MATTEO PELLIZZI
...........
no definitive record seems to exist of the 'English lodge' in Florence which is known to have been active between 1732 and 1738. There is evidence that Minutes were kept but these are nowhere to be found and it is to other sources that one has to turn. There is in fact a good deal of material available for the lodge has engaged the attention of many masonic students during the last two andt a half centuries. It would be impossible to bring it all to notice in the course of this one paper and we have had to be selective.
Perhaps the best-known and most often mentioned and illustrated relic of the lodge is the medal by 'L. Natter Florent.', dated 1733, which bears on the obverse the inscription 'CAROLUS SACKVILLE MAGISTER F.L.' and a portrait bust and on the reverse a standing figure beneath the words 'AB ORIGINE'. This medal is said to have been the first to have been struck in connection with Freemasonry, and it has been of particular interest to English- and German-speaking masonic students. For the Italians, the proceedings of the trial of Tommaso Crudeli, a poet, have long been a primary source. He was indicted by the Holy Office (more generally known as 'the Inquisition') at Florence for having been a freemason.
The Sackville medal aroused interesed almost immediately. It was reproduced in Der Wöchentlichen Historischen Munz-Belustigung , vol. 17, 25 April 1736 (..............). A supplement was published, containing a letter ascribed to Baron Philip Stosch which describes the medal and also mentions the English lodge. The news spread; for instance, in 1740 it appared in the Grundliche Nachricht of Frankfurt; in 1777, J. Bode refers to it in his Pocket Book; in 1840, E. Zacharias includes it in his Numotheca Numismatica Latomorum, as does William T. R. Marvin in his The Medals of the Masonic Fraternity, Boston, Mass., 1880. In 1883 an article in The Freemason , 'G.B.A. and Dryasdust', brings it to English notice. It appears in the pages of AQC in Wilhelm Begemann's note, "the Sackville Medal' (vol. 12, 1899, p. 204) and in W. J. Chetwode Crawley's paper, 'Notes on Irish Freemasonry' (vol. 13, 1900, pp. 142-55). These two writers resolve ambiguities which were apparent in the 'Stosch' letter and Crawley was able to give the locations of no fewer than six specimens of this very rare medal (one of them in gold and three in silver). To these can now be added a seventh, in silver, in the Bargello Museum in Florence, in the recently-restored Medici Meclal Collection. It could be that this example had been a gift to Giovanni Gastone di Medici, the Grand Duke of Tuscany at the time of its issue.
A Minute of the premier Grand Lodge for 12 December 1739 is well-known:
The Petition of Brother Thomas Crudeli a prisoner in the Inquisition in Florence in Account of Masonry referred by the last Committee of Charity was read & spoke by sev'l Brethren & particularly recommended by the G.M. Ordered that the Treasurer do pay the sum of Twenty one pounds to the R.t Worship. G.M. to be applied towards the Pet.rs relief.
Only Crudeli's situation is mentioned; there is no reference to the lodge. We do not have the text of the petition, nor is there a record of what had been said in Committee or was now spoken in Grand Lodge. The Grand Master who presided was Robert, 2nd Lord Raymond, and this is of particular interest since he is, later in this paper, recorded as having been the Master of the lodge at Florence from May 1737 until its activity was suspended in the following year.
News of the events relating to Crudeli and the lodge seem otherwise to have circulated only in Italy, perhaps more especially in Tuscany, but a thorough study of the material available might lead to a modification of this assumption. For the earlier stages, the information is in manuscript documents, and in particular in the proceedings of Crudeli's trial. This was very carefully followed by the State, more specifically by Count Emanuel of Richecourt, in effect already the plenipotentiary of Grand Duke Francis Stephen [of Lorraine], who had succeeded as ruler of Tuscany, and by Senatore Giulio Rucellai, Secretary of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction. This last was the magistrature presiding over the various juridical relations between the courts at Florence and Rome. A hard-fought conflict disturbed those relationships. It should be noted that the Vatican court governed the Tribunal of the Holy Office. Florence wanted to bring under a measure of State control, in its own territory, the proceedings of that Tribunal. So the Tuscan State was not a mere spectator; it reserved the right to intervene in the trial of Crudeli, not on the merits of the indictment but on its legitimacy and its procedure and records.
Later on, there are details in a few printed works, and many historians have recalled the events and have given their own differing explanations and interpretations. In 1746 was published the Relazione della Compagnia dei Liberi Muratori by Valerio Angiolieri Alticozzi, containing some incidental material and a few anecdotes about the lodge. The author, living in Florence and moving among the academicians, would certainly have had opportunities to meet some of those who had been members of it. He could possibly have himself been a member but this is not apparent from his Relazione, in which - for matters of organization and ceremonial - he repeats the early French exposures of 1742 and 1744. These are inconsistent with what is known of the Florentine lodge.
Abbot Modesto Rastrelli published at Florence in 1782 his Fatti attinenti [Facts pertaining] all' Inquisizione e sua istoria generale, e particolare de Toscano . As an appendix there appears a broad and detailed 'Relazione della carcerazione del Dottore Tommaso Crudeli di Poppi, e della processura formata contro di lui nel Tribunale del S. Ufizio di Firenze l' anno 1739' [Crudeli, it appears, hailed from Poppi].
There are two comparable manuscript accounts of the imprisonment and trial which are not among the relevant documents in the archives at Florence. One, certainly attributable to Senatore Rucellai (previously mentioned), so reflects in style that of the trial proceedings that it appears to be a part of it. It ends with a report of the counts of indictment and of the examinations of Crudeli in June and July 1740. The odler manuscript additionally relates to the final session of the trial, including details which suggest an eyewitness account. It ends by reporting the death of Crudeli in January 1745 from phthisis [in those days meaning tuberculosis], which he contracted, no doubt, during his incarceration.
The two accounts supply many details of the prisoner's treatment, the course of the examinations and the final judgment, all of which are missing from the available records of the Tribunal. On the other hand much of what we now know (charges, denunciations, depositions) does come from those records. The appendix to Rastrelli's publication of 1782 has a very strong resemblance to the text of the second hand-written account. But neither in these nor in the Rucellai manuscript is there information about the lodge and its members.
From 1750 to 1850, the several chronicles and histories of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany do not fail at least to mention the early events of Freemasonry and the shortlived lodge in Florence. In 1884, however, there was published the most complete work on the subject: Ferdinando Sbigoli, Tommaso Crudeli e i primi Framassoni in Firenze (Batezzati, Milan). The author clearly states that an explanation of Freemasonry and a description of the English lodge in Florence is far beyond the purposes of his book, this being concerned only with Crudeli and the events surrounding him. In fact, he dwells in some detail on the lodge and its attested or merely supposed members, although in so doing he often appears uncertain, reticent or even inconsistent. His work is however seminal, being the first directly referring to original sources and documentation and the first to give useful and extended information on the lodge.
The next basic source-book to be mentioned is Stato e Chiesa in Toscano sotto la Reggenza Lorenese [Lorraine Regency] 1737-1765 by the historian, Niccolo Rodolico(1910).
He offers a much more worthy outline of thc Crudeli affair, against the background of all the contemporary events. He tells of prominent Florentines who were members of the lodge or who were friends of members. This remains a sound and useful reference, still consulted by the students of today who research Italian and Tuscan history of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
In much more recent limes we have Pericle Maruzzi's essay, 'Sull'istituzione della prima Loggie in Firenze, 1732', in Lumen Vitae , November 1955, re-edited in Hiram , nos. 1 and 2, 1990. He reports on John Heron Lepper's work, bringing it to the attention of the Italian reader as he does other studies and information on the Sackville medal. He includes reproductions of the Munz-Belustigung report of 1736 (Appendix) and the letter ascribed to Stosch. He gives also the earliest known facts about the lodge, found in the manuscript diaries of Dr. Antonio Cocchi, who describes his 'reception among the freemasons' in the evening of Mondey, 4 August 1732. Bro. Maruzzi's paper collates important information from the sources so far mentioned.
Towards the end of the 1950s appeared a study by Ernesto Baldi, 'L'Alba-La Prima Loggia Massonica a Firenze. L' Inquisizione. Il Processo Crudeli'.
By following Sbigoli's approach he draws still more from the documentation of the trial and from the 'Relazione' in Rastrelli's appendix (and the manuscript versions). Although he goes into detail, he produces nothing new on the lodge and its membership.
At about the same time, Nicholas Hans produced his note on 'The Masonic Lodge in Florence in the Eighteenth Century' (AQC 71, 1958, pp. 109-12).
In this he secks to name, as far as possible, the lodge members. Alas, he is not the only writer to follow Sbigoli's misconstruction. Many Florentines, nearly all of them of some consequence, have been credited with having been freemasons, but for the most part because of false assumptions by the Inquisition. This tribunal however, was unlikely to have been greatly interested in the strength of one fraternity; it seems more probable that, in pursuing their aims, they were seeking ideas about a number of unrelated movements. By creating some sort of relationship between them, they could then deal with them collectively. Hans may thus have been misled into including in his speculative 'list' of freemasons some who were not, although they were mentioned and, although unacceptable as a record of masonic membership, it is at least a useful reminder of the milieu from which such membership was drawn. It is to be remembered that, while the lodge had indeed suspended its activities, those of its brethren who remained in Florence continued to meet together within the social round.
From the 1960s until now, the studies of other historians have - from differing points of view - dealt with the matters which we are here discussing. Especially Jose Ferrer Benimeli who, in 1983, proved (see note 3) that he had directly drawn on the original documents and also made interesting references to the lodge.
Because of the numerous sources and the uncertainties which arise even in the most careful studies when comparisons are made between them, I have believed it to be necessary to look again (as far as I could) at all the original documents, beginning with the records of the trial. Here it can be seen that Tommaso Crudeli, imprisoned by the Holy Office in the Church of Santa Croce in Florence on Saturday, 9 May 1739, was examined for the first time on 10 August and again four days later. Over ninety questions were put to him about Freemasonry and its lodge in the city. The Minutes are however in narrative rather than interlocutory form. There are also some short Ietters, containing useful information, which Crudeli managed to pass to his lawyer. Although Sbigoli used the sarne documents, they are neither mentioned nor reproduced in his book.
.......................
THE LODGE MEETINGS AND ITS WORKING
A typical, complete programme for a meeting seems to have been composed of three basic elements. Firstly there are the ceremonies, of admission [initiation] and of a further stage [reminiscent of today's third degree]. It would be interesting to be able to learn whether in those days the word 'degree' was used and in wllich sense and whether both ceremonies could be worked on the same day. It is clear that the newly-admitted brother (a 'novice') could not take a further step until a later occasion.
So we know that the lodge worked a two-degree system and from the descriptions given of the ritual, the members, the movements and so on, the proceedings have a markedly British flavour, as is to be expected since those members had for the most part learned their work in England.
The second section of the programme consisted of the dinner, 'held at the expense of the newly-admitted' (if indeed there was one). Crudeli observes that 'it seems ... all secrecy is ended, for the servants enter the dining room, and I saw other people coming in but not belonging to Freemasonry'.
The convivialities were followed by 'other business' and it is interesting to note the admonition that 'any kind of discourse on religion and on government is prohibited'. As an instance of this third part of the proceedings, Crudeli described how a 'request for admission' was presented and voted upon, very much as it is today. He said that, certainly during the period of his membership, the meetings were held in an hotel or at a restaurant and added that they took place weekly, always accompanied by a lunch or dinner. This leads to the supposition that the lodge could be and was opened either in the morning or in the evening, possibly in relation to the importance of the event.
If it is to be believed that, every week throughout the year, a full programme was worked, with admissions or advancements to the 'second degree', one woukl expect that there were several dozen new freemasons made in the course of two or three years, but the evidence does not support this. It seems more likely that many meetings were limited to the opening and closing formalities and, of course, refreshment, with - perhaps -- a measure of 'instruction' of some sort.
A regular weekly gathering, with 'conviviality' in what was essentially a public establishment and in the presence of servants and 'other people', could partly account for the unfounded rumours about the membership of prominent Florentines. One cannot exclude the possibility that non-masonic friends could be and were invited, but only to the festive board, and it has to be recalled that neither the state nor the ecclesiastical authorities up to the middle of 1737 - had brought the lodge into question.
There were many other societies in being at the time - the Academies for instance, with which Freemasonry was explicitly compared and with which similarities were supposed to exist. They admitted to their meetings only their own members and there was a strict rule against disclosing their activities to the world outside. There may perhaps have been purely social occasions to which non-members could be invited. There was, in fact, a marked similarity between the practices of such societies and those of the lodge at Florence. Those of the lodge would not therefore be regarded as unusual and suspicious.
CEREMONIES AND RITUAL
The brief descriptions given of the ceremonies are in accord with the contemporary twodegree system in England and elsewhere. Some elements of today's Fellow Craft degree can be discerned in the evidence: the knocks, the letter 'G', the five Orders of architecture, the sign of fidelity (then given with the left hand), the mention of both pillars, the methods of recognition in which the joints of the hand were significant, and the words were the same. A quotation from the detail for the 'second degree' is noteworthy:
... one of the aforesaid, not the first time but on some other occasion, touches the other's index finger, pulling the novice's index finger, then the middle finger and after both fingers, afterwards he grasps his whole hand, holding out the foresaid two fingers towards the wrist and pulling a little; . . .
The terms 'Master' and 'Warden' are translated into Italian in what seems to us to be a peculiar way. Maestro (Master) is the constant but it can be qualified by Capo (Chief) or Primo (First). ['Second' does not occur.] 'Chief Master' equates to our Worshipful Master; 'First Master' seems to be the Senior Warden [it is to be presumed that a 'Second Master' would have been the Junior Warden]. It needs to be remembered that Florence was socially, economically and politically- strictly organized from the eleventh and twelfth centuries up to the 1780s in a system of Arts and Crafts which was codified into hundreds of laws. Masonic terms in the 1730s, therefore, were well understood by everyone.
The mention in the tribunal's records of the obligation taken on the Holy Bible is reminiscent of the traditional penalties which are, albeit at different points, still enshrined in our rituals.
In the ceremony of admission at least a part of the work is in the form of question and answer, between the Master and the candidate or his conductor (according to circumstances). Te symbols mentioned by Crudeli (there are not many) and their interpretations, are among those familiar to the freemasons of today. It is curious that the admission of the candidate into a present-day Italian lodge retains the custom reported by Crudeli: 'all those assembled inside make a great noise with swords, iron impiements and by heating tables'.
A further point of interest is provided by the description of the chalk drawillgs on the lodge floor, the disposition of certain furnishings and the position of the Master:
Then, after the oath, the bandage is removed from his eyes and he sees the sun on the floor, as above described (which is depicted with chalk on the floor and in the middle of the Sun there is written Geometry) in the middle of a double square made of chalk and representing the West, East, and the other two Parts - South and North, and those present form a circle around that figure, that is, they stand around it. The Chief Master is in the East facing West; five small Pillars are arranged as part of that figure and on each of them there is a lighted candle, representing the five orders of architecture, called Doric, lonic, Corinthian, Composite and Tuscan.
The first part of this description is very much in agreement with Harry Carr's reference to a catechism of about 1740, A Dialogue between Simon and Philip. (In the diagrams, especially, although there are only three candles. There is an 'N.B.' within the frame of one: 'This circle and the Holy flame is added when Masters are taken up'. Crudeli's evidence here gives the impression that the sun with the superimposed letter 'G' derives from the initiation ceremony.
There is a further interesting passage from Crudeli:
Then he is made to walk, and he is told that he is walking as a good freemason over the above rectangular double-square figure and as he worries about damaging the figure or knocking over the small pillars, he walks very cautiously so as not to damage them.
The 'walking-over' means that he has to pass and pass over again, with more than one step and with caution, the rectangle (or 'double-square'), taking care with the small pillars and lighted candles. A little reminder here of the steps in the third degree of today.
Indications of dress occur. 'The apron is of white leather used for making gloves', or of soft hide, and 'white gloves for men and women are bought for everyone'. There is a bandage used in the admission ceremonies 'whose material is unimportant, provided it is useful for the purpose'.
There are compasses worn by the 'First Master', hanging from the neck with a ribbon and used also in the ceremony of admissiom the 'First Master' holds a 'wooden hammer', a common gavel. It must be observed that here there is surely confusion between the 'First' and 'Chief' in the senses already referred to. It would have been easy enough for Crudeli, under some pressure from the inquisitors, to have used the wrong qualification. He may have forgotten to mention other 'working tools' but it seems likely that the lodge at Florence had very few as compared with those which have for so long been in use in our lodges.
THE ORIGIN AND MEMBERS OF THE LODGE
Crudeli states that he had been admitted [initiated] about four years earlier, which would be in about the summer of 1735, and that 'this society has been established here in Florence for so many years that I do not know how long; at the beginning the Englishmen did not introduce the Italians'. As he knows neither who instituted it nor when, it is possible to presume that - so far as he was aware - none of the founders remained in Florence.
On his claim that Italians were not at first admitted to membership, it has to be said that Doctor Antonio Cocchi records his own entry as having taken place on 4 August 1732 (about three years before Crudeli came in), and gives some names: '. . . at the head of them was Mr Shirley and the others were Capt. Spens, Mr Clarke, Capt. Clarke, Mil[or]d Middlesex, Milord Rob.t Montaigu, Mr Frolik, Mr Collings, Barond Stosch. Novices with me Mr Archer and Mr Harris' [translated from Cocchi's diary]. It will be seen that no other Italians are listed as having been present and it could well be that Cocchi was himself the first of them to have been admitted.
In 1732 it looks as if the lodge was indeed active, as is also indicated by a summons dated 30 September and signed by 'Shirley' (Master) and 'Spens' and 'Middlesex' (Wardens). At the begenning of that year it is known that the Earl of Middlesex had left London for Paris and Florence. However brief his stay in France it is improbable that he could have reached Florence before the beginning of April and so it call be supposed that he assumed the office of Warden of the lodge between April and July. (In June 1733 he returned to London but was back again two years later, in 1735.)
On 22 June 1733 Cocchi gave back to Sir Hlugh Smithson the key of the lodge chest which the latter had entrusted to him when he 'deputed' him 'Master'. However one interprets that 'deputation', it can perhaps be taken that Smithson had, as successor to Shirley, served as Master for 1733-4. And, finally, if the election of Master and the appointments (if such they were) of the Wardens took place annually and on the anniversary of the 'constitution' of the lodge and the election of its first Master, we can perhaps conclude that this would have happened between the middle of April and that of June.
THE 'CHIEF MASTERS' OF THE LODGE
In the many studies, beginning with that of Sbigoli, we find a remarkable uncertainty and confusion about the identity and number of the members of the lodge at Florence and the names of its 'Chief Masters'. While it can be understood that there were reasons for this, it is now at least possible to record, and almost completely, the succession of Masters who ruled in the East. As will already have been observed, Cocchi - in noting his own admission on 4 August 1732 -- placed 'Mr Shirley' at the head of the membership, and the summons of September in that year is signed by Shirley as Master and Spens and Lord Middlesex as Wardens. We have also inferred, from Cocchi's diary entry in the following year (22 June 1733), that Sir Hugh Smithson had succeeded Shirley.
In the records of Crudeli's trial is his statement that, during his membership of the lodge he 'met three Chief Masters, first Mr Fox, second Milord Middlesex Earl of London [sic ] and third Milord Raymond'. Crudeli had been a member for the last three years of its active life and had there encountered three Masters. It seems reasonable to suppose, therefore, that Masters were elected and took office annually. No Past Masters were mentioned in the evidence.
The year of constitution of the lodge is not precisely known, but it has been possible to determine that it was in or about the month of May that the election of officers was likely to have taken place. Assuming that this was true in each year of the lodge's existence and that it was an annual event, we can draw up a list of 'Chief Masters':
May 1732 Mr.Shirley
Mny 1733 Sir Hugh Smithson
May 1734 -
May 1735 Mr. Fox
May 1736 Charles Sackville, Earl of Middlesex
May 1737 Robert, 2nd Lord Raymond
1738 activity suspended
Although the month of election may be open to an element of doubt, the succession of names can surely be taken as definitive. It is of course a pity that there is as yet no name that can convincingly be put forward for 1734.
THE LODGE MEMBERS
Cocchi recorded in his diary the presence of twelve, including himself, at his admission to the lodge. Allowing for the possibility that there were others present whom he had not recognized or identified, and that there were a few absentees, it might be estimated that there were between fifteen and twenty members in all. To put it a little more precisely, there could have been that number of freemasons in Florence who from time to time attended meetings of the lodge.
Crudeli's evidence offers more names: 'I did not decide on my admission to the assembly until I had met its members, Fathers Denij [Denhey] and Flud [Flood], Irishmen, Augustinians of the Church of S. Spirito'. He also encountered one Galassi, whose first name he did not learn, a young officer of the late Grand Duke Giovanni Gastone, whom he thought to be 'a very innocent person'. With these, and Dr. Cocchi, as examples of the membership Crudeli felt justified in proceeding with his own entry. Other Florentines are named by him: Giuseppe Cerretesi, who was his fellow candidate, Paolino Dolci, and three abbots - Antonio Niccolini, Franceschi, and Giuseppe Buondelmonti.
For the known period (1732-8) of the lodge's active existence we can, then, be sure of the names of only eight Florentine members. There may have been others but no evidence has so far been found. The modest tally thus indicated disproves the idea already mentioned as stemming from a misunderstanding of Sbigoli - that a large number of citizens of Florence could have been admitted.
On the list of those who hailed from elsewhere, we have the two Irishmen of S. Spirito Denhey and Flood, and the three 'Chief Masters' named by Crudeli. He also remembers a Mr. Collins and Baroll Stosch and adds that - before he himself was admitted - there were in the lodge a painter named Martin, a Scot-Reid (possibly Rait or Wright) - who 'managed the funds of the society, and a 'Mr.Forbez'. Ten names in all.
Recalling his admission, with Cerretesi, Crudeli says that 'there were already present probably about ten personls'. (Cocchi has recorded nine, with three candidates, at his initiation three years earlier, but -- apart from that of Cocchi -- none of those then present are mentioned by Crudeli. Had there, in the intervening period, been so significant a turnover in the membership?)
Taking into account all the names recorded in the documents which I have studied, twenty-seven only can with some assurance be associated with the lodge: eight were citizens of Florence and the remaining nineteen were Englishmen, Scotsmen and Irishmen, with one Austrian. There will almost certainly have been others but here we resort to speculation. In 1738, when the Papal Bull against Freemasonry was promulgated, Crudeli says that he proposed the closure of the lodge. His approach to Lord Raymond, the Master, was - he implies - supported by the 'Minister of England here in Florence'. That Minister, from 1734, would have been Charles Fane. Horace Mann arrived in the city in 1737 to become the assistant (and later the successor) to Fane. Could they have been or have become freemasons in the lodge? The fact of Horace Mann, who was a friend of Crudeli, acted in some way at the hearings of the Inquisition, may be significant.
A passage in the Minutes of those hearings suggests that the italian members of the lodge 'were not well liked' by the others. Crudeli mentions a Language problem and that they were 'never spoken to when they attented'. There may of course have arisen personal antipathies, but it is noticeable that Cocchi has no adverse comments and other Florentines have recorded that all were on good terms.
There may have been an effort by Crudeli to 'distance himself' from the other freemasons and so earn a measure of good will from the Tribunal. On the other hand, the Holy Office's recorder of the proceedings may quite deliberately have been less than impartial. If indeed The expatriate members of the lodge did not like the Italians, than why did they approve in open lodge of their admission?
There is much biografical research still to be done, for we need to know more abaut the men involved in this short period of Italian and English masonic history.
Notes
pls see pag 136 Volume 105 for the Year 1992 - ARS QUATOR CORONATORUM - Transactions of Quator Coronati Lodge No. 2076