The Essenes in Masonic Literature

THE BUILDER. DECEMBER 1927

By BRO. R.J.MEEKREN

IN the second volume of THE BUILDER it was stated, in an answer to
a question regarding this mysterious sect, that Da Costa was the
first (in his sketch of a history of the still more mysterious
Dionysian Architects) to trace the genealogy of Freemasonry through
the Essenes. This is yet another instance to prove how difflcult it
is to discover when a given opinion first arose, and the danger of
making definite pronouncements in such cases. Da Costa wrote in the
first decade of the nineteenth century; the first mention of the
Essenes in connection with Masonry that the present writer has been
able to find (and it is highly improbable that there will be
anything very much earlier discovered) is in 1730. It is to be
found in that rare and curious work, A Defence of Masonry,
published anonymously in December of the above year. It has since
been proved that the author was Martin Clare, who was Junior G. W.
in 1735, and who, owing to a careless and misleading utterance of
George Oliver, has been confidently supposed by later writer to
have been an early "tinkerer" with the ritual.

The Defence of Masonry is obviously written by a man of
considerable learning, and one who was a forerunner of all the
school of students who have sought to explain the usages of the
Craft by references to religious and other customs gathered
indiscriminately from every possible source. Unfortunately he was
not an accurate scholar by any means, and it seems very probable
that he may be ultimately responsible for a number of statements
which have been repeated time after time but which have no
foundation in fact. One example is the account given of the death
of Hipparchus the Pythagorean. It is not directly connected with
our subject, but Josephus (one of our two chief authorities)
describes the Essenes as being like the Pythagoreans; a statement,
however, that is only to be taken as a descriptive analogy suited
to the Roman public for which he wrote, and not as implying that he
thought, or intended to assert, any connection existed between
them. The passage here referred to in Clare's work runs as follows:

. . . there was a false brother, one Hipparchus, of this sect [the
Pythagoreans], who, out of Spleen and Disappointment broke through
the Bond of his Oath, and committed the secrets of the society to
writing, in order to bring the Doctrine into contempt. He was
immediately expelled the School as a Person most infamous and
abandoned, as one dead to all Sense of Virtue and Goodness; and the
Pythagoreans, according to their custom, made a tomb for him as if
he had been actually dead. The Shame and Disgrace that justly
attended this Violation of his Oath threw the poor Wretch into a
Fit of Madness and Despair so that he cut his Throat and perished
by his own Hands, and (which surprized me to find) his memory was
so abhorred after Death, that his Body lay upon the Shore of the
Island of Samos and had no other burial than in the sands of the
sea (1).

If this surprised the author, it certainly surprises us still more
when we find that the authority he gives, Book V of the Stiomateis
of Clement of Alexandria, says no more than the following, and this
merely as a casual illustration to the subject he has in hand:

Indeed they say that Hipparchus the Pythagorean being accused of
writing the [esoteric teaching] of Pythagoras in plain terms was
expelled from the school, a pillar being raised for him as though
for one dead....

The words in brackets do not appear in the original Greek, but are
understood from what has immediately preceded this sentence (2).

It is hard, however, to think that the author of the Defence
deliberately fabricated the additional details. He cites also
Iamblichus and Porphyry, both of whom wrote lives of Pythagoras.
The latter, unfortunately, has not been accessible, so that it has
been impossible to see if anything to the point is to be found in
it. Iamblichus, however, does say something of a certain
Hipparchus, it was not an uncommon name. This is in a rather
lengthy rebuke or exhortation addressed to him by one Lysis, which
begins thus:

lt is reported that you philosophize to everyone you may happen to
meet, and publicly, which Pythagoras did not think fit to do. And
these things indeed, O Hipparchus, you learnt with diligent
assiduity, but you have not preserved them . . . [from the vulgar
or common herd presumably]. If, therefore, you will abandon these
[practices] I shall rejoice; but if not you will be dead in my
opinion . . .

The remainder of the speech has nothing more to the point but
merely goes on to give the arguments for not teaching the esoteric
parts of philosophy without strict discipline and proving of
character beforehand, and Hipparchus is not again mentioned by
name. Nevertheless the beginning certainly does sound like an
official reprimand with a veiled threat of condign punishment. In
another place Iamblichus tells us that any disciple or student who
failed to "make his grade," or who was deemed unsuitable for other
reasons, either intellectual or moral, was loaded with gifts of
gold and other wealth from the common treasury and dismissed from
the school; after which a pillar was raised for him as if he were
dead, and if they met him afterwards they pretended he was a
stranger. This form of rejection of the unfit disciple would most
likely be used for the expulsion of an offending initiate also.
Still we have here no suicide, or leaving the body on the seashore.
A little further on, however, there is a brief remark on a person
called Hippasus, who was said to have belonged to the school, and
"divulged and described the method of forming a sphere from twelve
pentagons," in consequence of which

he perished in the sea, as an impious person, but obtained the
renown [i.e. in the profane world] of having made the discovery.

The most charitable supposition, and inherently the most probable,
too, is that the passage in the Defence was written without
verification of the references, and that several different passages
had been confused in the author's memory. His general purpose in
writing might also excuse some departure from his authorities, if
under cover of that he really intended (as seems certain) to convey
a special meaning to the initiated. But however legitimate this
might be in itself it was dangerous, as the event has proved; for
unlearned and careless and enthusiastic writers have copied and
recopied it as literal fact. In any case it shows the necessity of
caution in accepting what he says later on about the Essenes.

This latter is all comprised in one paragraph of some length, and
as authority for the statements made the Vita Contemplativa of
Philo and the Antiquities of the Jews of Josephus are cited.
Curiously the most detailed description of the Essenes given by
Josephus is not in this work, but in the Wars of the Jews; and in
the Antiquities he refers to this account as a reason for not in
that place describing the sect at length; which is another
indication that Clare quoted from memory. But the matter in the
last part of the paragraph is all taken from Philo, and does not
deal with the Essenes at all, but with the Therapeutae of Egypt. Of
course, it has been often asserted that they were one and the same
organization with the Essenes, but the fact remains that Philo
speaks of the Essenes as living in Palestine and the Therapeutae in
Egypt, and gives no indication whatever that he regarded them as
the same. Besides, the Therapeutae admitted women to their society
which the Essenes did not, and further, they anointed themselves
with oil in the usual Oriental manner, while oil was regarded as a
defilement by the Essenes. It therefore seems impossible to suppose
any close connection between the two sects. The passage of especial
interest in the paragraph under discussion is as follows, the
italics are in the original:

But before he was receiv'd as an establish'd Member, he was first
to bind himself by solemn obligations and Professions, to do
Justice, to do no Wrong, to keep Faith with all men, to embrace the
Truth, to keep his Hands clear from Theft and fraudulent Dealing,
not to conceal from his Fellow-Professors any of the Mysteries, nor
to communicate any of them to the Profane, though it should be to
save his life; to deliver nothing but what he received [of these
mysteries, presumably] and endeavour to preserve the Principle that
he professes. They eat and drink at the same common Table, and the
Fraternity that comes from any other place are sure to be received
there; they meet together in an Assembly, the Right-hand is laid
upon the Part between the chin and the Breast and the Left-hand let
down straight by their side.

All this is very specific, and very exciting. Let us follow it up
and see what has been done with it by later writers. The Defence
was reprinted with the second edition of Anderson's Constitutions
in 1738, and thus its contents were widely disseminated though the
original work practically passed out of existence. One curious
mistake was perpetuated, which definitely proves that the editor,
James Anderson, did not verify the author's references; nor have we
seen that it has been noticed elsewhere. The author of the Defence
cites Josephus' Antiquities, Book VIII, Chapter 2, for the account
of the Essenes mentioned above. As a matter of fact this chapter
tells us about the wife of Solomon, his wisdom and riches, and his
correspondence and treaties with Hiram of Tyre for the building of
the Temple, while the first reference made to the Essenes comes in
a much later chapter and, as already noted, his principal account
of them is in another work altogether. The other authority given is
Philo's Vita Contemplativa but no specific reference is given (3).

In his Lexicon of Masonry Mackey has the following statement, under
the heading "Essenes":

Philo, of Alexandria, who in two books written expressly on the
subject of the Essenes has given a copious account of their
doctrine and manners, says that when they were listening to the
secret instructions of their chiefs, they stood with "the right
hand on the breast a little below the chin, and the left hand
placed along the side." A similar position is attributed by
Macrobius to Venus when deploring the death of Adonis....

He does not, however, give any reference for this last statement.
The first part is certainly not a literal copy of the passage in
the Defence any more than of Philo. We now learn, also, that the
attitude was one employed by the Essenes, and assumed by inferiors
when listening to their superior, and that they are standing. Also
that the hand is now laid on the breast, whereas before it was on
the part between the breast and the chin, which one would naturally
take to be the neck.

The Lexicon was published in 1855; in the article on the same
subject in the later Encyclopaedia this passage was deleted for
some reason, though otherwise the account was expanded. Perhaps in
the meantime Mackey had looked up the original ! Before coming to
that, however, we will give another quotation from a well-known
English Masonic author, John Yarker. In his Arcane Schools (page
157) he gives us yet another development--he says:

When addressing their Chiefs they stood with their right hand below
their chin, and the left let down by the side.

The Chiefs are now dignified by a capital letter ! But the phrase
"let down by the side" is peculiar, and reminds us of that in the
Defence, "and the Left-hand let down straight by their Side." It is
not quite a natural way to describe the attitude in the modern
usage of the English tongue, and it looks almost as if Yarker had
followed Mackey, but with the Defence version in his mind at the
same time. Yarker gives no references at all, but he goes on to say
that "a select class of the Essenes were termed Therapeutae," which
is simply baseless guess-work hazarded in favor of a theory, though
again it is possible he took the opinion from someone else. It is
only a step from saying the Therapeutae were the same as the
Essenes to saying they were a higher degree. Whatever the arguments
may be worth for the hypothesis that the latter were an Egyptian
branch of the Essenes, recruited from the Hebrews resident in that
country, and they are certainly far from conclusive to say the
least, as we have seen there is no shadow of reason for supposing
them a select class or inner circle of the sect. Rather the reverse
seeing they admitted women.

It is now high time to go to the original and see what Philo
actually did say. He is describing the Assembly of the Society, at
which, as has been said, women were also present, though separated
by a screen from the men, just as was customary in the Christian
Church at a later time. He says:

On the seventh day the various members meet for common worship.
They arrange themselves according to age, sitting on the ground,
the right hand between the chest and the chin, but the left tucked
down along the flank. The senior recluse then delivers an address
to which all listen in silence (4).

If Mackey did look this up it is no wonder he so completely dropped
his earlier statement. But then he should have said so and exploded
the fairy tale. It would be interesting to know who first adorned
the tale by inserting in the account given by the author of the
Defence, which is accurate enough so far as it goes (though
misleading by its omissions) the detail that Philo was describing
a posture taken, or gesture made, while standing? It was not like
Mackey to have drawn on his imagination in such a case. So far no
earlier version has come to light, but in view of the difficulty
that dogs every attempt to discover the real origin of any
assertion or statement of this kind, this is in no way conclusive
that Mackey was the culprit; it is most probable he copied it from
someone else.

As another instance to show how easy it is to make a slip, no less
an authority than Robert Freke Gould, in the first chapter of his
Concise History (it remains unamended in the Revised Edition),
makes the following statement:

That two members of this singular sect, on meeting for the first
time, at once recognized each other by means of signs,

and as the paragraph in which this occurs begins:

The references to the Essenes by ancient authorities are brief and
unsatisfactory. We leal n, however, that, etc.,

the reader natural]y concludes that the points in the summary that
follows had direct authority in these brief references of ancient
writers. Bro. W. Wynn Westcott in his paper on the subject before
Quatuor Coronati Lodge (5) says that "in a recent letter" (1915)
Gould admitted that he could not give "any original authority for
this statement." If he had been able to do so it must have been
from some document hitherto unknown to students. It was evidently
a case of "Homer nodding," the reiterated statement copied by one
uncritical writer after another slipped in by accident.

That the Essenes would naturally be thought of by Masons seeking to
find traces of the lineage of their Fraternity was really
inevitable. The articles in THE BUILDER this year by Prof. Strauss
are proof enough, for he built up his hypothesis without knowledge
of the fact that it had ever been advanced before. If, as he
maintains, their proper name in their own country was Banaim,
Builders, he has produced another argument, one that, so far as we
know, Bros. Yarker and Rosenbaum alone among Masonic writers have
touched upon, and Yarker did not develop it at all. He got the
suggestion apparently from de Bunsen, who so far as the present
writer is aware was not a Mason. It is supposed by this last that
a tradition passed from the "Egyptian and Jewish Gnostics" into
Christianity, and that "it had the doctrine of a spiritual
development which transformed them into living stones, hence
denominated Banaim or builders, that is of a bodily temple, and
therefore they neglected the material temple of Jerusalem."

Presumably he had in mind the allusions of St. Paul to building,
and living stones, and to Christ as the "headstone of the corner."
The coincidences are indeed striking and they have been freely used
in framing the rituals of the various grades superposed on the
three symbolic degrees. But returning to Gould's statement about
the Essenes, where did his idea that they had secret signs for
recognition come from?

They were a sect of the Hebrews at about the time of the beginning
of the Christian era, but they were more than a sect, for they were
organized in an ascetic or monastic fraternity. This at least seems
quite clear. Also they had apparently a form of initiation,
including a baptism and an oath. They wore a white garment, by
Masonic writers freely called an apron, but which was probably a
loin cloth, alld carried a paddle or hatchet. This latter was
probably very small and easily portable; its use (for the curious
who do not know) is given in the Book of Deuteronomy in Chapter 23,
verse 13, though there it is described as being part of the spear,
the weapon of the nomad herdsmen, probably an enlargement of the
butt. Besides this they had grades; a secret teaching imported
"figuratively," which is of course taken to mean by allegories and
symbols; and finally they aided and assisted each other, and
strange members were welcomed and greeted as if well known.

The combination of all these points is too attractive an analogy to
Freemasonry not to have found supporters; and in the manner only
too frequently exemplified, inferences were drawn and glosses
freely inserted in the text, which were then copied as if it all
came from the original.

Let us now consider the peculiar attitude or gesture described by
the author of A Defence of Masonry; his interest in it is evidently
that he supposed it to have some ritual significance (as perhaps it
did) and that it might have been used as a sign for recognition,
like the bending of the ankle by which Lucius in the Golden Ass
recognized the priest of Isis. Add to this the statement of
Porphyry that

. . . though meeting for the first time, the members of this sect
at once salute each other as intimate friends (6),

and the thing was done. Nothing more was needed than to put the two
together and we have evidence conclusive--to the uncritical--that
the Essenes had signs and tokens just the same as Freemasons. The
trouble is that the second statement quoted says nothing whatever
about the means of recognition but is confined solely to the way in
which stranger members were received. It does not exclude such
private means of course, but neither does it imply them or require
them; while if there were such signs, there is no reason whatever
to suppose that one of them was the attitude taken in the assembly,
squatting Oriental fashion, on the ground, the knees drawn up, the
left arm under the outer garment down by the side, and the right
hand up near the left shoulder--if anyone doubts the description
let him try it by sitting down on the floor with a dressing gown
wrapped round cloak wise. Whether a ritual posture or not, it is a
very natural one.

In spite of all this we cannot dismiss the Essenes entirely, as at
least a subject of interest to Masonic students. Though it is
really impossible to make out any direct connection between them
and Freemasonry-- an institution indigenous to Northwestern Europe
so far as anything is certainly known of it--nevertheless Essenic
sect has the twofold interest of being a fraternity possessing
certain mysteries and of being native to the country in which
Masonic traditions and myths are centered. The Essenes come on the
stage for a little while and then vanish. It cannot be said
dogmatically that they existed before we first hear of them, but it
would be very improbable that they had no antecedents. Even if
their organization was not much older than the record we have, we
may yet on socio-psychologic grounds almost certainly postulate
some previous institution on which it had been modelled, and from
which a tradition had filtered down more or less directly. To
pursue this speculation would exceed the limits of the present
article, but it may be recalled that the late Bro. W. Simpson in a
work (7) published nearly thirty years ago, advanced the hypothesis
that the Book of Jonah was based on the myth or narrative version
of an initiatory rite, and collected references that tend to show
that such rites may have existed from early times among the
Hebrews. Whatever may be the final judgment on this hypothesis, it
is at least a very interesting one, and as the book in question has
been long out of print the subject might well form the basis of
some future article.

In conclusion it may be pointed out that the final reasons for
disbelieving in any connection between the Freemasons and the
Essenes lies in the very considerations which have been taken by
the advocates of the theory as pointing to its probability. The
traditions of the Craft all point to the Holy Land, Jerusalem, the
Temple, to Jewish rites and sacred teachings, while its mythical
heroes bear Biblical names. If all this were a real inheritance it
would be impressive. Unfortunately, the further back we can trace
the mysteries of Masonry, the poorer they become in this material
and the richer in elements that belong to ritual survivals of a
Western European type. The conclusion is obvious that the Hebrew
element is largely adventitious, and it is almost completely
demonstrable that by far the greater part of it has been borrowed
and adapted during the strictly historical period of Freemasonry,
or more precisely since 1730. This however can only be dogmatically
asserted here, the proof must be sought in the story of the
evolution and development of the Masonic and quasi-Masonic rituals
and their symbolism, whenever that can be written.

NOTES

(1) As the Defence of Masonry is professedly a reply to Masonry
Dissected, the best seller of the day (it had run through four
editions in the preceding three months) we may suppose that Martin
Clare so framed this passage as to administer a sound slap to
Samuel Prichard, who descrilbes himself on the title page of his
pamphlet as "late member of a Constituted Lodge." The curious story
told by Laurence Dermott of the fate of one Tom Tadpole, whom he
asserted to be the author of The Three Distinct Knocks, and the
unhappy end of the "learned gentleman that wrote the pamphlet
entitled Boaz and Jackin" who "in a fit of jealousy cut his throat
on Thursday, the 8th day of September, 1763," seem to have been
actuated by similar motives. These are related in a note to the
"Address to the Reader" in Ahiman Rezon.

(2) For the text of this passage and the translation the writer is
indebted to his friend (and brother) Prof. F.G. Vial. B.D., D.C.L.,
who has made an especial study of the works of Clemens Alexandrinus
(3) The passage intended is apparently in chapter 3, but it gives
very little information.
(4) Hastings, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics v. Therapeutae.
(5) A.Q.C., Vol. 28, p. 73.
(6) Gould, History of Freemasonry, Vol. 1, p. 28, note 5 (Yorston
Edition).
