The Esotericism of the Esoteric School of Quatuor Coronati Lodge Bro. Henrik Bogdan It may be proper to premise that there was in existence amongst all the civilized nations of antiquity, an exoteric form of religion and an esoteric interpretation. The one consti- tuted the religious belief of the vulgar, and the other the secret teachings of a philo- sophical association, to which none but candidates prepared in mind and body were admitted. John Yarker, Notes on the Scientific and Religious Mysteries of Antiquity(1872), 5. he notion of an Esoteric School of Masonic research was made T popular through John Hamill’s introductory book on the history of English Freemasonry, The Craft, published in 1986.1 While discussing different interpretations of the origins of Freemasonry, Hamill argued that there are two main approaches to Masonic history, the authentic and the non-authentic. The first approach is supposedly based on 1 This paper was written during the Covid-19 pandemic, which limited my access to libraries. I would like to express my gratitude to Richard Berman, Ulf Åsén, and Andreas Önnerfors who provided me with copies of vari- ous articles. Presented to the Lodge via YouTube & Webinar Discussion 3–10 September 2020 Volume 133, 2020 1 Henrik Bogdan verifiable facts and documentation, whereas the other seeks to place Freemasonry in the context of an esoteric tradition (the ‘Mystery tradition’).2 While the authentic approach antedates the founding of Quatuor Coronati Lodge in 1886, this scholarly methodology has come to represent the work of QC from its earli- est days to the present. The formation of QC and its authentic or objective approach to Masonic history is to a large extent reflective of contemporary trends in late nineteenth- century academia, with its emphasis on a critical and text-oriented analysis of historical events and processes. More specifically, the early representatives of the authentic school concerned themselves primarily with two aspects of Masonic research: the question of origins and the access to source materials. The answer to the former was believed to lie in the transition from ‘operative’ to ‘speculative’ Masonry, while the latter concerned the identification and subsequent publication of early manuscripts and documents such as the Old Charges of Medieval Stone Masons. The quest for origins and the emphasis on the importance of source materials was not a unique feature for Masonic scholars, but was to be found in contemporary historical disciplines, such as the emergent study of comparative religion which was increasingly being emancipated from theology towards the end of the nineteenth century. It is with the works of Masonic historians such as W. J. Hughan and the Revd A. F. A. Woodford that the authentic school can be considered as firmly established. Hughan and Woodford not only published critical editions of important historical documents, and thus inspired generations to come of Masonic authors to base their research on reliable sources, but they also collaborated with other Masonic authors on important historical works, such as R. F. Gould’s highly influential The History of Freemasonry (1882–1887) which contributed to place Masonic research on a firm scholarly foundation. Significantly enough, it was this group of colleagues who in 1886 founded Quatuor Coronati Lodge. The non-authentic school, on the other hand, is described by Hamill as divided into four categories which all share (what we might call) a ‘perennial’ understanding of Free- masonry – we shall return to perennialism and the ‘ancient wisdom’ narrative subsequently – and the incapability of separating subjective interpretations from objective facts.3 As 2 ‘Thus there are two main approaches to Masonic history: theauthentic or scientific approach, in which theory is built upon or developed, out of verifiable facts and documentation; and the non-authentic approach in which attempts are made to place Freemasonry in the context of the Mystery tradition by a correlation of the teach- ings, allegory, and symbolism of the Craft with those of the various esoteric traditions.’ J. M. Hamill,The Craft: A History of English Freemasonry (London: Crucible, 1986), 15. 3 ‘The non-authentic school has four main approaches, which might be categorized as theesoteric , the mystical, the symbolist, and the romantic. All four approaches have two factors in common: a belief that Freemasonry has existed ‘time immemorial’ and an apparent inability to distinguish between historical fact and legend. The esoteric and mystical schools are in fact concerned with the transmission of ideas and esoteric traditions, in itself a valid line of research; but in doing so they convert similarities between groups widely separated in time into evidence of a continuing tradition handed down from one group to another, a sort of esoteric apostolic succession. They also tend to have unorthodox ideas on the nature and purpose of Freemasonry, endowing it with mystical, reli- 2 Ars Quatuor Coronatorum The Esotericism of the Esoteric School of Quatuor Coronati Lodge we shall see, the division of the non-authentic school into esoteric, mystical, symbolist, and romantic categories is problematic from the perspective of current scholarly defini- tions of Western esotericism, but for now it is worth noting that the esoteric school of Masonic research is, according to Hamill, not only characterized by a particular under- standing of the origins, history, and purpose of Freemasonry, but that the research of this school is flawed from a methodological perspective – the ‘inability to distinguish between historical fact and legend.’ When discussing the esoteric school more specifically, Hamill described its methodology as being comparative in nature, with John Yarker (1833–1913) as the most representative example of this particular school: Viewing Freemasonry in all its diverse branches as a coherent initiatory rite, which it is not, the esoteric school compares it with other initiatory rites, finds similarities, actual or imposed, and assumes an intercommunication. John Yarker is probably the major figure of this school. Hismagnum opus, The Arcane Schools (Belfast, 1909), is a monu- ment to misapplied scholarship. It reveals not only the breadth of his reading but also his inability to digest, or in some cases understand, what he had read.4 Summarizing The Arcane Schools as ‘a monument to misapplied scholarship’ and dismiss- ing researchers like Yarker for their ‘apparent inability to distinguish between historical fact and legend’ might be a bit too harsh, and in all fairness to Hamill it should be pointed out that he later seems to have softened his critical stance, at least in terms of Yarker. In his 1996 AQC paper ‘John Yarker: Masonic Charlatan?’, Hamill states that not only was Yarker’s ‘belief in the development from operative to speculative Freemasonry [. .] in accord with the thinking of Masonic scholars of his day, earning him praise from W. J. Hughan’, but also that in ‘The Arcane Schools he did what we in this lodge would expect – provided references for every statement he made and was always careful to distinguish between evidence and his own speculations.’ His weakness as a scholar was that ‘like all self-educated men he had enormous but uncritical respect for the written and printed word.’5 The distinguishing feature, then, between the authentic and the esoteric schools of Masonic research in terms of methodology, is the emphasis by the esoteric school on a comparative study of Freemasonry with a wide range of non-Masonic traditions and currents, such as Kabbalah, Rosicrucianism, and alchemy. The basic premise for this comparative approach is the notion that similarities between two systems indicate some sort of historical link or a common pattern, and that it is possible to gain a deeper under- standing of Freemasonry through a study of ‘kindred’ systems. The supposed benefits of this comparative approach to Freemasonry were spelled out by another shining light of gious, and even occult implications which it has never possessed.’ Hamill, The Craft, 22. 4 Hamill, The Craft, 23. 5 J. M. Hamill, ‘John Yarker: Masonic Charlatan’, AQC 109 (1996), 198–99. Volume 133, 2020 3 Henrik Bogdan the esoteric school, William Wynn Westcott (1848–1925), in his 1893 Inaugural Address as Worshipful Master of Quatuor Coronati Lodge: No one can for a moment fail to acknowledge the ardour with which the Lodge has carried on the historical branch of our studies, and I am quite prepared to grant that every line of history so gained has a definite and distinctive value in building up a complete fabric of the life history of Freemasonry. My only personal feeling is that a very hard and fast adherence to history, and a tendency to slur over the ‘hidden myster- ies of nature and science’, which we are pledged to study, might possibly, if the policy became extreme, be worthy of criticism if not condemnation, from a Masonic point of view. […] If I have any influence with this Lodge, and it can only be for a short time, it will be then in the direction of drawing your attention to the mystical rather than material; to the allegorical rather than the historic aspect. [. .] My feelings then, brethren, only prompt me to encourage among you the tendency to greater study of symbolism and the analogies between each Masonic point and similar reference in other Arcane societies and institutions. [. .] Or at least, my brethren, let us recognize that a complete thread of occult thought runs through our Rituals, and until they be emasculated from such positive evidences of mysticism, no Master can be wrong who encourages study and research into these most interesting side lights [of Freemasonry].6 In discussing Westcott’s comparative approach to Masonic research, R. A. Gilbert remarks in connection with Westcott’s 1894 paper ‘Rosicrucians, their History and Aim’,7 that Westcott ‘epitomises the approach of the Esoteric School, his contention being that in the absence of documentary evidence it is quite legitimate to draw historical conclusions from a textual analysis of Masonic ritual.