This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freemasonry articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to join us in our labors, please join the discussion and add your name to the list of participants. The "Top of the Trestleboard" section below can offer some ideas on where to start and what to do.FreemasonryWikipedia:WikiProject FreemasonryTemplate:WikiProject FreemasonryFreemasonry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
I am unaware of any evidence that Schaw was actually a freemason (if so, which lodge), although he laid the groundwork for thedevelopment of freemasonry - which becomes clear in material yet to be added.Harrypotter09:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, Schaw was the Master of Works for the stonemasons of Scotland... It is important to note the difference. At the time that Schaw lived, Freemasonry had not yet been invented. However, his "Statutes" were retroactively pointed to by the Grand Lodge of Scotland as being early "Freemasonic" documents. See: Robert Cooper's recent book The Rosslyn Hoax? (published by Lewis Masonic) for more on how and why this occured.
Actually, we should probably include some discussion about what the Schaw Statutes actually were vs how they were subsequently used. Blueboar (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You assume a lot based on one injuction contained within the Second Shaw Statute... 1) that the study of the Art of memory is in some way indicative of the existance of Freemasonry (or at least a proto-Freemasonry) in Schaw's day. 2) That enjoining stonemasons to study the Art of memory is in some way a direct link to later Freemasonry. This is a prime example of retroactive historical thinking. Blueboar (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we should heed your note of caution, as the Wikipedia principles of verifiability are operative, even as regards such a speculative topic as Freemasonry. I have found David Stevenson's book The First Freemasons very useful, and the first chapter is devoted to the relation between stone masons and freemasons. He quite boldly states "The man who more than anyone else deserves the title of creator of modern freemasonry was William Schaw." Bearing in mind that outlandish claims are not foreign to the discourse around freemasonry, we should still however be cautious. Who knows what Schaw's death - in suspicious circumstances - might have curtailed perhaps we shuld just be thankful it has not been fictionalised by Dan Brown! Stevenson goes on to say "Within months of the issue of the First Schaw Statutes, the first reference to specific lodges of thetype appear, and the minutes of two of them Aitchisons Haven and Edinburgh, Commence." Harrypotter (talk) 09:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Happy day, Cooper's the Rosslyn Hoax? arrived at the weekend, and although I have not yet read it thoroughly, my brief survey indicates its main thrust is against the matter of the Knights Templar hanging out in Scotland. As far as I can see there is little discussion of Schaw, his links with Fowler, and I could not find the Knights of St Thomas in the index, despite their connection with Mother Lodge in Kilwinning. Anyway, I hope to have read it thoroughly by next weekend!Harrypotter (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
