The Corporative Masonry of Great Britain 201construction of cathedrals, churches, and castles led to large numbers
of masters and workers moving about and gathering in different places.
Work needs and manual labor conferred an itinerant character to
masonry. There was constant intercommunication between lodges; not
only was each brother expected to be admitted into the lodge of every
city where his work took him, but larger construction projects necessi-
tated the collective travel of lodges and the ability to work together. It
was therefore necessary for masons to possess or employ signs of recog-
nition. Equally crucial were the existence of a single technique and com-
mon practices. In general, it was necessary to preserve the procedures
and secrets of the craft.
The defense of these common interests, the maintainance of tradi-
tions, the need to make certain that lodge statutes conformed to these
traditions, the necessity of spreading and teaching the science and tech-
niques of the order—all of this led to the creation of a higher organiza-
tion, which was regional at the least, but to a certain extent national, if
not international. This organization displayed itself in three ways:
- In the holding of periodic assemblies to expedite matters of gen-
eral interest - In the recognition of regulating lodges, known as ancient lodges
or mother lodges - In the nomination of a common protector, called master or
grand master
This same unifying phenomenon is what we saw earlier in Germany.
An important observation must be made, however. This organization
was strictly limited to the defense of common interests and to the respect
of charters and traditions. It was not at all a precursor of a permanent
legislative and administrative body or a prefiguration of the different
obediences, which did not make their appearance until 1717, with the
formation of the Great Lodge of London. The assembled freebuilders
proceeded from their own personal authority, with no thought of solic-
iting authorization or of placing themselves under the control of a
masonic central authority. Individual lodges were not subordinate to the
mother lodge as they are today to the modern grand lodge.