Comments on: Did Oxford die in 1604?

By: hopkinshughes

hopkinshughes — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:28:42 +0000

Actually its more likely that Oxford was drawn to the Freemasons by their interest in progressive government, sacred architecture, etc., than any interest in their ceremonies. As he states in a letter to Robert Cecil, he “hated” ceremonies. What may have happened is that friends involved in the still developing Freemason movement pulled him into it in hopes that, as one capable of creating exciting performances, he might help create a meaningful ceremony, much as, later, Mozart created The Magic Flute in response to such a request.

By: D. Hartmann

D. Hartmann — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:34:50 +0000

It seems likely that the brilliant, unconventional rebel would be drawn to the Masons by the secret rituals that he also thought foolish–another example of the amazing dichotomy that was Oxford’s mammoth area of interests.

By: Helen H. Gordon

Helen H. Gordon — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:49:03 +0000

Excellent discussion. I’m assuming it is by Stephanie Hughes. The section on the Freemasons is the best I’ve seen for tracing this secret society back through history. Oxford was both a Freemason and a Rosicrucian, whereas Shaksper of Stratford had no connection. The symbolism of death and rebirth is central to Freemason rituals and beliefs; it also plays a significant part in Shakespeare’s themes. Oxford at the 1581 jousting tournament assumed the role of “Knight of the Tree of the Sun” — which is associated with the 28th degree of Freemasonry. Frances Yates tells of many other traces in Shakespeare’s work. when we realize how speech and drama were suppressed under the Cecils, we can see how important it was to have lodges where one could speak freely and confidentially. At about this time, Freemasons began to accept “speculative” members as well as “operative” members, the former not having to be associated with building trades. The “brothers” in the lodges were considered equals, with no hierarchies of rank or wealth, and various religious views were tolerated. No wonder the intellectuals were attracted to these fraternities!
Helen Heightsman Gordon, M.A., Ed. D.