Archive, Volume 1

Andrew Michael Ramsay and his Masonic Oration

Lisa Kahler

This was one of the most discussed speeches ever delivered in the whole of Masonic history and it is certain that no other has ever received so much attention, been so misunderstood or had so much effect on the course and develop-ment of Freemason-ry.

Andrew Michael Ramsay (1686?-1743), novelist, historian, religious philosopher, and teacher, has been studied by historians mainly for his contribu-tion to Freemasonry. His accomplishments were significant, and he was an excellent example of an educated and ambitious man of the eighteenth century. He was a Scottish expatriate, yet he was welcomed home from France by the English government. He was a Roman Catholic and a Jacobite, but he was awarded an honorary degree from Oxford and made a Fellow of the Royal Society. He was tutor to the eldest son of James Stuart, the Old Pretender, and offered the same position by George II to tutor his son, the Duke of Cumberland. He wrote a biography of a disgraced Archbishop and thereby created a legend for the eighteenth century philosophes, yet as a historian he received scathing reviews on his topics. At different times of his life, he was a Presbyterian, a Roman Catholic, and a Freemason, but he remained a Quietist all his life. His life is a study of dichotomies.

Today, however, Ramsay is remembered primarily for an Oration he wrote for presentation to the Masonic Grand Lodge of France in 1737. With this Oration, he inadvertently changed the course of Masonic history by inspiring the creation of the hauts grades or high degrees which eventually evolved into the Scottish Rite. The ideas in this oration created a whole new realm within the order; and, consequently, caused a Papal bull that excommunicated Catholic Masons. This Oration eclipsed all of Ramsay's other accomplishments.

But Ramsay's Masonic career was a small portion of both his life and all he accomplished. Ramsay was a theologian, a philosopher, and a well read novelist. In no way was Freemasonry the most important aspect of his life. Yet, if Ramsay is remembered today at all, it is for this Masonic oration, his one contribution to Freemasonry.

This study focuses on the question: What was the motivation behind this oration? It is the point of this thesis to demonstrate that Ramsay's motivations must be seen from a perspective based on his life and experiences. This is an investigation of the oration and the common interpretations of Ramsay's intent. It is an explanation of the connections between Ramsay as Jacobite, Catholic, Quietist and Freemason, and a reconciliation of his motives within the oration.

Throughout this thesis, I have alluded to Ramsay's Oration. I have dis-cussed its importance in terms of instigating the develop-ment of the higher degrees in French Freemason-ry. I have referred to it as Ramsay's only contribution to French Freema-son-ry and how it is remembered as his only accomplishment. In this final section, I would like to discuss the Oration, Ramsay's motives in writing it, and the subse-quent criticism surrounding it.

For a speech as important as this one is recognized to have been, the circumstanc-es surrounding Ramsay's Oration are obscure. Traditionally it had been assumed the Oration was originally written for presentation at the French Grand Lodge meeting of March 21, 1737. But, in "Chevalier Ramsay: A New Apprecia-tion," Cyril Batham has developed an entirely new theory on Ramsay's Oration. While this new theory does not resolve all the uncertainties about the history of the Oration, it does provide some clarity.

Although historians agree on the importance of the Oration, they disagree on almost everything else about it. For example, they disagree on whether Ramsay actually delivered the Oration, when it was delivered, and how and when it was published. This uncertainty can be attributed to the lack of compre-hensive and dependable French Masonic Lodge records from the eighteenth century. For the most part, historians of the late twentieth century have adopted a solution to this general disagreement. They simply mention the Oration in terms of specifics, such as the Crusader connection and its effect on the development of French Freema-son-ry, and omit detailed references concerning the circumstances surrounding its delivery or publication. They seldom delve into the actual history of the Oration.

In part, Batham's article is an exception to this. Although it is possibly the most definitive and detailed work ever written about Ramsay and his Oration, unanswered questions remain-especially regarding the publication of the Ora-tion. But Batham does provide new information on the logistics of the Oration.

According to Batham, there were actually two versions of Ramsay's Oration. The first version is referred to as the "Epernay," so called because it was recently discovered in the Archives in Epernay, France, and was titled Discourse of M. le Chevalier Ramsay given at the St. John's Lodge on 26 th December 1736. The second version is simply referred to as the "Grand Lodge" Oration. This was the version that was subsequently circulated and published, and it was intended for presentation at the French Grand Lodge meeting of March 21, 1737.

The discovery of the Epernay version of the Oration clarified two impor-tant points for Masonic historians: namely why the Grand Lodge Oration seemed unsuitable for a Grand Lodge meeting and why this Oration appeared to be directed toward an audience of new initiates of the Order. The Grand Lodge Oration, which was the only version of the Oration known to these historians, was a revision of the Epernay version. The Epernay speech had been "so well received and was considered so important that [Ramsay] was asked to repeat it at the forthcoming Grand Lodge meeting."

The Epernay version of the Oration was intended for the initiates of the Order. Ramsay's position as Grand Orator of the French Freemasons would have required him to write and deliver speeches "on special occasions and also after initiation ceremo-nies." When Ramsay revised this Grand Lodge version, he did not change the tone of the original speech. This may explain why some historians found the Grand Lodge Oration too simplistic for Grand Lodge members. Batham claims both the Epernay and the Grand Lodge versions are "Ramsay's version of the Old Charges." Just as Anderson revised the traditional operative masonic manuscripts for his Constitutions, Ramsay obviously studied these same manuscripts and created his own revised version.
The Epernay and Grand Lodge versions of the Oration are very similar. The differences in the texts basically concern the origins of Freemasonry:

In the Epernay version, Ramsay traces [Masonry] back to the Old Testament, claiming that the early history of Masonry was closely tied up with the history of God's chosen people and stating that only after the capture of Jerusalem by the Crusaders was the Book containing the secrets of the Order rediscovered.

In the Grand Lodge version, however, Ramsay discards the suggestion that the histories of the Jewish race and of early Masonry are bound together . . . .

Batham contends that Ramsay revised the Epernay version into the Grand Lodge version to avoid inciting the Censors, who would decide if it would be pub-lished. This is logical. It is unlikely the Censors, a strong arm of the Catholic Church, would have approved the connection between the Jews and the roots of Freemasonry.
But, the question remains: did Ramsay actually deliver the Grand Lodge Oration to the Grand Lodge meeting of March 21, 1737? Did he actually deliver this version of the Oration at all?

Although Batham states that "some Masonic historians contend that Ramsay never did deliver his address before the Grand Lodge," Gould contends that the Oration "was beyond doubt delivered on March 21, 1737." Gould bases this contention on Ramsay's correspondence with Cardinal Fleury. He used the dates of the letters to narrow down the date that Ramsay prepared the Oration.

In a letter dated March 20, 1737, Ramsay submitted the Oration to Cardinal Fleury, the powerful Cardinal Minister to Louis XV, for Fleury's approv-al:
As I am to read my discourse to-morrow in a general assembly of the Order and to hand it on Monday to the examiners of the Chancellerie [the Censors of the Press-prior to publication], I pray your Excellency to return it to me to-morrow before mid-day by express messenger.

Fleury's reply to this letter has been lost, "but it was obviously unfavor-able." The Grand Lodge meeting was postponed, probably in the hope that Ramsay could convince Fleury of the importance of both the Grand Lodge meeting and his Oration.

* * *

This excerpt is from Heredom, the transactions of the Scottish Rite Research Society

Scottish Rite Research Society
1733 16th St., N.W., Washington, DC 20009-3103
202-232-3579 voice, 202-383-1847 fax
srrs@srmason-sj.org, www.srmason-sj.org