The Builders E-Book

Joseph Fort Newton

• Herausgeber: Edizioni Aurora Boreale
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2020

Beschreibung

Written and published for the first time in 1914, this book is internationally considered a classic of Masonic literature and one of the most readable introductions to Masonic history and philosophy. A book that everyone, not just Freemasons but also those who are not, should read. Joseph Fort Newton explains brilliantly and clearly the allegorical nature of what it means to be a Freemason and claims that the world has benefited greatly because of the Masonic ideals of liberty, fraternity and equality. The Builders tells the Masonic side of this story. The intent of these pages is, rather, to emphasize the spiritual view of life and the world as the philosophy underlying Masonry, and upon which it builds the reality of the ideal, its sovereignty over our fragile human life, and the immutable necessity of loyalty to it, if we are to build for eternity. After all, as Plotinus said, philosophy serves to point the way and guide the traveller; the vision is for him who will see it. But the direction means much to those who are seeking the truth to know it. A new elegant and illustrated edition, with an introductory essay by Nicola Bizzi, one of the most qualified Italian historians.

Leseprobe

Τεληστήριον

JOSEPH FORT NEWTON

THE BUILDERS

A STORY AND STUDY OF MASONRY

Edizioni Aurora Boreale

Title: The Builders. A story and study of Masonry

Author: Joseph Fort Newton

Publishing Series: Telestèrion

With an introductive essay by Nicola Bizzi

ISBN e-book version: 978-88-98635-70-2

Edizioni Aurora Boreale

© 2019 Edizioni Aurora Boreale

Via del Fiordaliso 14 - 59100 Prato

[email protected]

http://www.auroraboreale-edizioni.com

When I was a King and a Mason  A master Proved and skilled,I cleared me ground for a palace  Such as a King should build.I decreed and cut down to my levels,  Presently, under the silt,I came on the wreck of a Palace  Such as a King had built!

(Rudyard Kipling)

To the Memory of

Theodore Sutton Parvin

Founder of the Library of the Grand Lodge of Iowa,

with Reverence and Gratitude;

to Louis Block

Past Grand Master of Masons in Iowa, dear Friend

and Fellow-worker, who initiated and inspired

this study, with Love and Goodwill;

and to the Young Masons

Our Hope and Pride, for whom

this book was written

With Fraternal Greeting

Roman mosaic from Pompei (first century B.C.) known as “Memento Mori”. It represents an allegorical and symbolic philosophical theme of the transience of life and death that eliminates disparities in social class and wealth. The summit of the composition is a level with his plumb line, a tool that was used by masons to control the levelling in construction. The axis of the lead is the death (the skull), under a butterfly (the soul) balanced on a wheel (Fortune). Under the arms of the level, and opposed in perfect balance, are the symbols of poverty on the right (a stick a beggar and a cape), and wealth to the left: the sceptre a purple cloth and the ribbon. (Naples, Archaological Museum)

REFLECTIONS ON THE ORIGIN

OF FREEMASONRY

by Nicola Bizzi

It might seem unbelievable or unlikely, and in some way even paradoxical, that an initiatory institution such as Freemasonry – which has several centuries of glorious history and a widespread diffusion all over the world, an institution that has contributed so considerably to the development and progress of humanity and civilization – has (at least apparently) lost the cognition and historical memory of its origins. Its members seem to mythicize them, conceal them, distort them, or adapt them according to circumstances or personal interpretations, and above all they allow this to happen in the eyes of the uninitiated.

On the one hand, unfortunately, this not entirely superficial “amnesia” could easily be attributed to the innumerable divisions, fractures, and fragmentations that the free-masonry institution has always experienced during its long and troubled journey. On the other hand, even modern Freemasonry, far from being unitary, is divided into many infinite “currents”. But it could be limiting, if not misleading and self-absolving, for the present Freemasons to point the finger exclusively at the divisions of the past to find the cause of the dramatic loss of their historical memory. Historical memories that, on the contrary, other initiatory Orders and Schools, even of greater seniority or antiquity, have succeeded to preserve through the passing of the centuries. And all this is even more paradoxical if we think about other initiatory realities that have historically contributed in a decisive way to the birth and development of Freemasonry itself, infusing in it – in some cases indirectly or not always in a deliberate way – the indelible imprint and peculiar features of their respective doctrines. But, unlike Freemasonry, they have not lost the historical memory of their own origins and their ideals. And, although they seem to be characterized by a greater secrecy and by an almost absolute impenetrability to the profane world, they still enjoy excellent health. I am referring in particular to very ancient initiatory Orders such as that of the Eleusinians “Mother”, to which the writer belongs both for initiatory experience and for family tradition, and to the secret circles of the Eleusinians of the Orphic Rite (to which important families belonged, or dynasties like that of the Medici, and characters such as Marsilio Ficino and Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola). As I am referring to the Pythagorean Order and to other few highly selective mystery and initiatory realities that have succeeded, like a karstic river, to survive up to the present days.

Now, let us go back to Freemasonry. It is certainly true that ma-ny ancient archives and other important collections of documents – especially those relating to the seventeenth century and to previous periods – have been dramatically lost, destroyed, dispersed, or “forgotten” in some private libraries; archives and collections of documents which, if they were fully usable and accessible today, would contribute to clarify and explain many absurd hypotheses. “Conjectures” and “theories” that – today as yesterday – many people, as the Freemasons themselves and other more or less qualified historians, like to speak about. And yet, the origins of Freemasonry, if we just think about it, are not so “uncertain” as some historians think and want us to believe.

But has there ever been, within Freemasonry, a real and serious desire to make themselves clear, once and for all?

Has there ever been, within Freemasonry, a real and serious will to refute and dissipate once and for all this tangle – which has grown out of all proportion and totally out of control – not only of hypotheses, conjectures, and theories, but also and abo-ve all of errors, misleading inaccuracies, blatant falsehoods, and interpretative mistakes that have only led to confusion and that have inevitably distorted – in the profane eyes and not only – the essence, purpose, history, and the most authentic origins of Freemasonry?

Vittorio Vanni has recently tried to answer to this question. He is a writer from Florence and an appreciated author of many books on the history of the Institution. In a chapter of his essay Anatomia della Massoneria e altre Tavole¹(Anatomy of Freemasonry and other Tablets), Vanni highlights how the Masonic historiography is totally affected by instrumentality and by so-me intentional prejudices that inevitably lead to inaccuracies, distortions, and fantasies that deviate its scientific nature. In fact, it often occurs that the texts of many valid historians and researchers are really close to the truth, attesting and demonstrating some fundamental and illuminating discoveries on the origins and history of Freemasonry. However, it seems that at this point a sort of “exchange mechanism” comes into play and it attempts to bring these discoveries to a dead end.

Writers known and translated internationally as the Scottish investigative journalist Ian Gittins, author of a recent intact essay Unlocking the Masonic Code: The Secrets of the Solomon Key², they only feed both in the profane world and – and this is paradoxical – in the Masonic environments as well, confusion and disinformation, declaring in a generic way and as if it were an established fact that Freemasonry «has its roots in Christianity»³ and that, broadly speaking, in this Institution there are (in the profane world) two “schools of thought”.

«The first one – Gitting says – claims that it is a modern anachronism, an eccentric organization, but substantially benevolent, of men whose presumption and very high opinion of themselves are small flaws compared to the numerous philanthropic works to which they dedicate themselves»⁴. «According to this current of thought – Gitting says – given the rather advanced average age of its members, it is impossible for the brotherhood to survive beyond the next two or three decades»⁵. These statements are extremely childish and, in addition to being the result of mere ignorance, they denote an initiatory sensitivity equal to zero. «The opposite opinion – Gitting concludes – states that Freemasonry is an obscure coterie of sinister dissatisfactions that seeks to subvert society and eventually gain world domination»⁶.

Regardless of the fact that, with respect to Freemasonry, there are other secret organizations and brotherhoods that truly hold a political and economic power – organizations that can decide and plan the destiny of our world – I save myself from commenting on these latest statements, also because we will discuss later on such similar “conspiracies”. These conspiracies, even before the release in the second half of the nineteenth century of the pamphlets by Marie Joseph Gabriel Antoine Jogand-Pagès (better known as Léo Taxil), can periodically be found in journalism and in a certain kind of literature. I also think it is better to draw a veil over further statements by Ian Gittins, such as the following:«In recent decades, the Masons have been ridiculed for the unique ceremonies and impenetrable rituals with which they are identified in the collective imagination. Their formalities may seem so exclusive and pompous that they border on being ridiculous, and perhaps it is difficult to imagine an arcane secular association of pensioners as a dangerous and threatening global power that perpetuates (or it is burdened by) some mysterious secrets and a sort of mystical knowledge»⁷.

Even if hundreds of thousands of documents of Masonic interest (hidden in archives and libraries all over the world) still await in large part those who can consult them, classify them, organize them, comment on them – but above all interpret them and compare them in the most appropriate way and with the right keys to understanding, as Vittorio Vanni observes – the basic theses that could frame the problem and try to solve it have already been set out some time ago. However, it almost seems that there is, in the Masonic sphere, a sort of tacit conspiracy against acquisitions of truth that could be philologically correct and well-documented. And this “conspiracy”, far from being a mere fantasy born of minds too prone to “conspiracy” visions, too often manifests itself in all its harsh reality. It finds from time to time the most disparate and functional allies and interpreters who are always ready to stand in the way of a serious and objective historical research on the origins and history of Freemasonry and its various components. Why does this happen? The answer may seem quite complex, but it is actually much simpler than you might think. Many people, in the Masonic sphere, tend to “push Freemasonry’s ideals”, in order to “adapt” them to their own personal ideas or to particular doctrinal or ideological currents of thought. Such doctrinal and ideological strands can essentially identify one or more historical “components” of the institution. However, too often they are challenged and flaunted with the ill-concealed intention to exclude or conceal other components. These components, according to their own points of view or to the particular esoteric-initiatory formation and the ad excludendum orientation of certain Brothers, are considered “inconvenient” or “cumbersome”. However, certain Brothers who are “guilty” of adopting similar attitudes, do not often realize how much their way of doing can be harmful and counterproductive for the Institution itself, which is (and must necessarily remain) “universal” by nature, vocation, and character. With their sectarian and sometimes “dogmatic” attitudes, aimed at the denial or exclusion of those historical “components” of the Institution that do not fit with their mindset or their ideological orientation, and together with the exaltation of those “components” that instead are closer to them or more suitable, they step on the great, basic, and essential values of the institution itself, starting with tolerance and universality!As if all this were not enough, a clear and accommodating desire to settle down on a not-always-shared model of post-Enlightenment Freemasonry also winds its way through the walls of Freemasonry itself. It is a Freemasonry which no longer has the goal of perfecting man, the single man (on the basis of an inner and individual initiatory process). It just concerns a more generic humanity intended as a whole, a sort of human “collectivity”. A Freemasonry turned into a secret meeting halfway between a ramshackle “army of salvation” or a charitable-benefiting association, and a mere business circle more interested in political and social issues than in initiatory elevation. A Freemasonry in which, as rightly denounced seventy years ago by Brother Arturo Reghini, «the improvement of the individual is inexorably placed in the background, if not neglected, forgotten, and ignored»⁸.

And yet, as Reghini never got tired of repeating, it should be noticed that no Masonic ritual has ever said or claimed that Freemasonry should have universal progress as its purpose. And, as Reghini noticed and emphasized: «Freemasonry has been in existence long before the belief in a sole universal progress was spread in the West. [...] All Masonic rituals, ancient and modern, Italian and foreign, affirm unanimously, beginning with the original and fundamental Constitutions of Anderson (١٧٢٣), that the purpose of Freemasonry is the improvement of man. Only in recent times (and more “advanced”!) some profane people have been able to assimilate and confuse this goal with the concept and belief in universal progress, an absurd identification that makes the alleged purpose of Freemasonry look ridiculous. [...] Only by forgetting the initiatory character of Freemasonry it is possible to deny that the purpose of Freemasonry consists in the perfection of the individual, which can be achieved through a rite, that is, said in Masonic language, in the squaring of the rough stone and in its transmutation into the cubic stone of mastery. And all this must be done by following the rules of “the Art”»⁹.

It is clear how and how much Reghini understood the distinction between the initiatory and traditional Freemasonry of the origins and the modernist-Enlighted and pseudo-initiatory Freemasonry of his time. And we must sadly point out that, in the last decades that separate us from the great Florentine Initiate, very little has changed. Modern Freemasonry seems to be devoted to a generic “progress of humanity”, neglecting the personal/individual initiatory elevation of its members. We can see that Reghini was determined to fight to contribute to a return of the Masonic institution to its more authentic origins. Origins that seemed very clear to Reghini when he wrote that «Freemasonry, with its ceremonial initiation, is presented as a continuation in the modern times of the classical Mysteries, entrusted to a trade guild specialized in sacred architecture»¹ºand that «the numerical and geometric symbolism of Freemasonry is the Pythagorean symbolism and, since it is free from any Christian infusion, it may be that the fusion of guild symbolism and Pythagorean symbolism [...] is not a question of recent innovation but simply a very ancient one»¹¹.

In summary, Reghini clearly highlighted the purely Pythagorean character and nature (pure and archaic) of three of the fundamental symbols of Freemasonry: The Luminous Delta, the Flaming Star, and the Tripartite Table. Furthermore, it is significant that the symbolic meaning of the sacred numbers known only to Freemasons coincides fully with Pythagorean Philosophy. Moreover, also other different elements of Pythagorean character could be indicated in the mystery, in the vow of silence, and in the discipline imposed on the novice, as well as in the fraternal bond symbolized by the wavy ribbon, etc.

In 1906, at the beginning of his Masonic path, Reghini showed that he had already well understood the profound degeneration of the Institution and called for the recovery of the most authentic principles of Occult Philosophy, «without too much fear of casting pearls before swine: swine will pass by the pearls and will not see them!»¹². And he urged people to drink «from the fresh Italian spring of the Pythagorean and Neoplatonic Tradition»¹³.

And, in the same year, he strongly denounced that «the contemporary Freemasons have for the ancient occult sciences the Devil’s sympathy for holy water, and not being able to officially deny their true origins, they content themselves with denying it with facts, considering it as a sort of original sin of the Order»¹⁴.

In this regard, in 1910 René Guénon wrote: «one should never forget the initiatory character of Freemasonry, which is not and cannot be, whatever has been said, neither a political club nor a mutual aid association » and that many people « too often forget that a true initiation must necessarily be largely personal»¹⁵.

As evidence of what I have just stated, in relation to the guilty amnesiac attitude of many modern Masonic communions and their ill-concealed masochistic desire to step on the past and the very origins of the institution – without bothering for obvious and understandable reasons other Apprentices and Comrades – it may be sufficient to question a certain number of Master Brothers to see that most of them ignore, almost or totally, the fundamental Masonic texts, the regulations, and catechisms of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Furthermore, they even ignore the works and the figures of great Brothers from the (recent) past, such as Arturo Reghini, Amedeo Rocco Armentano, Jean Marie Ragon, Albert Pike, Pericle Maruzzi, Gastone Ventura, or Robert Ambelain!

Moreover, it is a pity to see how, again in the context of the main Masonic communions (as far as Italy is concerned, I am referring mainly to the Grande Oriente d’Italia (GOI) and to the Gran Loggia d’Italia of the ALAM), the quality level of the Tablets elaborated inside the blue Lodges is absolutely scarce. Many Brothers who intend to engage in the writing of these Tablets which concern esoteric or mysterious issues or issues relating to the most authentic historical origins of the Institution, are often dissuaded from doing it by some Venerable Master. Such Masters often do not even know certain realities, or – and this is even worse – those who want to write such tablets are marginalized. It is extremely curious to notice how, whenever a historian or a researcher – especially if not aligned with the vulgate or with certain hard-to-touch “paradigms” – publishes research based on the history and origins of Freemasonry, presenting well-founded proofs of their discoveries, immediately becomes the subject of an unprecedented crossfire. Moreover, he is relentlessly branded (at best) as an “alternative” or “sui generis” historian, with the undisguised intent to demolish his credibility. In this regard, it is emblematic the case of the scrupulous British historians Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, not surprisingly branded as “alternative” by Ian Gittins because of their fundamental discoveries that prove and confirm the historical link between those Templars who fled to Scotland after the dissolution of the Order in the fourteenth century and who took refuge under the protection of Robert The Bruce, and the development and evolution of the Masonic Lodges in that territory.

Few people know that an internationally renowned writer like Dan Brown, for the writing of his most successful bestseller, The Da Vinci Code, has heavily drawn from the discoveries and publications of Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh. Furthermore, the name of one of the characters of this novel, the controversial Leigh Teabing, is nothing but the fruit of a facetious fusion of their last names. As few know that these two historians filed a lawsuit against Dan Brown at the end of 2005, accusing him of plagiarism!

While the often ominous – and harbinger of gross as well as blatant errors – online encyclopedia Wikipedia undeservedly spreads obvious boondoggle, such as «There is no evidence that esoteric elements were present in the Masonic rituals of the first lodges»¹⁶,on June 24th, 2017, millions of Freemasons all over the world celebrated the 300th anniversary of the establishment of the Grand Lodge of London with great fanfare. This event is considered – more wrongly than rightly, in both the Masonic and the profane spheres – more than a simple aggregation of the four Lodges in the London area (as it actually was). It is even seen as the birth of “modern” Freemasonry, or worse than ever, as the full transition from an “operative” Freemasonry to a “speculative” one. Actually, we know very well that “modern” Freemasonry, or at least Freemasonry as we mean it today, had already asserted itself, perfectly and completely, at least a century earlier. In fact, during the seventeenth century, mainly in Scotland and in England, there was a full and complete transition from “operativity” to “speculativity” occurred.

If we dwell for a moment on the issue – debated by many historians – of the “accepted”, ie the phenomenon of acceptance within the ancient “operative” Masonic Lodges of “speculative” members who, selected on the basis of different criteria , would have brought, with their entrance into the free-masonry context, a purely intellectual contribution to the collective work of the Lodges, we see that it is a false controversial issue. In fact, as many and authoritative ancient sources attest, it was a fairly widespread practice – and therefore far from infrequent, already practiced in the early Middle Ages. So much so that the esteemed French historian Christian Jacq¹⁷ has documented real cases and examples, which can be found even in Germany in the eighth and ninth centuries! And, despite what the clichés say about the alleged “speculative turning point” of the eighteenth century, it is amply demonstrated that already at the beginning of the seventeenth century, particularly after 1620, in the area of the Masonic Lodges present on the territory English, the “speculative members” had already outnumbered the “operative ones”. So much so that, according to Christian Jacq, a census of members of a Lodge in Aberdeen dating back to 1670 shows that there were thirty-nine “speculative” members and only ten “operative ones”.

Even René Guénon, in 1926, on the actual antiquity of the phenomenon of the “accepted ones”, wrote that: «It seems to us indisputable that the two operative and speculative aspects have always worked together in the guilds of the Middle Ages, which employed clearly hermetic expressions such as “Great Work”, with different applications, but always analogously corresponding to each other»¹⁸.

And yet, despite these multiple evidences, supported by solid documentary proofs, questionable books continue to be published, such as a recent essay by Brother Rocco Ritorto who, with candid ease and blunt simplicity, states that: «On June ٢٤th, ١٧١٧, at the “Goose and Gridiron” tavern in London, as everybody knows, the members of four Masonic Lodges met and converted the old operative Masonry into speculative Masonry»¹⁹.

This statement, which reflects a very consolidated commonplace both inside and outside our Temples, is the full demonstration of how many, too many, in the Masonic sphere still ignore, or pretend to ignore, that in the second half of the seventeenth century, in particular between 1660 and 1688 (therefore several decades before 1717), Freemasonry had already evolved from operative to speculative. And during those times, in Great Britain, a real “Masonic Golden Age” took place. In fact, it had already fully established itself, much more firmly than the Anglican Church, as a great unifying force of English societies. It could offer, as the British historians Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh have rightly pointed out, «a “democratic” forum where the King or a commoner, aristocrats and artisans, intellectuals and workers, could meet and, within the lodge, devote themselves to issues of mutual interest»²º.

For what reason, then, in the Masonic sphere at international level, do we continue to give an enormous and disproportionate importance to the birth of the Grand Lodge of London in 1717? So much so that this has brought us, with guilty permissiveness, to the wrong belief – extremely widespread among the profane historians – that Freemasonry itself was born in 1717. As if its long previous history must be ignored or even erased with a stroke of the pen!

Before answering this fundamental question, we need to be clear about it. On June 24th, 1717 (St. John’s Day) the United Grand Lodge of England was not created at all, as some contemporary historians like to write, simply... just its premises were established. The four Lodges that met that day at The Goose and Gridirion brewery in St. Paul’s Church Yard, three from London and one from Westminster (the Goose and Gridirion Lodge, the Crown Lodge, the Apple Three Lodge, and the Rummer and Grapes Lodge)²¹ they created a structure, the Grand Lodge of London. It centrally coordinated and organized the works of the Lodges in the areas of London and Westminster. Only later this “structure” took the name of Grand Lodge of England, when it succeeded, not without much resistance and difficulty, in extending its jurisdiction to other lodges in England.

The Grand Lodge of England maintained this name until 1813. That year its members met with the Ancient Grand Lodge of England (also known as the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of England) – as in July 17th, 1751 there was a split, at the instigation of a group of Irish Freemasons dissatisfied with the work of the G.L.E.: they accused the G.L.E. of having betrayed the ancient principles of Freemasonry. Thus, the still existing United Grand Lodge of England (U.G.L.E.) was created.

According to the opinion of some eminent historians of Freemasonry, who represent courageous lone voices, what happened in 1717 would not be a celebration. It would have been not the creation of “modern” Freemasonry, but a real “coup” within the Masonic institution, dictated by purely political and political-religious reasons. In order to fully understand this affirmation and the extent of certain events that took place three centuries ago, the history of England and the particular historical-political context in which the meeting at the Goose and Gridirion took place must be well understood and clear. The Grand Lodge of London was founded three years after Georg Ludwig Von Braunschweig-Lüneburg, Prince of Hanover and Elector of the Holy Roman Empire, was crowned King of Great Britain and Ireland under the name of George I, and less than two years after the end of the first Jacobite uprising of 1715.

I will certainly talk about this context in the future, since it represents an essential reading key to understand this delicate issue.

«Everything indicates – Brother Joseph De Maistre states, clearly referring to the degeneration of Freemasonry after 1717 – that “vulgar” Freemasonry is nothing but a detached, and perhaps corrupted, branch of an ancient and respectable lineage»²².

A century later, René Guénon expressed the same thought. In one of his articles published in 1926, he denounced that «one is too often wrong to think only of modern Freemasonry without reflecting on the fact that the latter is simply the product of a deviation. The first responsible for this deviation, it seems, were the Protestant pastors Anderson and Desaguliers, who drafted the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England, published in ١٧٢٣. They also got rid of all the ancient documents they could find, because nobody had to notice the innovations they were planning, and also because those documents contained formulas that they considered to be very embarrassing»²³.

Even the French writer Marius Lepage, one of the most eminent Masonry historians, bluntly states that «since that sad day [June 24th, 1717] the decline of the most authentically traditional Freemasonry has begun»²⁴.

But the real, or at least the pivotal meaning of the “deviation” or “coup” of 1717 was masterfully interpreted and explained by Vittorio Vanni in the essay I have already mentioned. A meaning that, as Vanni explains, is at the base of multiple problems of contemporary Freemasonry. This essay has generated a nefarious Masonic prejudice that prevails even today in many communions: that of the so-called “legitimation” that English Freemasonry (and no one knows by what right) has arrogated for itself since the eighteenth century. A legitimation that is “granted” by the United Grand Lodge of England and that is based on historical-political and religious parameters that England has always tried to impose. Parameters that not only have very little in common with the essentiality of Freemasonry, but which, very often, turn out to be in contrast with it.

The basic axioms of English “regularity” are specific only to its very nature (which is more than legitimate due to the principle of respect for other opinions), but they become ignobly oppressive when one tries to impose them on other Masonic contexts.

Freemasonry, and to a great extent even the American one, in the last three centuries has created and powerfully applied the meta-historical myth of the “just war” to the throne and the altar, to the point of making it history of civilization, as well as a social and spiritual evolution. English Freemasonry has instead, from the beginning, identified itself with the throne and the altar, trying to impose its national political-religious vision on the whole Masonic world.

The second axiom, according to Vanni, consists in the aseptic nature of the Order’s purely “corporative” and “artisan” alleged origin, in which the subsequent and progressive insertion of “accepted members” and of the “speculative ones” would have produced a cultural refinement of symbolism. And the abundant and fundamental traces of external esoteric “grafts” are ignored with extreme ease, if not denied!

The third axiom is the most insidious. It states that Esotericism must consist exclusively in a rituality that is formalistic, moralizing, and religious (“biblical” or “old-testamentary”). Every corporative trade secret is considered lost and replaced by a symbolic sublimation, which is accepted only because it is based on the social-cultural and religious parameters of an elite class that has already gone, together with its Empire. A class which in turn has been replaced by a more modest and even more formal “community” of subjects.

Vittorio Vanni points out that in English Freemasonry the great Western metaphysics, the mystery and sacral root of Freemasonry, the continuous contrast between history and meta-history – elements that have made the Order intolerant and revolutionary towards unfair society models and all organized religions – are all elements that are denied, ignored, or despised «with an hatred and an arrogance very similar to those of the ecclesiastical hierarchies of the monotheistic religions»²⁵. And, as Vanni states, «the most masonically correct expression of English Freemasonry does not consist in man’s free and individual impulse towards the One and the Absolute, but in the elegant suit or in the tuxedo with which one presents oneself in the Lodge, in the perfect performance of a ritual which is now emptied of any sacredness, of any spiritual influence, of any theophany, in the name of a profane custom, a mere ceremony, an obsolete and demodé label»²⁶.

In summary, according to Vanni, the creation of the Grand Lodge in London, «born from an irregular Lodge and not in possession of simple corporate connotations»²⁷, was certainly an innovation, but it was functional exclusively to the historical, political, and religious context of England and its models. Models that were masonically imposed to other European nations and beyond. Furthermore, Masonic rituals were stolen, and not created, by the Grand Lodge of London and spread rapidly throughout Europe, together with the Masonic “system”, through the never-ending ancient mystery and hermetic-magical network that had existed for centuries and which had already represented one of the foundations of ancient operative Freemasonry.

Finally, icing on the cake, Vittorio Vanni, in another chapter of his book, bluntly denounces another serious degeneration imposed by England on Freemasonry. On September 4th, 1929, the United Grand Lodge of England approved and published a universal declaration of the fundamental principles to which it would have subordinated the recognition of other Grand Lodges from then on: «That a belief in U.G.L.E. and in its revealed will is an essential qualification for belonging. That all the Initiated assume their commitments on, or in full view of, the Book of the Sacred Law, for which we mean the revelation from above that is binding on the conscience of the particular individual who wants to become an initiated»²⁸.

The United Grand Lodge of England, as Vanni denounces, «with this declaration violated the inalienable principle of the universality of Freemasonry, indicating in the Book of the Sacred Law not a symbol, but the revealed truth itself of a U.G.L.E. that, according to their interpretation, it is nothing but the Judeo-Christian Jehovah»²⁹.

Freemasonry, having by its nature an inalienable conceptual approach to conceptual relativism (based on tolerance and respect for others’ beliefs and opinions), cannot codify in a “confessional” manner, in any text, an alleged “Absolute Truth”, and above all a “revealed truth”, except by using any sacred text of humanity as a symbol that everyone can subjectively interpret according to full consciousness.

At this point a necessary reflection must be made on the most authentic origins and on the roots of Freemasonry. A thought that cannot be expressed in a few pages, so here I will not talk about it exhaustively. As I would like to reiterate, it is a reflection – or rather a set of reflections – that I hope can be a stimulus for the future research.

Brother Thomas Paine (1737-1809), signatory of the American Declaration of Independence, was sure that the most remote origins of Freemasonry were to be found in an ancient solar cult of Druidic origin. In his famous essay On the Origin of Free-Masonry³º – published posthumously in 1810, an essay that today Aurora Boreale Editions propose to its readers in a new edition personally edited by me – in relation to the antiquity of the institution, stated: «From Masonic tales and statements of the highest level in the Institution, we can observe that Freemasonry, without declaring it publicly, is based on the claim of some divine communication from the Creator, in a different way and not connected with the book that the Christians call the Bible; and naturally, knowing this, we can say that Freemasonry comes from some very ancient religion, completely independent and distinct from that book».

Regarding the alleged Celtic-Druidic origin of Freemasonry, on which Paine very much insisted in his essay – it is certainly an interesting and intriguing theory that in the past was notoriously embraced and shared with enthusiasm even by great men, starting from Brother John Toland³¹ in the eighteenth century until, in more recent times, it came to the mind of the deviated Freemason and war criminal Winston Churchill³² – I deepen this topic more broadly in my preface to the aforementioned edition. I have shown that it cannot just be simplified as a matter of pure imagination or mere folklore. It would be improper and misleading to affirm, as some authors of the past did – including Thomas Paine himself – that the ancient operative Free-masonry could derive or derive directly from an ancient solar cult of Celtic-Druidic origin. However, it should be kept in mind that in the collective memory of different European peoples, first of all the English, the Welsh, the Scots and the Irish, the ancient Celtic-Druidic religion has always had a special place. In fact, it has had a decisive influence on the popular traditions, on the epic, and on literature, more than in other places in the continent and in the Mediterranean area with the other multiple pre-Christian traditions and expressions of religion. This has given rise to the widespread “belief” that some ancient Druidic brotherhoods, already taking refuge at the time of the Roman domination in the British Isles, escaping from a forced Christianization imposed by the monks who came from the continent, would have handed down their traditions, unchan-ged, to the native people. They would have transmitted them to those primary brotherhoods of artisans and builders who formed the basis of the medieval operative Freemasonry. There is clearly no evidence or sufficient proofs to support such “filiation”. However, it is emblematic that, as the historian Archibald Alexander McBeth Duncan has pointed out³³, Scotland was «the only Celtic realm with independent and well-defined political institutions in the early Middle Ages»³⁴. And it still appeared as such in the first half of the fourteenth century, in the days of Robert the Bruce, the Sovereign bearer of freedom and independence for Scotland. During his reign, he welcomed numerous knights and dignitaries of the Order of the Temple and protected them under his wing. In fact, the Templars were on the run after the formal dissolution of the order. Robert the Bruce saved them from persecution and allowed the Templar Order to survive and thrive on Scottish soil, albeit in formal secrecy. Thus, the Templars could continue their long-established and consolidated ties with the Lodges of operative Freemasonry. And the goal of Robert the Bruce, as highlighted by the historians Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh³⁵, was the restoration of a purely Celtic kingdom, with specific Celtic institutions. A kingdom inspired directly by the glorious historical experience of the Celtic-feudal kingdom of Dauíd Mac Maíl Choluim, better known as David I° (1124-1153). But the influence that the Scottish-Celtic culture had at that time on the Masonic Lodges and on the brotherhoods of builders present in the region and on their rituals is not sufficient to hypothesize, or even – as many have tried to do – to “prove” an alleged derivation of the latter from the ancient “solar” religion of the Druids. Furthermore, some people argue, as Thomas Paine did, that the Christian religion and Freemasonry have an identical common origin in the ancient cult of the Sun. A naive simplification and an erroneous interpretation of the historical reality that led Paine himself to affirm that «The religion of the Druids was the same perpetuated by the ancient Egyptians»!

Other respectable authors (including the Freemasons Marie Alexandre Lenoir, Joseph Schauberg, Paul Joachim Siegmund Vogel, John Fellows, Robert Alfred Vaughn, Thomas Inman, John Yarker, Thomas Holland, John Sebastian Marlow Ward, Albert Gallatin Mackey, John Adam Weisse, Henry Coleman, Robert Hewitt Brown, Dudley W right) have instead turned their attention, while researching the most remote origins of Freemasonry, to the ancient cults of Egypt or to the mystery cults of Greece and the related Initiatory Schools. However, in my humble opinion, everyone has been able to grasp only some aspects of the truth. On the other hand, as Guénon wisely said, «if we really want to go back to the origins (of Freemasonry), supposing that the thing is possible with the necessarily fragmentary information available on this matter, we should certainly go back beyond the Middle Ages, and even beyond Christianity»³⁶.

The theory of an alleged Jewish origin of Freemasonry and its rituals needs to be debunked – or at least to be strongly resized. A theory fed by the actual presence, in rituals and in the vast symbolic collection within speculative Freemasonry, from the second half of the eighteenth century up to modern times, of numerous Jewish terminologies and frequent references to the Old Testament.

The vast majority of “biblical” references and the relative symbology present both in the Masonic Temples and in the paintings and in the rituals of post-eighteenth-century speculative Freemasonry (references, to be honest, already present in medieval Masonic texts such as the Manuscript Regius) and even in the Constitutions of James Andreson in 1723, they can be easily explained by the large presence, within the English Lodges – both in the long phase prior to 1717 and later – of exponents of the clergy, who were mainly Presbyterians and Anglicans.

Andreson, as a good pastor of the Scottish Presbyterian Church, even went to the “source”, stating that Adam, the first man, was an architect, and therefore a Mason!

Even a writer like Ian Gittins can be right about one thing when he says that «it cannot be denied that the proliferation of improbable theories about the origins of Freemasonry is largely attributable to the brotherhood itself»³⁷.

Regardless of the many theories – numerous and heterogeneous, if not sometimes fanciful and misleading, also and above all in the Masonic environment – on the origins of Freemasonry, if we do not consider the most abstruse and far-fetched ones about an institution even pre-existent or coeval to the Creation, theories that fantasize about the presence of a Lodge even in the Earthly Paradise and on other biblical amenities (fantasies, to tell the truth, already present in many degrees in some well-known Masonic documents from the Middle Ages), there is no doubt that Freemasonry has inherited and acquired over the centuries various and multiple strands of ancient mystery traditions. Even if these strands are incomplete and fragmentary, Freemasonry has repeatedly tried, and not always in a happy way, to make a synthesis or conjugation of them.

On one thing there is full concordance among the historians, both Masonic and profane: in tracing back, beyond the hagiographic myths and conjectures, the embryonic origins of what would become the Freemasonry back to the architectural Collegia of ancient Rome. These Collegia were associative organizations of both initiatory and operative nature, characterized (already in the Republican Age) by a wide autonomy, a certain juridical personality, particular tax exemptions, and by a great freedom of movement, decidedly superior to that which could characterize other professional corporations, which in ancient Rome were very numerous and regulated by specific laws.

In ancient times, the teaching of the arts and crafts was carried out secretly and was based on a real gradual initiation path. And it was obvious to do so, during a period of time when there was not yet a modern and deceptive distinction/separation between science and religion. In pre-Christian antiquity, as I explain in my essay From Eleusis to Florence: the transmission of a secret knowledge³⁸, science and religion were not considered two distinct spheres that had to remain forcibly separated. These were perfectly communicating, and sometimes interpenetrating, vessels. In the classical world, man was closer to the Gods and, at the same time – in a real exchange and union – the Gods were closer to man. And it was precisely from the Gods that men had received precise teachings, rules, doctrines and the answers to the greatest questions that humanity, since its exit from the caves, had begun to ask itself: Who are we? Where do we come from? Where do we go?

Even before Rome arose, the ancient Hellenes – and before them the Cretans and Aegeans who were part of the great Minoan civilization – did not conceive that everybody could learn, without distinction and without precautions, not only the foundations of religions and spiritual doctrines, but also Philosophy, Science, and to Art. Pausanias, who was initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries, stated that all the scholars of Greece had always expressed themselves for enigmas (in a symbolic and allegorical language) to allude to certain truths hiding the true meaning from the profane people, thus leaving only to the Initiated the opportunity to understand them³⁹.

It was a custom that the Roman civilization was able to understand well from the Greek world, adapting it to its own political and social context. A context notoriously based on the Pax Deorum et Hominum, on the justice of the relations both between the religious sphere and men, and among men themselves as well. A pivotal concept of the Roman institutions, in which the pious, the one who possessed pietas, was the one who had a correct relationship with the Gods and his fellows. The worst thing was that a citizen lacked this relationship, and the figure of the Emperor could not fail to deal with the maintenance of this Pax, since the civil power had within itself the concept of relationship with the Deities.

If already in ancient Greece the learning and teaching of Crafts, Sciences, Philosophy, and Arts was based on a primary initiatory path, it was obvious and natural that even in the Roman society certain Arts were considered sacred. For example, architecture and building were managed by particular Collegia which possessed both an operative and initiatory nature. And the Roman tradition attributed the origin of these Collegia to Numa Pompilio, who, around 714 B.C. would have established the Collegia Artificum (Colleges of the Managers), above which there were the Collegia Fabrorum (Architectural Colleges), real sodalidates or fraternitates, that is to say associations of brotherhood founded precisely on the initiatory bond and on certain secrets, of which they were the custodians. As pointed out by Andrea Cuccia⁴º, they were the custodians not only of the architectural notions of their time, but also of the wisdom that the great King Legislator Numa had received directly from the Nymph Egeria⁴¹.

The Collegia Artificum and Fabrorum, which held the secrets and the knowledge necessary for the construction of buildings, both sacred and for public use, developed and spread throughout the course of Roman history, in the municipal cities and in the provinces, touching their apex of spread during the Imperial Age. Many historical evidences attest their presence, as well as in Italy, in the Gauls (in particular in the present South of France and in Lyon), in Spain, in Germany (Trier) and in England (York). However, it is believed that already during the golden age of the Antonines they were present and rooted in every province of the Empire, contributing in an exemplary way to the construction of the Roman cities and their main buildings, wherever the Roman legions affirmed their victories with their weapons.