably will, take me up on the
matter in private - but he will still be wrong).
It is also possible to argue that
what I am discussing is the Freemasonry of 1717 and afterwards, and that the
esoteric wisdom of the pre-Grand Lodge era is another matter. But is it ?
Nowhere in the Old Charges - the manuscript Constitutions of Masonry that predate, for the most part,
the founding of the Premier Grand Lodge - do we find any trace of secret
doctrines. There are Obligations to maintain secrecy, there are Catechisms, with
explanations of the signs, tokens and words, and unsophisticated rituals of the
Craft degrees, but that is all: secret teachings there are none.
If it is the case that Freemasonry is simply
and solely a system of moral teachings, inculcated in dramatic and catechetical
form, then how has it come to be so firmly linked in the popular mind with true
secret societies, and with the doctrines and practices of the myriad forms of
occultism ? This state of affairs has come about, or so I believe, by
misunderstanding and by historical accident. Let us try to determine how.
As far as we can tell Freemasonry in
its present form derives from a very loosely associated group of masonic lodges
that derived in turn, in form and structure, if not in substance, and in a
manner which we only imperfectly understand, from associations of operative
masons. These masonic bodies of the mid to late 17th Century
were not at all concerned with stone working; their purpose seems rather to have
been to practise and to promote mutual tolerance between men who, for reasons of
political and religious allegiance, might otherwise have remained perpetually at
a distance. [I should here point out that other theories of the origin of
Freemasonry have been advanced over the last two hundred years. Some have argued
for a derivation from ancient Egypt, others have claimed that Freemasonry
descends from the Knights Templar or from the Rosicrucians, but none of those
proposing these theories have offered any sound evidence, documentary or
otherwise] .The identity of their members remains almost entirely unknown, and
any solid proof of their ecumenical motives has yet to be found. Even so, some
significant concern with tolerance in a most intolerant era seems to have been
the driving force that motivated these proto-masons. What ceremonies they
observed, if any, we do not know - although given the human psycho-spiritual
need for ritual it is at least possible that they sought to construct a secular
substitute for the elaborate Catholic liturgy that was lost at the time of the
Reformation - nor do we know what symbols they employed beyond those associated
with building in general (the working tools) and with one building in particular
(King Solomon's Temple).
That they were all believing,
orthodox Christians seems certain - there is no evidence to the contrary -
although they were probably drawn from the three major divisions of the
Christian faith then to be found in this country: Anglican (or true in both
doctrine and liturgical practice); Roman Catholic (defective in doctrine); and
Dissenting (defective in both doctrine and practice) [You will rightly perceive
that my qualifications reflect my own preference for true Christianity ] Be
that as it may, this proto-Masonry did not include non-Christians: there were no
Jewish brethren before 1721, and it harboured neither pantheists, nor pagans,
nor atheists. And if these men engaged in philosophical speculation, then we
have no record of it. What can be said, and even this is no more than a strong
probability, is that they sought to ensure that England became and remained a
cohesive and relatively tolerant society at peace with itself (that in the early
years of the Premier Grand Lodge there were both Jacobite and loyalist
freemasons tends to support this view). Change came when Speculative Freemasonry
was exported to the continent.
In France, in
Germany and in the Habsburg Empire, Freemasonry was taken up with gusto by the
aristocracy but it was viewed in a different and very un-English light. While
for us it was an instrument of egalitarianism and social cohesion, Freemasonry
for continental aristocrats was to become a sign of their elitism. Not content
with simple morality plays, or with emulating artisans, these European
freemasons grafted on the ethos, legends and presumed rituals of the old Orders
of Chivalry. In this they had been inspired by the Oration of the Chevalier
Ramsay, first delivered in 1737.
Ramsay maintained that Freemasonry
had descended not from operative stone masons, but from knights returning from
the Crusades - he did not attribute it to the Knights Templar - and he offered
no hint of any esoteric doctrines. He may have hoped that this would make the
Order acceptable to the papacy, but if that was so then he signally failed: in
1738, after the promulgation of the anti-masonic papal Bull, In Eminente, Ramsay's Oration was publicly burned
at Rome. After this event Ramsay disappeared from the masonic scene, valuing
loyalty to his Church above his enthusiasm for the Craft.
This attribution to Freemasonry of an
elite origin, and the hostility of the papacy (which had, four hundred years
before, disbanded the Knights Templar and burned their Grand Master) may have led some continental masons to
look upon Freemasonry as a suitable vehicle for transmitting secret doctrines of
their own devising. And given that a form of Rosicrucianism, the Brotherhood of
the Golden and Rosy Cross, based upon alchemical practices, was active in
Germany after 1710, it is possible that the Rosicrucian myth with its secret
vault and mysterious book, was grafted, in part if not in whole, upon some
altered, chivalric form of Freemasonry. Altered still further such a version of
Freemasonry may lie behind the establishment
in England of either or both the Royal Arch and the Royal Order of Scotland. If
so, was this hybrid still justly called Freemasonry, or had it become an
esoteric movement?
Even if it had, its return to prosaic
English society with its traditional, robust form of Freemasonry would have
strangled any tender, esoteric vine it might have contained. What happened on
the continent was another matter. Craft masonry was both widespread and
orthodox, but there was also a proliferation of Hauts Grades, Higher Degrees that owed little to
Masonry and much to esotericism. Should these be categorised as esoteric
movements, and did they then or at a later date exercise an influence upon the
ethos and practice of true Freemasonry?
Before attempting
to answer these questions it is about time that I defined the term 'esoteric
movements' I have deliberately avoided the more specific and narrow terms of
'secret society' or 'Hermetic' or 'Esoteric Order', not so that I can be like
Humpty Dumpty and make the words mean just what I say they mean, but in order to
include institutions that are not predicated upon ceremonial working as well as
those that are. So, what is an esoteric movement ? Essentially it is an
institution (one of the 'instituted mysteries' in A. E. Waite's words) that
forms a legitimate part of the Western Mystery Tradition; in other words, it is
a communal spiritual path that seeks to undo the Fall of Man, to return to the
presence of God and to attain the union of the created with its creator. Its
doctrines are an exposition of the nature of the Fall and of the Way of Return,
while its practices are concerned with actively finding that Way. A definition
that I once gave of the secret part of the Mysteries of Eleusis, will also fit
the practices of most esoteric movements, which are
designed to bring the initiate to an
awareness of the holy and of the timeless state in which it exists, and for him
to gain a secret wisdom which must not be shared with the outside, uninitiated
world (R.A. Gilbert,
Elements of Mysticism, 1991, pp4-5)
One might add that such secret wisdom
entailed a means of access to a gnosis, a secret knowledge that helped the
initiate to understand the mechanics of the fall (however it may have been
expressed mythologically) and to comprehend the relationship between the
spiritual and material worlds, their distinct natures, and the correspondences
that exist between them.
Thus defined, Esoteric Movements
could include such diverse institutions as the Cathar Church of the early Middle
Ages, which had doctrines and rituals reserved for its perfecti; the Rosicrucian Fraternity, which may
never have had any outward, objective existence before 1710; the Philadelphian
Society of the late 17th Century, which was not a secret society, but
whose doctrines were secret by virtue of being incomprehensible to the
uninitiated; and the secret, esoteric Order par excellence, the Hermetic Order of the Golden
Dawn. But they could not include Freemasonry.
Freemasonry does not seek to dictate
the faith of its members, and while it offers the hope of a future life, it does
not seek a return to, or attainment of organic unity with God. Its ceremonies
are designed to inculcate moral messages in the candidate, not to stimulate a
numinous experience. So were the Hauts Grades esoteric or masonic? They seem to
have been something of a hybrid: leaning towards Freemasonry in form and
structure, and towards esotericism in substance, i.e. in their philosophical and spiritual
content. Out of such hybrids some true esoteric movements were certainly born.
Sigmund Richter's Gold and Rosy Cross of 1710 was reborn in 1757, with rituals
clearly based on masonic forms but with a doctrinal content that was wholly
alchemical (in the sense of spiritual alchemy) and kabbalistic. It survived
until the end of the 18th century but never took root in this
country; indeed, English Masonry remained firmly prosaic throughout the
quarrels, divisions and final grand Union of its first one hundred years.
Such esoteric activity as took place
in England in the 18th Century was discreet and low-key, there were
no obvious equivalents of the Hauts Grades, no organised Rosicrucianism and no
neo-gnostic Societies. Was this because Freemasonry was more congenial to the
English temperament ? Possibly, but Britain was also one United Kingdom, without
the plethora of petty principalities and multiplicity of socially stratified
courtiers. For the most part only those who can afford to spend time on esoteric
pursuits actually take them up and in this country there were simply not enough
educated and financially independent men and women to engage in unorthodox
spiritual paths. As religious, political and social emancipation gradually
progressed in the 19th Century, but much faster than was the case in
Europe, for all that it was gradual, so were true esoteric movements established
in this country.
Many of them, such as the Behmenist
groups around James Pierrepont Greaves and Edward and Anne Penny, had no
ceremonial content and did not draw from Freemasonry. Even for ceremonial
magicians and practical occultists such as Ebenezer Sibly and Frederick Hockley,
there was no crossover between their masonic and esoteric pursuits - and
certainly no fusion of them.
Not until the dead hand of the Duke
of Sussex was lifted from English Freemasonry could any meaningful attempt be
made to introduce the additional degrees to this country. And when they were
introduced, starting with the Ancient & Accepted Rite in 1845, they remained
firmly in orthodox masonic hands and maintained a strict masonic ethos. Only
with the founding of the masonic Rosicrucian Society, the Societas Rosicruciana
in Anglia, in 1866 was there a serious attempt to unite esotericism and
Freemasonry; or rather there was in 1878 after the death of the Society's
founder, Robert Wentworth Little. The S.R.I.A. derived from a pre-existing
Scottish Society which claimed descent from a still earlier English Society that
apparently flourished in the 1 850s and that demanded no masonic qualification
for membership, but Little had striven to make it an adjunct of a purely masonic
Order, the Red Cross of Rome and Constantine. He had no great personal interest
in occultism in general or Rosicrucianism in particular, any more than did his
co-founder, W.J. Hughan, who was essentially an orthodox masonic historian with
no great enthusiasm for esoteric pursuits although he did contribute papers on
early Rosicrucian texts to the Society's journal, The Rosicrucian, Some early members, notably Kenneth
Mackenzie and F.G. Irwin, did lean more towards occultism than to Freemasonry,
but it was Little's successors in the office of Supreme Magus who brought about
a real change.
They, in the persons of Dr. William
Woodman and William Wynn Westcott, were dedicated ocultists for whom esoteric
pursuits were more important than masonic activities. Still, as its members will
testify the S.R.I.A. clearly owes much of its ritual structure to that of the
masonic Ancient & Accepted Rite. In like manner, when Westcott and Woodman,
aided and abetted by Samuel Liddell Mathers, also a prominent member of the
S.R.I.A., founded the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn in 1888 they
accomplished a fusion of elements from Freemasonry with those from more strictly
esoteric Orders and Societies. The ceremonial structure, layout of the Temple
and Regalia of the Golden Dawn draw heavily upon those of the masonic Royal
Arch: for example, there are very close similarities between the robes, sceptres
and positions in the Temple of the three Principals in a Royal Arch Chapter, and
those of the Imperator, Praemonstrator and Cancellarius of a Golden Dawn Temple.
Those familiar with both bodies will also note the parallels between the banners
and the central altar of each. But in terms of ethos and teachings the Golden
Dawn was - and presumably still is - essentially esoteric. So did the fusion of
two disparate types of institution work ? In pragmatic terms, yes, it did - but
not because there is any esoteric element in masonry, it worked simply because
the structural elements, the psycho-dynamics, of initiatic rituals are basically
the same wherever and whenever they are worked.
In any true ceremony of initiation
most, if not all, of the following elements will be present:
1) The
candidate will enter in darkness so that the unfolding ceremony brings him into
light.
2) He (or she)
will undergo a numerically significant symbolic journey involving tests and
trials; the ritual use of musical sound (usually the unaccompanied human voice);
and the stimulation of the senses of touch (perhaps with a symbolic weapon) and
smell (incense).
3) He will give
an Obligation to keep secret what he has learned and undergone and to accept the
responsibilities of his new situation [he is, of course, unable to divulge the
essence of his inner
experience of the
ceremony as that is, by its very nature, incommunicable to another]
4) He will be
entrusted with secret knowledge (both practical in the form of signs of
recognition; and theoretical as he begins the process of acquiring secret
wisdom).
5) He will be
welcomed into his new peer group in sacramental form (usually by sharing a
sacred meal).
It will be immediately apparent to
freemasons that the theoretical part of element (4) and the whole of element (5)
are absent from masonic rituals of initiation, unless the purely social festive
board is taken to represent a shared sacred meal - a parallel difficult to
justify for those with experience of masonic dining.
What, then, can be
deduced from this comparison of masonic and esoteric institutions, and quick
gallop through their respective histories ? We must conclude, I maintain, that
they are very different animals. There are indeed, clear parallels and elements
possessed in common: but any organisation must have a hierarchy, if only for the
sake of administration, while the working of ceremonies - irrespective of their
function -requires an established structure and regalia to identify those taking
part. Symbols that convey new or unfamiliar concepts to the candidate in
non-verbal form are the common currency of all ceremonial, whatever the message
that they are designed to convey. The differences between the two are, however,
more pronounced.
In Freemasonry the ceremonies are
designed to convey a series of simple moral precepts - nothing more and nothing
less. There is no progressive unfolding of secret knowledge, nor a progressive
revelation through experience of the rituals, and there is a metaphorical rather
than an actual change of psycho-spiritual state within the candidate (that is
not to deny the possibility that some initiates into Masonry may have
experienced such a change; for the generality this is not so).
There are also
other significant differences. Freemasonry is essentially an 'open' organisation:
it does not hide the fact of its existence or require its members to conceal the
fact of their membership; it openly declares its aims and objects; it makes no
secret of the fact that it works ceremonies of initiation to inculcate and
reinforce its moral message, and it simply keeps private the specific content of
the ceremonies; it has no secret doctrines and its only 'secrets' are the signs
of recognition used in the ceremonial context; it does not intrude upon or seek
to change the belief systems or spiritual practices of its members. To most of
its members Freemasonry is a social club with charitable aims that reinforces
moral precepts with the aid of ritual. In short, it fulfils a different need and
performs a completely different function from that of an esoteric movement.
Compared with Freemasonry esoteric
movements are closed systems. Their doctrines, practices and membership are
reserved from the outside world, and even their very existence may be kept
secret. This secrecy is not for any dubious reason, but to keep private what
cannot manifest except in an enclosed environment in which there can be an
effective psycho-spiritual interaction of the members of the Order or Society in
question. There is also a progressive unfolding of secret knowledge, or gnosis,
which is made meaningful by way of ritual experience and the discipline of
private spiritual practice (e.g. prayer, meditation and spiritual
exercises such as those laid down by St. Ignatius Loyola). In general terms
esoteric movements are illuminating, revelatory and spiritually revolutionary,
whereas Freemasonry is prosaic and representative of orthodoxy and the mores of
the established social order.
The question remains, can they mix ?
are they compatible ? Speaking from personal experience, no, they are not. It
would be invidious to identify the bodies concerned, but I can emphasise the
lack of compatibility between masonic Orders and esoteric movements by the
following examples. I have watched one masonic body attempt to engraft esoteric
principles and practices on to its workings, with peculiarly disastrous results:
the problem seems to be compounded by the ritual ineptitude of most of the
officers, but for the candidate (who was not myself) the consequence was to
nullify any psycho-spiritual effect that there might have been. Similarly the
intrusion of bovine 'knife and fork' masons into a truly spiritual rite within
Freemasonry is invariably an unmitigated disaster. I have watched with dismay
the erosion of its true ethos within one masonic body that meets on the European
mainland; it is chivalric in essence, and its purpose is to guide candidates
towards their own spiritual regeneration, but when the numerical balance of
members became weighted towards the 'knife and fork' tendency, regeneration slid
towards degeneration and the rite in question - in this specific instance - has
become a mere shell, devoid of meaning and empty of any spiritual presence. Its
secret word should now be 'Ichabod' (i.e. 'The Glory has departed').
Perhaps Masonry has become too
materialistic and Esoteric Movements have become too idealistic, but whatever
the reasons, the two paths are essentially incompatible. One can walk down
either on different occasions (I am happily involved in many masonic bodies, and
equally as many esoteric movements; and with one exception I am happy to tell
you - in private - what they are), but one cannot ride both of these horses at
the same time. Eventually one path loses its attractions and the other beckons
more enticingly: then it is time to decide which path to follow. As with Lazarus
and Dives in the parable (you will know the story - the consequence of a rich
man being unable to pass through the gate of heaven just as his camel failed the
needle's eye test) there is a great gulf fixed between the two, but which of
them is epitomised by Lazarus and which by Dives, I cannot say. Or rather,
diplomacy demands that I shall not.
back to top |
