| |
Kabbalah
and Freemasonry
W. Kirk MacNulty
Kabbalah
in Masonic History
A paper which
undertakes to demonstrate an influence of Kabbalah on Freemasonry,
particularly one presented to a non-Masonic audience, should certainly
start with some information about the nature and history of the
Masonic Order. A definition of the Order as it exists today is relatively
easy: Freemasonry is a secular fraternal organization, open only
to men, which promulgates the principles of morality and seeks to
advance the practice of brotherly love and charitable action among
all persons-not simply among Masons. It is not a religion; but it
is a society of religious men in that as it requires its members
to believe in the existence of "a Supreme Being." The
name of that Being and the form in which It is to be worshipped
is entirely the business of the individual Mason. Masons are obligated
on the "Volume of Sacred Law," and each Mason takes his
obligation on that particular volume of sacred writings which he
holds to be sacred. While encouraging each Brother to follow the
teachings of his own religion, Freemasonry is not concerned with
the details of those religions; and sectarian religious discussion
is forbidden at Masonic gatherings. While not a religion, the Order
might be considered to be a "philosophical companion to religion."
To my way of thinking that idea is implicit in this definition,
taken from the First Lecture: Masonry is "A peculiar system
of morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols."
* As might be expected of a society of religious men, the moral
and philosophical principles communicated by these symbols are considered
to have been derived from the Divine source.
Historical
information about Freemasonry's origin is much more difficult to
provide than a definition. As one historian of thought, Francis
A. Yates, has put it, "The origin of Freemasonry is one of
the most debated, and debatable, subjects in the whole realm of
historical enquiry." * Some of the Masonic histories written
in the 19th century were quite fanciful and uncritical in their
approach. More recent authors have sought to be more rigorous, but
the data which is available present a real and ongoing puzzle. Citing
Yates again, "… recent books on the subject have been
moving in the direction of exact historical investigation, but the
writers of such books have to leave as an unsolved question the
problem of the origin of "speculative" masonry, with its
symbolic use of columns, arches, and other architectural features,
and of geometrical symbolism, as the framework within which it presents
a moral teaching and a mystical outlook towards the divine architect
of the universe." *
At the present
time there is no real agreement, even among Masons, about the origins
of the Order. Some Masons, those who are romantically inclined,
like to think that they have participated in the very rituals which
were used by King Solomon to instruct the workmen at the building
of his Temple. This is certainly an unrealistic view. * Without
doubt, there are plenty of operative masons (stonecutters) to be
found in European history, but there is no evidence of a group of
philosophically inclined men who transmit a Masonic tradition from
Biblical times to England in the late renaissance. Others Masons,
at the opposite pole of opinion, consider that Masonry started as
nothing more than a gentleman's club, one of the myriad clubs that
sprang up in London in the early part of the 18th century. If that
be true, it was a very unusual club, indeed. Unlike the other clubs
of the period, very shortly after its initial organization in 1717
it grew explosively, not simply in England but also in Scotland,
Ireland, France, the Low Countries and Germany. In addition Masonry
acquired, somehow, Royal Patronage, a profoundly philosophical orientation,
and a very elaborate system of symbolism. In arguing that Masonry
is simply "a club" one should explain why this particular
club developed as it did. One of the obvious explanations for its
rapid growth is that Masonry was teaching and practicing something
that was, at the time, of very widespread interest to the intellectual
community. The Hermetic/Kabbalistic Tradition of the Renaissance
is certainly such a thing; and, as we shall see, it would account
for Masonry's unique symbolic structure and for many of its rituals
and practices.
In my own view,
Freemasonry is a codification of the Hermetic/Kabbalistic Tradition
which formed the intellectual essence of renaissance thought; *
and the material presented here will reflect that view. We will
start with a very brief overview of what is known of Masonic history,
and during this overview we will cite those historical references
which mention Kabbalah specifically. In the interest of keeping
to a reasonable space we will acknowledge an early and important
Scottish influence, but confine ourselves to English material in
this presentation. After we have acquired this background, we will
consider how the symbolic structure of Freemasonry reflects the
teachings of Kabbalah.
The diagram
in Figure 1 * presents a very general overview of the development
of English Freemasonry. "Events" involving reference to
Kabbalah are shown as red asterisks, and will be discussed below.
The parts in blue represent the Grand Lodge(s), and the dotted portions
at the left of the drawing are intended to indicate how very uncertain
our information about their origins really is. Even with respect
to the period after the formal organization of the Premier Grand
Lodge in 1717, there are large areas about which only a little is
known. For example, in the area of ritual and symbol-what Masons
actually did at their meetings-we must rely almost entirely on exposures
for the period from 1717 until the last quarter of the 18th century.
We do know a little. There certainly was "Masonic activity"
in England in the middle of the 17th century. The first speculative
Masons that we can identify positively are Sir Robert Moray and
Elias Ashmole. They were initiated into the Order in 1641 and 1646
respectively, both in the north of England. Both were closely involved
with the Hermetic/Kabbalistic Tradition *: Ashmole was a significant
contributor to the literature of that Tradition; and Moray was the
patron of the alchemist, Thomas Vaughan.
In Theatrum
Chemicum Britannicum Ashmole makes a point which it will be useful
for us to note at the outset. He writes, "And therefore is
it not less absurd, then strange, to see how some Men … will
not forbeare to ranke True Magicians with Conjurers, Necromancers
and Witches (those grand Impostors) who violently intrude themselves
into Magick, as if Swine should enter into a faire and delicate
Garden.…" * This distinction between "True Magicians,"
whom Ashmole considers to be practitioners of the mystical ascent
in the Hermetic/Kabbalistic Tradition, and "Conjurers, Necromancers,
and Witches," who attempt to use "Magick" to influence
the physical world is a significant one. For Ashmole, "Magick"
aspires to a transformation of the individual; it requires the individual
to surrender his will to the will of God; and it is part of the
mystical ascent. Conjuring and witchcraft aspire to produce result
in the physical world upon which the individual seeks to impose
his own will. * This distinction has been made by the contemporary
scholar, Donald Tyson, in his analysis of speculative and practical
Kabbalah presented with his annotation of Agrippa's De Occulta Philosophia.
* We will see shortly how this issue may have influenced the early
development of Freemasonry.
*
* *
This excerpt is from Heredom, the
transactions of the Scottish Rite Research Society
Volume VI, Year 1997
©1997-2002, Scottish Rite Research Society
All Rights Reserved
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
|
