Préface,

par Cécile Révauger

« Les personnes admises membres d’une Loge doivent être hommes de bien et loyaux, nés libres et d’âge mûr et discret, ni esclaves, ni femmes, ni hommes immoraux et scandaleux, mais de bonne réputation»[1].

Depuis le célèbre  article des Constitutions d’Anderson, franc-maçonnerie a le plus souvent rimé avec masculinité. Comment ce texte fondateur, issu des Lumières, directement influencé par la pensée de John Locke en matière de tolérance religieuse pouvait-il exclure à la fois les femmes et les esclaves ? C’est une source d’étonnement dans notre monde contemporain. Pourtant lorsqu’on connaît la place des femmes au début du XVIII^e siècle en Angleterre, et lorsqu’on se souvient que le pire était encore à venir en matière de traite atlantique, notre surprise n’a pas lieu d’être. Il a fallu plus de cent ans pour que l’interdiction d’initier des hommes nés esclaves soit levée par la Grande Loge Unie d’Angleterre, en 1847, treize années après l’abolition de l’esclavage dans l’Empire britannique. Pour autant les maçons américains n’ont que partiellement mis un terme à l’exclusion des Noirs puisque aujourd’hui encore une dizaine de Grandes Loges des États du Sud refusent de reconnaître l’existence et la légitimité des Grandes Loges de Prince Hall. Quant à l’interdiction d’initier des femmes, elle figure toujours de façon explicite parmi les landmarks de la Grande Loge Unie d’Angleterre et de toutes les Grandes Loges américaines. Les landmarks sont ces repères, ces limites infranchissables, ces principes considérés comme inviolables par les maçons d’Outre Manche et d’Outre Atlantique. Certes nombres d’obédiences françaises refusent également d’ouvrir leurs portes aux femmes, mais sans qu’elles l’aient inscrit explicitement dans leurs règlements ou constitutions. Quand on connaît le caractère exceptionnel de la loi écrite dans la tradition anglo-saxonne, qu’elle soit maçonnique ou non, force est de constater que les maçons britanniques et américains accordent une importance extrême à l’exclusion des femmes.

Si les limites sont faites pour être franchies, cela fut bien davantage le cas en France qu’en Angleterre. A l’exception de Lady Aldworth née Elizabeth  Saint Léger (1695 ?-1772), celle que l’on surnomma « The Lady Freemason », vraisemblablement initiée à Cork [2] entre 1710 et 1713 au château de son père  le vicomte Doneraile après y avoir surpris une assemblée de maçons, aucune autre femme n’eut cet honneur. Le fait qu’elle ait été française d’origine dut rassurer des générations de maçons britanniques, qui s’évertuèrent pourtant à affirmer le caractère légendaire de cette initiation, arguant du fait que la Grande Loge d’Irlande ne fut fondée qu’en 1725.  Quoi qu’il en soit l’appartenance de Lady Aldworth à la franc-maçonnerie figure sur sa stèle funéraire, et son neveu devenu Grand maître d’Irlande ne nia jamais la chose[3]…De plus on trouve le nom de Mrs Aldworth dans la liste des 416 souscripteurs de l’ouvrage de D’Assigny, paru en 1744, ASerious and Impartial Enquiry into the Cause of the present Decay of Free-Masonry in the Kingdom of Ireland [4] . Il est indéniable cependant qu’elle força quelque peu l’entrée du temple… Une ou deux femmes ont pu être initiées dans les loges dites « opératives », comme le révèle  l’admission d’une certaine Mary Banister dans la compagnie des maçons de Londres en 1714[5]. Là encore, ce fut l’exception qui confirma la règle.

C’est bien en France qu’eut  lieu la percée la plus significative. La franc-maçonnerie est rarement en rupture avec la société de son temps. La société anglaise maintenait soigneusement les femmes à l’écart de tous ses clubs.  Or de même que la société française du dix-huitième siècle laissa les femmes occuper certains espaces bien délimités, tels que les très aristocratiques salons, la franc-maçonnerie entrouvrit elle aussi la porte : dans quelle mesure ces loges dites d’adoption furent elles des créations masculines ou bien au contraire un véritable lieu d’émancipation féminine, c’est bien la question de fond, et celle que posent ici avec une grande clarté Margaret Jacob et Janet Burke.

On doit à René Le Forestier, l’un des tous premiers ouvrages sur la franc-maçonnerie féminine, resté inédit jusqu’à ce qu’il fut redécouvert par Antoine Faivre[6]  On connaissait les travaux de Françoise Jupeau Réquillard et de Gisèle et Yves Yvert-Messeca[7], qui ont eu l’immense mérite de défricher les archives et de répertorier les loges d’adoption. Cependant Margaret Jacob et Janet Burke ont souhaité  revisiter ces premières loges à la lumière de la critique féministe. Auparavant elles s’étaient attardées sur quelques unes de ces loges et sur leurs membres, ces premières maçonnes dont on sait si peu de choses. On doit à Margaret Jacob plusieurs études sur la Loge de Juste, active à La Haye dès 1751. Cependant on trouvera ici son premier écrit sur la  Loge Anglaise fondée en 1732 à  Bordeaux et sur la loge d’adoption qui tenta de graviter autour d’elle. Grâce à sa lecture des archives françaises de Moscou, originellement confisquées par les Nazis, puis saisies par les Russes et récemment rendues par ces derniers au Grand Orient de France, Margaret Jacob a pu trouver trace de maçonnes bordelaises. Certes, ces dernières ne reçurent pas un accueil favorable de la part des « frères » de la Loge Anglaise, qui devaient également se distinguer par leur refus d’initier des Juifs et des hommes de théâtre dans la ville qui devait être celle de Victor Louis. Néanmoins les maçonnes bordelaises furent peut être bien les premières en Europe, et au monde…

Janet Burke et Margaret Jacob montrent bien les points forts et les limites de ces loges d’adoption.  Il faut reconnaître que pendant longtemps on en a surtout vu les limites, qui sautent aux yeux : ces femmes se réunissaient sous la tutelle de loges masculines, en utilisant des rituels distincts, qui n’hésitaient pas à mettre en scène le « péché originel », et s’attardaient fort complaisamment sur les pépins de pomme. Le concept même d’adoption sous entend une démarche paternaliste, protectrice de la part de « frères » qui étaient pourtant eux-mêmes beaucoup plus sensibles aux idées des Lumières que la moyenne. Or peu à peu ces premières maçonnes parvinrent à s’imposer, à se faire reconnaître. Paradoxalement, c’est justement à travers l’originalité de leurs rituels qu’elles firent entendre leur voix et affirmèrent peu à peu leur spécificité, parvenant ainsi non seulement à prendre leur place au sein de la franc-maçonnerie mais dans la société.

A travers les travaux de Margaret Jacob et Janet Burke, on mesure bien la faiblesse des grilles de lecture, féministes ou non, qui négligent le contexte. Ainsi on ne saurait rejeter d’un trait de plume les loges d’adoption du dix-huitième siècle au motif que les loges de l’Eastern Star qui furent créées au siècle suivant et qui existent de nos jours encore aux États-Unis proposent des modèles de maçonnerie féminine fort peu satisfaisants. Alors que les loges françaises du temps de la Princesse de Lamballe représentaient une réelle avancée dans la société de leur époque, les « sœurs » de l’Eastern Star persistent à vivre dans l’ombre des loges masculines sans même revendiquer le titre de « maçonnes ».  Margaret Jacob et Janet Burke, on l’aura compris, proposent une nouvelle lecture féministe des loges d’adoption, débarrassée de quelques scories dogmatiques. En prenant en compte le contexte, elles montrent que ces premières maçonnes surent semer les germes de l’émancipation féminine, même si bien entendu, elles restèrent entre aristocrates.

Nous publions ici quatre traductions d’articles originellement parus en anglais, ainsi que le travail inédit de Margaret Jacob sur la loge d’adoption de Bordeaux. S’agissant du premier ouvrage de la collection « Monde Maçonnique » des Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux, nous sommes particulièrement heureux d’avoir ce privilège.  Cette collection s’est donnée pour but de publier des travaux scientifiques sur l’histoire de la franc-maçonnerie, en Europe et dans le monde. A notre connaissance il s’agit de la première collection consacrée à la franc-maçonnerie dans le cadre de presses universitaires. Nous sommes particulièrement heureux de l’inaugurer avec un ouvrage consacré aux « premières maçonnes ».

Je remercie très sincèrement, outre les deux auteures, Jean-Pierre Bacot et Laure Caille qui ont rédigé l’avant-propos,  les deux traducteurs, Laure Caille et Pierre Morère, ainsi  que Bernadette Rigal Cellard,  directrice des Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux et qu’Antoine Poli, responsable administratif et éditorial, qui ont bien voulu me confier cette nouvelle collection.

A Bordeaux, le 9 novembre 2009.

Charles Porset was well known both among 18th century specialists and historians of freemasonry. He was born on April 15, 1944, the son of  refugees from the Spanish civil war. He was brought up in Bordeaux, passed the agrégation de philosophie, the highest competitive examination in the land,  and quite symbolically started teaching philosophy in a secondary school, a lycée, in 1968,  a year when  youth, in France as well as in many other countries, was so hopeful for change, freedom and happiness. He entered CNRS, the major French research institution, very young and spent his life writing books and articles on 18th century philosophy and the history of freemasonry.

As a true man of the Enlightenment, he travelled extensively. In 1978 he spent a month studying at Martin Luther Université (Halle, Germany), in 1982 at Saltykov-Schchedrin Library in Leningrad, working on  the Voltaire Fund, in 1984 giving a series of lectures in Martinique on Rousseau and Diderot at Université des Antilles-Guyane, in 1987 and 1988  lecturing in Spain, at Madrid and Sevilla universities, in 1992 in Japan at Gashuin University, (Tokyo)  and at Maison Franco-japonaise. He regularly attended Jose Antonio Ferrer Benimeli’s summer courses on the history of freemasonry in Zaragossa : although  he vastly enjoyed disagreeing with Benimeli on the influence of Jesuits in freemasonry, the two scholars had genuine mutual esteem. Benimeli was very moved when I phoned him to tell him that Charles left us. Charles often gave lectures in Italy and Tunisia. He obtained the Chaire Verhagen at the  Vrije Universiteit of Brussels for the year1998.

Charles was a specialist of Madame du Chatelet, Voltaire, Rousseau  and Diderot.

He defended his thesis on Madame du Chatelet. In 1999, he was the deputy general secretary of Société Française d’Etude du Dix-Huitième Siècle, as well as a member of the executive committee of the International Society of Eighteenth Century Studies . He admired Daniel Ligou’s work, although he enjoyed vigorous academic discussions with him. Daniel Ligou was really the first academic historian of freemasonry (after Pierre Chevallier).Charles edited Studia Latomorum & Historica. Mélanges offerts à Daniel Ligou, (Paris, Champion, 1998) and most of all the revised version of Ligou’s huge Dictionary of Freemasonry, in cooperation with Dominique Moreillon.

It is impossible to quote all his books and articles: among his major works : Voltaire franc-maçon, Mirabeau franc-maçon, the commented edition of Louis Amiable’s Loge des Neuf Soeurs, a history of a Bordeaux lodge, Lodge La Concorde Montesquieu. He coedited with me Franc-maçonnerie et religions dans l’Europe des Lumières (Paris, Honoré Champion, 1998

In 1992 he was filmed in La vie et la pensée de Rousseau. (Documentary Film Production. Institute of Japan. Tokyo). One of his most recent contributions  was to a new edition of Rousseau’s works.

He was on the editorial board of the Journal and coorganized several conferences with me.

We were currently  jointly editing the Biographical Dictionary of 18th Century Freemasons, which involves over 150 authors. We had reached almost the final stage, with over 2500 pages. I shall consider completing  the task  he valued so much and  releasing it to the publisher as soon as possible as a paramount personal duty, although, as many others,  I feel  I have lost a limb.

Charles Porset had been a member of the Grand Orient de France for   years. He was also involved in the Higher degrees of the French Rite, as « Grand Chancellier du Premier Ordre ».

He actively took part in the last conference I organized on women and freemasonry in Bordeaux and there is a beautiful picture of himself, Olivia Chaumont, the first sister of the Grand Orient de France and myself , in Franc-maçonnerie Magazine. Some of you will remember the very good paper given by Olivia to tell her own personal story as a transexual eventually allowed to remain within the Grand Orient. Charles committed himself to the admission of women within the Grand Orient de France and was delighted to have his own daughter initiated in a Bordeaux lodge on November 18, 2010. He was already too ill to attend the initiation, which was the first one for a woman  in Bordeaux at the Grand Orient de France.

He was sincerely committed to the French republican motto Liberté Égalité Fraternité and believed in the fundamental equality of men and women.

He had a real sense of humour, and hated clichés or formal, or politically correct statements. He always told me that he had had a good life and that when it eventually stopped, he would not mind. He was a great one for obituaries, and I feel far behind him for this exercise.

I just want to tell you all that I feel bereaved, that we shall all miss a great historian of freemasonry as well as a real humanist.

For those of you who speak French, I recommend this 2009  ten minute video on the Enlightenment in today’s world, on the Internet.  This is really Charles at his best, as I like to remember him.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xaruuk_entretien-avec-charles-porset-le-si_news

Les femmes et la franc-maçonnerie, des Lumières à nos jours.

 17-19 juin 2010, Université de Bordeaux et Musée d’Aquitaine.

Organismes partenaires:

LNS Université de Bordeaux 3 avec le soutien du Conseil Régional d’Aquitaine

CELFF, UMR 8599 , Université Paris IV Sorbonne et CNRS,

Laboratoire CIRTAI-IDEES, équipe de l’UMR 6228 (CNRS) Université du Havre 

Sheffield Centre for Research into Freemasonry, Université de Sheffield

Centre de recherche sur la franc-maçonnerie, FREE, Université de Bruxelles

Center for the Study of Women, UCLA

Université Sapienza, Rome 

Contact: Cecile.revauger@u-bordeaux3.fr

Comité scientifique:

BURKE Janet

ISASTIA Anna Maria

JACOB Margaret

MONDOT Jean 

ONNERFORS, Andreas

PORSET, Charles

PRESCOTT, Andrew

REVAUGER Cécile

SAUNIER, Eric

SLIFKO, John

SNOEK, Jan

SOMMERS, Susan

TYSSENS, Jeffrey

Argumentaire :

            Les femmes sont aujourd’hui encore absentes de la plupart des loges maçonniques. Peu d’arguments rationnels peuvent être invoqués pour justifier une telle exclusion. Celui de la tradition, le plus répandu, ne vaut que pour les Constitutions d’Anderson,  aucune exclusive ne figurant explicitement dans les Anciens Devoirs des maçons. L’initiation d’Elisabeth Aldworth St Leger dans une loge irlandaise a sans doute une valeur plus symbolique qu’historique en raison de son caractère insolite. Néanmoins elle n’a jamais été contestée par les maçons irlandais de l’époque, même si elle a certainement encouragé la plupart des  « frères » dans leurs certitudes plutôt que de les inciter à renouveler l’expérience. Depuis, les femmes sont devenues maçonnes, tout d’abord dans des loges d’adoption, puis dans des loges spécifiquement féminines ou mixtes.

            Les loges d’adoption ont parfois été considérées comme une maçonnerie de substitution, sous tutelle, ou comme un lot de consolation. Il serait pourtant erroné de minimiser leur importance et la signification qu’elles ont eu en leur temps, comme l’ont récemment montré en particulier Margaret Jacob et Janet Burke.  Ces loges d’adoption qui ont vu le jour en Hollande puis en France à l’époque des Lumières sont certes caractéristiques des limites de  l’engagement des femmes à cette époque,  en raison de son caractère très élitiste et aristocratique. Elles ont cependant véhiculé un certain nombre de valeurs, ne serait ce que par leurs rituels, et accordé aux femmes une place sans précédent dans la sphère publique, comparable aux salons.  Ces loges se sont-elles contenté de refléter la société de leur temps ou bien ont-elles anticipé certaines évolutions et contribué à l’émancipation des femmes? Dans quelle mesure sont elles emblématiques de la sociabilité des Lumières ? De façon significative ces loges d’adoption se sont éclipsées en même temps que les Lumières, pour renaître sous une forme bien différente  au siècle suivant aux Etats-Unis (Eastern Star). Le monde maçonnique du dix-neuvième siècle fut presque exclusivement masculin. Il serait intéressant de chercher les raisons d’une telle absence féminine. Il faut attendre la fin du dix-neuvième siècle, avec des femmes telles qu’ Annie Besant, Madame Blavatsky, Maria Deraismes, Clémence Royer ou Louise Michel pour retrouver une présence féminine dans les loges, parfois, on le vérifie avec Annie Besant, en liaison étroite avec la Société Théosophique.

            Nous nous attacherons à identifier les évolutions de l’engagement féminin d’une part à travers la maçonnerie mixte, apparue à la fin du XIXe siècle,  et à travers les obédiences spécifiquement féminines, qui ne datent que du XXe. Toutes ces femmes ont combattu pour l’égalité, mais certaines ont espéré y accéder au sein de structures mixtes et d’autres par des voies autonomes. Nous nous intéresserons à ces choix en matière d’organisation et de rituels  ainsi qu’à la composition sociale des loges mixtes et féminines. Nous nous interrogerons  sur leur ouverture sur la société ou au contraire sur leur volonté de discrétion, sur la nature de  leurs travaux. Ces obédiences se sont développées dans certains pays uniquement, nous tenterons d’entrevoir pour quelles raisons. Nous évoquerons à la fois les organisations maçonniques en tant que telles et les trajectoires individuelles.

            Nous tenterons de déterminer le poids des différents facteurs dans  ces exclusions :

-le facteur culturel, social et politique : y a-t-il un lien direct entre le développement des obédiences mixtes et féminines, les avancées sociales en matière d’émancipation de la femme, la force des courants  féministes aux XX et XXIe siècles ? Pourquoi le Royaume Uni, pays des Suffragettes qui a accordé aux femmes le droit de vote bien avant la France, pourquoi les pays scandinaves si soucieux des droits de la femme,  ont-ils un tel retard en matière d’initiation féminine ?

- le facteur religieux : peut on observer des comportements différents en fonction des religions ?  La question de l’initiation féminine s’est t elle posée de façon spécifique dans les pays catholiques,  protestants, islamiques ou orthodoxes?

- le facteur maçonnique : la ligne de fracture entre franc-maçonnerie latine et franc-maçonnerie anglo-saxonne, date de 1877 et de la décision du Grand Orient de France d’accorder une pleine liberté de conscience à ses membres et de ne plus imposer la croyance en Dieu. Or curieusement, elle se traduit également en termes d’exclusion ou de reconnaissance des femmes, même s’il convient immédiatement de nuancer le propos en ce qui concerne les obédiences dites « latines ».

            Il existe aujourd’hui  plusieurs degrés d’exclusion : les femmes peuvent être considérées comme non initiables, c’est encore formellement le cas au Royaume-Uni, aux USA et dans toutes  les obédiences qui font allégeance à la Grande Loge Unie d’Angleterre, ou encore dans les Grandes Loges noires de Prince Hall.  Dans d’autres cas, la présence des femmes est acceptée et même encouragée, mais dans des structures qui ne sont pas reconnues comme maçonniques bien qu’elles soient considérées comme au service des loges masculines grâce à leur actions charitables : c’est le cas des chapitres de l’Eastern Star. Les Women Freemasons  ne sont toujours pas reconnues officiellement par la Grande Loge Unie d’Angleterre. Enfin les obédiences dites latines sont elles mêmes divisées sur la question de l’admission des femmes. Certaines sont mixtes, d’autres se posent la question de la mixité, d’autres encore la refusent par principe.

            Peut on parler d’universalisme maçonnique ou bien la franc-maçonnerie est elle déterminée par le genre ?  Il conviendra de s’interroger à la fois sur les raisons de l’exclusion des femmes, sous toutes ces formes, avec toutes ces nuances, et sur la spécificité de la franc-maçonnerie féminine dans le temps et dans l’espace, des premières loges à celles d’aujourd’hui en Europe, en Asie et dans les Amériques. Nous pourrons également nous interroger sur le regard que les féministes ont porté sur la franc-maçonnerie, à la fois sur les loges d’adoption et sur la franc-maçonnerie contemporaine. Nous encouragerons donc la diversité d’approches, et souhaitons que le champ historique et géographique couvert soit le plus large possible afin de mettre à jour tant les différences que les similitudes et de comprendre les évolutions.

Appel à communications :

Les résumés accompagnés d’un court CV (2000 caractères en tout) devront parvenir à Cécile Révauger avant le 15 septembre 2009

Cécile Révauger

Bordeaux University

"Anderson's freemasonry, the true daughter of the British Enlightenment".

Just as some historians question the specificity, and even sometimes the real existence of a British Enlightenment, scholars of freemasonry sometimes tend to consider freemasonry as a long tradition, immune to changes. Both attitudes reflect the concern for the long term and tend to underplay the importance of evolutions and revolutions. Asserting the perfect continuity between “operative “ and “speculative” masons amounts to forgetting the fact there was a Glorious Revolution which left its imprint on 18^th century institutions, political as well as religious culture. Another pitfall awaits scholars of freemasonry: it is at worst a fallacy and at best wishful thinking to   consider freemasonry as a strong component of radical Enlightenment. For the most part, freemasons have condemned social revolutions and rejected atheism. It will be contended therefore that freemasonry should neither be considered as the offshoot of tradition nor as the spur of social and political change, but that it appeared in the wake of the English as well as the Scottish Enlightenment. First, it will be argued that freemasonry is not simply the heir of operative freemasonry , although it would be ridiculous to claim there was no connection at all, especially in Scotland. Conversely freemasonry should not be portrayed as more radical than it was: this will be the second point raised in this paper. Finally it will be contended that freemasonry is first and foremost the daughter of the Enlightenment and more specifically of the British Enlightenment.

1- 18th century freemasonry is a new phenomenon which  owes little to  tradition.

The terms “operative” and “speculative” have long prevailed among historians of freemasonry. They are not entirely satisfactory, first because only specialists of freemasonry can have some insight into what they might refer to, second because they seem to classify masons into two distinct categories but in fact do not meet any  historical or scientific criteria. Denying the novelty of the Masonic institution which emerged in 1717 in England and in 1736 in Scotland is equally unsatisfactory.

Of course nobody denies the fact that some form of masonry existed previous to 1717. Yet the situation was different in Scotland from what it was in England. One should not forget that 100 lodges were instrumental to the foundation of the Grand Lodge of Scotland in 1736, against only four in London when the Grand Lodge of England was funded.  The Journeymen Lodge of Edinburgh in particular can claim 17^th century roots and a continuous membership of masons by trade, throughout the 18^th century. Nevertheless, the Grand Lodge of Scotland very soon endorsed the ideas of the Scottish Enlightenment and started  looking forward rather than backward, providing the city with a significant number of Provosts who were eager to  contribute to the embellishment and development of Edinburgh from an architectural as well as from a social point of view.

Discussing English masonry   before 1717 is yet another matter. Numerous guilds and masons’ companies existed. A special issue of Cahiers de l’Herne was devoted to the study of the Old Charges which prevailed among ancient masons. Elias Ashmole has often been given as an example of a member joining a lodge of masons by trade. It seems that a lodge existed in Warrington in 1646 . Yet evidence is scanty. Contrary to Scottish freemasonry, which besides the Schaw Statutes, could claim structural links and a real continuity between the 17th and 18^th centuries, with lodges such as the Journeymen Lodge n°8 , evidence concerning the existence of  English freemasonry previous to 1717  rests mostly on the Old Charges. Yet a close analysis of the Old Charges points at major differences with Anderson’s Constitutions as well as the practices developed in 18th century English lodges.

It is argued here that those differences stem from the historical context. The Glorious Revolution informs the Masonic background as well as the Enlightenment. The differences highlighted by the comparison of the Old Charges and Anderson’s Constitutions are threefold, social, political and religious.

Clearly the Masonic lodges which were regulated by the Old Charges were composed of “apprentices” and “fellowcrafts” working for the benefit of an employer or master.  The masons were given rules of conduct, regulating both their private and professional lives, which were closely related: for instance they were taught that they should neither covet their fellow’s wife, nor gamble nor use coarse language. Anderson only stipulated that members of the lodge should be honest men, neither slave nor woman, but no longer regulated professional relations. Members of different walks of life joined the English lodges, from small artisans, craftsmen and merchants  to aristocrats.

Whereas all the Old Charges required masons to be good Christians, to believe in God, the first article of Anderson’s Constitutions, “Concerning God and religion” is written in the latitudianarian spirit of the time: “’tis now thought more expedient only to oblige them to that religion in which all men agree, leaving their particular opinions to themselves; that is to be good men and true, or Men of Honour and Honesty, by whatever Denominations or Persuasions they may be distinguished; whereby Masonry becomes the centre of Union, and the Means of conciliating true Friendship among Persons that must have remained at a perpetual distance.”

Whereas allegiance to the King was specifically required from operative masons, Anderson’s Constitutions only made it necessary for masons to respect the laws of their country. More, a lodge could not exclude one of its members simply for rebelling against the State if “convicted of no other crime” and providing the lodge did not “countenance his Rebellion”.  Contrary to the Dumfries MSS which demanded that any mason hearing about a plot should immediately report it  to the King, Anderson’s  Constitutions did not even impose the eviction of a rebellious member…the answer to this quiz is probably to be found in the Whig views of the time which discarded the Tory theories of “passive obedience ” and “non resistance”. On the contrary Locke had shown that the people was entitled to rebel against the King if the latter had misbehaved, i.e. placed himself in a “state of war” against his people and therefore made himself guilty of a breach of contract. Anderson and his companions did not urge “passive obedience” from subjects and clearly endorsed Locke’s views, taking care not to be associated to tory theories.

Nevertheless the claim to inherit modern practises from ancient masonry was made by Anderson himself. Nobody today can seriously deny that the pseudo historical account is entirely mythical. The new institution needed legitimacy and in the days of the Battle of the Books, claiming filiations with Solomon and the ancients was more prestigious than quoting “modern” philosophers such as Locke or Newton. The need to refer to tradition, in spite of the novelty of the institution accounts for the moderation of the founders of modern freemasonry. It would be just as inaccurate to pretend that Anderson’s freemasonry  was typical of the radical Enlightement as to assume it was a pure product of tradition and to claim there was a perfect continuity between the XVIIth and XVIIIth centuries .

2- English masonry is not indebted to radical Enlightenment either, with a few exceptions.

There is not a single definition of the concept of Enlightenment. For Gertrude Himmelfard, only the English and American peoples were enlightened and the French Jacobins betrayed the good intentions of Montesquieu, thus giving up  the values of the Enlightenment. For Eric Hobsbawm the Enlightenment amounted to a conspiracy led by white aristocrats.

We owe the concept of “radical Enlightenment” essentially to Jonathan Israel and Margaret Jacob although Margaret Jacob quite rightly disagrees with Israel’s focalization on Spinoza: Israel has granted paramount importance to Spinoza’s thought and consequently considered as “radical” all the thinkers  who have been influenced by his ideas. Thus Toland and Collins are considered as true figures of the “radical Englightenment”   while Locke is deemed more banal. Margaret Jacob’s approach is more political as she examines the influence of the Dutch republic and societies which were close to freemasonry such as the Knights of Jubilation. She quite rightly thinks that the Glorious Revolution, the Dutch Republic and the birth of modern freemasonry were related. She is quite right to point at the constitutional habit of freemasons: because they developed an interest in writing rules and regulations, therefore in behaving in a more democratic way than most of their contemporaries, masons influenced political life as they encouraged democratic habits in their own spheres of influence.

This was certainly the case during the American Revolution, when a number of masons took part in the writing of the Articles of Constitution, in the Declaration of Independence and in the writing of the constitutions of each new state.

Yet when it comes to studying English masonry as a whole during the 18^th century one has to admit that those who really supported radicalism were a minority, whether one takes the concept of “radical Enlightement” in reference to  religious convictions  as Israel, or in a more political sense as Margaret Jacob. Very few masons condoned Toland’s pantheism or Collins’ freethought. Needless to quote again the famous article written by Anderson and his followers concerning the impossibility for a mason to be an “atheist” or an “irreligious libertine”.  Not all dissenters were welcomed :  Anderson himself wrote a pamphlet condemning Anti-Trinitarians. His religious tolerance did not extend to those who refused to acknowledge the Holy Trinity and were therefore considered with great suspicion by the Church of England and the political authorities.  Few masons at the time acclaimed Newton, even though his most unorthodox writings were not yet known to the public. The Grand Lodges had their own Grand Chaplain, most of the time a member of the Church of England or Scotland. The only writing on freemasonry which can be considered as an offshoot of radical Enlightenment was produced by Thomas Paine, the friend of Nicolas de Bonneville, a French mason who supported the French revolution and condemned the influence of the Jesuits in freemasonry. In his De l’Origine de la franc-maçonnerie, Paine was telling the masons that they were wrong to claim allegiance to the Christian dogma,  that they should look back to the Druids and draw their inspiration from their symbolism rather than advocate the Bible. Yet Paine was probably never a mason…How could he have been one in England or America? Neither were the British masons typical of the radical Enlightenment from a political point of view. There were exceptions such as the Sheffield Masons who supported the Sheffield radicals,  the Journeymen Masons of Edinburgh who lent their premises to the Friends of the People (but were rebuked by the Grand Lodge of Scotland for doing so), some Irish Lodges which seem to have condoned the United Irishmen (but were likewise  severely criticized by the Grand Lodge of Ireland), masons who were friends of John Wilkes and joined the Society for the Bill of Rights.

Generally speaking however the lodges and Grand Lodges were eager to please the authorities. This can be seen both in the Masonic press and in the official declarations of the Grand Lodges; several articles were devoted to the French revolution, all pointing at the horror of Jacobinism. I have already studied at some length the articles published in the Sentimental and Masonic Magazine or in the Freemasons’ Magazine. From 1793 onwards the English, Scottish and Irish Grand Lodges made official declarations to support the government and, more or less implicitly to condemn the French revolution and the spirit of reform. No wonder the British freemasons were the only associations to be allowed to pursue their activities under the seditious Meetings Act. Provided they submitted the lists of members and did not create new lodges, their meetings were tolerated.

In 1800 the Grand Lodge of Moderns officially expressed its concern for the King after the murder attempt. The Grand Secretary apologized for the delay of the letter addressed to the Prince of Wales: the Freemasons, he explained, were discreet people who hated to interfere with politics. However they deemed it necessary to express their support of the monarchy under the circumstances.

It seems therefore difficult to consider British freemasonry as a strong component of radical Enlightenment. However it is perfectly representative of the English Enlightenment such as Roy Porter defined it or of the Scottish Enlightenment and the Moderates of the Church of Scotland.

3- Freemasonry is the daughter of the English/Scottish Enlightenment

Neither James Boswell, nor Sir William Forbes of Pitsligo, the Grand Master and friend of Johnson’s biographer, nor Dugald Stewart, nor at the end of the century Robert Burns  are considered as radicals. Yet those freemasons are fairly typical of the Scottish Enlightenment. None of them advocated radical political change, none of them was influenced by Spinoza’s pantheism or freethought or even deism. Yet they all advocated religious tolerance, bewaring of the rigidity of religious dogma and strongly believed in man’s potentiality to improve himself and discover the world. Roy Porter pointed at an important difference in the English and French approaches of the Enlightenment. When one speaks of the Enlightenment in France, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Voltaire ,  Diderot and a few big names immediately come to mind. The British summon  Locke and Hume, and sometimes even Hobbes,  but according to Porter  the English Enlightenment does not point at a few philosophers only but encompasses politics, science, and society at large. Rather than speaking of The Enlightenment, he preferred to call his major work “Enlightenment”, pointing at a general spirit rather than specific theories, preferring an empirical approach and studying the impact of Enlightenment in all walks of life.

Coordinating the biographical dictionary of 18^th century freemasons has been very fruitful as so many entries point at the involvement of so many men in the major religious, cultural and political evolutions of their time. Several masons have been forgotten today yet they played their part quite convincingly and contributed to the Enlightenment, such as Porter defined it. They were not necessarily great philosophers or politicians but they were representative of the major evolutions of their time in politics, religion, access to education and science. In France, although lodges almost disappeared during the Revolution and masons gave up their Masonic activities, individuals went on playing a major role in the revolutionary institutions. In England freemasons endorsed the prevailing latitudinarian views on religion, supported the new balance of powers  and later condoned  colonial  expansion.  18th century freemasons embraced the values of the Enlightenment: sociability, religious tolerance, and thirst for knowledge.

English people were clubbable and the first lodges were essentially convivial places enabling men to meet and spend a pleasant evening together. Although the social mix was rare, and birds of a feather tended to flock together, the emerging middle-class also found the possibility to encounter aristocrats, at a time when the landed elite was becoming a little more open and to a certain extent encouraging the middle class to mimic the aristocrats. The emergence of the Grand Lodge of Antients in the 1750s allowed a significant number of Irish immigrants like Dermott to join the lodges along with local artisans and men of lower extraction than members of the Moderns.

John Locke vindicated the Glorious Revolution and paved the way for a more secular society, in so far as he made a distinction between the interest of the Church and the interest of the State and considered freedom of worship as a natural right.  After the Glorious Revolution, religious quarrels were avoided as much as possible and theological dispute lost its power of attraction. Most philosophers insisted on the beneficent effect of religion but were indifferent to religious dogma as such. Similarly English freemasons referred to the Creator or to a general guiding principle gradually making way for the term “Grand Architect of the Universe” which was vague enough to unite men of different religious persuasions. Most masons endorsed Shaftesbury’s or Goldsmith’s views, advocating  religious tolerance and being on the whole quite indifferent to theological issues. “Brother” Hogarth perfectly reflected the views of masons when he engraved his famous “Enthusiasm delineated” (1760) and “Credulity, superstition, fanaticism” (1762). There was no need for the British masons to be as anticlerical as their brother Voltaire as the Church of England itself endorsed the values of the Enlightenment; perhaps Hogarth was a little more conservative than the majority of masons as rejecting “enthusiasm” allowed him to make fun of dissenters and the Methodists in particular.

It is a well known fact among scholars of freemasonry that the early Grand Lodge and the Royal Society were closely connected. The friendship between Newton and Desaguliers largely accounts for the links between the two institutions. Newton had invited his friend Desaguliers to join the Royal Society while he was presiding it, in 1714. Desaguliers became Grand Master in 1719. Desaguliers was probably instrumental to the aura of freemasonry among members of the Royal Society. It seems that many members of the Royal Society started joining lodges, while a few masons were also admitted within the Royal Society. From 1719 to 1741 thirteen Grand Masters out of 22   belonged to the Royal Society, an enormous proportion which tends to prove that the Royal Society granted admission to members on honorific as much as scientific criteria at the time…The important fact however is that, even though they were not great scholars themselves, Grand Masters should have felt honoured to belong to the Royal Society and eager to promote scientific discovery : in that respect they contributed to “the marriage of science and Enlightenment”, to the “culture of science” so well described by Roy Porter.

Masons were also eager to take part in cultural life. They contributed to the prologues of many plays. Thus, actor Garrick befriended Boswell, the deputy Grand Master of Scotland, better known as Johnson’s biographer.  A great number of musicians were masons, as Andrew Pink has shown: Bach, Angel, Geminiani… They were all typical of the Enlightenment in so much as they allowed culture to extend to other sectors of the population than the traditional landed elite. Hogarth’s work is significant of a new approach of culture, more popular than aristocratic. He promoted an academy at  St Martin in the Fields’ which was meant to protect and encourage poor artists and to some extent counter the weight of aristocratic patronage.

Freemasons were involved in the press. Thus biographical entries of the dictionary will be devoted to Franklin, but also to John Dunlap, a publisher in Philadelphia and to Osmand, a much less famous publisher in Barbados who thanks to his association  with Dunlap launched a newspaper in Port of Spain. Several masons contributed to the development and freedom of the press.

With hindsight, the Enlightenment has been stigmatized for its contribution to colonization.  Indeed the thirst for knowledge and discovery combined harmoniously with economic and military interests.  It is pointless either to idealize or stigmatize the Enlightenment. It was a period full of contradictions but it represented a significant departure from what has been called the “Ancien regime” in England as well, a static society totally in the hands of the landed elite ruled by Church and King. Quite significantly masons were also eager to discover the world, and like their compatriots took part in colonization. They were extremely present in the American colonies among the first governors.   A great number of officers and governors who conquered the West Indies and India were also masons : to quote but a few among those who will be in the dictionary : general Ralph Abercromby who colonized Trinidad, Commissioner Fullerton, also in Trinidad and an abolitionist as well, General Wolfe, Governor Hastings in India… Military lodges often accompanied those men who seldom joined the local lodges who appeared in the wake of colonial expansion.

            Denying the novelty of 18^th century freemasonry partakes of the same attitude which consists in denying the existence of a British Enlightenment , whether in the wake of historians such as JCD Clark who consider the long 18^th century and prefer to speak in terms of continuity with the Ancien regime or whether in the wake of those who consider 18^th century  Britons were aristocrats and racist colonialists  who did not promote any significant social change. Awarding grades to the Enlightenment seems equally ridiculous: thus Gertrude Himmelfarb prefers the English and American Enlightenment because religion was never really challenged and violent revolutions never urged contrary to what the nasty French Jacobins  did.  Although the Enlightenment promoted universal values such as religious tolerance and the end of despotism, yet the cultural specificities of each country remained. In that respect the French Enlightenment differed slightly from the English one or the Scottish one. French freemasonry likewise differed from English and Scottish masonry because the contexts were different.

Claiming that freemasonry was radical enough to bring about significant social and political changes is not valid either. At best it turns the masons into early revolutionaries, ingratiating  the wishful thinking of XIX  century well-meaning historians   such as Louis Amiable in France, at worst it allows the emergence of the ridiculous conspiracy theories put forward by Barruel and Robison.  Masonic lodges disappeared from revolutionary France, with a few exceptions, and masons remained active individually, either supporting the nobility, the clergy or the Third Estate.

In Britain Freemasonry was typical of the English and Scottish Enlightenment, with its strong points and foibles, no more, no less.