THE BUILDER FEBRUARY 1927

Frederick Fact or Fable?

By BRO. A. L. KRESS, Pennsylvania

Readers of THE BUILDER doubtless are aware, from Bro. Willard's
articles in the October and November issues and my translation of
Lantoine's article in the June issue, that Masonic writers are not
agreed as to Frederick the Great's exact connection with the
Scottish Rite. Whether or not he ever was its head is an historical
question which probably has little appeal to most Masons, even
those who belong to the Rite. Practically, the question has not the
least bearing on the present or future destinies of that body. Bro.
Willard asks, if we find Frederick was head of the Rite, what of
it? I, in turn ask, if we find he was not, what of it ? The answer
to both is--nothing. However, there are some of us who appreciate
that from Anderson down there has been too much "romancing" in
Masonic history. To us such questions as this have an historical
appeal. For my part, I do not know if Frederick was its head or
not. I suspect he was not. I am open to conviction that he was, but
hardly on the basis of what Bro. Willard offers as evidence. It is
clear that he must be held not to have been it head unless positive
proof is shown that he was. An historical inquiry or discussion, so
long as it is impersonal and friendly, should clarify the
situation.

I am unable to get the distinctions between Bro. Willard's brand of
research and my own to which he takes exception. In his case he
simply quoted from an American writer while I translated from a
French writer. He presents no new facts, no personal research. In
this respect, his article carries no more weight than Lantoine's.
Moreover, to a disinterested person, his disparaging remarks
concerning Lantoine and what he characterizes as Lantoine's
"alleged history," hardly strengthen Bro. Willard's case. The whole
tenor of Lantoine's history is one of impartiality and fairness.

What are the points on which Bro. Willard rests his case ? Briefly
they are:

1. Frederick could have dictated and signed the 1786 Constitutions.
2. Frederick was recognized as head of the Rite because:

(a) The Albany Lodge of Perfection was instructed, in September,
1770, to transmit a list of its members to Berlin.
(b) The charter for a Chapter of Prince Masons at Kingston,
Jamaica, Circa 1770, stated it conformed to regulations adopted by
nine commissioners at Berlin.
(c) A toast was drunk to Frederick in a Lodge of Perfection at
Philadelphia, Sept. 20, 1785.
(d) Solomon Bush addressed a letter to Frederick, as head of the
Rite, from the Philadelphia Lodge of Perfection in December, 1785.
(The Constitutions are supposed to have been signed by Frederick in
May, 1786.)
(e) Mackey said Myers et al., were deputies of Frederick II.
(f) Dove said Da Costa and Myers had been appointed through
Frederick.

I might say here for the benefit of students of the Scottish Rite
that this Isaac Da Costa apparently first appears on the scene of
American Masonic history at Halifax, N. S., in 1760. In that year
he wrote the Master of St. Andrews Lodge at Boston. (See
Proceedings, G. L. Mass., 1733-1792, p. 442.)

Apparently this is all the evidence, if it can be called that,
known to substantiate a tradition current in the last half of the
eighteenth century that Frederick of Prussia was head of the Rite
of Perfection. Even the most enthusiastic advocate of the story
must agree it is rather meagre data on which to establish such an
historically important fact. Incidentally we can rule out the
statements of Mackey and Dove as being mere repetition, as
second-hand evidence and so incompetent.

The various memoirs and other accounts of Frederick's last days
seem to disagree as to just how active he was in the year 1786.
Suppose we accept Bro. Willard's data that Frederick, so far as his
physical condition, could have presided over a convention to
prepare the 1786 Constitutions, and that he could have been head of
the Rite of Perfection. What of it? He could have written the
Declaration of Independence or freed Cardinal De Rohan in 1786
after the Diamond Necklace affair. But we know he did not.
Historical proofs imply something more than possibilities.
Admitting that the Lodge of Perfection at Albany was instructed to
send a list of its members to Berlin, does this prove any
connection of Frederick? It does not. As far as Solomon Bush's
letter addressed to Frederick, of which Bro. Willard calmly tells
us, "it makes no difference whether there ever was a reply" to it
or not, no critical writer would think of accepting it as
establishing as a fact Frederick's headship. It makes all the
difference in the world whether there ever was a reply. The Duke of
Sudermania once wrote another famous letter to the hero of a
Masonic fable, Charles Edward, saying he understood the latter was
head of the Rite of Strict Observance. The difference between his
letter and Bush's, however, was this: each understood a pretentious
figure was head of a pseudo-Masonic Rite. In Charles Edward's case
he received the letter and replied that he had nothing to do with
it. Frederick never received Bush's letter and never replied. Who
knows what he might have said!

One could build up a hypothetical case that there was a General
Grand Master for the United States around 1780-1790 who was George
Washington, from actual Masonic minutes, resolutions, letters, etc.
A far better case could be made for him as such than for Frederick.
But we know Washington was not. Apparently Bro. Willard does not
realize how isolated early Masonic lodges were and how credulous
our early brethren were. He should realize that he has against him
the weight of critical historians. He quotes Gould in part for his
own purpose. Why not go further and quote Gould where he says (Vol.
III, p. 383, Am. Ed. History):

According to the legend . . . Frederick the Great . . .in 1786,
revised the regulations, transformed the 25 degrees into 33, and
vested his personal authority in the Supreme Council of the 33d.
Previous writers have spared me the pains of proving that all this
is pure fiction....

Bro. A. E. Waite, of Ramsgate, England, is unquestionably the
greatest student and historian of the high degrees. In his New
Encyclopedia, under Frederick, he characterizes his headship of the
Rite as fiction, and as such says it has been abandoned by the
Ancient Accepted Rite for England. But it will be better to quote
his own words:

It is certain that he [Frederick] was made a Mason surreptitiously
during the life of his tyrannical father; that he was quite
sympathetic towards Masonry when he ascended the Prussian throne;
that at the foundation of the Grand Lodge of the Three Globes he
became its patron; . . . and that as a general result no
difficulties impeded the growth of the Order within his dominions
. . . But his active interest had ceased if indeed he could be said
to have had any, beyond the fact that it seemed worth his while to
join in secret because it would have been so highly displeasing to
his father had the fact come to be known.... His was the last type
of mind to be concerned in Masonry on its own merits.

It follows that Frederick the Great is of very moderate importance
from any Masonic point of view, and if some Supreme Councils still
produce him in the Chair of the Thirty-third Degree represented by
the Grand Master therein, the fact is of no consequence and makes
for nothing. The case of the forged Charter is much too bad for its
long lost cause to find a forlorn hope therein. Finally the
Scottish Rite at its best, here and in America, is much too
important to need that dubious aid. I believe that any claim on the
Charter has been abandoned long since in England. Its title to
existence as the custodian of the Rose-Croix Grade is a living
thing, and even if Frederick the Great--false poet and shallow
moralist--had inscribed the instrument foisted upon him with his
own hand, it would be merely a scrap of parchment at this day.

My own opinion on the subject is as follows:
1. Until facts are presented to prove Frederick's headship, the
story must be rejected.
2. These facts must consist of either the authentic original of the
1786 Constitutions signed in his own hand or else some official
document emanating from Frederick showing his official connections
as head of the Rite.
3. The multiplicity of "certifications" with which one is
confronted in early documents of the Rite of Perfection are
entitled to little or no consideration from present day historians.
In other words, they often were "certified" for a purpose.
4. The fact that Frederick's death brought no notice from Lodges of
Perfection, no expression of sorrow, is significant.

As I understand it, the National Masonic Research Society exists
for exactly the purposes Bro. Willard states in his conclusion--to
develop a school of American Masonic research and to offer a medium
through THE BUILDER for the exchange of Masonic light solely to
determine the truth about our Order. I can cheerfully go along with
Bro. Willard in his frank wish to get at the facts on any Masonic
subject. The question of Frederick's relation with the Rite could
be dealt with differently than any writer has, tying it up with the
1762 and 1786 Constitutions. An article from Bro. Willard, or some
other student of the Rite, which would trace these documents
concisely, simply and chronologically, would prove interesting. If
we are to develop an American school of Masonic research, let us
begin by throwing into the discard the timeworn, shop-worn tales of
bygone writers and re-examine for ourselves, original documents and
facts if we can find them. There is too much "hash" in American
Masonic writings, too much dependence on secondhand knowledge.
Frederick, fact or fable, is a good place to start.

"All the experience of human life in history goes to show that
mankind will not be obedient long to any law of self-restraint and
self-denial unless it is imposed upon their conscience by a
supernatural authority they believe divine."

"I go from life," said the statesman orator Cicero, "as from an
inn, not as from home."

