|
|
There have been numerous academic and scholarly studies of the many streams of Freemasonry and their various rôles in political history. Unfortunately free range theorizing can erroneously lead to agenda-driven conclusions assigning masonic responsibility to global events.
|
|
|
|
Freemasons on the barricades of the Paris Commune, 29 April 1871.
|
|
Freemasonry and eighteenth-century revolution
|
 |
 |  |
There is no question that, as Marxist historian Boris I. Nicolaevsky wrote, "secret societies, some outwardly of masonic form, played a decisive rôle in the forming of the First International."4 But a vague use of terms and a selective use of facts has allowed anti-masons and conspiracy theorists to erroneously conclude that Freemasonry as a body played a large rôle in what was to become two political movements: communism and anarchism.
|
 |
 |
 |
The claim is frequently made, often without comment, rarely with citation, that several early promoters of modern anarchism, specifically Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin (1814-1876), Pyotr Alexeyevich Kropotkin (1842/12/21-1921/02/08) and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865), were freemasons.1 The further claim will also be made that many of the participants in the First International (28 September 1864 - 15 July 1876), the Commune Révolutionnaire****, and the Paris Commune (18 March - 28 May 1871) were freemasons, and therefore that modern communism or the anarchist movement are masonic constructs.7
|
Bakunin
|
Mikhail Bakunin
The question of Michael Bakunin's association with Freemasonry raises several complications.
Ravindranathan reports that "In the mid-1840s in Paris he had joined a Masonic lodge" noting "there is no record of his having actively participated in the Masonic movement". [Bakunin & the Italians, T.R. Ravindranathan. Kingston and Montreal : McGill-Queen's University Press, 1988. ISBN : 0-7735-0646-2 pp. 24-26. p. 24.]
Bakunin's relationship with Italian Freemasonry is clearer. He joined the self-styled masonic lodge Il Progresso Sociale in Florence sometime in 1864-65. Two points should be stressed. First, his correspondence makes it obvious that Bakunin had no interest in Fremasonry other than as "as a cover and tool for his revolutionary purposes".Ravindranathan Second, Italian Freemasonry at the time was in a state of some confusion. From 1864 to 1867 there were, simultaneously, four Grand Bodies in Italy, all of which were politically active and not recognized by regular Freemasonry. [Robert Freke Gould, The History of Freemasonry, It's Antiquuities, Symbols, Constitutions, Customs, Etc. vol iii London : Thomas C. Jack, 1887 p. 304] From the available records it is unclear from which of the four bodies Il Progresso Sociale took its membership most probably the Grand Orient of Italy at Turin (est 01/01/1862), which restricted itself to the three Craft degrees. What is clear is that it was a politically inspired break-away group with no claims to masonic legitimacy. [Ravindranathan p. 25 ; Gould p. 304.]
" Giuseppe Mazzoni held a high position among the Florentine Freemasons and Giuseppe Dolfi was Grand Master of the Grand Orient Masonic Lodge." [[Ravindranathan p. 25] -- which Grand Orient? [initiated loggia Concordia 27/03/1864. Conti, citing Gildo Valeggia, Storia della Loggia massonica florentina Concordia (1861-1911), Milano, 1911. ]
'There is no evidence as to how Bakunin tried to infiltrate and use the Masonic machinery for his revolutionary purposes other than a letter he wrote to Herzen and Ogarev from Naples on 23 March 1866, explaining his fleeting romance with Freemasonry: "I only pray to you, friends, not to think that I ever seriously occupied myself with Freemasonry. This can be useful as a mask or as a ort, but to look for anything serious in Freemasonry is no better, if not worse, than to seek consolation in wine." Then he told his correspondents that he would speak to them no more about Freemasonry.' [Ravindranathan, p 26 citing Dragomanov, ed., Pis'ma M.A. Bakunina, 271.]
'He wrote a long manuscript on Freemasonry which was lost,[citing Lehning, "Bakunin's Conceptions," 61.] but fragments of his "Catechism of a Freemason," written in 1865, have survived in which he pronounced the famous aphorism:
God exists, therefore man is a slave.
Man is free, therefore there is no God.
Escape this dilemma he who can!' [Ravindranathan p. 26 citing 57. Carr, Michael Bakunin, 304 ; Steklov, M.A. Bakunin, 2:291. [also cited in Mikhail Bakunin: The Philosophical Basis of His Theory of Anarchism, Paul McLaughlin. Algora Publishing, 2002. 268 pp. ISBN : 1892941848 p. 27.]
Bakunin is claimed to have been a Grand Orient freemason. This is a meaningless term. [Lodge Il Progresso Sociale, Florence 1864, Bakunin and the Italians, T. R. Ravindranathan,, McGill-Queen's University Press, Kingston : 1988, pp. 24-26. Also see Nicolaevsky, who does not claim that Bakunin was a freemason, as some online reviewers have maintained, only "indicating" that he was "connected with the Philadelphians" without providing citation or telling us what he means by "connected". If he knew him to be a member, he should have said so. [p.56] 47 Also: "Bakunin had joined the Freemasons in Paris in the 1840s, and he rejoined in Italy." "Bakunin had worked with radical members from several countries while he was in London and he became a member of the Scottish Rite, one of the chapters of the fraternal order; soon he became a thirty-second degree Mason." "His brief involvement with the Freemasons did push Bakunin to reevaluate the relationship of religion and politics." Bakunin, The Creative Passion, Mark Leier. New York : Thomas Dunne Books, St. Martin's Press, 2006. ISBN : 0-312-30538-9 hc 350pp. p. 171. ] More incredibly, he is also accused of being a satanist, and further claimed to have written something called a Catechism of a Freemason.3
Pyotr Alexeyevich Kropotkin
|
Kropotkin (Félix Nadar photo, detail)
|
Claims for Kropotkin's masonic membership+ are based on his Memoirs, wherein he notes meeting in the early spring of 1872 "at the spacious Masonic Temple Unique", in Zürich. From this the conspiracy-minded can conclude that he was a freemason, but Kropotkin doesn't write that it was a masonic meeting, only that his section of the International Workingmen's Association met in a masonic building. 6
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
|
Proudhon
|
There is much confusion and contradiction in what has been reported. For example, Proudhon is variously claimed to have became a freemason either in Paris in 1847, or in Dijon in 1849.2
What is clear is that, regardless of what contact these men had with Freemasonry, there is no record that their politics had any real impact on Freemasonry, or that the teachings of Freemasonry had any influence on their politics. The Manifesto issued by freemasons on 8 April 1871 doesn't apppear to have had much influence.
Loge des Philadelphes
It is from the membership of the Loge des Philadelphes, a lodge under the masonicly irregular Order of Memphis2 that the First International is claimed to have drawn its founding membersalthough, as detailed below, the facts do not bear out this claim.
Formed out of the French refugee membership of Les Sectateurs de Ménès, La Grande Loge des Philadelphes was established at the end of 1850. Its constitution was ratified by the Conseil Supreme de l'Ordre Maçonnique de Memphis on 31 January 1851 [Freemasons' Magazine and Masonic Mirror (London), August 27, 1859, pp. 103-34. , cited by Boris I. Nicolaevsky, "Secret Societies and the First International" 38, 39-40, 41-42. ]
Originally working the 95 degrees of the Rite of Memphis, after 8 April 1857 they only worked the three Craft degrees. [Prescott AQC p. 15.]
"On 7 November 1866, however, the Philadelphes, by a large majority, agreed to open their works ŌAu nom de la Raison et de la Fraternité UniverselleÕ.99 In January 1868, it was decided to merge the two London lodges, which became known as Les Philadelphes et Concorde Réunis. Its first Master was Beno”t, who was however upbraided by some members of the lodge for supposedly trying to retain the title of Grand Master beyond the statutory term. Consequently, a minority decided to keep the old Philadelphes lodge in existence, so that, confusingly, there were soon again two London lodges: Les Philadelphes
and Les Philadelphes et Concorde Réunis.102"
99 Combes, op. cit., pp. 57-8.
100 Combes, op. cit., p. 58.
101 It is in the document collection at The Library and Museum of Freemasonry.
102 Combes, op. cit., p. 59.
banquet for Charls Bradlaugh :. Prominent among the diners was
a delegation from the Philadelphes et Concorde Réunis, led by Le Lubez, a republican from
the Channel Islands and a member of the First International. [prescott p. 24]
"The old Philadelphes lodge which had continued in existence after 1868 as a protest against Benoit’s proceedings, fizzled out in 1871,121 but the Philadelphes et Concorde Réunis continued to be very active throughout the 1870s." Combes, ‘Des Origines du Rite de Memphis’, p. 58. cited by Prescott p. 26 "In November 1873, Le Monde Ma¨onnique reported that a group of French masons in London had provisionally formed a lodge under the title LÕUnion Ma¨onnique." Le Monde Ma¨onnique 15 (1873-4), pp. 334, 430, 514; Combes, op. cit., pp. 48-9. cited by Prescott p. 28
"La Loge Les Philadelphes et Concorde Réunis”, was held at 71 Dean Street, Soho, in 1870, and at that time, “Marc Ratazzi”, “Massac”, “Delpeche”, “Poirsou”, and “Jourdain”, were the principal office bearers of the Lodge. These men I am informed are all of extreme Republican opinions. I have also ascertained that at that time the Lodge was visited on more than one occasion by Messrs Bradlaugh, Odger,141 and Gustave Flourens" The Freemason (1 July 1876), pp. 304-5; (8 July 1876), pp. 317-8; (22 July 1876), p. 329. cited by prescott p. 29
It continued to exist until the late 1870s. During this time it had about 100 members. Between 1853 and 1856 some ten lodges of the Rite of Memphis were established.[1] [ Professor Jean Bossu, "Une loge de proscrits 'a Londres sous le Second Empire et aprés la Commune" in the January-October 1958 issues of L'dée libre., a now-defunct monthly magazine published in Herblay (Seine-et-Oise), distributed only to members of French masonic lodges, cited by Nicolaevsky. ]
French émigré physician Simon Bernard
was
Bradlaugh’s sponsor when in March 1859, the year after Bernard’s trial, Bradlaugh joined the
masonic lodge which had been formed by French refugees in London, the Grand Loge des
Philadelphes
An 1863 directory of the Philadelphes discovered by George Draffen 65
[Annuaire pour lÕexercice 1863-4 Orient de Londres (1863). It was presented by Draffen in 1984 to The Library
and Museum of Freemasonry in London, where it has the classmark BE 682 PHI: subject file ‘Rite of Memphis’.] : lawyer
Montague Richard Leverson, Austin Holyoake
After Napoleon’s coup dÕétat, the Rite of Memphis was suppressed in France, and in 1853 Les Sectateurs de Mén¸s
became the Grand Lodge of the Order, taking the title Grand Loge des Philadelphes.70
Between 1853 and 1856, other lodges of the Rite of Memphis were opened in London
(Gymnosophistes; Fraternité des Peuples; Disciples d'Herm¸s; Conseil des Grands
Régulateurs de la Ma¨onnerie) and Birmingham (L'Avenir).
[Prescott, citing Combes, ‘Des origines du Rite de Memphis’, p. 46. "According to a note by John Hamill on the ‘Rite of
Memphis’ subject file, this lodge was gradually taken over by French-speaking English Masons between 1863-6."]
|
Louis Blanc
|
[Louis Jean Joseph Charles Blanc (1811/10/29 - 1882/12/06) a politician and historian, and republican socialist but not sympathetic to Paris Commune "from each according to his, abilities, to each according to his needs."] was initiated into Les Sectateurs
de Mén¸s, not La Grand Loge des Philadelphes [Prescott AQC 203 p. 15 ]
While the origins of the lodge can be found in the non-political, and perhaps spiritually esoteric, Order of Memphis, in the main its membership was politically republican and socialist. But the members brought their politics with them, they did not find them in the lodge. They also brought their friends and associates with them, men unmoved by the lessons of Freemasonry but who were attracted by an existing group sympathetic to their radical politics.
None of the numerous biographies of of Louis Blanc makes any special mention of his activities as a mason or as a member of secret societies in general.11 Nor are there any traces, of such activities in the Louis Blanc papers in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris.12 But in histories of masonry, Blanc long has figured as one of the leading representatives of the Order of Memphis;
Bossu does not list him as a member of the Lodge of the Philadelphians, but he refers to Blanc's speeches at meetings organized by the Lodge (for example, at an 1870 banquet in honor of Paolo Tibaldi on his return from Cayenne). We learn from Bossu that in 1855 Louis Blanc was actually a member of the Supreme Council of thc Order of Memphis.14
Although Nicolaevsky first make the broad statement:
The part played by individual Philadelphians in 1864 was enormous; Victor Le Lubez, to name only the most important, personally undertook the tremendous work of organizing the meeting of September 28, 1864, at which the General Council of the First International was elected. The General Council of the International was selected by Le Lubez, and included a large and influential group of Philadelphians.36
He tempers his claim by demuring :
We do not know enough about the members of the General Council to establish precisely how many of them were Philadelphians or their allies,37 but we do know that of eight non-Englishmen elected to the first General Council, Six were Philadelphians or Mazzinists, who, as we have seen, were then allied with the Philadelphians. And the influence of the non-English members of the General Council was much greater than their number would suggest. By November 29, the membership of the General Council had increased to 58, and the new members were primarily candidates proposed by Le Lubez. The French group in the General Council grew from three to nine, eight of whom were Philadelphians; and the number of non-English members who were definitely allies of Le Lubezamong whom I count all the Italians and Poles of Emile Holtorp's groupgrew from six to 18 at the meeting of November 29, an increase, that is, from 19 per cent of the total membership of the General Council to 31 per cent.38
Nicolaevsky omits to mention that of the twenty-three members elected to the provisional Central Committee, at St. MartinÕs Hall, London, on 28 September 1864, only three: Victor Le Lubez, J. B. Bocquet and J. Denoual could have been members of Loge de Philadelph. Of the about forty attending the 5 October 1864 meeting
Of the nineteen apppointed between October 12 and 29 November, in fact only three were proposed by Le Lubez
On the other hand, it has also been claimed the the meeting had been called by leaders of the London trade unions. Le Lubez took part in the inaugural meeting but was expelled from the General Council in 1866. Nicolaevsky interpretation of Le Lubez's influence is not born out by the available minutes.
http://www.marxists.org
http://www.marxists.org
http://www.marxists.org
The Order of Memphis
Whether or not the Order of Memphis was a masonic body is to some degree a question of perspective. Certainly, to regular and recognized Craft Freemasonrysuch as those jurisdictions then recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England and the Grand Orient of Francethe Order of Memphis was irregular and clandestine.10 In other words, it was claiming to be masonic but was not.
While all regular and recognized Freemasonry evolved from systems developed in Ireland, Scotland and England, the rituals of the Order of Memphis were loosely inspired by Cagliostro's clandestine Egyptian Ritewhich he had invented out of whole cloth as a scheme for exploiting freemasons. The Primitive Rite of Memphis was created by Samuel Honis at Cairo in 1814. Promoted by Gabriel-Mathieu Marconis de Negre in Montauban, France, until 1816, the rite was revived by his son, Jacques-Étienne Marconis de Negre (1795/01/03 - 1868/11/21), commonly known as Marconis, at Paris in 1838. He met with little success and the few lodges he had formed, in Paris, Marseilles and Brussels, were suppressed by the police in 1841. Revived again in 1848, as the Rite of Memphis, perhaps ten lodges were later absorbed into the Grand Orient of France in 1862 and their "higher degrees" recognized but not permitted to be conferred.
To the chagrin of the Grand Orient of France, Marconis continued to sell memberships outside France. The United Grand Lodge of England had issued a warning on 24 October I859, advising its members that the Rite of Memphis was an irregular body. The promotion of the later Rite of Misra m by < |
|