ÉTUDES MAÇONNIQUES - MASONIC PAPERS
by W.Bro. ALAIN BERNHEIM 33°
MASONIC CATECHISMS AND EXPOSURES
In 1986, the author of the following paper was awarded the Norman B. Spencer Prize Essay for 'The dating of masonic records', subsequently published with due acknowledgment in vol. 99 of Ars Quatuor Coronatorum.
In 1993, he decided to enter the same competition a second time but, for reasons of his own which unfortunately cannot be disclosed yet, sent his entry, 'Masonic Catechisms and Exposures', under the anagrammatic pseudonym Henri Amblaine.
In August 1993, upon learning that he had won the Prize again, he immediately informed the Lodge in writing of the above, which appears to have resulted in a mild degree of discontent by some of its members. The winner of the award and the author of the paper were both given as Henri Amblaine, p. vi & 141-153 of vol. 106 of AQC, published October 1994, and modified rules for entering the competition were issued in the Lodge Summons from November 1994.
One year later, the Editor, Bro. Robert A. Gilbert, thought fit to publish the following note, p. vii of vol 107 of AQC:
'H. Amblaine', 'Masonic Catechisms and Exposures' Through a series of unfortunate misunderstandings this paper, which won the Norman B. Spencer Prize Essay Award for 1993, was submitted under a pseudonym and its author, Bro. Alain Bernheim, did not receive the credit which was due to him.
Bruno Virgilio Gazzo
Editor, Pietre-Stones Review of Freemasonry
MASONIC CATECHISMS AND EXPOSURES
INTRODUCTION[i]
Since all masonic oaths include words akin to those of the Edinburgh Register House MS. (1696): '... you shall not reveal any pairt of what you shall hear or see at this time whither by word nor write nor put it in wryte at any time... but with an entered mason, so help you god.' (Knoop, Jones and Hamer, Early Masonic Catechisms, p. 33), the authenticity of early masonic catechisms was considered highly dubious until the full significance of the 'Haughfoot fragment' was duly appreciated[ii]. Most scholars are now agreed that early manuscript catechisms and some of the printed ones provide fairly reliable information about masonic ceremonies of their time. They admit that since the wording of masonic ceremonies was transmitted orally and learned by heart, some masons, notwithstanding their oath, likely happened to put them down in writing either because they were possessed of a deficient memory or possibly for transmission to other masons. Manuscripts of that kind can be termed aide-mémoire, that is a help for the memory. 'In any case, a MS. catechism is far less likely to have been a hoax or forgery than a printed version offered for sale...' (EMC, p. 10).
'Catechism' is an English word derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning 'to remember' and 'oral instructions by question and answer'. A nearly identical word exists in French (catéchisme) and in German (Katechismus), and in all three languages it is mostly used with a religious connotation. The second edition (1963) of Early Masonic Catechisms by Knoop, Jones and Hamer, a most useful book first printed in 1943, provides reliable transcripts of twenty-five texts of British origin, dated between 1696 and c. 1750. Twenty are listed in it under 'Catechisms', but the word catechism does not appear in any of them. It is found, possibly for the first time in a masonic context, in Chapter XV of Ebriatis Encomium: or the Praise of Drunkenness, a book published in London in June 1723: 'An Eyewitness of this was I myself, at their general meeting at Stationer's Hall[iii], who having learned some of their Catechism, passed my examination, paid my five shillings, and took my place accordingly.' (Knoop, Jones and Hamer, Early Masonic Pamphlets, p. 108).
The word exposure expresses the purpose of unmasking an imposture. In a masonic context, it is applied to printed matters (newspapers' articles, books or pamphlets) issued in order to make money, to attain celebrity or to hurt Freemasonry by publicizing information, especially of a ritualistic nature, that was either obtained by illicit means or divulged by a renegade who was once a freemason. These can be termed 'genuine' exposures. But some pamphlets issued in England as well as in France during the 18th century are little else than the product of the imagination of their authors. These are 'fancy' exposures, not necessarily printed with a blamable intention but as a practical joke played on credulous readers or to put them off the scent, in which case the authors may well have been freemasons. A masonic student can quickly recognize whether a contemporary exposure is genuine or not. It is often difficult even for an expert to appreciate the genuineness of an exposure of the 18th century. Both kinds of masonic exposures may include either catechisms (that is, a masonic catechetical dialogue) or narratives, or both.
The first series of English masonic exposures comes to an end with the publication of Samuel Prichard's Masonry Dissected in October 1730. The second series starts with the publication of Three Distinct Knocks (April 1760) and of Jachin and Boaz (March 1762)[iv]. '[They] show a certain development having taken place' wrote John Hamill with a remarkable talent for understatement (The Craft, 1986, p. 65). This thirty-year gap is an interesting and hitherto unexplained fact. Early English exposures belonging to the first series together with transcripts of early manuscript catechisms have been published in Early Masonic Catechisms, as mentioned above. Some exposures of the second series have been reproduced in facsimile or transcribed in books or pamphlets.
The earliest-known masonic exposure in French, the Herault's pamphlet, was issued in December 1737. It was followed in February 1744 by Le Secret des Francs-Maçons, the first of a series of highly interesting exposures. It seems that in France no French exposure was ever reprinted, not even transcribed, until facsimiles of the Sceau Rompu and of the Trahi were issued respectively in 1974 and in 1980. The only comprehensive reference work ever printed in French on the matter was the translation, issued in 1932, of Lionel Vibert's excellent paper, 'Eighteenth Century Catechisms' which had been originally published in consecutive parts of Miscellanea Latomorum in 1929-30. The publication in 1971 by Quatuor Coronati Lodge of twelve early French exposures translated into English, embodied in a book entitled The Early French Exposures (hereafter refered to in the abbreviated form EFE) edited by Harry Carr, was an exceptional achievement which was only made possible by the untiring energy of its Editor. EFE opened with a twenty pages long Introduction by Harry Carr and each exposure was preceded by a specific Editor's Introduction. Harry Carr had his own mind about ritual matters, summed up in his famous controversial paper, '600 Years of Craft Ritual' (AQC 81, 1968) in which eight pages ('Ritual Developments Abroad') were devoted to French exposures. Many themes, mentioned there in passing, were enlarged three years later in EFE. In his various papers or books however Harry Carr did not attempt to classify French exposures: 'When one realises how much each of them (with minor exceptions) owed to its predecessors, it will be obvious that there is little need for classification of the texts, and no attempt has been made to do so.' (EFE, p. XV).
The writer submits that from the twelve texts included in EFE, eight only are 'genuine' exposures (as defined above). Seven from the eight 'genuine' exposures are representative of the two streams of the French - more exactly, of the Parisian - Freemasonry of the 1740s, the eighth one, the Démasqué, shows 'atypical' characteristics[v]. All this requires some explanation. This Introduction deals only with the first point: why eight out of twelve ?
La Réception Mytérieuse (1738) does not qualify as a 'French exposure' since it is neither an original exposure nor a French translation of Prichard's Masonry Dissected, but merely a translation into French of Het Collegie der vrye metselaars... (Kloss 1839, Wolfstieg's 29952 last item), an earlier (1734) translation of MD from English into Dutch. This explains the use of many unusual French words in a masonic context - for instance the word lodge used by Prichard appears in French as College because it had been translated as Collegie into Dutch -, which baffled students and produced a strange result when re-translated into English (EFE, pp. 18-33). It seems highly doubtful whether the translator was French. 'Comment est-il peri?' (which amounts to: 'How is he died?') is one of the many barbarisms scattered in the 'French' text which were nevertheless translated into unexceptionable English in EFE ('How did he die?', EFE, p. 30, Q. 13). The Dutch pamphlet is presumably the text which in 1965 Milborne was unable to identify (AQC 78, p. 188).
Three further pamphlets, La Franc-Maçonne, Le Parfait Maçon (both 1744) and Les Francs-Maçons Ecrasés (1747), are regarded as 'fancy' exposures by the writer[vi]. The Preface of the Sceau Rompu (1745) describes the Parfait Maçon as 'a pure game of wits, only written for the benefit of women' and the Franche-Maçonne [sic] as 'completely useless for true Masonry' (French ed., p. 16). Remarks on the same line are made in the 'Preliminary Discussion...' of the Anti-Maçon (EFE, p. 381). The Ecrasés is a somewhat lengthy hoax which might have been written by a freemason. It seems to have abused the credulity of a few scholars, though it unlikely includes any genuine masonic ritual at all. The ritualistic indications of all three alleged Craft catechisms can be traced in no other rituals[vii].
Once these four texts are set aside, there remain eight exposures providing ritual information which appears, with changes of various importance, in the catechisms of other exposures (French as well as English ones), in manuscript French rituals from the 1760s and 1770s[viii], and in the first official French ritual, the Régulateur du Maçon, printed in 1801. To these eight 'genuine' exposures reproduced in EFE, a ninth one should be added: the Nouveau Catéchisme (1749) which is mentioned, shortly commented upon, but not reproduced in EFE. It has an interest of its own because of the revealing use it makes in its second part of twelve questions and answers quoted from l'Anti-Maçon.
The earliest-known French exposure is refered to in this paper as 'the Herault's pamphlet', not as Reception d'un Frey=Maçon, for the following reason: Reception d'un Frey=Maçon (EFE, pp. 6-8) is undoubtedly one of the many slightly different printed versions of the publication ordered by Herault in December 1737. It may be the original one, but it does not seem possible to prove this. The fact that it does not bear the official approbation which under Louis XV must be affixed upon all authorized printed matters, appears to speak against it. Milborne's words, 'the reference in AQC 50, p. 144, appears to resolve any doubts as to the year of publication - 1737' (AQC 78, 1965, p. 173), are incomprehensible. The short description made under the above reference, when Reception d'un Frey=Maçon was exhibited in the Lodge on 24 June 1937, is as follows: 'But this pamphlet, now exhibited, appears to be the actual Paris original, although it is undated and has no place of publication'.
CHRONOLOGY
The Herault's pamphlet (13-16 December 1737)
On 5 December 1737, René Herault, Lieutenant général de police, attended the police assembly which met every Thursday at the office of the First President of the Paris Parliament. The minutes show: 'M. le Lieutenant de Police reported upon a discovery he has made of the reception and of the oath of the frimassons or francs-massons. The whole of which was read and the audience was shocked to see [that the recipient was to take] an oath upon the Gospel of St. John and to submit himself to fearful penalities in the midst of puerilities, improprieties, and even irreligious matters pertaining to such reception. M. Herault thought that the discovery of the oath might perhaps make the so-called brothers feel so ashamed that they would not dare meet again, in which case it would not be worth speaking [further] about the matter'[ix].
On 16 December 1737[x], in his diary published in 1738-9 under the form of letters, La Barre de Beaumarchais comments upon the origin of the pamphlet issued by Herault. Another reaction appears in a letter dated from Paris, 23 December 1737, written by Bro. Camus to his friend and Brother Bertin du Rocheret, at Epernay. Bertin du Rocheret, a wine-grower as well as a Lieutenant criminel, had been received in the Loge d'Aumont on 9 September 1737 and was kept informed of masonic events by his brethren in Paris. The letter says: 'Sir and dear Brother, We are followed at present on all the streets in Paris, and there is not one single shop-lad who does not greet us, boasting [with the knowledge] of our signs. The enclosed copy will show you if they are right or wrong.'[xi]. On the previous 12 December, Bro. Castagnet had written a letter to Bertin du Rocheret and made no mention of a scandal[xii]. The Herault's pamphlet must accordingly have been issued between Friday 13 and Monday 16 December 1737. Within the next months, it was reproduced, often with slight variations, in newspapers and books printed in various countries. No further exposure is known to have been printed in French until the beginning of February 1744.
Le Secret des Francs-Maçons (February 1744)
- The imaginary '1742 edition'
The 1742 year-date was presumably first mentioned by Thory in 1815 in the Bibliographie appended to the first volume of Acta Latomorum: 'Secret des Francs-Maçons; Geneve, in-12. 1742'. It reappears in the Bibliographie (1844) of Kloss under Nr. 1848: 'Le Secret des Francs-Maçons (par Mr. l'Abbé Pérau). Genève 1742. 8.', and in 1911 in that of Wolfstieg under Nr. °29956 : 'Le Secret des francs-maçons. [Von Gabriel Louis Pérau.] Genève 1742. 8° '[xiii].