In Russia Freemasonry first appeared toward the end of the 18th century. Then its activities were mainly of a. mystical religious value. The body of its membership was com posed of the leading aristocracy of that time. Its rites and influence are vividly set forth in Tolstoy's famous novel, and Peace,' which deals with the War of 1812. It was during the reign of the stern, reactionary Tsar Nicholas I (1825-55) that Masonry began to occupy itself with strictly religious and political questions. After the mutiny in 1825 of the officers of the Guards, known as the Decem brists, in which many prominent Masons took an active part, the lodges of the latter were declared to be political, guilty of political sedi tion against the Tsar and were but under the ban. Hundreds of Masons were sent to Sibe ria, most of them dying there in the convict mines. After this Masonry existed in Russia as an "underground° organization, in frank re bellion against the secret police. In the '60's it succumbed, from lack of fresh recruits to keep the movement going. Since that time no evidence has been obtainable that the organi zation has come to life again anywhere in Rus sia, although government officials have often announced that lodges had been discovered. In 1913 the party of the Extreme Right in the Duma asserted that Masonry had broken out in the empire again and should be ruthlessly exterminated. Among all the real and imagi nary foes of autocracy in Russia none were more feared or more relentlessly suppressed than the so-called "Massonisti.' In Saint Petersburg (Petrograd) a non-political Amer ican religious society, known as the "Miyak° or "Lighthouse Society° was almost suppressed because the young men in its gymnasium had begun to wear the Y. M. C. A. symbol of the triangle on their costumes. They were de dared to be Masons secretly organized.
Introduction and Early History in Amer It is a well-settled opinion that very early in the settlement of North America Masons of the three classes,— operative, speculative and the irregulars,— met in lodges, without much regard to warrants or charters, and these or ganizations continued until long after the re vival in 1717, especially in the British colonies. Indeed, these assemblies of the craft were quite apart from regularity and the sanction of Grand Lodges. This was the fact in Philadel phia, in 1730-31; and, again, in New Hamp shire soon afterward (the last named appar ently having "Old Charges"), though nothing has yet been discovered to connect such meet ings with the working of the (historic three degrees' of 18th century notation, and post Grand Lodge era. This raises the mooted question as to priority in the United States. On 5 June 1730, Daniel Coxe of Burlington, N. J., was appointed Provincial Grand Master of the (provinces of New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, in America," by the Duke of Norfolk, Grand Master of the Premier Grand Lodge of England. On 30 April 1733, Lord Viscount Montague, Grand Master, issued a like deputation to Henry Price of Boston, ap pointing him 'Provincial Grand Master of the province of New England, the dominions and territories thereto belonging.' Masonic his tory is obscure as to the part Coxe took in establishing the society, but there is a complete record of the acts of Price. Because of this Massachusetts was acknowledged to be the 'mother jurisdiction' for nearly 150 years; while documents now in the archives of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, and *Libre B," of the Historical Society of that Common wealth, appear to give the primacy to the Key stone State. In support of this contention evi dence discovered during the last half of the 19th century goes to show that on 29 Jan. 1731, Coxe visited his Grand Lodge at London, and that a toast was there drunk in his honor, as 'Provincial Grand Master of North America': that from 1732, and for several years, a list of Grand Lodge officers was regularly printed in the Pennsylvania Gazette, published in Phila delphia; that, in 1734, Benjamin Franklin being elected Grand Master thereof, wrote to Provin cial Grand Master Price in Boston, as to the status of Masonry in Pennsylvania; that in June of that year Franklin met Price in Boston and was recognized to the extent of being *further instructed in the Royal Art," by the Provincial Grand Master; and that Grand Master Frank lin himself visited the Grand Lodge of Eng land 17 Nov. 1760 A.D.
The rival Grand Lodges in England, to gether with those of Ireland and Scotland, chartered lodges everywhere, at home and abroad. Patronized by the royal family and nobility of Great Britain the craft acquired greater prestige than history records of any other society, and a system of (military lodges' fostered expansion. The roll of warrants is sued during the 18th century and subsequent to 1730 would make a large volume. From these beginnings Grand Lodges were formed in America, composed of lodges of English ('ancients' and "moderns"), Irish, Scottish and 'Army" register, increased in number by those holding Provincial Grand Masters' war rants, together with lodges chartered by the earlier American Grand Lodges in the United States and Canada, until regular governing bodies existed in every State, province and Ter ritory. Thus the craft has 'followed the flag,"
wherever unfurled. Unfortunately the early records of many of the lodges existing in the American colonies previous to the Revolution are lost to history. In the royal forces at Louisburg, Crown Point and Lake George were lodges in which many of the king's soldiers (who were Americans) were initiated. Among the many prominent Americans who belonged to the fraternity besides Franklin were Wash ington, who was made a Mason while in the service of the Crown, under Gen. William Braddock, and became master of a lodge in Alexandria, Va.; Presidents Jefferson, Mon roe, Adams, Jackson, Polk Fillmore, Har rison, Buchanan, Johnson, Garfield and Mc Kinley. Jackson was a Grand Master and Mc Kinley a Knight Templar. Some historians claim Presidents Madison, Taylor and Pierce as Freemasons, but owing to the political dis putes of 1826-30 they made no statement as to their connection with the craft. Mr. Taft and Colonel Roosevelt both became Masons after they became President. Other members were Lafayette, Fulton, Montgomery, Sher man, Burr, Rush, Whipple, Paine, Hamilton, Gerry, Steuben, Stark, Livingstone, DelCalb, Warren, Paul Jones, Witherspoon, Revere and Hancock Knights Templars and Masonry.— The tradition that the "Baldwin Encampment,' which, up to the middle of the 19th century, had beep conceded to be the witness that Masonic Knights Templars were descendants of the Knights of the Crusades, is not now accepted. Its earliest accredited document bears date 20 Dec. 1780. The first reference to the Knights Templars as allied to Masonry is contained in the (lodge warrant) minutes of Saint An drew's Royal Arch Chapter, Boston, Mass., dated 28 Aug. 1769; the earliest in England is that of Phoenix Lodge, No. 257, Portsmouth, 21 Oct. 1778. Kilwinning Lodge of Scotland, on 8 Oct. 1779, by its master, Earl Eglimon, warranted the (High Knights Templars of Ireland' at Dublin. The Grand Lodge at York sanctioned the degree of *Knight Tem plar' in 1780. Similar refFrences,— at dates between the Saint Andrew's Chapter's record and the institution of the Grarrd Encampment, Knights Templars, U. S. A., 11 June 1816— may be found scattered throughout the fugitive minutes of lodges and chapters wherever the British army had been stationed. Whence, then, came the modern (Order of the Tem ple'? An answer, founded upon historical facts, has never been made. Two theories have been advanced: (a) It is within the range of possibility that a connection existed be tween the chivalric order of Knights Templars and the fraternity of Operative Masons of mediaeval times, because bodies of skilled work men erected Templar strongholds in the Holy Land, and built their preceptories, priories and round churches in Europe. The famous Tem ple Church, London, is an example. What, then, was more natural than that the Knights Templars in the 14th century, proscribed, per secuted and despoiled of all things, should seek their perpetuation among the affiliated bodies of mechanics of whose universality and antiquity they had abundant evidence? (b) On the other hand no historical doubt exists that every Freemason living since the revival of 1717 can trace his pedigree only to Great Britain. No other association, guild or other wise ever grew into a society of Freemasons, nor was any connection with the building trades of the Continent ever claimed by the first Freemasons of Europe. The craft there was a direct importation from England, and in its infancy and for many years was confined to the upper classes, without the least admix ture of the artisan. This was true in Germany, where the French language, that of the court and diplomacy, was the one used in keeping minutes, and the early lodges bore French names. In 1740, however, in contradistinction to English, a Scottish Masonry arose,— re puted to hail from Scotland, but having no real connection with the regular society; and from this source have emanated most of the tradi tions relative to the alleged transmission of the chivalric degrees from the Knights Templars, of whom Jacques de Molai,— executed 11 March 1314 A.D.,—was the last Grand Master. In order to prove the Templar succession, and the legend of Scottish Masonry, it becomes necessary to account for an interregnum be tween the year 1309, when Walter de Clifton, Preceptor of the Scottish Knights Templars, admitted the dispersion of his brethren, and the date when modern Templary appears of record, during the 18th century at Boston, manifestly a historical impossibility. Never theless, "history fails to record much that actu ally occurs; much that subsequent ages would gladly know." Notwithstanding, as late as 1854 an authorized edition of "The Templars' Chart," by Jeremy L. Cross, published in New York, gave a succession of Grand Masters from Jacques de Molai — based on a clumsy forgery of the Swedish Templars,— to the year 1838 A.D. Like many another ingenious theory framed to connect the "old" with the dispensations, tradition may be true, but it is unsupported by documentary evidence.