9 minute read
Shared Connections & Medieval Origins
SHARED CONNECTIONS & MEDIEVAL ORIGINS: THE LIVERYMAN, THE FREEMAN, AND THE FREEMASON
Jacob M. Bressman Senior Grand Warden
RWB Jacob M. Bressman
As with many things, the exact origin of Freemasonry may have been lost to the sands of time. We do not know with any type of certainty when, or how, the Masonic fraternity was formed. We do however have many theories, and legends, to help guide us in our search. One widely accepted theory among Masonic scholars is that Freemasonry arose from the medieval stonemasons’ guilds responsible for building the great cathedrals of Europe. Likewise, there is some evidence that the language and symbols used in Masonic rituals come from this time period. In fact, the oldest agreed-upon Masonic document referencing the Freemason is the Regius Poem, of which the earliest known copy is dated 1390, and which is believed to be a copy of an earlier work. We also know that in 1717, four Masonic Lodges gathered together in London at the Goose and Gridiron Tavern (originally the Mitre) to form the first Grand Lodge of England. It was therefore in 1717 that modern day Freemasonry was born. But what then of the time period leading up to 1717, and where did these original four Lodges come from?
The medieval trade guilds of London, which are referred to as Livery Companies, may offer an interesting possible answer to this question. Although likely of even older origin, we know that the Worshipful Company of Mercers is the premier, or first, Livery Company of the City of London, having been incorporated under a Royal Charter in 1394. Similarly, we know that the first historical record of the conferral of the Freedom of the City of London dates back to 1237. Curiously too, there is also a Livery Company known as the Worshipful Company of Masons, which was granted Arms in 1472 during the reign of King Edward IV. As with the mythology of the Freemasons, the Worshipful Company of Masons is stated to have played an exceedingly important role in regulating the stonemasons craft during the medieval period in London, and elsewhere within the region. While not formally established until the 15th century, there is evidence that a “craft of masons” existed beforehand.
We find our first written evidence of the existence of an organized guild of Masons
from the records of the elections to the Common Council in 1376. But before even then, it must be noted that the Corporation of London’s own records show that this Company existed in some form since 1356, for that is when the rules for its guidance were framed. By 1389, there was also written evidence of a fraternity of masons in London. It is here where we begin to see some level of alignment in the alleged shared history between the Freemasons and the Worshipful Company of Masons. In fact, one historian of the aforementioned Worshipful Company, Mr. Edward Conder, Jr., who served as the Company’s Master in 1894, claimed in his book, “The Hole Crafte and Fellowship of Masons,” that the Worshipful Company may have in fact been the missing link which proved that modern day Masonry was lineally descended from the ancient fraternity of masons which formed the Worshipful Company. In his explanation, Conder also notes that modern day Freemasonry owes its origin to the Worshipful Company, as it was responsible for having preserved the moral teachings and fellowship of the stonemasons guilds of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries until the establishment of the first Grand Lodge in 1717. While these claims may ring true, they are however quite difficult to
prove. Existing documents from the early history of the Worshipful Company are scarce, and the earliest preserved written record dates back to only 1620. We know that earlier records must have existed, as the Worshipful Company was officially founded nearly 150 years earlier, but such records have regrettably been lost, having likely been destroyed in the Great Fire of London. Nevertheless, it is possible to trace this history of the Worshipful Company through other records.
In John Stow’s “A Survey of London,” published in 1633, it is written that “The Company of masons, being otherwise called freemasons, of ancient standing and good reckoning, by means of affable and kind meetings at divers times, and as a loving brotherhood should use to do, did frequent this mutual assembly in the time of King Henry the Fourth, in the twelfth year of his most gracious reign.” We are thus informed that Freemasons met as a “loving Brotherhood,” in 1410, and that they were identified with the London Company of Masons. This depiction, alongside other writings of the period, such as that of R. Seymour, Esq., and J. Marchant, Gent., titled “History and Survey of the Cities of London and Westminster, Being an improvement of Mr. Stow’s and other Historic Writers,” published in 1754, help to shed further light on this question, where they explain that “This Company (of Masons) were incorporated about the year 1410, having been called the Free Masons, a fraternity of great Account, who have been honour’d by several Kings and very many of the Nobility and Gentry, being of this Society.” In continuation of this explanation, Seymour and Marchant comment that the Masons of the Company were “once called Freemasons, but that denomination appears now to belong to another Fraternity.”
But when was the Worshipful Company of Masons actually formed then? Through this journey, we have seen that the Company received its grant of Arms in 1472, but that its By-Laws were apparently granted in 1356. These By-Laws curiously enough show that the members of the Company were divided into two categories: those who hewed rough stone, and those who worked in free-stone. These articles also note two special provisions, stating that “(1) No one should take work in gross without tendering proper security for its completion; and (2) that all apprentices should work in the presence of their masters, till they perfectly learned their calling.” In the Returns of 1376 of the Company, it is further written that the number of members returnable by the Guilds to the Common Council be set forth so that the masons would be entitled to four representatives, and that the Freemasons to two representatives, thereby adding further distinction between these two categories of membership, perhaps thus setting the basis for the eventual split of these two categories of members.
It is also worth noting that in addition to that of the London Company, and those associated with it, there also existed a very old institution of a brotherhood between
members of the stonemasons craft, both within England, and abroad. This ancient brotherhood existed much in the same way as did the London Company, regulating the trade by setting standards of work, governing the members, and providing a level of organization using the framework of the medieval guild system. As with their modern day counterparts, these Freemasons had Lodges and Chapters, and met in secrecy. Likewise, these Freemasons of old too had the freedom of travel, trade, and own land, and shared many of the same privileges as those granted to the Freemen who had received the Freedom of the City of London. But then is there a connection in spite of all of these similarities between the modern day Freemasons and the London Company?
In truth, we may never know the exact nature of this connection, or whether in fact there is any actual connection in reality. What we do know however is that there is certainly a shared history of terminology, and that there are many shared customs between the Livery Companies, and the modern day Freemasons, some of which we note as follows:
Many of the City of London’s Livery
Companies have their own Masonic
Lodges appended to them for members of their particular Livery Company. One Masonic Lodge under the United
Grand Lodge of England restricts its
membership to only those who have received the Freedom of the City of London. There is also a Masonic Lodge for Masters of Masonic Lodges who are either Freemen,
Liverymen, or employees/officers of the
City of London Corporation. There are several Masonic Lodges which meet in the Livery Company Halls, and one even meets in the Crypt of Guildhall. There is a large overlap in membership amongst the Livery Companies and the
Freemasons. The structure of Masonic Lodges is similar to that of the Livery Companies. The Coat of Arms used by the United
Grand Lodge of England is based in part upon those of the Worshipful Company of
Masons. There is a similarity in the regalia worn by officers of the Liveries and of
Masonic Lodges, and also in the grades of membership and the levels of progression. The Lodge in which a Freemason is made a Mason is called his “Mother
Lodge,” similarly as to how the first Livery
Company in which a Freeman is admitted is known as their “Mother Company.” There is shared terminology amongst the
Livery Companies and the Freemasons (e.g. “Master, Wardens, etc.”). Nevertheless, while there certainly are many similarities between these organizations, there are also many differences, and it would be a mistake to believe that they are one and the same. In essence, through this examination of the early history of Freemasonry, and of the Liveries, we can see that both organizations enjoy a rich history and heritage from times of old, and that while the Craft of Freemasonry may hold some uncanny resemblance to the Liveries, most especially with the Worshipful Company of Masons, it must be noted and understood that two are in fact very different entities, and if they did spring from the same well, they have since diverged and are both unique and wholly separate entities within the colorful history of the City of London.
Thus, at first glance, it is easy to misunderstand the connection, and shared history, held between the Livery Companies and the Freedom of the City with the ancient fraternity that is Freemasonry. While the three share many similar traditions, verbiage, and history, they are not the same organization. It would therefore be erroneous to presume that the Livery Companies of the City of London, or that the Freemen of the City of London, evolved out of Freemasonry as some branch or offshoot. However, the opposite presumption may perhaps carry a bit more weight, even if it likely cannot be proven.
