Talk:John Boswell (freemason)

Based on the title, Boswell is notable for being the "first" Freemason... this may be true, but if so, we clearly need a reliable source that notes this. Blueboar (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Question on Article Title

OK... I have done a bit more research and added some sources. However, my research leads me to question the current title of the article. It is clearly true many Masonic historians say that Boswell was the earliest "Accepted" (ie non-operative) Freemason... but there are historians who disagree (see here). I am thinking that we should maintain neutrality on the issue by re-titling this article to John Boswell, 3rd Laird of Auchinleck. Blueboar (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as I understand, Lawyers did not generally have marks, however this was a feature of operative masonry which was adopted by freemasonry. I read the piece you refer to and the helpful additions to the article, however for me the mark clinches the matter as as sufficiently demonstrated. Actually, the dissenting voice does not maintain that John Boswell was not a freemason, but rather expressed doubts about the level of evidence and fails to discuss what else could have been meant by the term "mark".Leutha (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but if it were a Mason's Mark, it should be recorded in the lodge records (most lodges had a "mark book")... is it? Noblemen of the era often "attested" to their signature with the impression of their signet ring or some drawn distinguishing mark. I could easily see Masonic historians assuming that such an attestation was Boswell's "Mason's Mark" when in fact it was not.

I am not trying to argue that Boswell wasn't a Mason... only that we don't know for sure whether he was or not. Per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR we should not present our own personal views of the matter... we should simply report what historians say... the majority say his being recorded at the meeting means he was a Freemason... However, others say not so fast, there could be other explanations. This is, to me, enough to question the current article title. Blueboar (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what the relevance of the behaviour of nobles is, as Boswell was a Laird: "Though translated as Lord and signifying the same, Laird is not a title of nobility."Leutha (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, perhaps I used the wrong word... so I will generalize... at the time we are talking about, it was not uncommon for gentlemen of Boswell's social class to add a distinguishing mark or seal to their signatures (as a way to "attest" that the signature was valid). Such marks/seals were not necessarily "Mason's Marks".

I understand why there might be confusion here. There was a (later) period, as Speculative Freemasonry began to be distinguishable from Operative stone masonry, when the Freemasons adopted the idea of members creating a "Mason's Mark", in imitation of the operative stonemasons (This practice eventually fell out of fashion, and today only those who take the Mark Master Degree bother to create a Mark)... and gentlemen who were initiated into Freemasonry in the 17th and 18th centuries sometimes used their pre-existing marks/seals as their "Mason's Mark" when they joined the fraternity. so their is some overlap. My point is that in Boswell's time the presence of a mark/seal next to a signature is not a definitive indication that he was a member of the lodge (nor that he wasn't). Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for highlighting some of the confusion which may have crept into Washizu way of thinking. Certainly by the eighteenth century some speculative masons felt that their custom of embellishing their rings with their masonic mark could benefit from a longer pedegree than could necessarily be shown historically. I have not seen the mark myself but guided by David Stevenson (The first Freemasons), who has, it seems clear that Boswell's mark differs little from that of the other masons present. Stevenson advances this with confidence, although he readily admits that his suggestion that Boswell was affiliated to Kilwinning Lodge is more speculative. We must bear in mind that Wiliam Schaw himself was present and that this occasion came shortly after the Schaw statutes were introduced, with teh specific mention of masonic mark. Leaving aside the red herring of signet rings, mark's were also used by other merchants, and even goldsmiths had their hallmarks. But here we moving off into original research. In all this I follow Stevenson that it is incredible that a non-mason would attend a lodge meeting which was dealing with such a sensitive issue for internal masonic politics. I think it would be acceptable to present Washizu's somewhat odd-ball viewpoint, but in teh cntext of Stevenson's dismissal. What maes Bosell so ntable is not that he was laird of Auchinleck, but that he is generally recognised as the first known speculative mason!Leutha (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)