By Eric Vandenbroeck 20 Sept. 2008

Was there a medieval Order of the Knights Templar in a Scottish context?

 

What we generally know is that Freemasonry was not (or if' then at least to a very small degree) a transition out of 'operative freemasonry'; and that the adjective' speculative' generally referred to occult activity.

 

For example the earliest English Masonic catechism, in answer to the question, "How high is your Lodge?" gives the answer, "It reaches to the heavens". The Lodge thus seemed to be an imaginative projection, 'conjured up' by its members to embody a center of the universe.

 

Another example is that one of the earliest known Freemasons Elias Ashmole, was an admirer of John Dee, and Ashmole himself studied astrology and alchemy. That early on Masonic iconography circulated in this kind of circles seems indicated by on the left an alchemical drawing from Jamsthaler, Victorium spagyricum, 1625 clearly showing compass and square almost 100 years before Freemasonry would. And on the right the famous two pillars as present in all Masonic lodges today, however this time as the front cover of John Dee’s 1564; Monas Hieroglyphica.

 

 

As for the myth of a direct lineal connection between the medieval Order of the Knights Templar in a Scottish context; this was invented by James Burnes, for his fellow Freemasons in Bombay at the time. According to Mackey's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, Burnes was initially appointed in Bombay, to control Masonic matters on behalf of the Grand Lodge of Scotland. The new Masonic Order  Burnes created in British India, however, was influenced by the Romantic Movement as made very clear by Burnes' re-wording and his explanation for the re-writing of the four so-called KT vows. Burnes' work was largely taken from the work others, something he freely admits, the French Masonic historian, Claude A. Thory (1759-1827), being the principal source for a Scottish connection. Thory claimed that Robert de Bruce had founded the Masonic Order of Heredom de Kilwinning immediately after the Battle of Bannockbum (1314). Thus Burnes' developed an idea to the point where a Masonic Order of Knights Templar in Scotland (henceforth KT) was created and that the idea underpinning it originated with a Freemason. Even in the history of the Order in Scotland written by Burnes, which the Masonic body adopted uncritically, he expressed some doubts - 'But whether the Scottish Templars really joined the victorious standard of Robert Bruce ... ', doubts which were simple brushed aside by subsequent authors.

 

Since Burnes' piece: 'The Knights Templars of Scotland', was published in Scotland (1837) a large number of people, including many Freemasons, have accepted this 'history' as being true. That being so, logic dictates that there may be evidence to prove a whole variety of things - for example, that Bruce founded the Order of Heredom de Kilwinning in 1314; that the KT had (and has) a continued existence in Scotland since 1307/1312; that Charles Edward Stuart (Bonnie Prince Charlie) (1720-1788) was not only a Freemason but a member of the Royal Order of Scotland etc., etc. In accepting uncritically the claims of Burnes, Thory and others would have left that 'traditional history' created by a Freemason for Freemasons, in the realm of belief and not history. Although created by a Freemason for Freemasons it must be remembered the group (the Scottish Knights Templar) had then nothing to do with Freemasonry (other than the fact that its members were all Freemasons) and had been rejected by mainstream Freemasonry in Scotland (who initially appointed Burns) as being spurious and non-Masonic.

 

And while Burnes was writing merely at the request of romantically inclined Freemasons in India who were interested in reviving, a KT, is regarding that simple fact took many from the realm of using, for moralistic purposes, a 'traditional history' into the realm that it (the 'traditional history') was historical fact. Burnes himself had begun that process by citing 'evidence' which supported the notion that his 'traditional history' had a factual basis. This in itself indicates that he did not understand the function of a Masonic 'traditional history'. He was therefore predisposed to believe that his research revealed the literal truth about Freemasonry and the KT. In fact each Masonic lineage created its own 'story', its own 'traditional history', which underpins that particular part of the Masonic system. Hence some will center on King Solomon's Temple, The Royal Arch Chapter a new or second Temple, often referred to as Zerubabbel's Temple. Another branch of Freemasonry has for its traditional history the story of Helena, wife of Constantine, and her search for the place of Christ's crucifixion, and so on. Plus since the myth was created by Burnes for Scottish Freemasons in 1837 it has been refined and elaborated and did not reach its present, form until the 20th century.

 

The desire to show that the myth was not a myth at all but was actually an entirely valid account of the origin and development of Scottish (and therefore all) Freemasonry induced some to present evidence of a variety of types to prove the validity of their account. The central theme has been that modem Scottish Freemasonry is merely a continuation of the Medieval Order of Knights Templar (this means that all Freemasons today are simply Knights Templar in disguise). The first difficulty to be overcome was to find evidence with which to 'bridge the gap' between the arrest of and subsequent suppression of the Order (1307/1312) and today.

 

The difficulty in attempting to 'bridge the gap' is that after the suppression of the Order there was no evidence available to support that view. The evidence which is now represented is material which has been re-interpreted to make it suitable. Including Masonic material that has been changed into something which is not Masonic. A good example are all sorts of other evidence from Latin charters and documents - the St. Clair Charters; 'anonymous' Scottish grave slabs; carvings within Rosslyn Chapel; Scottish churches; events at the Battle of Bannockburn; Masonic symbolism; Scottish Masonic ritual and practice - have been used in this manner. Even the lives of historical figures (e.g. British Prime Ministers and United States Presidents) have undergone re-interpretation in an effort to change the myth into reality. Early writers who claimed a connection with the KT and Freemasonry like Barruel and his 'Freemasons started the French Revolution' myth, made no attempt to prove the link - the claim was sufficient as they had a politicaVreligious agenda.

 

Even when the Masonic KT themselves (James Burnes etc.) claimed the connection they too did not provide any hard evidence - the best they could do was suggest that others (such as Dom Augustine Calmet) also supported their claim or referred to evidence that only indirectly supported their claims such as the charter of Larmenius. These historical characters do prove one thing, however - this is not a new 'theory' - it has been around for over 200 years but it is not as old as Freemasonry itself. Only after the Scottish Masonic KT came into existence did the myth come into being and it was elaborated, initially by the KT themselves and then by other authors who 'discovered' the myth.

 

Although none of these sources provide any evidence that KT were at the Battle of Bannockburn, it can be made to look as if they were there and, what is more, that they played a crucial part in the outcome. The argument is that just when the battle hung in the balance another force appeared mysteriously on the field. This fresh force caused the English knights to lose heart and they fled the field. Who else but the KT could have caused such a reaction? It is suggested that because no one mentions their sudden appearance this supports the case for their presence. The argument is presented in this manner: the Scots, it is said, could not admit that the 'heretic' KT gave them assistance in order not to antagonize the Pope. The English did not mention that the KT caused their defeat due to the embarrassment of that defeat. The absence of any evidence of the involvement of the KT is therefore used as 'proof' that they were present. This is an example of the technique whereby a negative (there is no evidence that KT were at the battle) is used to create a positive (they turned the battle in favor of the Scots).

 

Extant evidence that is not used, or discussed, by those of the Popular Approach is worthy of brief mention. John Barbour (c.1325-1395) wrote his epic poem The Bruce c.1372. (Current ed. Archibald A. M. Duncan, Canongate Classics, Edinburgh, 1997).  It recounts the life and exploits of Robert the Bruce and it is one of the key sources of information regarding him and Scotland's struggle for independence. It is particularly valuable in relation to the Battle of Bannockburn regarding the 'unknown force'. There is internal evidence to show that Barbour had access to material now lost and also to eyewitness testimony. Barbour's account is nearly contemporaneous with the period and can hardly be dismissed as 'legend' As the alleged sudden appearance of the KT during the battle is pivotal to the myth it is worth repeating Barbour's description of the 'unknown force' and their part in the conflict. “Then he [Bruce] sent all the small folk and carters, with equipment and provisions in the Park a good way away from him, and had them go [away] from the divisions; they went the way he had ordered ... The king had them all be ready for he knew that his enemies lay all night at the Falkirk ... ' (Translation)

 

'At this point that I am telling you of just now, when that battle was being fought in that way, where on each side they were fighting vigorously, yeomen and boys and men on foot who had been left in the Par'ftto guard the provisions, when they knew without a doubt that their lords were fighting their enemies in desperate combat, made one of themselves, [of those] who were there, chieftain of them all, and fastened sheets that were fairly broad in place of banners upon long poles and spears, saying that they meant to see the fight; and help their lords to their utmost. When all had agreed to this, they gathered in 0'- body - they were fifteen thousand or more - and then with great speed they went with their banners all in one force, as if they had been strong brave men. They came with all that gathering to just where they could see the battle, then together they gave a cry, 'Kill! Kill! On them now! 'and with that they were coming, although they were still far away. The Englishmen who were giving ground by force of pressure, as I said before, when they saw coming towards them such a company, shouting like that, [a company] which they thought was at least as numerous as that fighting against them there, and which they had not seen before, [well] you can believe that the best, the bravest, who were in their army that day, wished that they were [somewhere else] with their honour. King Robert saw from their pulling-back that they were close to defeat, and had his battle cry shouted, then with those of his company pressed his enemies so hard that they were so apprehensive that they gave ground more and more, for all the Scotsmen who were there, when they saw them escaping from the fighting, laid into them with all their might. They scattered in sundry groups and were close to defeat; some of them fled openly, but those who were brave and bold, whom shame prevented from fleeing, kept up the struggle at great cost standing firm in the fight. ' (Translation)

 

From this it can be seen that Bruce had arranged, before the battle, that the 'small folk and carters' were separated from his main force because such men were undisciplined, unreliable, and generally poorly armed. At the Battle of Loudoun Hill (10 May 1307) he had made the same prior preparations: him to win, or lose, without their assistance. Hence, according to the myth, they musl have anticipated a major battle which was to take place almost seven years after they arrival in Scotland and preferred hiding for those seven years before appearing suddenly at Bannockburn.

 

A variety of techniques used by those of the Popular or Alternative approach might uncharitably suggest that these are mere 'ploys' used to support a claim that would not otherwise be valid. One of the most invidious of these techniques is that which uses the absence of evidence to suggest the opposite - that is, a negative is used to 'prove' a positive. The classic example of this, is the suggestion that because there is no evidence that the Knights Templar were at the Battle of Bannockburn that means that they may have been there! Using that method, creating evidence from nothing, many writers then go on to discuss the subsequent activities of the Knights Templar in Scotland. By embarking on such a discussion means by implication that the KT were present at the battle but avoid the need of presenting any supporting evidence. Another example where this technique is used relates to the graves labs at Kilmartin which bear the outline of a sword but which bear no names. These are cited as crucially important as they are evidence that the KT hid in Argyll after 1307. The grave slabs, are anonymous - those originally buried there are unknown. The 'evidence' therefore is 'negative'. Yet their very anonymity is used to claim that they are something specific, something 'positive' - the graves of deceased Knights Templar. Yet The assertion that the graves labs are anonymous is itself an assertion without any supporting evidence. If there was a genuine desire that they be anonymous why bother with the carving of the outline of a sword at all? Why bother with any form of grave marker? In addition pause for thought is given by the fact that grave slabs which are not claimed to be Knight Templar graves are also anonymous.

 

To further illustrate the shortcoming of this technique is to apply it to other 'evidence' and examine the consequences of doing so. Below is a list of what the KT who allegedly fled to, and hid in, Argyll did not do. For example they left no evidence of:

 

Marriage
Having children
Building churches
Travelling anywhere
Trading with anyone
Buying or selling horses Buying or selling property Building farms, mills or homes

Written transactions and records Impacting on the Gaelic language
Employing anyone (e.g armourers, farriers, etc.)

Fighting any of Bruce's enemies in Argyll during 1307-1314. This technique dictates that, like the anonymous grave slabs, the above list should/could also be used as 'evidence' to prove the existence of the KT in Argyll after 1307. Doing so of course reveals the nonsensical nature of this technique.

 

The situation is therefore that the only evidence that the KT allegedly left of their presence is a few anonymous grave slabs. Doubts about them being KT grave slabs at all have been discussed more fully above. Let us consider just one of the points mentioned in the above list. These knights were French; no one has suggested otherwise. The language of Argyll was Gaelic - one of the most. distinctive languages in Europe. Setting aside how French speaking fugitives would have coped with the Gaelic language, it is remarkable that, assuming that they were indeed in Argyll, their presence made no impact whatsoever on the Gaelic language. What is more, Gaelic was well developed at this time and was the language of the area but there is not one trace of the KT in any of the oral traditions of the area. Nor are there any references in any of the documents of the time regarding the sudden and uninvited appearance of non-Gaelic speakers. The only thing they did in Argyll, according to the evidence presented by the exponents of the Popular Approach, was to arrive, hide and die there, the only trace of their presence being anonymous grave slabs. The Popular Approach only uses a very limited range of evidence (the grave slabs) and, when compared to evidence not used, it becomes clear that the use of 'evidence' has been selective.

 

Rosslyn Chapel has now gained a central place in the physical evidence presented in support of the myth especially since, but already thirty years before, The Da Vinci Code. Other popular writers, claim that the Battle of Bannock was the catalyst for a variety of things, particularly the actions of Robert Bruce. It is claimed that he created Freemasonry into which the Knights Templar were integrated or alternatively that he allowed the KT to continue to exist. Hereby various  authors appear to be confused regarding the various branches of Freemasonry, suggesting that Bruce was responsible for the creation of the Royal Order of Scotland, The Order of the Rosy Cross, the Masonic Knights Templar, Order of Heredom, and so on.

 

These post-Bannockburn organizations have allegedly passed secret knowledge or treasure down to the present day and Freemasonry is frequently cited as being the modem custodian. These claims give rise to some curious consequences. For example, if the Knights Templar continued to exist in Scotland after they were officially suppressed then the Freemasons of Scotland knew nothing about them because they went on to establish - the Order of the Knights Templar! If Freemasonry came into existence in 1314 into which the Knights Templar integrated, the Freemasons who changed stonemasons' lodges into Masonic lodges did not know that Freemasonry already existed, having been invented in 1314. That being the case there must have been two forms of Freemasonry in existence at the same time: one 'invented' by Robert Bruce and another created from stonemasons' lodges. One of the consequences of this Popular Approach means that the Freemasons writing during the 17th, 18th and first half of the 19th centuries were ignorant of their true history. The only other alternative would be that they were not ignorant - that they did know the truth but decided it must be suppressed. This view suggests that Freemasons were involved in a conspiracy of massive proportions involving many generations over hundreds of years and that the victims were-themselves.

 

The historical distortions which would be created if the myth were remotely true are rather bizarre and somewhat entertaining: for example, it would mean that Robert the Bruce did not win Scotland's independence at Bannockburn - some renegade French Knights did that for the Scots. It would also mean that until recently all British Prime Ministers and all American Presidents were Knights Templar - because they were Freemasons. Stimulating and thought provoking though some of the ideas of a variety of writers are, these must be seen as merely one way of attempting to understand the past. What has been attempted here, albeit briefly, has been to examine some of the more common elements of the Scottish version of the myth, by testing them as if they were hypotheses. That testing has been carried out using sources and evidence well known in the academic world but perhaps not so well known elsewhere. The process has revealed some major shortcomings with the Popular Approach. It is somewhat disappointing that so many authors obviously have a limited knowledge of Scottish Freemasonry, or more correctly, a limited knowledge of the difference between Freemasonry in Scotland and that practiced elsewhere. More serious is the dismissal, virtually without discussion, of enormous bodies of relevant material. That relating to the Battle of Bannockburn is a prime example.

 

On the darker side it is of concern to note that the modern myth has its roots in late 18th and 19th- century anti-Masonic attacks by Barruel as per the above link. Those Freemasons who devised a 'traditional history' in which the medieval KT and modern Freemasonry were intimately connected, had no way of knowing that 'their' myth would be adapted and embellished for purposes other than the innocuous pleasure of their fellow Freemasons. The perversion of the myth into anti-Semitic and anti-Masonic diatribes that led to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and ultimately the Holocaust, can be traced from the writings of Barruel and Robison. It is a fact, and a sad one, that this is completely ignored and is perhaps one of the reasons why Freemasonry is not a 'politically correct' group. One wonders where today's constant repetition of the myth might next lead.

 

This myth is unusual in that it does not appear until after the history of Freemasonry itself first appears in print, with the publication of Anderson's Constitutions in 1723. Even then the myth does not begin to obviously resemble the myth as it is known today until the late 20th century when it was created from a variety of 'traditional histories' originally developed in the 18th and 19th centuries. The influence of the Romantic Movement, and its promotion of medieval notions of chivalry etc., cannot be underestimated as a major impulse in its creation. This myth is, therefore, part of a long line of mythologizing by stonemasons beginning with the 1628 St. Clair 'Charter'. The myth has a dynamism that is markedly different from that of other myths, particularly those of classical antiquity, which demonstrates that it is 'young' and has not, yet, reached the fixed maturity of other myths. Fortunately, the origin and development of this myth took place at a time when it was easily recorded and thus future generations of historians will, hopefully, continue to chart its progress and development.

 

This survey of material relating to how Scottish Freemasons perceived their past demonstrates that they were as susceptible to outside influence, then as now. Originally Scottish Freemasons had an understanding of their past that was reasonably straightforward and simple, if too fantastic for our modem tastes. Once printed histories began to appear which suggested a more exotic past, especially those with the sanction,  tacit or otherwise, of those in authority, these new versions were eagerly consumed and ardently believed. By assorted writers who initiated, and perpetuated, a fantastic history of Freemasonry. Each built on, and elaborated, the mythical work of their predecessors but all were Freemasons whose writings were for internal use only. Tragically they never took the opportunity to correct even the most obvious errors. The traditional histories of the various branches of Freemasonry were never intended for public consumption. Over approximately the last twenty years the traditional histories of Freemasons have been re-interpreted, repackaged and resold to – Freemasons.

 

All the essential elements of the modem myth were created during the Romantic period when a nostalgic view of the chivalric codes of the Middle Ages was fashionable and which culminated in not only physical displays of chivalry, but also in a host of artistic and literary works. At a time when Scottish culture was fashionable and when there was a widespread belief that chivalry could still be relevant, a romantic Scottish Masonic chivalric Order was synthesized - the present KT. Thus the Scottish Rite myth as we know it today was created by the Masonic KT of Scotland.  

 

For updates click homepage here