Page 27 - Montana Freemason Feb 13

Montana Freemason February 2013
Book Review
The Real Origins of Freemasonry
Daniel Gardiner (3)
The Genesis of Freemasonry
by David Harrison
This book started life as a PhD thesis. That Doctoral
dissertation suffered numerous problems which were
replicated in the book.
I found the original thesis to be sorely lacking
references. Here is one representative example: “…
both Desaguliers and Anderson were active in a
mysterious society called ‘Solomon’s Temple,’ which
met in Hemmings Row, with Desaguliers appointed
as Master of the society in 1725,” -- with no footnote. I
found myself wanting to find out more about this, but
this statement cannot be verified without a source.
In addition to lack of sources, the author carries
over factual inaccuracies from his PhD to his book.
For example, of Isaac Newton’s funeral, he says, “…a
host of Freemasons revered him, such as Voltaire, who
attended his funeral in 1727.” Scholarship presently
shows Voltaire to have been a death-bed joiner of
Freemasonry in 1778.
One review, by Robert Peter, PhD, points out that,
“The book lacks some sine quanon elements of a PhD
thesis. For instance, it does not have a literature review little added as we get closer to the present that has
of any kind and no method(ology) is introduced to
answer the research question. The main arguments of
the book do not reflect the current state of research in
this field…” I agree with Peter’s assessment.
The book consistently makes unproven claims
about magic, alchemy, and Masonry, such as this:
“Desaguliers and Anderson set about to revise the
ritual, and like Dee’s magical rituals, the use of
mathematics, geometry, necromancy, and magical
symbols, all played an important part....”
When published as a book, the dissertation
borrowed its title from the Genesis of Freemasonry
by Bro. Douglas Knoop, PhD, frequent collaborator
with Jones and Hamer. The choice is a pity, as the
dissertation reads like pop history, is disjointed, full
of mistakes, and an exception to the high quality
scholarship expected from a Doctoral thesis.
Volume 86 Number 1
The Foundations of Modern Freemasonry
by Richard Berman
This book is everything the previously reviewed
book should have been. Like the former, it began life
as a PhD thesis. Unlike it, however, this book stands
out for its scholarship.
Berman and Harrison both claim to deal with the
same period in Masonic history. Yet while Harrison
is making unsupported parallels between Templar
gravestones, alchemy, magic, and necromancy,
Berman is successfully discussing the evidence.
It is the contention of the author that, in opposition
to the “transition theory” origin, the group of men
who organized the “Revival” of 1717 were largely a
completely different group of men, united in pursuit of
common personal and political goals, that assimilated
the pre-existing identity of the Accepted Masons and
reshaped it into a publicly acknowledged, popular,
and fashionably patronized fraternal secret society
that spawned what exists today.
Much of our current analysis of Freemasonry is
based on work now 50-150 years old, and with very
materially challenged anything from 50-75 years ago.
Berman has taken advantage of all of the privileges of
contemporary (2010 thesis) university education and
access to primary sources, and it shows.
One of the interesting things that Berman has
demonstrated in his book and dissertation is a co-
mingling between the Loyalist government via the
Whig party, with the early Grand Lodge Officers. This
was established through examination of several sets of
data through contemporary newspapers. The result is
that anyone promoting a “Jacobite conspiracy” theory
origin for Freemasonry (usually involving the Knights
Templar) will need to tackle Berman’s evidence first.
Unfortunately, Harrison’s work is plagued with
problems, and should be avoided. Anyone ready to
move on from Pike and Mackey should add Berman
to PhD’s Andrew Prescott and Pink.
Page 27