The great divide: Transatlantic brothering and masonic internationalism, c. 1870–c. 1930

ABSTRACT

This article demonstrates the interplay between national, international and transatlantic dimensions within fraternalism. From the late nineteenth century, masonic lodges took part in the broader push towards the formation of transnational organisations and institutions. They were mainly based in western and southwestern Europe. However, transatlantic channels were established that went beyond the individual and local level. The article analyses these waves of transatlantic brothering and relates them to the tides of confrontation and rapprochement between the United States and Europe. It argues that the First World War marked a moment of intensified interactions when English and French masonries rivalled over the Americans’ favour, followed by a period in which transatlantic internationalist initiatives were shaped by masons based in New York. These inner-masonic alliances embraced the rationale of international relations in the realm of state policy and promised to overcome the divides between the various camps in European and World freemasonry.

KEYWORDS:

• Internationalism
• freemasonry
• transnational history
• transatlantic relations
• First World War

Acknowledgements

Archival research for this article was facilitated by a Gerald D. Feldman Travel Grant of the Max Weber Foundation, Bonn, Germany. The author wishes to thank Jessica Harland-Jacobs (University of Florida) and Jan C. Jansen (GHI Washington) as well as the anonymous reviewers for Atlantic Studies for their stimulating suggestions and constructive criticism.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Joachim Berger is research coordinator at the Leibniz Institute of European History (IEG) in Mainz, Germany. He studied history and art history in Jena (Germany) and Bristol (UK). Berger’s PhD thesis (published 2003) dealt with scopes of thought and action of a German princess in the Enlightenment. His current research focuses on masonic internationalism in Europe (c. 1845–1935).

ORCID

Joachim Berger http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4809-9033

Notes

1. See generally Nolan, Transatlantic Century, here 23–25.

2. Es sei “im Interesse der auswandernden Brüder und ihrer Angehörigen,” “mit einem Großoriente [sic] in Verbindung zu treten, der ihnen mit Rath und That beistehen und sich für sie im Nothfalle bei den dortigen Behörden unmittelbar und mittelbar durch einflußreiche Brüder verwenden kann.” Printed report on the assembly of the Grande Loge Suisse “Alpina,” Berne, 27–28 August 1864. Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin-Dahlem, Germany (hereafter GStAPK), Freimaurer, Bestand Großlogen und Protektor, 5.1.4., Große National-Mutterloge der Preußischen Staaten genannt “Zu den Drei Weltkugeln,” No. 7652, fs. 87–97, quote on f. 88 of the report.

3. Große Mutterloge des eklektischen Freimaurerbundes (hereafter GMLEklBd), extraordinary meeting (Außerordentliche Versammlung), 5 February 1875. Mittheilungen aus den Protokollen der Großen Mutterloge des eklektischen Freimaurerbundes zu Frankfurt am Main (1872–1878). Archives of the Lodge “Zur Einigkeit,” Frankfurt/Main, Germany, Collection Große Mutterloge des eklektischen Freimaurerbunds zu Frankfurt/Main (hereafter LzE, GMLEklBd 5.1.9.), no. 385.

4. Note on capitalisation and the use of the singular or plural: I speak of “Freemasonry” when referring to the institution, its general organisational features and ideology, whereas the terms “freemasonry” resp. “freemasonries” denote specific branches with their peculiar shapes and characteristics (French, German, Latin, Christian etc. freemasonries).

5. On the “Atlantic masonic system” (“système maçonnique atlantique”) see Beaurepaire, Europe, 90–99; Mollès, “Triangle atlantique.”

6. See Paulmann, “Internationalismus,” 182; following Friedemann and Hölscher, “Internationalismus,” 392–397.

7. See, for example, Clavin, “Time, Manner, Place”; Pernau, Transnationale Geschichte; Rosenberg, “Transnationale Strömungen,” 825–850.

8. Scholarship on Freemasonry, “largely encased in national (or subnational) frameworks” (Jansen, “Atlantic Sociability,” 84), has for a long time neglected these movements. If at all, historians have treated these masonic movements by highlighting its “perceived failures” rather than its “actual activities” (Orzoff, “Interwar Democracy,” 272). See Lubelski-Bernard, “Peace”; Combes, “Relations maçonniques I”; Combes, “Relations maçonniques II”; Combes, “Relations maçonniques III”; Martin, “Internacionalismo”; Martin, “Asociación Masónica Internacional”; Beaurepaire, Europe; Berger, “European Freemasonries.” Like the contemporary masons they study, these scholars assess the attraction and impact of the movements by the masonic utopia of a universal brotherhood, the implementation of which was bound to fail (e.g. Conti, “Masonic International,” 25: “the idea of gathering all the Masonic families from around the world into a single coordinating body in the name of universalism and a supposed commonality of values and ideal references was nothing but a vain chimera.”). Furthermore, these studies contrast the national(ist) framing of the masonic actors with their universalist and cosmopolitan aspirations. However, research on non-masonic movements has shown that in actual fact nationalism was an ideological and organisational building block of inter-nationalism. See Geyer and Paulmann, “Mechanics. Introduction,” 7; Rosenberg, “Transnationale Strömungen,” 826; Kott, “Organisations internationales,” 14.

9. There is no comprehensive study of this multilateral network in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries from a pan-European or global perspective. For a systematic perspective see Snoek, “Relationships.” Studies from national (English, French, and Belgian) perspectives are, among others, Daniel, Networks; Bauer and Rochigneux, Relations internationales; Maes, Belges et Francs-Maçons, 260–271.

10. On the League of Nations, see Herren, “Völkerbund,” 273 (“Narrative des Scheiterns”).

11. Harland-Jacobs, “World of Brothers,” 13.

12. Laqua, “Transnational intellectual cooperation,” 236; Harland-Jacobs, “World of Brothers,” 23.

13. On the hiatus between cosmopolitan or universalist ideals and exclusive practices see Harland-Jacobs, Empire, 64–98; Berger, “Rituelle Grenzziehungen,” 186–188.

14. Tyssens, “Nationalism,” 463.

15. See Herren, Internationale Organisationen; Laqua, Age of Internationalism; Sluga, Internationalism.

16. See Gräser, “Model America,” cit. section 23; Nolan, Transatlantic Century, 10.

17. Nolan, Transatlantic Century, 52.

18. These are the United Grand Lodge of England, the Grand Orient of France, the Grand Orient of Italy and the German Confederation of Grand Lodges with two of its member bodies – the “Grand Mother Lodge of the Eclectic Masonic Federation” (Große Mutterloge des Eklektischen Freimaurerbundes) based in Frankfurt on the Main and the large “Grand National Mother Lodge of the Prussian States, called ‘The Three Globes’” (Große National-Mutterloge der Preußischen Staaten, genannt “Zu den drei Weltkugeln”) with headquarters in Berlin.

19. The freemasonries of Central and South America with their characteristics (anticlericalism, free-thinking, political engagement) cannot be dealt with here. See Mollès, “Libre-pensée.”

20. Although David Armitage labels his concept of “Trans-Atlantic history” an “international history of the Atlantic world,” he confines it to a “history of the Atlantic world told through comparisons” (Armitage, “Atlantic History,” 15, 18). On his “Trans-Atlantic” approach see Jansen, “Atlantic Sociability,” 89; Games, “Atlantic History,” 746.

21. Compte-rendu congrès Paris 1855, 11–12.

22. Grand Orient de France (hereafter GODF), “Fête de l’Ordre,” 15 June 1867. Bulletin du Grand Orient de France (hereafter BullGODF) 23 nos. 4–6 (1867): 275–279. The Grand Lodges of California, North Carolina, Kentucky, Massachusetts and New York had themselves represented by individual members.

23. See Centre de Documentation Maçonnique du Grand Orient de Belgique, Brussels, Belgium, “Archives de Moscou” belges (hereafter CEDOM, AdM), 114–1–0079: fs. 84–85.

24. See Naudon, Hauts grades, 180–193; Viton, R.E.A.A., 39–45.

25. Transactions Conference Washington 1912, 5–6. In the case of Italy and France, it was the two independent Supreme Councils – competing with those under the roof of the resp. Grand Orients – that were present in Washington. The Italian Supremo Consiglio under Saverio Fera had separated from the Grand Orient of Italy in 1908. See Cordova, 1892–1908, 241–242, 286–293, and Conti, Massoneria italiana, 178–194.

26. Herren, Internationale Organisationen, 39.

27. See Viton, R.E.A.A., 46; Mandleberg, Ancient and accepted, 261.

28. Compte-rendu congrès Paris 1855, 43–47, 67, quote from page 44.

29. See, for example, the discussion in the Council of the Order (Conseil de l’Ordre): BullGODF 25, no. 5 (1869): 267–269.

30. See Mollès, “Triangle atlantique.”

31. Grande Oriente d’Italia (hereafter GOI), Seduta, 19 May 1877. Processi Verbali delle sedute del Grande Oriente d’Italia 2, no. 1 (1865–1879). GOI, Archivio Storico, Rome, Italy (hereafter GOI, Processi Verbali); GOI, Seduta, 6 April 1881. GOI, Processi Verbali 2, no. 2 (1879–1887); GOI, Consiglio, 17 October 1897. GOI, Processi Verbali 1, no. 3 (1887–1904): f. C 110–110’; GOI, Consiglio, 20 April 1901. Processi Verbali 1, no. 3 (1887–1904): f. C 200’.

32. Circular letter of the German Confederation of Grand Lodges (with extracts from annual report of the Grand Lodge of Hamburg 1907–1907), 22 January 1908. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Grosslogenbundes No. 4 (1907–1908). 2

33. See, for example, the minutes of the diet of the German Confederation of Grand Lodges in Bayreuth, 6 July 1908. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Grosslogenbundes No. 1 (1908–1909); circular letter of the German Confederation of Grand Lodges (with extracts from annual report of the Grand Lodge of Hamburg 1911–1912), 24 December 1912. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Grosslogenbundes No. 2 (1912–1913).

34. United Grand Lodge of England (hereafter UGLE), Quarterly Communications, 7 June 1871. Proceedings of the United Grand Lodge of Ancient Free and Accepted Masons of England (1869–1876): 2 (hereafter UGLE, Proceedings). UGLE, The Library and Museum of Freemasonry, Freemasons’ Hall, London, UK (hereafter UGLE, FHL), BE.140.Uni.

35. Quoted in Daniel, Networks, 115. On Ripon’s mission see ibid., 106–17, 153.

36. See Harland-Jacobs, Empire, 80–81, 219–220, 232–239.

37. See Ligou, Desmons, 95–112; Daniel, Networks, 274–275.

38. See Conti, “Masonic International,” 17; Hivert-Messeca, Europe.

39. “[…] dass wir wenig gemeinsame Interessen haben mit der Maurerei, wie sie auf dem europäischen Continent organisiert ist.” Circular letter of the German Confederation of Grand Lodges (with extract from minutes of US-American grand lodges, here Grand Lodge of Arkansas, 14 January 1879), 25 March 1880. LzE, GMLEklBd, 5.1.9., no. 585.

40. See Berger, “Territoriality,” 102–103.

41. GODF, Conseil, 20 January 1890. BullGODF 45, no. 11 (1889–1890): 547.

42. GODF, Conseil, 3 December 1900. BullGODF 56, no. 5 (1900–1901): 41.

43. Conférence Anvers 1894, 7–8; Grand Lodge of Florida, certificate of authority for James Veit, Jacksonville, 21 April 1894. CEDOM, AdM, 114–1–0213: f. 33.

44. Compte-rendu congrès Genève 1902; Compte-rendu congrès Bruxelles 1904.

45. Quartier-la-Tente, Edouard to GODF (Conseil). Neuchâtel, 25 March 1905 and 2 December 1907. Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris, France (hereafter BnF), Manuscrits Occidentaux, Fonds maçonnique, Rés. FM2 154 (BIRM/2). On the transatlantic objectives of the International Bureau see Mollès, “Le système-monde maçonnique,” 18.

46. Compte-rendu conférence Bruxelles 1910, 50–51, 76.

47. Ibid., 130, 179–181.

48. Transactions Conference Brussels 1907; Transactions Conference Washington 1912.

49. See the survey of donations to the International Bureau of Masonic Relations, 1906–1919 (n.d., unpag.). BnF, Manuscrits Occidentaux, Rés. FM2 154 (BIRM/2).

50. This reports the semi-offical Rivista Massonica (Pegasus, “America ed Europa”); it is confirmed for the Grand Lodge of New York by its Grand Master (Robert H. Robinson), quoted in: Scudder, Townsend to Alfred Robbins. New York, 16 February 1922. UGLE, FHL, In Archives Store, AS BY 362/5, Bundle “International Relations.”

51. Conférence Paris 1917, 71–72; Congrès Paris 1917, 6, 46. See Beaurepaire, Europe, 250.

52. See the discussion in the General Assembly of the GODF, 20 September 1918. BullGODF 74 (1918): 140–141.

53. Alabama: GODF, Conseil, 8 March 1918. BullGODF 74 (1918): 24; GODF, Conseil, 28 January 1919. BullGODF 75 (1919): 38. Louisiana: GODF, Conseil, 30 March 1918. BullGODF 74 (1918), 28. Iowa, California, New Jersey and Nevada: GODF, Conseil, 21 August 1918. Ibid., 23; GODF, Conseil, 16 October 1918. Ibid., 36,

54. Hervey, Rhodes (Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of California) to UGLE (Grand Secretary). Los Angeles, 22 July 1918. UGLE, FHL, Historical Correspondence in Biog Room (Grand Orient de France), Box 5.

55. GODF, Assemblée générale, 20 September 1918. BullGODF 74 (1918): 140–141. “une sorte de Comité permanent”: GODF, Conseil, 20 September 1918. Ibid., 34.

56. UGLE, Especial Grand Lodge, 23 June 1917, Royal Albert Hall, London. UGLE Proceedings 16 (1916–1918): 179–209; UGLE, Especial Grand Lodge, 27 June 1919, Royal Albert Hall, London. UGLE Proceedings 17 (1919–1921): 45–71.

57. See, for instance, Nolan, Transatlantic Century, 74; Ellwood, “‘America’ and Europe,” 426–427. For the “sea and field lodges” see Hivert-Messeca, Grande Guerre, 188–191.

58. GODF, Conseil, 7 November 1921. BullGODF 77 (1921): 31–32.

59. Robinson, quoted in Scudder to Robbins, 16 February 1922 (see above note 50).

60. Daniel, Peace celebrations, 8–13.

61. “intransigeance confessionnelle!” GODF, Assemblée générale, 22 September 1922. BullGODF 78 (1922): 53.

62. See the “Funkspruch” (radio transmission) of the Deutsche Großlogenbund to UGLE and the grand lodges of the USA, printed in: Süß, “An die deutschen Freimaurer!”

63. “[…] nachdem nun ‘Friede zwischen Deutschland und Amerika geschlossen’ worden sei.” GMLEklBd, Vierteljahresversammlung, 28 November 1921. LzE, GMLEklBd, 5.1.9. with No. 64–75 (special file, Heinrich Becker papers).

64. LzE, GMLEklBd, 5.1.9., no. 593: fs. 7–13; GMLEklBd, Vierteljahresversammlung, 21 November 1923. LzE, GMLEklBd, 5.1.9. with no. 64–75 (special file, Heinrich Becker papers). Relations had only been suspended during the war (rather than broken off). See the membership roles of the GMLEklBd (varying titles) in: LzE, Collection Loge “Zur Einigkeit,” Frankfurt/M., 5.2.

65. GOI, Governo dell’ordine, 2 July 1922. GOI, Processi Verbali 2, no. 14 (1921–1923); GOI, Giunta esecutiva, 16 November 1922. Ibid.; GOI, Giunta esecutiva, 21 June 1923. Ibid.; GOI, Governo dell’ordine, 7 October 1923. GOI, Processi Verbali 2, no. 15 (1923–1925).

66. “azione americana,” “con le altre Famiglie del mondo.” GOI, Giunta esecutiva, 21 June 1923. GOI, Processi Verbali 2, no. 14 (1921–1923).

67. GODF, Conseil, 16 December 1923. BullGODF 80 (1923/24): 53–56; GODF, Conseil, 26 May. BullGODF 82 (1925): 36.

68. GODF, Conseil, 14 December 1924. BullGODF 81 (1924/25): 45; GOI, Conseil, 22 September 1922. BullGODF 80 (1923/24): 10.

69. GODF, Conseil, 18 February 1925 (minutes of the “Comité consultatif” of the A.M.I., Lyon, 7 December 1925). BullGODF 82 (1925): 27.

70. Minutes of the financial commission of the A.M.I., 24 September 1924. GODF, Archives, Paris, France, Fonds russes, 92–1–13658: fs. 1–3.

71. See Beaurepaire, Europe, 257.

72. The Grand Lodge of New York was “bestrebt, einen anglo-germanischen Block der Freimaurerei zu gründen” (GMLEklBd, Vierteljahresversammlung, 31 August 1925. LzE, GMLEklBd, 5.1.9. with no. 64–75, special file, Heinrich Becker papers) and “hat sich von der internationalen Freimaurerei getrennt.” (GMLEklBd, Vierteljahresversammlung, 25 November 1925. Ibid.).

73. GODF, Conseil, 3 February 1926. BullGODF 83 (1926): 2.

74. Osterhammel, “Weltordnungskonzepte,” 426 (“Ordnungsrhetorik Woodrow Wilsons”).

75. See. Nolan, Transatlantic Century, 74–75.

76. From 1922 to 1932, 20 obediences from Central and South America became members of the A.M.I.; three of them resigned from it or were excluded during that period. See Beaurepaire, Europe, 255.

77. Gräser, “Model America,” section 2.

78. Nolan, Transatlantic Century, 103, states that after 1918 “Europe” became a “frame of reference” for political, economic and social challenges of the day.

79. Harland-Jacobs, “Global Brotherhood,” 81.