As shown in this study, Masonry operated as a multi-faceted institution in varying urban environments. This chapter, then, will attempt to provide a perspective of eighteenth-century Masonry in London, Paris, Prague, and Vienna and to demonstrate the connections between Masonry and the Enlightenment in these cities. What will be investigated in this conclusion are the organization and rites of Masonry, the social composition of the Craft, the impact of Enlightenment ideologies upon Masonic intellectuals, and the participation of Masons in eighteenth-century cultural institutions.
The organizational functions of grand lodges in London, Paris, Prague, and Vienna, for the most part, resembled each other and were of importance to the Enlightenment in several respects. The operations of grand lodges in these cities, generally speaking, conformed to regulations specified in the Constitutions of Anderson and revolved around Enlightenment concepts.1 The executive, parliamentary, and judicial operations of these bodies reflected significant Whiggish doctrines and especially provided grand lodge administrators in Paris, Prague, and Vienna with political training. There was another important facet of grand lodge leadership; grand lodge administrators were aristocratic or bourgeois enlighteners. Titled nobles holding positions in the Grand Lodge of London approximately amounted to 70 percent of its leadership corps, while members of enlightened aristocratic elites exclusively directed the operations of grand lodges in Paris, Prague, and Vienna. This predominance of aristocratic leadership significantly contributed to the evolution of Masonry as an Enlightenment institution in these cities and marked a major pattern of French and Habsburg grand lodges.
French and Habsburg grand lodge officials experienced some opposition from political authorities and from the papacy. The attitudes of Bourbon and Habsburg officials towards Masonry, in some instances, were quite similar; they were suspicious of the secret operations of grand lodges in Paris, Prague, and Vienna and viewed some leaders of these bodies as being conspirators. Despite the investigations by royal administrators of the operations of Masonry, grand lodge leaders in these three cities succeeded in exonerating themselves and other Masons of seditious allegations. Until the late 1780s, grand lodge authorities in these cities exercised considerable influence in government circles and successfully resisted anti–Masonic attacks.2 When papal bulls were promulgated against the Craft and were not stringently enforced, grand lodge officials in Paris, Prague, and Vienna were also able to resist assaults from the Church. What emerged was a distinctive pattern concerning religious and political anti–Masonry. Anti-Masonry between approximately 1755 and 1787 did not constitute a serious threat to grand lodge authorities in Paris and in the Habsburg Empire and, instead, proved to be a rather weak force. Even in London during the first half of the eighteenth century, few anti–Masonic attacks were directed against officials of the Modern Grand Lodge and indicated that the crown and varying Protestant denominations were sympathetic towards the aims and operations of the Craft.
The status of the Modern Grand Lodge of London was not seriously challenged until after 1750. With the exception of the Rosicrucians, few other fraternal organizations functioned in London prior to 1750, and the Modern Grand Lodge thus dominated the world of secret societies in the British capital. As a consequence of its predominant position, the Modern Grand Lodge received capable leadership and support from enlighteners in London and, through its centralized network of local lodges in this city and elsewhere, supervised the cultural and social operations of the Craft. As has been seen, the Antient Grand Lodge ended the virtual monopoly of the Modern Grand Lodge. By establishing their base of operations in London and by conferring the Royal Arch Mason Degree, the Antients, to a certain extent, successfully competed against the Moderns in the British capital. Antient Masonry primarily developed, however, into a lower middle-class town movement and produced its greatest impact upon towns in Scotland, Ireland, and America. As opposed to those of the Moderns, the leadership, membership, and lodge operations of the Antients did little, moreover, to advance the cause of the Enlightenment in London.3
Rivaling Masonic bodies were much more common in the three European cities examined in this study than in London. The proliferation of Masonic degrees, differing views of Masonic ideologies, and frequent disputes among members of Masonic elites served as the fundamental causes of grand lodge rivalries and in some cases posed a threat to the functioning of Masonic communities in Paris, Prague, and Vienna. Ritualistic problems in Paris revolved around the acceptance of the Scottish Degrees, while those in Prague and in Vienna centered on interpretations of the Templar Degrees, appearing first in the Strict Observance System and then in the Zinnendorf Rite. The resolution of these disputes was significant for the survival of the Craft in France and in the Habsburg Empire. Masonic grand lodge authorities in Paris, Prague, and Vienna succeeded in terminating ritualistic feuds, in integrating rivaling aristocratic elites into Masonry, and in establishing new and viable grand lodge bodies.4 Very few secret societies functioned, moreover, in Paris, in Prague, and in Vienna. With the exception of the operations of the Illuminati in Vienna, other secret societies did not pose a serious challenge to Masonic grand lodges in these three cities. This fact suggests that the success of the social and cultural activities conducted in lodges of the Craft enabled Masonry to dominate the world of the secret societies in each of these European cities.
The organizational functions of local lodges in the cities examined in this study for the most part were quite similar. Moreover, the functions of local lodges in Paris, Prague, and Vienna closely resembled those of Modern lodges in London. The constitutional and administrative operations of lodges in the three European cities especially seemed to parallel those of lodges in the British capital. Parisian, Prague, and Viennese lodges, like their London counterparts, elected their members and officers and thus functioned as voluntary associations. The duties of lodge executives, the parliamentary operations of lodges, the functioning of special committees, and the recognition of the natural liberties of lodge members reflected salient principles of Whiggism and major doctrines of other Enlightenment legal and political ideologies. Consequently, lodges especially in Paris, Prague, and Vienna taught their leaders administrative skills and provided their members with new political experiences. A few lodges even directly engaged in political operations, supporting in Paris the cause of the American Revolution and in Vienna that of state reform.
Local lodges, too, served other purposes. These bodies functioned as philanthropical agencies, providing financial assistance to lodge members and their families. The Enlightenment concept of philanthropy was especially important to lodges in Habsburg cities. Lodges in the imperial capital donated funds to the University of Vienna Medical School, and those in Prague contributed financial assistance to hospitals, schools, and orphanages. Lodges, more importantly, operated as centers of social and cultural activities; lodges in London played a central part in its tavern, coffeehouse, and club life, while those in Paris, Prague, and Vienna functioned in some respects as salons. In both Habsburg urban centers, which had few social and cultural agencies, lodges especially tended to be centers of activism. Like those in London and Paris, lodges in Prague and Vienna sponsored banquets and special lectures, but unlike their West European counterparts, these Habsburg lodges staged musical performances. Another significant cultural function of lodges in each of the cities examined concerned their role as ritualistic centers. Lodges psychologically provided their members with the secrecy and privacy in which the drama of ritualism could be staged. These bodies consequently bound their members to an exclusive community and were involved with the process of acculturating them to the norms of Masonry and the Enlightenment.
Ritualism, in many respects, served as the core of Speculative Freemasonry. Desaguliers and other founding fathers of the Modern London Grand Lodge invented the Blue Degree System to achieve several purposes. These leaders developed a distinctive Masonic language to explain the tenets of a moral system prevalent in the ancient and modern worlds. The founding fathers of the Craft also used the teachings of ancient Masonry and the symbols of architecture and mathematics to explain in simplified terms pertinent political, philosophical, and scientific concepts circulating in early Hanoverian London. Unlike the rites of other secret societies either in London or in other European cities, the degrees of Modern Masonry offered a ritualistic synthesis of significant Enlightenment ideologies.5 The Blue Degrees, then, served in London as an effective socializing agency of Augustan culture and affected the attitudes of British Masons towards society. As has been seen, the British Masonic civil religion revolved around the beliefs that members of the Craft should obey the ancient ethical teachings of the Supreme Architect, should work to protect English natural liberties, should support Parliamentary government, and should attempt to improve British society through the application of mechanistic concepts to technology and to other realms.
The ritualism of Masonry, too, assisted in the diffusion of major eighteenth-century cultural concepts in Paris, Prague, and Vienna. In these European cities, the Blue Degrees served as a source of Anglophile and Enlightenment ideas. The teachings and symbols of these degrees provided Masons in these cities with explanations regarding concepts of classicism, deism, mechanism, constitutional government, and civil liberties. As has been seen, the evolution of other Masonic ritualistic systems suggested that members of the order in the European cities studied developed new Masonic interpretations of Enlightenment ideas. Like the Scottish Rite in Paris, the Strict Observance System in Prague illustrated the importance of education and ancient ideologies, and the Zinnendorf Rite in Vienna especially demonstrated the significance of natural liberties. These Masonic systems, too, emphasized fundamental principles of civil liberties and state reform and consequently affected the ethical behavior of members of the Craft. French and Habsburg Masons perceived the Supreme Architect as being the Moral Governor of Humanity and as being the Source of Secular Salvation. Masons in Paris consequently worked to improve educational and legal institutions, and those in Prague, who were especially motivated by the concept of philanthropy, funded hospitals, orphanages, and schools. Symbols and ethical teachings of the Zinnendorf Rite especially made Masons in Vienna self-conscious of their roles as reformers. These Masons acted and wrote to defend the causes of religious toleration, public education, and criminal justice.
The social composition of Masonry in the urban centers studied reflected an aristocratic and middle-class character. In the four cities, aristocratic patronage of the Craft was especially extensive; aristocratic membership in London and Parisian lodges was about 50 percent, and that in Prague and Viennese lodges amounted to approximately 80 percent. Bourgeois affiliation with lodges in the two Habsburg cities was minimal, reflecting the fact that the Prague and Viennese middle classes were quite small in comparison to those in London and in Paris. The social composition of Masonry, too, can be explained in light of how aristocratic and bourgeois individuals viewed the order. Masons of both classes looked upon the Craft as an important urban institution. They were given opportunities to participate in ritualistic, cultural, social, and philanthropical activities and thus perceived the Craft as being a major agency of the Enlightenment. The social composition of the order revealed that Masonry possessed cross-class appeal, functioning as an institution in which members of aristocratic and bourgeois elites could interact with each other.
Individuals of various religions held membership in Masonry in the cities examined. Masons in London, for the most part, were Protestants, either affiliating with the Anglican Church or with one of the dissenting churches. Masonry provided a neutral setting where Protestants in London could attempt to reconcile their religious differences and could support the cause of those Protestant groups whose religious and civil liberties were not recognized by the state. Several Catholics and Jews in London participated in Modern Masonry, but few Masons in the British capital spoke in defense of the rights of members of these two religious groups. Many Calvinists and Catholics and a few Jews were also involved in Masonry in Paris, Prague, and Vienna. The nonsectarian environment of the Craft in these European cities produced significant effects upon its members. Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish Masons in these cities viewed Masonry as playing a central role in facilitating social and political integration. They developed secular attitudes, calling for the extension of civil and religious liberties to Jews and Protestants and for the separation of church and state in matters of education. There were, however, a few Masons in London, Paris, Prague, and Vienna who had no religious affiliation. Yet these Masons were inspired by the universal moral principles of the Craft and viewed them as being intimately connected to major ideologies of the Enlightenment.
Varying groups from the English aristocracy participated in London Masonry. Nobles holding ranking positions in the British armed services were admitted to and envisioned Masonry as being committed to moral, patriotic, and Enlightenment principles. Noble statesmen and Parliamentary ministers were involved with Masonry; most were Whigs and visualized the political doctrines in Masonic ritualism as being compatible with those of their party. They, too, believed that Masonry could serve as a valuable agency for the promotion of their political programs and commercial enterprises. A few Tories were Masons and, like their Whig opponents, worked through coffeehouses and taverns in London to secure the support of members of the Craft for the policies of their party.6 London Masons actively participated in party politics and thus differed from those in Paris and in Habsburg cities. Despite party affiliation, many London aristocrats generated common interest in the arts and sciences, recognized the importance of the cultural functions of Masonry, and thus behaved as Masonic enlighteners.
Nobles in Paris assumed an active part in Masonry. The order provided Catholic and Protestant nobles in the French capital with the opportunity to meet and to intermingle with each other in an urban environment where political and social gatherings were restricted. Masonry, too, induced French nobles to participate in cultural institutions in Paris and especially served for these nobles as a source of secular and ethical ideologies of the Enlightenment. The fraternity resembled a cult of honor.7 By stressing military legends and by conferring to its members awards and titles, Scottish Rite Masonry in Paris drew support from many nobles of the sword. Political and legal doctrines explained in this rite were also compatible with those advocated by Parisian nobles of the robe and corroborated their views concerning the Thèse Nobiliaire.
The titled nobility also dominated the affairs of Masonry in Prague and in Vienna. In these cities, aristocrats looked to Masonry to achieve cultural integration, were both Protestants and Catholics, but came from varying ethnic groups. Most Masonic aristocrats in Prague were of Czech and German Bohemian lineage, while those in Vienna were Austrian, Hungarian, Romanian, and Italian. Many Habsburg nobles, too, either served in the armed forces or in the imperial bureaucracy. Most wished to acquire an understanding of major concepts connected with eighteenth-century English and French culture and thus affiliated with Masonry to accomplish this objective. Many aristocratic enlighteners in Prague and in Vienna utilized the Craft as a cultural agency to sponsor libraries, museums, and schools and to vindicate the cause of imperial reforms. Consequently, Masonry in both cities enabled aristocrats to foster the process of assimilation and to occupy new institutional roles.
Along with the support of the aristocracy, the patronage of the middle class was important to Masonry in London and in Paris. The Craft provided middle class individuals in both cities with opportunities to acquire an understanding of Enlightenment ideologies, to engage in social and cultural activities, to promote their economic and professional interests, and to secure recognition. London and Parisian lawyers assumed leadership roles in Masonry, generating interest in the legal doctrines embodied in its rites and becoming involved in its judicial proceedings. As opposed to their counterparts in the British capital, Masonic lawyers in Paris emerged as proponents of criminal and legal reforms. Yet many merchants and industrialists in London belonged to Masonry and in light of its extensive patronage by the Whigs envisioned the order as being important for the promotion of their business interests. Many, too, expressed interest in architecture and built Palladian styled mansions in London to imitate their aristocratic friends. In attempting to make business contacts and in endorsing Masonic and Enlightenment concepts concerning natural liberties and the work ethic, London and Parisian merchants became involved in the operations of the Craft. Catholic merchants and professional men especially played an active part in Parisian Masonry. The teachings of the order provided Catholic middle-class Masons with moral and religious concepts to justify their positions in the ancien régime.
There were also some middle-class Masons in Prague and in Vienna. Although less numerous than those in the French and British capitals, middle-class Masons in the Habsburg cities envisioned the principles of the order as serving as an alternative to those of Christianity. Protestant and Catholic Masonic merchants and industrialists in Prague and in Vienna gave maximum support to the Craft. They subscribed to Enlightenment moral secular ideologies and utilized the order as a means for advocating their political and economic reform proposals.
As has been argued, Masonic intellectuals for the most part were urban enlighteners. These aristocratic and bourgeois Masons were affiliated with progressive cultural elites and were predominantly involved with the study of the natural sciences, medicine, political thought, literature, and the fine arts. Many Masonic intellectuals belonged to learned societies, participated in urban social institutions, and thus behaved as Masonic enlighteners. Some of these intellectuals were cognizant of their roles as Masons and as enlighteners. They utilized some lodges of the Craft to disseminate their concepts of Masonry and the Enlightenment. The interest of Masonic intellectuals in different ideologies suggested, however, the variations of the Enlightenment in London, Paris, Prague, and Vienna.
Newtonian mechanistic ideas, which were explained in the Blue Degrees, were of central importance to London and Parisian Masons. They gave frequent demonstrations and published works concerning the laws of motion and gravity. Some English and French Masonic mechanists were astronomers; others were physicists, devoting their attention to the study of primary and secondary qualities and to that of the concepts of attraction and repulsion.8 A few English and French mechanists pursued electrical studies, attempting to explain the operations of electrical bodies in terms of the concepts of attraction and repulsion. Many French Masonic mechanists denounced the physical theories of the Cartesians and attempted to develop a precise scientific language to explicate Newtonian concepts. In comparison to scientists in London and in Paris, those in Prague and in Vienna, who were primarily concerned with the study of materialistic theories, displayed minimal interest in mechanistic concepts.
Mechanistic views influenced London, Parisian, Prague, and Viennese doctors. Masonic physicians in these cities were familiar with the medical procedures and teachings of the mechanist Hermann Boerhaave. They used inductive procedures to develop their taxonomies concerning diseases and believed that mechanical principles could be evolved to explain the operations of the body.9 In light of the medical thought of this Dutch Newtonian, Dr. Cabanis and other Parisian Masonic physicians became idéologues, advocating in many cases positivistic medical philosophies and working for the amelioration of hospitals in the French capital. Under the influence of the Newtonian Gerard van Swieten, Masonic doctors in Prague and in Vienna played a central role in improving hospitals in these two urban centers. Moreover, Masonic physicians in the imperial capital actively worked to transform the University of Vienna Medical School into the leading medical institution in Central Europe.10
Some Parisian and Viennese scientists during the last half of the eighteenth century were proponents of Newtonian materialistic views. In light of their examination of notions advanced in the Opticks, they worked to determine and to classify the constituent ingredients of matter and to evolve a workable atomistic theory. The studies regarding heat, oxidizing agents, gases, and compounds by Parisian Masonic scientists led to the transformation of chemistry into a Newtonian science.11 The stratigraphic findings of Viennese Masonic geologists concerning the properties and uses of minerals contributed to Newtonian materialistic studies and confirmed many chemical views. With an interest in the legends and teachings of the Craft, these geologists probed Nature to explain theories concerning the origins, evolution, and flooding of the Earth.
Influenced by Masonic and Enlightenment tenets, many intellectuals of the Craft subscribed to various doctrines of deism. To English Masons, the teachings of deism reflected significant moral concepts of the ancients and moderns and constituted the basis of a scientific religion. Many French Masonic intellectuals associated deistic doctrines with Newtonian concepts, with Anglophile ideas, with ancient moral teachings, and with state reform arguments.12 Habsburg Masonic intellectuals, especially former Catholic clergymen, integrated concepts of deism into their proposals concerning imperial reforms and attempted to evolve a Masonic deistic philosophy in light of their studies of important ancient writers.
In addition to their interest in deism, many Masonic intellectuals in Paris and in Vienna were proponents of state reforms. Masonic spokesmen of reform in Paris were lawyers and minor philosophes and were affiliated with various cultural elites in the French capital. They occasionally used Parisian lodges to espouse their ideas about reforms. Parisian Masonic advocates of reform sometimes were critical of the policies of the Bourbon Monarchy, in many cases found their works censored, and in some instances were constrained to leave France. In contrast to those in Paris, Masonic proponents of reform in Vienna adamantly wrote to support the reform program of Joseph II. Generally speaking, they occupied positions in the Josephinian bureaucracy and were quite conscious of their roles as reformers. These Viennese Masons, in many cases, behaved as enlightened Masons, frequently utilizing lodges in the imperial capital to popularize their views concerning reforms.13
Many Parisian and Viennese Masonic intellectuals favored the implementation of educational and legal reforms. These advocates of reform wrote to vindicate the principle of the separation of church and state as applied to education. They applauded their monarchs for reducing the influence of Catholic clergymen in schools and in universities. Educational reforms enacted in France were minimal in comparison to those enacted in the Habsburg Empire. However, Masons in Paris established and operated special lycées and musées, while those in Vienna gave donations to newly created state schools and to the university in the imperial capital. Parisian and Viennese Masonic writers advocated similar criminal and legal reforms. Yet, the Masonic campaign concerning these reforms was more successful in the Habsburg Empire than in France. Educational and legal problems resembling those in France and in the Habsburg Empire did not arise in England and consequently were of minimal importance to Masonic writers in London.
Masonic intellectuals in London gave limited support to the cause of religious toleration in England. The reason for this lack of support was that London Masons were predominantly Whigs and, generally speaking, were satisfied with the religious and political statuses of most Protestant sects. However, a few Masonic ministers, writers, and parliamentary representatives defended the cause of Protestant dissenting groups. Yet, no Masonic intellectuals in London campaigned for the termination of disabilities imposed upon Catholics and Jews in England.
Masonic intellectuals in Paris and in Vienna conversely took firm positions in defending the cause of religious reforms. Many minor Masonic philosophes in Paris pamphleteered in support of religious reforms for the Huguenots and exercised some influence upon Louis XVI to promulgate the 1787 Edict of Toleration. Viennese Masonic writers, many of whom had been former Catholic clergymen, were anticlerical and proponents of religious reforms. The many works of these writers defended Joseph for his clerical and monastic reforms, praised him for his recognition of Jews and Protestants, and marked a significant variation of the Enlightenment in the Habsburg Empire.
Many Masonic intellectuals, too, were involved with the promotion of the Neoclassical Movement. These Masonic enlighteners were trained in the classics and realized that the rites of the Craft provided interpretations of important concepts advanced by the ancients. They favored the formulation of precise literary and artistic standards and insisted upon an accurate depiction of Nature and of the role of man in it.
In the cities examined in this study, Masonic writers demonstrated great interest in ancient ideologies and contributed to the development of the cult of antiquity. Masonic writers in London envisioned themselves as being Augustans and believed that their status was similar to that of writers in ancient Rome. Some Masonic writers in the British capital published translations of ancient poems; others in their works referred to concepts espoused by the ancients to justify their modern views of deism and Whiggism. Many London Masonic writers cultivated interest in modern science but alluded to the importance of ancient scientific theories in their works about the discoveries of Newton.14 However, London Masonic writers, who devoted extensive attention to major topics regarding literature and science, and who for the most part did not hold positions of leadership in the Craft, felt little need to publish works about ancient teachings in Masonic ritualism and thus significantly differed from their Habsburg counterparts.
French and Habsburg Masonic writers also contributed to Neoclassical Literature. Many of these writers in Paris, Prague, and Vienna imitated English authors, issuing translations of ancient literary masterpieces and subscribing to deistic tenets in light of their studies of ancient philosophies. Masonic Neoclassical writers in Paris played, however, a more significant role in disseminating scientific concepts than those in the Habsburg cities. By staging ancient comedies and tragedies, some Parisian and Viennese Masonic playwrights contributed to the Neoclassical Movement and through their characters revealed the importance of state reforms to the ancients and the moderns.15 Furthermore, many Neoclassical writers in these two cities were proponents of state reforms and utilized literary devices and pertinent teachings of the ancients to substantiate their views. As a consequence of the publication of the Journal für Freymaurer, Masonic spokesmen of Neoclassicism in Vienna differed from those in Paris and were given the opportunity to explain how Masonic and ancient teachings were compatible with reform doctrines espoused by Joseph II.
Masonic enlighteners involved with the fine arts also emphasized themes of the ancients. Paintings of Nature and portraits, busts, and statues of significant ancient and modern men appeared in London, Paris, Prague, and Vienna; these works suggested that Masonic painters and sculptors shared similar artistic views. Moreover, there were more Masonic artists and sculptors from Paris than either from London or from the Habsburg cities. This fact confirmed the belief that Paris during the late eighteenth century developed into a major center of the Neoclassical Movement in the arts. However, Masons in London did more to promote ancient principles of architecture than those either in Paris or in the Habsburg cities. Emphasized in the Blue Degrees, the principles of the ancient Roman architect Vitruvius were reflected in mansions and temples built in early Hanoverian London. What appeared to be unusual was that Palladianism, unlike Masonry, met with ephemeral success in Paris, Prague, and Vienna.
Music during the eighteenth century embodied important themes of antiquity and was promoted and patronized by many Masonic enlighteners. The ancient myths and stories conveyed through opera and the classical themes appearing in the sonata-symphony enabled music to perform valuable cultural functions.16 In London and in Paris, some Masons were musicians, orchestra directors, and minor composers; a few Masonic orchestras were established in these cities and were sponsored either by lodges or by aristocratic patrons. English and French Masons composed, however, few musical pieces concerning the principles and symbols of the Craft. The status of the Masonic musician in Vienna differed from that of Masonic musicians in London and in Paris. By receiving extensive financial support from lodges and from aristocrats affiliated with the Craft, Masonic musicians, composers, and orchestras played a prominent role in the imperial capital during the Josephinian Enlightenment. Numerous operas, symphonies, and songs either were written about Masonry or referred to its ritualism. Mozart and other Masonic composers in Vienna utilized music as an effective device to reveal the doctrines and symbols of Masonry and to demonstrate that the ancient teachings of the Craft were intimately related to cardinal tenets of the Enlightenment. Prior to and during the French Revolution, a few former Masons affiliated with the Illuminati in Vienna and with radical secret societies in Paris and relied upon music as a vehicle for explicating revolutionary symbols and for inspiring members of these organizations to engage in seditious activities.17
However, most Masons did not affiliate with subversive secret societies but rather gravitated to cultural institutions involved with the promotion of Enlightenment ideologies. Some Masons occupied administrative positions and actively participated in major eighteenth-century learned societies. A few Masons connected with these urban cultural institutions were important enlighteners, looking for disciples to disseminate their views. But most Masons belonging to urban learned societies were minor intellectuals who made some important contributions to the Enlightenment.
Some Masonic intellectuals held positions in universities. Numerous Masonic scientists and mathematicians in London and in Paris taught in universities and assisted in diffusing concepts of modern experimental science. More numerous than those in the British and French capitals, Masonic professors in Vienna, in many cases, imported cultural concepts from Western Europe into the Habsburg Empire. As a result of educational reforms instituted by Joseph, these professors especially played an active part in circulating medical, legal, and political ideologies of the Enlightenment in Vienna and throughout the empire.
Masonic intellectuals, too, were associated with other urban cultural agencies. Coffeehouses and taverns in London and salons in Paris attracted to their ranks aristocratic and bourgeois intellectuals and performed significant cultural functions. Participation in these institutions meant that London and Parisian Masons could stage displays, demonstrations, and lectures and thus could contribute to the spread of Enlightenment concepts. As a result of the lack of salons and comparable institutions, Habsburg Masonic intellectuals, especially in Vienna, utilized lodges for the sponsoring of Enlightenment projects.
Many Masonic intellectuals held membership in London learned societies. Many Masons in the British capital were elected to and held administrative positions in the Royal Society of London, thus exhibiting their philosophical commitment to Newtonianism. Most in this society were mechanists, but a few were materialists. Most London Masons belonging to this society were intellectuals, but some were gentlemen who served as patrons of the arts and sciences.18 The Royal Society did not restrict its members to Englishmen and admitted to its ranks some French Masonic enlighteners and a few from the Habsburg Empire. The involvement of London Masons in the College of Physicians was considerable and suggested that, similar to the physical sciences, medicine was important to the Enlightenment in the British capital.19 By affiliating with and contributing to the Society of Antiquaries, the Academy of Art, and the Academy of Ancient Music, London Masonic intellectuals demonstrated the importance of the humanities to the Enlightenment during the Augustan Era. Most London Masonic intellectuals belonged to learned societies in the British capital, but some held membership in academies in other English and European cities. Their involvement in these academies meant that Masonry served as an important channel through which the Enlightenment could develop in other places.
As has been shown, French Masons during the ancien régime were active in Parisian learned societies. The Paris Academy of Sciences developed into an important institution for the diffusion of Newtonian concepts and elected numerous Masons to its ranks. A few were astronomers and physicists, but most devoted their efforts to the study of chemistry, thus revealing the importance of Newtonian materialistic theories to the French Enlightenment. Parisian Masonic intellectuals, too, were elected to and were active in the Académie de Peintre et de Sculpture, the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, and the Académie Française. The participation of Parisian Masons in these learned societies demonstrated that major themes of the ancients were viewed as being important to the moderns of the French Enlightenment. Those Masons belonging to the Académie Française used drama and literature as propagandistic instruments to convey to the public their proposals regarding state reforms. Most Masons elected to Parisian learned societies were from the French capital. However, some had lived either in cities or in towns in France prior to coming to Paris and had distinguished themselves for their contributions to provincial academies. Eminent and less important Masonic intellectuals in the French capital also participated in minor Parisian learned societies and thus differed from their counterparts in Vienna who had few learned societies in which they could become involved.
In light of their affiliation with the Parisian Lodge of the Nine Sisters and with the Viennese True Harmony Lodge, Masonic intellectuals were given opportunities to promote the tenets and teachings of the Enlightenment and Freemasonry. Both societies were intended to give Masonry additional cultural stature and consisted of a few major and of many minor intellectuals; members of both societies became involved in activities indicative of the Enlightenment in Paris and in Vienna. Enlighteners of the Nine Sisters were mechanists and materialists, exemplars of the Neoclassical Movement in the fine arts, and proponents of state reforms. Yet, the most significant contributions of the personnel of the Nine Sisters centered on their sponsorship of schools open to the public and on their support of republican principles of the American Revolution. While occasionally conferring Masonic rites and holding special banquets, members of the Nine Sisters, unlike their colleagues in the True Harmony, expressed little interest in studying Masonic ritualism and were able to utilize other Parisian learned societies as well as this French lodge for the staging of their cultural activities.
In contrast to the Lodge of the Nine Sisters, the True Harmony Lodge satisfied a great cultural need and functioned as one of the very few learned societies in Josephinian Vienna. The True Harmony, unlike the Nine Sisters, issued literary and scientific proceedings, thus resembling a learned society and providing accounts of its cultural functions. Geological papers appearing in the scientific journal of the lodge marked a distinctive contribution to and a variation of Newtonian materialistic science. Articles, too, concerning ancient philosophies, deism, state reforms, and anticlericalism were published by Masonic enlighteners in the literary journal of the lodge and revealed significant features of the Enlightenment in Josephinian Vienna. While the True Harmony Lodge infrequently staged rites, its members published articles and musical compositions about Masonic ritualism, attempting to relate the principles of Masonry to those of the Enlightenment and demonstrating their roles as enlightened Masons.
The operations of Masonic grand lodges, lodges, and learned societies might be viewed from another context. Masonry during the eighteenth century seemed to function as a cultural movement; this movement had considerable cohesion, endorsed specific principles, and developed institutions to implement its ideologies. Moreover, its organization, rites, cultural operations, and personnel enabled the encompassing Masonic movement to play a central role in fostering the Enlightenment in specific regions of Europe. While this comparative study has focused on the organizational and cultural functions of the Craft in four major European cities, future works might emphasize the impact of Masonry as an international cultural movement upon eighteenth-century Europe.