The Templar origin of Freemasonry traces back to the aftermath of the execution of de Molay. Peter d’Aumont, along with two commanders and five knights, sought refuge in Scotland, disguising themselves as Operative Masons during their journey. They met with Grand Commander George Harris and others on the Scottish island of Mull, where they decided to continue the order. In a chapter held on St. John’s Day, 1313, D’Aumont was elected Grand Master. To avoid detection, they adopted symbols from architecture and adopted the title of Freemasons.
In 1361, the Grand Master of the Temple moved the order’s seat to Aberdeen, Scotland, and it spread across Europe under the guise of freemasonry, reaching Italy, Germany, France, Portugal, Spain, and beyond. This legend inspired the creation of the Rite of Strict Observance by Baron Von Hund, who attempted to gain recognition for his belief that every Freemason was a Templar at the Congress of Wilhelmsbad, albeit unsuccessfully.
While this doctrine faced resistance in Germany, it found more acceptance in France, where it had already been introduced by the Chapter of Clermont, into which Von Hund had been initiated.
Chevalier Ramsay is credited as the true author of the doctrine claiming the Templar origin of Freemasonry, particularly through the D’Aumont legend. However, the source of this legend suggests its fictitious nature. Ramsay, known for his imaginative creations of high degrees and Masonic legends, prioritized narrative over historical accuracy.
Had Ramsay focused his talents on authentic historical research rather than speculative Masonic systems, the Masonic community might have benefited greatly. Instead of the proliferation of fanciful theories and unnecessary degrees, genuine Masonic scholars could have emerged, contributing to a more accurate understanding of Masonic history.
During this period, Masonic scholars often took on a more poetic than historical role, disregarding the importance of factual accuracy. This approach resulted in a collection of traditional tales containing more falsehoods than truths.
The Legend of Peter d’Aumont and the supposed resurrection of the Knights Templar in Scotland lack historical evidence but have significantly impacted modern Masonic organizations. Despite its dubious origins, this legend has influenced various Masonic rites and degrees, incorporating Templar imagery into Masonic rituals.
To address concerns about the Templars’ heretical beliefs conflicting with the Christian faith of Scottish Masons, a secondary legend emerged. This narrative suggests that after the Templars’ dissolution, the clerical members of the order sought to revive it in Scotland and integrate it into Freemasonry. However, this version of events failed to gain widespread acceptance and has largely been disregarded.
While the D’Aumont legend has shaped the fusion of Templarism and Freemasonry in contemporary British and American Masonic practices, Ramsay’s assertion that every Freemason is a Templar has been widely rejected by reputable Masonic scholars. Despite its enduring influence, the authenticity of the D’Aumont legend remains contested within Masonic circles.
Dr. Burnes, while acknowledging the legitimacy of the French Order of the Temple and its supposed lineage from de Molay through Larmenius, criticized Von Hund as an “adventurer” and dismissed his tale of D’Aumont as plausible but dubious.
Regarding the part of the legend concerning the relocation of the Templars’ headquarters to Aberdeen, Burnes asserted that the deception was eventually exposed. He claimed that Von Hund himself had initiated the Pretender into his fictitious order of chivalry. Despite popular belief in Germany, a delegation dispatched to Aberdeen found no evidence of ancient Templars or Freemasonry among the local brethren.
However, Burnes erred in his claim that there was no evidence of Freemasonry in Aberdeen until a later date. Historical records indicate that the Aberdeen Lodge was established in 1541, although earlier records may have been lost in a fire. Bro. Lyon also noted that the Aberdeen brethren were surprised to learn of their lodge’s purported connection to the High Degrees.
Wilke points out discrepancies in the legend, stating that while it is true that Peter of Boulogne fled from prison, his destination remains unknown. The Wildgrave of Salm, never imprisoned, is incorrectly linked to Peter’s escape. Additionally, the legend confuses Hugh of Salm with Sylvester von Grumbach, despite being the same person, with Grumbach being his Templar Commandery. Hugh of Salm never sought refuge in Scotland and, post-order abolition, became a prebendary of the Cathedral of Mayence.
Wilke suggests that attributing the continuation of the Templar order to Scotland may stem from the political association of higher Masonic degrees with the Scottish Pretender, Edward Stuart. Scotland’s designation as the birthplace of higher Masonic degrees could also relate to Ramsay’s Scottish origin and his naming of the degrees as Scottish Masonry. However, Wilke argues that Harris and D’Aumont, absent from Templar history, could not have held prominent roles in the order or been chosen as Grand Masters by fleeing knights.
He concludes by asserting that while some Templar fugitives may have reached Scotland and possibly been admitted into building fraternities, this doesn’t justify considering either the builder lodges or the Knights of St. John as a continuation of the Templar order. Unlike the Templars, these guilds were composed of devout craftsmen who adhered strictly to religious doctrines.
Certain theorists, eager to link Templarism with Freemasonry, have concocted other myths, replacing the Hiramic Legend of the Master’s Degree with tales supposedly from Templar history. One such story involves the murder of a sub-prior of Montfaucon, Carolus de Monte Carmel, by three traitors. The ritual of Freemasonry, it is claimed, draws from the events surrounding this murder. The assassins buried the sub-prior’s body under a young thorn-tree, which later helped the Templars locate it. The legend continues with the exhumation of the body, mirroring events in the Legend of Hiram.
Another theory posits a connection between the martyrdom of James de Molay, the final Grand Master of the Templars, and the legend of the third degree in Freemasonry. It suggests that in the Masonic ritual, Hiram Abif has been substituted for de Molay to conceal the fusion of the Templars into Freemasonry. According to this theory, the events attributed to Hiram Abif in Freemasonry’s genuine legend are instead attributed to de Molay in the Templar legend. The three assassins are identified as Pope Clement V, Philip the Fair of France, and a Templar named Naffodei, who betrayed the order.
Some have even fabricated a fable claiming that on the night after de Molay was burned at the stake, knights diligently searched for his remains among the ashes. They allegedly found only scorched bones still attached to flesh, which immediately fell away upon being touched. This purportedly explains the origin of the substitute word in Freemasonry, based on a mistranslation of its meaning.
This interpretation, however, demonstrates the absurdity of the legend, as it relies on a popular misunderstanding of the word’s meaning by someone ignorant of Hebrew. Scholars now understand that the word has an entirely different significance.
However, it’s hardly necessary to delve into such peripheral aspects of the narrative to demonstrate that the entire legend connecting Templarism with Freemasonry lacks any basis in historical fact.
The debunking of the legends of Bruce and Bannockburn has already been accomplished. There is simply no historical evidence supporting the Templar origin of Freemasonry.
Similarly, the other legend, which asserts that D’Aumont and his companions established the Masonic Order in Scotland by merging the knights with the fraternity of builders, lacks any historical foundation. Moreover, it presents a feature of improbability, if not impossibility. The Knights Templars constituted an aristocratic order comprising noble gentlemen who had chosen the life of a soldier as their calling and adhered to the customs of chivalry. During that era, societal divisions were much more pronounced than they are today. The “belted knight” occupied the highest rung of the social ladder, while the mechanic resided at the bottom.
Hence, it’s nearly inconceivable to imagine that following the suppression of their order, these proud warriors of the Cross, whose entire lives had been dedicated to military pursuits, would have discarded their swords and spurs to take up the trowel—an implement and craft completely foreign to their expertise. To transition into Operative Masons, they would have had to abandon all the social norms and prejudices ingrained in them through their upbringing.
While it’s plausible that a Knight Templar might have sought solace in a religious retreat or taken refuge in another chivalric order, the notion that these knights would willingly transition into stonemasons and manual laborers is simply too absurd to be believed, even by the most gullible.
In conclusion, the theorists who have attempted to fabricate traditions linking the origin of Freemasonry to Templarism or establishing a close connection between the two institutions have ultimately failed in their endeavors. Their attempts to craft a historical narrative have fallen short, resulting in little more than an implausible work of fiction.
knighttemplar