[This thread was renamed from “The Brotherhood” for clarity. The Editors.]

Well, I have been facinated with a lot of the history behind masons’ and I was wondering if there was anything in relation with the templar knights, and if there was any difference in between the different masonaries?

Thank you for your question.

Although there has been a lot of speculation and conjecture in recent years about the connection between the Knights Templar and Freemasonry, there is no historical evidence to support this. You should be aware there is an organization within the Masonic family which has adopted the Knights Templar as their motif. But this should not suggest a connection between the actual Knights Templar, they could have just as easily adopted the Ancient Romans or King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table.

Regarding your second question, you’re going to need to be a little more specific about what you mean by “different masonries.” I’m not certain what you are alluding to.
-Robert

Well, I have come across the Scottish/Irish Mason lodge and a British Mason lodge,
are they different and if so is there others?

Robert:

The history of the Templar and the Masons is one of the hot topics of the day in the Masonic world. To first answer your question, the lodges in Scotland and England are a little different then ours in America, but in many ways the same. In some jurisdictions in England, you are required to be a Royal Arch Mason in order to enter the main “Blue Lodge” of the craft, whereas in America, the Royal Arch Degree is performed in the York Rite.

Now as for Templar lore, the theory goes that when the Templar were destroyed, their secrets where hidden and guarded for many years until the fraternal order of Freemasonry arose in England around 1717. When the Masons came into power in England, a lot of the Templar traditions where incorporated into the Fraternity, thus leaving many to believe the Templar live on in Freemasonry.

Now none of this has been proven, it is all theories. Many speculate what happened between the destruction of the Templar and the birth of Freemasonry. No one really knows but, it sure makes for a great story. I recommend reading Born in Blood by John J. Robinson. His book goes into great detail the theories on the Masonic and Templar connection.

Hope this answers your question a little bit.

Fraternally,

Jacob P. Descheneaux

The differences in the lodges as it relates to being English, Scottish, or Irish relates to the Grand Lodge they were originated from. Until the system of Freemasonry was formalized there were a lot of Grand Lodges chartering new lodges in areas where their members were settling. For instance, the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts has chartered lodges in Maine (prior to forming their own state and, subsequently, their own Grand Lodge), the Panama Canal Zone, Chile, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and China, among others. We were originally chartered by the Grand Lodge of England, so we would be considered an “English” Grand Lodge.

I noticed you are from Montreal. The best resource for you to learn more would be the Grand Lodge of Quebec, http://www.glquebec.org. I encourage you to contact them; I know they would welcome your inquiry.
-Robert

H. Robert Huke - 13 November 2008 08:33 AM

Thank you for your question.

Although there has been a lot of speculation and conjecture in recent years about the connection between the Knights Templar and Freemasonry, there is no historical evidence to support this. You should be aware there is an organization within the Masonic family which has adopted the Knights Templar as their motif. But this should not suggest a connection between the actual Knights Templar, they could have just as easily adopted the Ancient Romans or King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table.

Regarding your second question, you’re going to need to be a little more specific about what you mean by “different masonries.” I’m not certain what you are alluding to.
-Robert

G’day Brothers!

I am not so sure that it is wise to say that “there is no historic evidence” to support such a link…

There are a lot of problems with the current and accepted “popular history” of Freemasonry in that it makes certain assumptions that are not supported by the facts.

According to the UGLE, “The first documented making of an English Freemason, Elias Ashmole, [was] at Warrington in 1646.”

Now take that and reconcile it with the plethora of sites that give the formation of modern Freemasonry as dates ranging from 1710 to 1717… Clearly there was Freemasonry in England in 1646, so that takes us back that far.  We can reasonably presume that it goes even further back than that, but consider that in that era, membership in Freemasonry was not necessarily safe - depending upon the whims of the government or authority at the time, the cost could be (and reportedly often was) steep.

In his address on The Origins of Freemasonry given to the 5th International Conference of Great Priories at Albert Hall, Stirling, Scotland, on 25 August 2000, Dr. Robert Lomas presented his controversial theory that suggested not only a direct link between the Knights Templar and Freemasonry, and also presented evidence that documents the founding of a Masonic Lodge in Scotland between 1440 and 1460.
One of the objects of evidence that Lomas presented was a carving at Rosslyn Chapel (yes, THAT Rosslyn Chapel) that depicts a Knight Templar raising a Mason.

I admit that this intrigued me - when I read a transcript of the presentation, I had a “hmmm” moment.  However just because someone says something does not necessarily make it true, right?

To satisfy my own curiosity, I contacted Simon Beattie, the Interpretation Manager at Rosslyn Chapel, and asked for information about the carving.  While there are no specific records about the carvings - and this carving in particular, which is called “The Initiation,” it is established as reliable fact that it was installed at the same time as the other carvings, which is some time between 1440 and 1460.  The carving is situated in the southwest corner of the chapel, at the bottom left of the window in that corner.

I received a very good photograph of the carving and clearly it is depicting a Masonic raising.  More to the point, the person doing the raising is indeed wearing a set of Templar armor.
We know that the order of the Knights Templar was founded around 1100, and that in 1312 Pope Clement V officially disbanded the order with a written edict, but that did not actually result in the end of the Knights Templar.

In places like France, they were hunted down and killed, true, but in Portugal they simply changed their name to the Order of Christ, and in other areas - England for instance - while many of the Knights were arrested and faced charges, none were convicted and eventually they were all freed.  There is substantial evidence to support the claim that in England, Scotland, and Wales, groups of Templars retained their orders and maintained the Templar houses as chapels or retreats - and some simply never stopped being what they were!

The library of the Knights Templar was never turned over to the Knights Hospitallers as the pope ordered - in fact its location has to this day, as far as I know, never been revealed.  There is also the mystery of the Templar fleet, which while it was known to be in the port of La Rochelle on the 12th of October 1307, had disappeared when the authorities arrived to seize it the following day.  Not a ship mind you, but a fleet of ships.

Considering what the aims and goals were of the Order of Templars, it is not that much of a stretch to see them embracing Freemasonry.  Historical romanticism set aside, most of the members of the Order were well educated men interested in the natural sciences - astronomy, math, botany, and engineering.  That they would in so dark a time seek out the company of other so inclined men seems reasonable to me.
The idea that a Knight Templar would, in his capacity as the Master of a Masonic Lodge, wear his armor in the raising of a Mason also does not strike me as unlikely in that era, when Freemasonry was still a secret organization. 

Now I am not saying that this is established fact, but I do think that there is enough wiggle room here for it to be fair to say that there is no evidence that it is not true.

Sorry about this wall of text.

Cheers!

Chris

NB

This is a re-post of the reply that was deleted from the system after my account was changed in order for it to comply with the requirements for moderators.

Mike Martin - 18 January 2010 06:39 PM

Hi Chris,

Rather than taking the musings of the money magnate Lomas, I would suggest acquiring yourself a copy of “the Rosslyn Hoax” written by none other than Bill Cooper the Curator of the Museum and Library of the Grand Lodge of Scotland.

Just to be helpful this is the carving that is described as a Masonic Initiaion:
http://www.bibleprobe.com/masonatrosslyn.jpg

What do you think??

Mike

G’day Mike!

I am not sure what you mean; it appears that you are under the impression that I am relying on Lomas and his hypothesis with respect to the subject of this thread.  I am not promoting his books or his approach to this, I hope that is clear here - I only mentioned him because his paper was how I became aware of the carving.  I thought that this was clear in my post but perhaps not - I hope this clarifies the issue for you.

I am not sure how Cooper’s book relates to this - I will re-read it again, but I do not recall any empirical examination of the carving called “The Initiation” in it.  Could you provide a cite from the book?

There is a slight problem with the image you linked to in your post above - it does not appear to be the carving that I was talking about.  I am a little curious why you would rely on an anti-mason website whose stated goals include obfuscation of Masonic values as a source for anything even remotely serious?

After I read Lomas’ paper, I contacted the Interpretation Manager at Rosslyn Chapel, and then followed that up by corresponding with a graduate student at the British Museum, who found the original series of images that were taken in 1936 when the cultural documentation project surveyed the chapel.  I also examined an image taken in 1984, for a second survey that included an empirical definition of each cataloged item.

A 1994 survey of the carvings undertaken by a research adjunct at the National Museum of Scotland included the use of forced perspective and computer-assisted definition enhancement to bring out details of carvings - including The Initiation - that are no longer visible to the naked eye.  The purpose of that study was to identify tool marks to classify the style of work, but it paid dividends as I am sure you can imagine.

The stated goals of the 1984 project were to create a systematic documentation of major art and archeological artifacts and included establishing criteria to describe on paper, in a thorough, accurate, and orderly manner, the attributes of each object.  It is this description of The Initiation that I am relying upon, not that of Lomas or any other source.

Now having qualified this to you, I should also point out that I am not saying that the carving actually depicts a Knight Templar participating in the raising of a Mason.  I am merely pointing out that it appears to be consistent with that perspective.  I believe that it creates a cloud of curious possibility, and I am often fascinated by these misty blots of speculation, because they serve as giant oranges that can be used to knock the certain off of their roosts when necessary, and force the pedantic into fits of frustration when you manage to find another alternate explanation for what is represented that actually fits.

I am a great fan of epistemology - a helpful trait for a journalist - and I dearly love to poke and pry at mysteries.  In many respects I am a cultural infidel, and to quote the words of the immortal bard Jimmy Buffett (who if he is not a Mason should be!):

Free thinkin’, hood-winkin’, unblinkin’ mon
Start trouble, burst bubbles, join my caravan
Someone’s got to talk about accountability
Someone’s got to raise some hell
I guess it could be me

Now I know that makes it sound like all that I am interested in is starting trouble - and that is not accurate.  A cultural infidel highly values the truth, and feels an almost uncontrollable urge to point out inconsistency when someone states a fact that is not necessarily a fact.  It is our sacred duty as cultural infidels to promote thought, discussion, and debate on issues that are important, because the second you stop doing this, “facts” become whatever the majority agrees that they are without actually considering other possibilities - and life, my brother, is full of possibilities.

Cheers!

Chris

To my Brothers and prospective Brothers.

I, for one, am having a lot of fun reading this thread, and I want to thank the Brothers participating. I certainly don’t want to discourage more discussion, but at the same time I want to make sure it doesn’t devolve into a semantics review—there are certainly entire fields of history and philosophy that attempt to do nothing more than define what is meant by “historical evidence.”

For those interested in membership, I think what Brother Huke meant by his comment is that though it has long been rumored, there is no currently accepted evidence within or without the Fraternity that would induce a Grand Lodge to state that we are “descended from” or “connected to” the Knights Templar.

but I love the thought. And I would also suggest that if one was to look at History less from Bury’s “history is science; no less, no more,” (what does that get you, anyway?) and instead look at it more from a Hegelian historicism perspective – that we are today the entirety of our history—we could begin to develop a better idea of how Freemasonry came about – and indeed its “connection” to things like the Knights Templar.

The point I am trying to make here is that the roots of Freemasonry are shrouded in a bit of mystery. I think that’s one of the fascinating things about it – and one of the things that makes it what it is. Frankly, for many Masons, including me, it was one of the draws. The fact that a Master Mason can later join something called the Knight’s Templar as part of the York Rite – and become in some way a successor of the Order and an upholder of the same Knightly Virtues, is a powerful draw.

I have known several men who joined Masonry partially because, as one of them told me, “Bob, where else these days does a man have an opportunity to become a Knight?”

Just food for thought, gentlemen. Again, I would still love to hear more on this.

But I have my own question. Since Masonry teaches many of the same virtues taught within the ranks of the Knights, and each of us as a Mason commits to living a life that embodies some of these same virtues, suppose we could somehow “prove” that the Freemasons were direct decedents of the Templars, what difference would it make? And what would we do differently?

Bob Heruska - 19 January 2010 01:42 PM

To my Brothers and prospective Brothers.

The point I am trying to make here is that the roots of Freemasonry are shrouded in a bit of mystery. I think that’s one of the fascinating things about it – and one of the things that makes it what it is. Frankly, for many Masons, including me, it was one of the draws. The fact that a Master Mason can later join something called the Knight’s Templar as part of the York Rite – and become in some way a successor of the Order and an upholder of the same Knightly Virtues, is a powerful draw.

But I have my own question. Since Masonry teaches many of the same virtues taught within the ranks of the Knights, and each of us as a Mason commits to living a life that embodies some of these same virtues, suppose we could somehow “prove” that the Freemasons were direct decedents of the Templars, what difference would it make? And what would we do differently?

G’day Bob - and Brothers!

Excellent questions and observations!

First I want to assure you all that I was not being sarcastic in my reply - as I re-read it I can see how it may appear to be so at points, but I assure you that I am sincere and not looking to pick a fight.

When history and lore are the topic of conversation, most laymen do not apply the Scientific Method to the questions raised, rather they take a heuristic approach.  That works because 9 times out of 10 applying common sense and your own experiences to a question gets you the correct answer - though not always the correct path that winds up at that answer.

When I think about the claim that Freemasonry evolved from the Order of the Knights Templar, I freely admit that I have serious doubts about the veracity of such a claim.  Common sense tells me that while they may have interacted at some point in the Middle Ages, and one may have influenced the other, I am reasonably certain that they began as separate organizations.  Clearly in my mind, Freemasonry came before the Templar movement was created.

Of course that does not prevent me from asking the question: What if?

In the Middle Ages, education was the exception, and not the rule.  In many communities the only people that could read and write were the brothers, priests, and officials of the Church, or the government.  Very few members of the aristocracy could read and write at anything more than a basic level, and to find women or members of the lower classes that could read and write was even rarer!

That being the case, is it really all that surprising that the historical records from that era in history are largely restricted to ecclesiastical and government documents?  Two structures of power that would have no interest in recording the history of a movement that, let us be blunt, often found itself at odds with both? 

I believe that this would be a different story entirely if the Age of Enlightenment had arrived sooner rather than when it did…  But it did not.

The point that teases me and keeps me interested is that there very well could be proof out there that documents what we are discussing.  Not a carving beneath a window in a chapel in a far-flung corner of the earth, but a real record, or letters, or journals, something like that could exist.  It could be sitting undiscovered on a shelf in the library of a great estate in England, Scotland, Wales, or on the Continent, undisturbed for the past 800 years.  It could be in the private library of the Vatican, or it could even be one of the thousands of documents sitting in the British Museum still waiting to be cataloged…

If it were found tomorrow, and its revelations made public - two big “If’s” I admit, would it change anything for us?  Well, it might…  Certainly it would draw the fury and the hate of the anti-masonic groups who would then have a new reason and ammunition to scream about our “obvious” power.  It might even make it harder to succeed in delivering our message - in helping good men to better themselves.

On the other hand, it could serve to strengthen our commitment as individuals to help in our own communities, illustrating that our history of public service and good goes even further back than we thought!  It would certainly open up new areas of interest and research in the history of the Craft.

If you learned for a fact that the Templar integrated into Freemasonry in the Middle Ages, would that make you more likely to join and study in the Rite beyond the Blue Lodge?  I bet it might…

Cheers!

Chris

An interesting discussion indeed, although most of us are at a considerable disavantage when it comes to the images in Rosslyn Chapel. They are so worn that it’s difficult to make out exactly what is being portrayed. But that’s a minor issue. The connections (if any) between the Templars and the Freemasons is one which offers almost unlimited opportunities for speculation (are we are speculative masons, after all!).

When I read Bro. Bob’s comments on the attraction of the Templars and the brothers who saw the Commandery as a chance to become a Knight, the first thing that immediately popped into my mind was Ralph Kramden and Ed Norton (of Honeymooners fame) getting dressed up to go out to their lodge meeting. Jackie Gleason wasn’t the first broadcast comedian to poke fun at very ordinary men trying to escape from their ordinary lives in a fraternal organization that was more glamorous, more exciting than what they lived everyday. Before him, there was the immortal Kingfish (of Amos and Andy) who belonged to the Mystic Knights of the Sea.

I am convinced that much of the attraction which the Commandery and the Scottish Rite had in the 19th century and the early part of the 20th was just what Bob alludes to. Ordinary men could, a few times a month, escape the humdrum of their daily lives and for a few hours become Knights, Grand Pontiffs, Patriarchs Noachite, Sublime Princes, etc. Almost every boy or young man who has had the opportunity to get hold of a book like Walter Scott’s Quentin Durward, or one of the many books like it, imagines that he, like the novel’s hero, might rise from his colorless and ordinary life to a new life of glory, honor and rank. When the time comes when we have to accept reality, those dreams are forgotten. But later on in life at some point, maybe the colorful titles of the appendent masonic degrees and orders may reawaken those dreams of youth and we embark on a hopeful journey to add some new depth and challenge to our lives.

Of course, in our modern era, say from the 1960’s onward, such dreams, such titles, their funny hats and fancy costumes have attracted ridicule and sometimes odium from “realistic” and “down to earth” people. But dreams live on in some of us.

When it comes to the modern Order of the Temple which is a part of the York Rite, we come to find that it isn’t in any way a continuation or an inheritor of the ancient Templars. How could it be? - they were professed monks. It is, in fact, a Christian interpretation of the teachings and principles of Freemasonry, intended for Christians, and heavily infused with Christian scripture and dogma. The reason it’s the last in the York Rite system of degrees is so that it is not a requirement for something else and so Masons who are not Christians lose nothing by not joining a Commandery.