STOP!
Don't be deceived!

Learn the facts about
Freemasons!

Click below for
More Secrets Revealed

The History of Freemasonry

by Albert Gallatin Mackey

Chapter 26 - Transition from Operative to Speculative Freemasonry

THE history of the institution of Freemasonry is naturally divided into two distinct yet closely connected periods. The first period embraces the history of Operative Freemasonry; the second that of Speculative Freemasonry.

But the first of these periods did not pass at once and, as it were, by a leap into the second. The change which took place was a gradual one. The steps which led from the one to the other were almost imperceptible. The progress was slow and gradual. There was a time when all Freemasonry was purely Operative, and there was a time when it became solely Speculative. We have abundant facts to prove this statement. But it is impossible from any records in our possession to define the precise epoch when the change took place.

The naturalist with all the science in his possession is at a loss to determine the precise limits which bound the different kingdoms of nature. The mineral passes by an imperceptible gradation into the vegetable, and the highest species of the vegetable assimilate with a remarkable likeness of organization to the lowest tribes of the animal kingdom. It requires even in this advanced state of science, the largest amount of professional knowledge and experience to determine in certain instances to which division of nature certain specimens rightly belong.

So in the history of the Masonic institution, there are well-marked eras in its annals when we are at no loss to define the distinctive character of its workings. There are again points on the extreme limits of its two periods, when the Operative and the Speculative elements are so intimately connected and clash so confusedly together, like the prismatic colours of the spectrum, that it becomes extremely difficult, if not absolutely impossible, to define the precise line of demarcation.

Thus we know with certainty that the Freemasonry of the 12th century, which had penetrated every country of the Continent of Europe, was wholly Operative, without a particle of the Speculative element in it; we know, too, that the Freemasonry of the 19th century, which prevails over the whole civilized world, is entirely Speculative and has ceased to have any social connection with the Operative Craft.

But at what precise period the Operative art ceased to form a part of the institution of Freemasonry, and when the Speculative science threw off all connection with it, are historical questions which admit hardly of a possible conjecture, certainly not of any positive solution.

A great difficulty which we encounter in the discussion of this subject is that the change from one to the other branch began to assume a distinct form in different countries at different periods.

Thus, in London, Speculative Freemasonry had assumed a distinct and independent form many years before the lodges of Scotland had divested themselves of the Operative influence, and even in the same kingdom there were English lodges in the provinces which mingled Operative and Speculative Freemasonry in their work, long after the former system had been wholly abandoned by the lodges in the Metropolis.

Though it is probable that most readers understand the distinction between Masonry and Freemasonry, it may be well to impress that distinction upon their minds, that during this investigation they may perfectly appreciate the train of reasoning that is pursued.

Masonry is merely the art of building. It has existed from the earliest historic times, when men began to need places of shelter from the inclemency of the seasons, and must continue to exist so long as they require houses for their habitation. With its history we have no concern. Freemasonry is the art of building connected in its practical operations with a Guild organization. It was always a confraternity or corporation constituted on the plan of a guild, and maintaining throughout all its progress that idea derived first from the Roman Colleges of Artificers, until finally it was merged in the non-operative system of Freemasonry, which exists at the present day and whose history it is the object of the present work to treat.

This distinction, it will be remembered, never ceased to be maintained by the Operative Freemasons, who always held themselves aloof as a higher class from the lower body of "rough masons" who were not "free" of the guild.

In pursuing our researches into that indefinable period during which the Operative organization was slowly advancing to a transformation into a Speculative society, it will be necessary that we should first thoroughly understand one of the characteristics which marked the Freemasons of the Middle Ages, and which rendered them unlike every other class of contemporary craftsmen.

This was the admission into their ranks and into full fraternity with them of non-professional persons, whose only claim to a connection with the craft was derived from their learning, their rank, or their wealth, which gave them the means of elevating the character and promoting the interests of the fraternity.

We have seen the existence of the same system in the Roman Colleges of Artificers, who strengthened their corporations by the adoption of men of rank and political influence as Patrons.

The early Freemasons were patronized by the Church, and were engaged almost solely in the construction of religious edifices. Hence there was a close and friendly connection between them and the ecclesiastics of that period. Lodges were for the most part held in the vicinity and under the patronage of monasteries, and the monks were often architects and builders. At a later period, when the Freemasons became independent of monastic influence, the primitive alliance was not completely dissolved, and the clergy, especially in France, in Germany, and in England, were often admitted, though not professional Masons, into the corporation of the Craft. They were among the first of non-masons who received from Operative Lodges the compliment of honourary membership.

The result of thus securing the patronage of bishops and other high ecclesiastics was, of course, favourable to the interests of the corporations of workmen and was, to a great extent, the controlling motive with them, as it had previously been with the Roman Colleges, for introducing into their guild men who were not of the Craft.

It was seen in the 12th and 13th centuries, when the corporations, not only of Masons but of other crafts, having sought to exercise undue power in the cities, incurred the displeasure of the government. Many sanguinary contests ensued, with alternate successes. But when the Emperors Frederick II. and Henry VII. of Germany sought to end them by abolishing the corporations of workmen, these associations had grown so strong that they were able to successfully resist the Imperial power. (1)

Dr. Anderson, in the second edition of the Book of Constitutions, gives repeated instances of bishops, noblemen, and even kings, who were admitted to the privileges of the Craft and exercised authority over the Operative Masons as members and patrons of the guild. But as the accuracy of Anderson as an historian has ceased to be respected through the researches of modern scholars, his authority on this subject need not be pressed. Elias Ashmole, however, whose truthfulness and minuteness as an annalist has never been doubted, furnishes unquestioned instances in which he and other gentlemen had been made members of an Operative Lodge in the 17th century. Nor does he speak of these admissions as if they were of unusual occurrence. Indeed, he leads us, by his silence, to the contrary inference.

But it is in the annals of the lodges of Scotland that we find the most satisfactory history of the rise and progress of the custom of admitting persons who were not Operative Masons as members of the guild. For this we are indebted to the researches of Bro. Murray Lyon, whose History of the Lodge of Edinburgh is of invaluable use to the scholar who is seeking to trace the authentic history of Freemasonry outside and independent of its mythical elements. To that work I shall have constant occasion to refer in the course of the part of the present investigation.

Lyon says that the earliest authentic record of a non-operative being a member of a Masons' lodge is contained in a minute of the Lodge of Edinburgh under date of June 8, 1600, where John Boswell Laird, of Achinflek, is mentioned among the members of the lodge. His name with his mark is signed to the minute with the names and marks of twelve others who evidently were Operative Masons. (2)

But twelve years anterior to that, in 1598, we find that William Schaw, who was also a non-operative, (3) acted as Master of the Work,

(1) Lacroix, "Le Moyen Age et la Renaissance," tom. iii., Part I., art. 3. (2) Lyon, "History of the Lodge of Edinburgh," p. 51. (3) Lyon thinks that there is no proof that he was an Operative Mason, and says there can be little doubt that he was an honourary member of the fraternity. "Hist.," p. 56.

and that a year afterward he signed his name to the supplementary statutes issued by him, as "Master of the Work, Warden of the Masons."

His predecessor in that office was a nobleman, and in his own time the Wardenship over the Masons in Aberdeen, Banff, and Kincardine was held by a country gentleman, the Laird of Udaught, which shows, says Lyon, "that it was not necessary that either appointment should be held by a Craftsman." But there is just reason for inferring that to hold such offices it was necessary to have honourary membership in the fraternity.

At a later period in the 17th century the practice of admitting non-operatives appears to have begun to be common.

In July, 1634, the Lodge of Edinburgh admitted as Fellow-Craft the following gentlemen: Lord Alexander, Viscount Canada, Sir Anthony Alexander, and Sir Alexander Strachan. The two first were sons of the Earl of Stirling, and the last a well-known public man in his time.

"These brethren," says Lyon, "seem from their subsequent attendance in the lodge to have felt an interest in its proceedings. In the month immediately succeeding their initiation they were present, and attested the admission of three Operative Apprentices and one Fellow of Craft. They attended three meetings of the lodge in 1635, one in 1636, and one in 1637. In signing the minute of their own reception each appends a mark to his name. (1)

Throughout the rest of the 17th century there are repeated records in the minutes of the Lodge of Edinburgh of the admission of nonoperatives to the rank of Fellow-Crafts and sometimes of Masters.

Thus, in 1637, David Ramsay, a "gentleman of the Privy Chamber," was admitted; in 1638, Henry Alexander, another son of the Earl of Stirling; in 1640, General Alexander Hamilton; in 1667, Sir Patrick Hume; and in 1670, the Right Honourable William Murray, son of Lord Balvaird, and Walter Pringle and Sir John Harper, both members of the Scotch Bar.

It is not necessary to cite any more instances to show that in the 17th century the practice existed of admitting non-operative persons into the brotherhood of the Craft. In the 18th century it had become

(1) Lyon, p. 86.

so common as finally to give to the Speculative element a preponderance over the Operative in the fraternity.

The following remarks of Bro. Lyon on the subject of the admission of non-operatives into the membership of the Craft are of great value in connection with this subject:

"It is worthy of remark that with singularly few exceptions, the non-operatives who were admitted to Masonic fellowship in the Lodges of Edinburgh and Kilwinning during the 17th century were persons of quality, the most distinguished of whom, as the natural result of its metropolitan position, being made in the former lodge. Their admission to fellowship in an institution composed of operative Masons associated together for purposes of their craft, would in all probability originate in a desire to elevate its position and increase its influence, and once adopted the system would further recommend itself to the Fraternity, by the opportunities which it presented for cultivating the friendship and enjoying the society of gentlemen, to whom, in ordinary circumstances, there was little chance of their ever being personally known.

"On the other hand, non-professionals connecting themselves with the lodge by the ties of membership would, we believe, be actuated partly by a disposition to reciprocate the feelings which had prompted the bestowal of the fellowship, partly by curiosity to penetrate the arcana of the Craft, and partly by the novelty of the situation as members of a secret society and participants in its ceremonies and festivities." (1)

The members thus admitted received various designations, such as "Gentlemen Masons," "Theoretical Masons," "Geomatic Masons," and "Honourary Members." The use of these terms evidently shows that the Working Masons - the "Domatic Masons," (2) as Lyon styles them - recognized that there was a very palpable difference

(1) "History of the Lodge of Edinburgh," p. 81. (2) The words domatic, used for an Operative Mason, and geomatic, for a Theoretic Mason I have met with only in the work of Bro. Lyon. They are not to be found in the Scottish dictionary of Jamieson, nor in any English Dictionary from Phillips to Webster. Neither are they used in any of the old Constitutions, Scotch or English, nor have I encountered them in any Masonic work that I have read. Lyon derives domatic from the Latin domus, a house, and says it means "of or belonging to a house." Geomatic he derives from the Greek gea, land, and he says Geomatic Masons were "landed proprietors or men in some way or other connected with agriculture." I do not like the words. I like less the definitions, and still less the etymology.

between the two classes of members. It is well to remember this fact, as it supplies one of the motives for the result which afterward occurred in the complete separation of the Speculative from the Operative element.

The Scotch Constitutions of 1598 and 1599 were certainly constructed solely for the government of Operative Masons. Yet there is no prohibition, express or implied, of the admission of non-operatives as members of lodges. The fact that Schaw, the framer of the Constitutions, was himself present at a meeting of the Lodge of Edinburgh, where a non-operative took a part in the proceedings, shows that he did not view such admissions as illegal innovations on the usages and laws of the fraternity.

We are not without the requisite information as to the status of these "Honourary Members."

The form of initiation or admission must have differed in some respects from that prescribed for an Operative Mason. The presentation of an "essay" or Master-piece of work, as a trial of skill, must have been dispensed with in the case of candidates whose previous education and profession had not supplied them with the necessary mechanical knowledge.

"It can not now be ascertained," says Bro. Lyon, "in what respect the ceremonial preceding the admission of theoretical, differed from that observed in the reception of practical Masons; but that there was some difference is certain, from the inability of non-professionals to comply with the tests to which Operatives were subjected ere they could be passed as Fellows of Craft. The former class of entrants would, in all likelihood, be initiated into a knowledge of the legendary history of the Mason Craft, and have the Word and such other secrets communicated to them as was necessary to their recognition as brethren." (1)

At first they were not chargeable with admission fees; but in 1727, when an attempt was made to exclude them on account of this exemption, a fee of one guinea was exacted as entrance money. But this was done at so late a period that we may infer that exemption from fees was the usage with respect to all "Theoretic Masons," while the lodges were purely Operative in character.

Notwithstanding this exemption, Theoretic Masons were qualified

(1) Lyon, "History of the Lodge of Edinburgh," p. 82.

to hold the highest office in the lodge. Lyon says that "for a time the occupancy of the chair alternated between the two grand classes into which its membership was divided. Though to Speculative concurrence the Operative section owed the more frequent possession of the coveted honour." (1)

In Scotland the Operatives and Speculatives do not appear to have lived always in peace and concord; some jealousy seems to have existed at times, which finally culminated in the year 1727 in an attempt by the Operatives to exclude Theoretical Masons from the lodge. "Exclusion" is the word used by Lyon, by which I suppose he means not only the expulsion of the Theoretic Masons who had been already admitted, but also the discontinuance in future of the custom of admitting them.

The attempt did not succeed. Speculative Masonry was already the preponderating element in the lodges, which a few years afterward abandoned in Scotland, as they had long before done in England, the Operative character.

It is admitted that the earliest authentic record of the admission of "Gentlemen Masons" into the lodges of England, or in other words the introduction of the Speculative element, occurred in 1646, when Elias Ashmole, the celebrated antiquary, and Colonel Henry Mainwaring were made "Free-Masons" in a lodge at Warrington in Lancashire.

But it does not, by any means, follow, because this is the first recorded instance, that Theoretical Masons had not been admitted in England long before. But the records have not come down to us, because of the loss or disappearance of the ancient minute books of the English Operative lodges.

"Why," says Bro. W.J. Hughan, "so many minute books are still preserved in Scotland, dating long before the institution of the Grand Lodge, even some in the 17th century, and yet scarcely any are to be found in England, seems inexplicable." (2)

We, have a right to presume, judging by the usages of the sister kingdom, that the initiation of Ashmole and Mainwaring in 1646 was not the introduction of a new custom, but only the continuation of an old one.

(1) Lyon, "History of the Lodge of Edinburgh," p. 201. (2) "Masonic Sketches and Reprints," p. 19.

If we have not the names of those gentlemen who had previously been admitted to the fellowship of English lodges, it is because the records are not extant.

Many brave heroes, says the Roman poet, have lived before Agamemnon but they have died unwept, because there was no poet to sing their deeds.

The same thing may be said of the corporations and lodges of France and Germany. Though the records are not extant, we have collateral evidence that in both of them, as well as in other countries of the Continent, Theoretical or Honourary Members were admitted among the Operative craftsmen.

We may therefore lay it down as an authentic historical statement, which if not supported in other places as in Scotland by positive testimony, is yet sustained by the strongest logical inference, that from the earliest period, Speculative Masons who were not practical workmen, builders, or architects, began to be admitted into the ranks of the Operative Craft. As time passed on the number of these Speculatives increased, as in the nature of things must have occurred, until they predominated over the Operatives. Finally, when this predominance became sufficiently powerful, the control of Freemasonry passed into their hands, and as a necessary result the institution ceased to be Operative and became wholly Speculative in its character.

The terms "Gentleman Mason," "Theoretical Mason," and "Honourary Member," formerly employed to distinguish a non-Operative from an Operative, are no longer in use. For them has been substituted the word "Speculative." The thing itself was in existence long before the word which was to define it.

The first place in which we find the word Speculative in connection with Masonry is in the Cooke MS., whose conjectural date is about 1490. In this document it is said that the youngest son of King Athelstan, being a master of the Speculative science of geometry or masonry, added to it by his connection with the Craft of Masons a knowledge of the practical science. (1)

It must be admitted, as Bro. Cooke says, that "no book or

(1) He "lovyd well the sciens of Gemetry and he wyst well that hand craft had the practyke of the sciens of Gemetry so well as masons wherefore he drewe hym to consell and lernyd practyke of that sciens to his speculatye. For of speculatyfe he was a master and he lovyd well masonry and masons." - Cooke MS., lines 615, 626.

writing so early as this manuscript has yet been discovered in which Speculative Masonry is mentioned." (1) It is equally certain that the word appears to have been used in the sense given to it at the present day, and the writer of the manuscript drew a distinction between Practical or Operative and Speculative Masonry.

The word, however, is not repeated in any of the subsequent Constitutions, and we do not hear of it again until the time of Preston, who is the first to give its definition in these words :

"Masonry passes and is understood under two denominations; it is operative and speculative. By the former we allude to the useful rules of architecture, whence a structure derives figure, strength, and beauty, and whence result a due proportion and just correspondence in all its parts. By the latter we learn to subdue the passions, act upon the square, keep a tongue of good report, maintain secrecy, and practice charity." (2)

The lexicographers define Speculative as opposed to Practical. Hence, "Speculative Masons," the term used at the present day, is precisely synonymous with "Theoretic Masons," the term which was applied by the Scotch Masons of the 16th and 17th centuries to those persons who were admitted into their lodges though they had no practical knowledge of the Operative art of building.

In contemplating that period in the history of Freemasonry when the institution was gradually preparing for the important change in its organization from an Operative Art to a Speculative Science, which period may be called, borrowing a term from the language of geology, the transition period, we must first properly appreciate what was its real condition just previous to the change.

In the first place, we find that before the present organization of Grand and Subordinate Lodges, the Society was an Operative one whose members were actually engaged in the manual labour of building, as well as in the more intellectual task of architecture or the designing of plans.

But not every man who was engaged in building or in handling stones was a member of this society or entitled to its privileges. In every country were two distinct and well-recognized classes of workmen.

(1) Cooke MS., lines 615, 626, note K. (2) Preston, "Illustrations of Masonry," 2d edit., p. 19. In subsequent editions he enlarged the phraseology without materially changing the sense.

In Germany the Craftsman (Werkmann) of the Corporation was distinguished from the Maurer or wall builder, the man who simply hewed and set stones. The Craftsman, the Stonecutter, was employed in the higher walks of the art. These Craftsmen formed a fraternity of themselves, and no workman was permitted to work with a Mason who was not a member, except under special circumstances which were provided for by the regulations. These facts are well authenticated in the Strasburg and other German Ordinances.

In France, the regulations of Enenne Boileau prescribe a similar difference between the Masons and Stonecutters who were members of the Corporation and those who were not. The former could employ the latter only as assistants and servants (aides et vallis), but were forbidden to instruct them in any of the secrets of the mystery or trade.

In Scotland the Masons of the Guild, who were called, certainly as early as the middle of the 17th century, Freemasons, (1) were distinguished from the Masons who were not "free of the Guild," and who were called "Cowans," a term which has been preserved in the ritual of modern Speculative Freemasonry with a similar meaning. With the Cowans the Freemasons were forbidden to work."

In England the distinction was between Masons or Freemasons and "Rough layers," and the same prohibition as to fellowship in labour prevailed there that did in other countries.

Though all were Operative workmen and all were engaged in the practical art of building, there was in every country a broad line of demarcation between the Freemasons who were instructed in the highest principles of the art and the lower class of Masons, who were without any pretension to a knowledge of the sciences of architecture and geometry which were cultivated by the higher class.

"Those only," said the Strasburg builders, with an excusable pride in their elevated position, "shall be Masters who can design and erect costly edifices and works for the execution of which they are authorized and privileged, nor shall they be compelled to work with any other craftsmen." (2)

But this higher class of Freemasons were, as we have already

(1) See Lyon's "History of the Lodge of Edinburgh," P. 79. (2) "Strasburg Constitutions," art. 2.

seen, divided also into two classes, the Operative and the non-Operative members of the Guild, Corporation, or Fraternity.

It is not difficult to suppose how this division into two classes originally arose. In the earliest times of the society of Freemasons it was closely connected with and under the patronage of the Church. Among its practical members were often monks who were skilled in the manual labour of the Craft, and the architectural designs for the construction of Cathedrals and monasteries were often drawn by bishops or abbots who were well skilled in the theory of architecture. These sometimes from choice, and sometimes from necessity, in consequence of the intimate relations they held with it, became members of the Fraternity. Subsequently, when the Operative Masons had released themselves from the rule of their ecclesiastical superiors and had established an independent brotherhood, they found it politic, if not positively necessary, to secure the patronage of wealthy nobles, and men of rank and science, who by their social position secured protection to the association and elevated its character.

The same process had occurred in the Roman Colleges of Artificers, from whose peculiar organization the Freemasons had derived the idea of their own.

Thus it happened that the Fraternity of Freemasons consisted from the very earliest period of its history of two classes, the Operative Masons who did the work, and the Theoretic, or, as we now call them, the Speculative Masons.

The word "Speculative," as has been already shown, is of very modern origin. If the single passage in the Cooke MS. be excepted, it is never met with in any Masonic writing until after the organization of Grand Lodges.

I use it, in the present work, as a mere matter of convenience, because it is most familiar to the general reader as a recent synonym of the old word "Theoretic."

Thus there always existed, we may say, from the earliest times, so far as we can trace authentic history, two classes of Freemasons, namely, Operative and Speculative.

The Speculative Masons, however, though very definitely distinguished after the separation of the Fraternity from its monastic connections, from the Operative, by their want of practical skill, did not form an independent and distinct class.

In the lodges into which they were admitted they mingled with the members on a common footing. We presume that this was the case in all countries; we know that it was so in Scotland. They underwent a modified initiation into membership, in which of course the presentation of an essay, piece, or chef d'oeuvre was omitted; they assisted in the admission of new members, took part in the deliberations of the society on affairs of business, voted, and even held office.

Starting with our inquiries from the time when the Fraternity dissolved its connection with the monasteries, where it really played the role of a subordinate, we may well suppose that at first the number of these Speculative Masons or Honourary members must have been very small.

But they never could have been an insignificant element. The Operative Masons held the ascendency in members, but the Speculative Masons must have always exerted a powerful influence by their better culture, their wealth, and their higher social position.

These two elements of Freemasonry continued to exist together for a very long period of time. But at length, from causes which must be attributed to the increasing power and influence of the Speculative element, as well as to intellectual progress, there came a total and permanent disseverance of the two.

The precise time of this disseverance must be placed at the beginning of the 18th century, though it is evident that for some years previously the feeling which eventually led to it must have been gradually growing. The men of culture and science who were in constant communion with their operative associates, were getting dissatisfied with a society of mechanics who had lost much of that skill as architects which had given so bright a reputation to their predecessors of the Middle Ages, and who were now not very much superior to the "Cowans," the "wall builders," and the "rough layers" whom these skillful predecessors had so much contemned - contemned so much that the Freemasons would not work in common with them on the same building.

The first act of severance occurred in England in the year 1717, when the Grand Lodge of "Free and Accepted Masons" was organized, an event that has been very generally designated by Masonic writers by the rather questionable title of the Revival.

This was followed nineteen years afterward by the organization of the Grand Lodge of Scotland with similar methods.

Both of these bodies were formed by lodges that were Operative, but in each case the Operative character was abandoned, and the Grand lodges and the lodges under them became entirely Speculative; that is to say, they ceased to cultivate practical Masonry, and were composed for the most part of members who were totally ignorant of the Mystery of the handicraft of building.

In other countries the process of disseverance did not take place according to the English and Scottish method. Elsewhere than in those two countries the organization of Freemasonry as it prevailed in the Middle Ages had long ceased to exist.

In France the Corporations des Metiers and in Germany the Hutten had been abolished, though in both countries the Stonemasons still continued to maintain an organization, which, however, was outside of the law, and without legal protection or recognition.

But we must look for the real causes of the change from Operative to Speculative Masonry to England, for it was in that country that the change was first developed and consummated.

Masonic Secrets recommends the following sites:

Masonic Secrets

Chapters in Part 2

Back to Masonic Secrets Revealed

Masonic Secrets recommends the following sites:

Sacred-Magick.Com: The Esoteric Library