To fully grasp how the idea of the Dionysiac Artists was corrupted into the Masonic idea of a fraternity of architects, it is incumbent to provide a list of all known sources for the group starting from the earliest known sources up until Manly P. Hall. We will start from the earliest sources and work our way to Hall, but no further, as that is totally unnecessary. I will provide a citation and a link (if available) to the source information, as well as a synopsis of what they have to say on the Dionysiac Artists-Architects, where they got their information from, what new information they are add or what they have corrupted, and a few other various comments.
Strabo, Geography, §14.1.29. Circa 44 BCE - 23 CE.
Strabo was a Greek geographer and philosopher writing during the turn of the Common Era.
Strabo refers to them as Διόνυσον τεχνιτων (Dionyson techniton) or “Dionysiac artists.” He states that they traveled about Ionia (western Turkey) as far as Hellespont — today better known as the Dardanelles, a straight in northwestern Turkey. They had formerly inhabited Teos (western Turkey on the Ionian coast), then relocated to Ephesus after an incident of sedition. King Attalus of Pergamon would later relocated them to Myonnesus, which is between Teos and Lebedos. Later they migrated to Lebedos. All of these cities are within about fifty miles of each other.
Book 8 is the only portion of this text that is lost, with the exception of the index, which mentions a Dionysiac festival Socrates and his wife plan to attend, with a dispute over the amount of money they plan to spend on their dinner there. The reference to a Dionysiac festival is probably why Alexander Lawrie cites this section of Attic Nights, though the information he provides with that citation cannot be attested with the information provided in the index.
Chishull, Edmund. Antiquitates Asiaticae: Christianam Aeram Antecedentes. London: Guil Bowyer. 1728. Pg. 105-106, 138-139.
This text is highly useful, as it is translations of various things on Greek stone fragments. The first fragment directly mentions the Dionysiac Artists, while the second appears to have influence Lawrie, though it does not mention them and only tangentially relates to them. However, the translations are in Latin, as is the entire work, and it has never been translated in the English (or any other language). I really am not great at translating Latin. I know enough to work my way through the material I need, so I will brief the material as written by Chishull.
A Teian stone fragment describes a petition to Praetor Alexander of Calidonia (i.e. Scottish), representing the Council of all of Aetolia. It asks that the Romans honor an old law that was agreed to be upheld before the Roman occupation, in which the region is deemed sacred and inviolable, that the Aetolians have a right to asylum (i.e. the Aetolians in Ionian), that Teos not be seized or violated, nor its inhabitants be assaulted, and their right to wine and devotions to Bacchus be upheld. Further, that freedom from being accosted or otherwise seized be extended to the Dionysiac Artists (Διονυσιαχοις τεχνιταις) and their right to consumption of alcohol, per the old law (Pg. 105-106). In his footnote on these artists, he relies on Aulus Gellius's description of them, stating they did both comedy and tragedy, as well as playing the flute. Dionysus was their patron because he invented the theatrical arts. Cities would pay them for their theatrical works, as well as games and competitions. They first inhabited Teos, then moved to Lebedos for security by Aetolian law.
For context, it appears this all is tied up in Philip V of Macedonia's allegiance with Hannibal, who the Aetolian League and the Roman navy defeated in 215 BCE from further expansion in Anatolia. Attalus I of Pergamon, allied with the Rhodians, would convince Rome to wage war against Macedon. 197 BCE Philip was defeated in the Battle Cynoscephalae, securing autonomy for Greeks in Anatolia under Roman rule, with the Aetolian League acquiring spoils from Philip's army. Chishull details various aspects of these allegiances, conflicts, and results in the footnotes.
The next section is from a stone fragment found in a wall, unlike the previous one, which was on the back of a gravestone. The fragment and the decree upon it date to 152 BCE. There are diversity of groups in Teos, and two factions appear to have arisen: Commune Attalistarum (the Common of the Followers of Attalus I of Pergamon) and Commune Sodalitii ab Echino dictii (the Common Fraternity from the Talking Hedgehog/Urchin — echinus is also the name of the deep groves in the neck of the Doric column, thus it may refer to Dorian or even Athenian allegiance). Chishull goes on to quote Strabo's entry on the Dionysiac Artists as length.
In the actual fragment Chishull translates, it largely concerns the Attalians and the laws extended to them. The "council of kings" — particularly King Attalus I himself — describes their favor of this group, the protection of their community, the rights and favors extended to them, and the copious offerings left at the theater, and the "sacred" law that governs these things. Chishull mentions "utensils and equipment of the Attalians" (utensilium et instrument Attalistici), though he intends other information that supports this fragment, which has some imperfect lettering and broken portions of the stone. This will be taken out of context later. The rest of the fragment concerns the breaking of tables, vessels, and other consecrated items.
It should be understood that these are decrees carved in stone, probably for posterity purposes, and really only concerns certain legal rights and privileges extended to the Ionians during Rome's conquest of Greece to ensure these rights were maintained. Not a lot of pertinent information can be gathered from these fragments, though they give a nice bit of coloring to the history of this region. The next source would help contextualize some of the information from these fragments.
Richard Chandler, Nicholas Revett, and William Pars. Ionian Antiquities, Volume 1. London Society of Dilettanti. 1769. Pg. 3-4.
This work outlines further information on the fragments Chishull was translating, not just their content, but also where those fragments are found. Many have been used in constructing walls, as well as several for gravestones in the burial grounds in Sivrihisar (central Turkey).
The Dionysian "Artificers" are a group of devotees to Dionysus and work in theater. Dionysus is reputed to be the inventor of the theatrical representations. The Dionysiac Artists are said to have been "incorporated" by the kings of Pergamon and "contracted" to work at the theaters in Teos and possibly throughout the region. Dionysus is believed to be the patron deity of Teos, and the theatrical devotees to the god provided entertainment throughout Ionia. After an incident of sedition in Teos, they fled. Many of the stones from this area were later used by the Turks for gravestones. One thing that survived was a pedestal for a statue to Claudia Tryphaena, the High Priestess of the goddess Asia and Priestess of Dionysus.
Chandler, Richard. Travels in Asia Minor and Greece, Volume 1, Chap. 28. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1775. Pg. 100-101, 103-104.
This is the notes and journal entries of Richard Chandler in producing Ionian Antiquities.
One fragment Chandler investigates concerns Teos, but the fragment is found fixed in wall of a house in Sivrihisar. This fragment mentions two groups: the "Panathenaists" and the "Dionysiasts." The former is group of Athenians that seized Teos, while the later are the artificers or "contractors for the Asiatic theatres," that were incorporate and situated in Teos per the decree of the kings of Pergamon. These are probably the two factions mentioned by Chishull. Another fragment was found to be have been used as a gravestone in Sivrihisar and was a decree to one of the Dionysiac Artists' magistrates. Chandler also tells us that based on materials he examined, the sedition was specifically caused by the Dionysiac Artists, and for their turbulent behavior were expelled from Teos and moved to Ephesus, and from there relocated to Myonnesus by King Attalus. When the region was under Roman rule, the Teians requested the Romans to not permit the Dionysiac Artists to fortify Myonnesus, which appears to have been granted, as the Dionysiac Artists then relocate to Lebedus.
The Dionysiac Artists are said to have held and annual "General Assembly," in which they made sacrifices to the gods, poured libations to their deceased members and benefactors, and held games in honor of Dionysus. Their meetings were presided over by a president, and their meetings were full of pomp and festivity. It is believed these meetings were held at the Temple of Dionysus at Teos.
Robison, John. Proofs of a Conspiracy Against All the Religions and Governments of Europe, Chapter 1. Philadelphia: T. Dobson. 1798. Pg. 20.
This is an Anti-Masonic polemic that endeavors to prove the Freemasons are part of a conspiracy against the world. It is very typical of this genre. However, Robison is the first to introduce the theory that the Dionysiac Artists were earlier precursors to the Freemasons.
In this polemic he posits the criticism that corporations of builders are prone to egotism and believing they are better than all other trade associations. The "Dionysiacs" according to Robison were "undoubtedly" an association of architects and engineers, who had the exclusive privilege of building temples, theaters, and other public works under the tutelage and patronage of Dionysus (Bacchus). They distinguish themselves by keeping their trade secrets in the arts and sciences secret from the uninitiated, and used secret signs and words to recognize each other as being initiates. Robison claims they came to Ionia from Syria, and before that from Persia, and introduced the styles of Greek architecture. They would survive the Medieval dark age as a trade association (i.e. guild) and hold a monopoly on building churches and castles with the patronage of sovereigns and princes, who extended exclusive privileges to the group.
Robison is the first to claim that they came to Ionia from Syria and Iran. This may be an interpretation of material from Chishull who found fragments in "Era-ki," presumably Iraq. As is clear from investigations by Chandler, these fragments appear to have been taken from Ionia to central Turkey and Iraq, not that they were originally from there. It is uncertain what sources Robison is looking at, however, given Chishull and Chandler are the main sources at this time for this material, it is likely these were indeed his sources.
Lawrie, Alexander. The History of Free Masonry, Drawn from Authentic Sources of Information. Edinburgh: Alex. Lawrie and Co. 1804. Pg. 25, 28-31.
Lawrie is the first Freemason to write on the subject of the "Dionysian Artificers" and set the stage for later discussions on the matter. He has clearly read Chandler's Travels and Ionian Antiquities, and possibly Attic Nights. He probably had access to Chishull, as he pulls information from him that is not in Chandler's works, but it does not appear he actually knows either Latin or Greek, as he greatly misunderstands things from Chishull; if he does know Latin, he is misrepresenting Chishull. He usually is just copying citations from Chandler. However, he takes his own liberties with the material and clearly is modifying the sources to suit his idea of what he thinks they should be.
Lawrie claims Dionysus was the inventor of theaters and "dramatical representations" (language from Ionian Antiquities). He claims a "particular class of Masons" were employed in building these theaters, and these were the Dionysian Artificers, and were initiates of the Dionysian mysteries as well as those of Eleusis. He claims that this group introduced the Doric and Ionic orders of architecture. They held the distinct privilege of building theaters, temples, and other public works. They worked in Ionia and "surrounding countries, as far as Hellespont," building "theatrical apparatus by contract" (language taken directly from Ionian Antiquities). They built the Temple of Dionysus at Teos. He claims they also existed in Syria, Persia, and India (he is mixing Robison and Ionian Anti. together, and copies the citation from Ionian Anti. which is from Strabo: Και τω Διονυσω την Ασιαν όλην χαζιερωσανζες μεχρι της Ινδιχης.) They were incorporated by the kings of Pergamon and settled in Teos. Their trade secrets distinguished them from the uninitiated at Teos, and they used secret signs and words to recognize each other (from Robison).
Here Lawrie starts trying to mold the Dionysiac Artificers into something like Freemasonry. He claims they were divided into lodges. He cites Chishull, but is taking the information out of context. Lawrie claims two of the lodges were called Commune Attalistarum and the other Commune Sodalitii Echini (Chishull: "Commune Sodalitii ab Echino dicti"). These are clearly factions in Teos, but Lawrie has decided they are actually lodges, leading one to question whether he actually knew either Greek or Latin. Soladitas is kind of synonymous with collegia, and is frequently used a "fraternity," so one can see how Lawrie is either getting confused or misusing information. Further, according to Lawrie, each lodge was under the governance of a master, president, and wardens (the president aspect is taken from Chandler's Travels, but the master and wardens is strictly Lawrie's invention). Lawrie speaks on the annual meetings spoken of in Ionian Antiquities, but that they enjoyed entertainment (not that the entertainment was provided by themselves). Lawrie further adds that they used "utensils" that are still employed by Masons today (clearly misrepresenting Chishull). Then adds that "more opulent" artists provided charity to "their poorer brethren."
Lawrie continues — misrepresenting how the fragments translated by Chishull were relocated and used as gravestones — that the Dionysiac Artists built monuments to "the memory of their masters and wardens" that just so happen to be the very burial grounds the Turks later created at Sivrihisar and "Eraki" (Iraq). "The inscriptions upon them express, in strong terms, the gratitude of the Fraternity, for their disinterested exertions on behalf of the Order; for their generosity and benevolence to its individual members; for their private virtues, as well as for their public conduct." This of course is a total confabulation. He then states that based on the inscriptions that King Attalus was a member of their order; another confabulation.
Finally he concludes that all mystery cults were more or less the same thing, and that because this confabulation of his, he claims the Dioynian Artificers are so similar to Freemasonry (because he made it sound like Masonry), the two are therefore related, if not also the same thing.
An interesting argument Lawrie makes is that because Robison is an Anti-Mason, we can trust what he says on the Dionysiac Artificers because he does not share a Masonic agenda, and therefore by fallacious reasoning believes that Robison's arguments should not be questioned.
Da Costa, Hipólito José (Hippolyto Joseph). Sketch for the History of the Dionysian Artificers, a Fragment. 1820.
Da Costa's writing on the Dionysiac Artists may be the more influential, but the essay itself is an esoteric nightmare. He repeatedly confounds different things as being identical (e.g. the Dionysiac and Eleusinian Mysteries were the same thing; the Dionysiac Artists and the Ionians are the same thing; et cetera). He jumps around all over the place, tossing out loose ideas and tries to connect them to other loose ideas with no real effort or argument. He will make assumptions built on speculations founded on misinterpretations. He will even claim that such-and-such an authority/author does not know what they are talking about, and say they did not know the truth behind what they were saying, and then, on no further evidence or proof, da Costa will make his own wild speculations. Further, there is actually very little information in this essay on the Dionysiac Artificers. He repeatedly ties himself into intellectual knots, asserting one thing and then trying to dismiss the negative implications of it later. He also has a surprising amount of citations for a "sketch," but on closer examination, the citations are all ancient sources and no contemporary ones, which is suspicious. Further examination, the citations appear to have been copied from Lawrie and Chandler, as what he claims to be citing is totally misrepresenting what is actually in those sources, or those sources do not actually say what da Costa is citing them for. It truly is painful to read this essay. Da Costa was probably a better diplomat than he was a historian or esoteric writer. There is a reason he has the words "sketch" and "fragment" in the title. No wonder Manly P. Hall was attracted to this work. Hall would later republish this essay in 1938 with his own introduction.
Da Costa starts off by saying that all ancient mystery cults were actually of high morals and enlightened in the sciences, basing their teachings and symbolic ceremonies in astronomy and architecture. Then he goes on to assert that all ancient mystery cults were the same thing under different names, because they all have death and resurrection in their myth cycle, which he thinks is always based on the death of the sun. He spends an unnecessary amount of space trying to argue for something completely unnecessary, and it would appear by page 8 he digresses and says, "Welp! None of that matters anyway, so let's talk about Greece. lol." Then he continues with more random stuff. He confuses isopsephy with gematria, but actually calls it "cabala," because those are all the same thing. He claims the Pythagoreans, Eleusinian mysteries, and the rites of Dionysus all come from Orpheus (this may be attested by Apollodorus, Library and Epitome §1.3.2, though he cites Dionysius Siculus and further states in his commentary information that directly opposes his statement that the Eleusinian and Dionysiac Mysteries were invented by Orpheus). Then he says that the Orphic mysteries come from Egypt, which in turn comes from Persia, which then comes from Scythia (Ukraine and southern Russia between the Black and Caspian Seas). He tries to illustrate what these totally identical mystery rites were like, but he is clearly completely reliant on his experience as a Freemason for his understanding of them. He even cites Apuleius's Golden Ass as a factual source, when the work is actually a fictional novel. Surprisingly he actually gives a fairly accurate interpretation of the Mithraic tauroctony, so I suppose even people who make things up occasionally get something right. He goes on to try and explain away by these mystery cults, especially the Dionysians, were purportedly debauched and wild: because these high moral societies were taken over by perverts (pg. 26) and that their corruption was predicted by [Hermes] Trismegistus himself (pg. 28-29).
There is a lot more he ponders on about, but finally starting at page 30 he starts to get into the Dionysiac Artificers. Da Costa does not appear to have familiarity with the geography of Asia Minor or the Middle East. According to him, the inhabitants of Ionia did not like how populous it was for such a small area and so they immigrated to Asia Minor. That's right. Ionia is in Asia Minor, so they moved from Ionia to Asia Minor. And they took their science and religion of Eleusis with them. For whatever reason he discusses that Apollo was the patron deity of Byblos. Then he says the Ionians invented the Ionic Order, which is one of the few things that is factually correct, so I have to give him that. However, he appears to think the Ionians and the Dionysiac Artificers are the same thing. He claims they were founded in Teos, later moved to Lebedos due to some "civil commotion" (pg. 31), though it appears he never learned that they probably caused the commotion. This group is dedicated to Dionysus because he invented theater buildings, and the Artificers would perform at the Dionysian festivals, so da Costa appears to have accepted they were entertainers from time to time. Then the group expanded into Syria, Persia, and India (da Costa says he gets this directly from Strabo, however he copies the exact same citation given by Lawrie, which is a copy of the citation given in Ionian Ant.). He claims the symbols of Dionysus were astronomical in nature and became incorporated into their buildings, and would extend their moral principles into the art of building. He says Cambyses (probably the Second), King of Persia, approved on the Dionysian Artificers, though it appears historically he just approved the Ionians in general in his conquests.
Da Costa says the Dionysian Artificers had secret words and signs to recognize each other, as well as emblems of their order that were used in buildings (pg. 33). They are amongst the foreign builders sent by Hiram of Tyre to help build King Solomon's Temple, namely the Gebalites (1 King 5:18), who come from Byblos. Perhaps this is why da Costa was talking about Apollo's patronage of Byblos, because to da Costa, all mystery cults and ancient religions are the same thing, as he then claims Apollo's patronage of Byblos is representative of the Eleusinian and Dionysian Mysteries (pg. 34). I don't get it either. Da Costa is the first to claim they built Solomon's Temple, though he does not provide really any proof for this claim, other than that it must be so because Josephus tells us Solomon's Temple was in a Grecian style (Antiquity of the Jews §8.5.2 says the Temple was in the Corinthian Order, probably because the description of the two pillars on the porch are bronze and Corinth was known for their bronze work, and the flowering and plantlike ornamentation is reminiscent of the Corinthian Order). Rather than accept that the Corinthian Order is the closest language Josephus had to describe the Temple's ornamentation, da Costa believes it must have actually been in the Corinthian style, which is odd because according to him, the Dionysian Artificers worked in the Ionic style. He further argues that the Grecian mystery cults like Eleusis and Tammuz (actually a Sumerian cult, but again, they are all the same thing to da Costa) were in Jerusalem because Solomon would later fall to pagan worship and idolatry (1 King 11:6-10). However, da Costa tells us we should not blame the Dionysiac Artificers for this. They would never spread pagan idolatry. No, no, no. This happened because the symbols they used to signify God's goodness are similar to the images of the sun, and the foolish Israelites misunderstood, so it is... the Israelites' fault? Anyway, he also says the Israelites did not have a concept of the immortality of the soul until the Dionysian Artificers introduced it (pg. 35). Some of this comes across as antisemitic.
Da Costa jumps around some more about Eleusis, the path of the sun, and the soul. Then he jumps back into the Temple, which he says is a cosmogonic-soteriological representation. That the laying of the foundation stone was on the 2nd day of the 2nd month (1 Kings 6:1 only specifies the month, Ziv), but da Costa believes this is the 20th of April, or when the sun moves into Aries, representing the sheep skin of the Eleusinian Mysteries (pg. 36 — on pg. 10 he spends some time talking about sheep skin, probably to establish an ancient reason for Masonic lambskin aprons). For da Costa, this establishes a new cosmogonic allegorical system to explain the ancient mysteries in Jerusalem. He then says the the two pillars on the porch represent the Tropics of Capricorn and Cancer. He goes on further about temples as cosmogonic representations in the Platonic "tradition," especially Solomon's Temple because Jehovah is the one true God (pg. 37-38). This must be so because according to da Costa the places where the Dionysian Artificers met were by "tradition" also cosmogonic representations. For whatever reason he starts talking about the ouroboros as a solar image.
Then he moves on to the Essenes, which he believes were the Hasideans mentioned in Maccabees 7:13, who were in charge of repairing the Temple. Da Costa is not the only one to share this opinion, which appears to only be supported by the similarity of the names. Da Costa criticizes Josephus for being unjust about the Essenes because he believes Josephus is ignorant of their great secret, that they are Dionysian Artificers. What evidence does da Costa have for this? That he believes they used secret signs and words, as well as held banquets, even though "it does not appear they followed the profession of builders of architects" (pg. 45). That's sound enough logic. Da Costa starts making great leaps, or even greater leaps, stating the Pythagoreans were builders, the Eleusinian Mysteries survived until the 8th century, et al. He says the Eleusinian Mysteries, along with the Dionysian Artificers and the Essenes "sunk into such oblivion, that no mention is made of them in history" (pg. 47), so one must ask: how does da Costa know so much about them? Finally, he concludes that during the Crusades, these groups adopted rules to be more like today's fraternities, and somehow they got to England and Scotland. It is the remains of the Dionysian Artificers that were discovered in England that his great proof, though I have no idea what proof he actually has.
I would like to toss in a quote that I think sums up da Costa's essay: "I think, that after those circumstances, which afforded so many facilities for the introduction of the system of the Dionysian Artificers in Judea, the continuance of the same, in subsequent periods, cannot be of difficult explanation" (pg. 43). It is clear that he is struggling to express an idea that is more ambitious than practical or even knowable.
If all that was hard to follow, don't worry, because it is. Da Costa's essay is a jumbled mess of conjectures, wild speculations, faulty "scholarship," unsound reasoning, full of contradictions and intellectual knots and acrobatics, and overall very poorly written. It is so badly written, one wonders how this essay even gained a reputation. Da Costa's only other claim to fame is being Brazil's founding journalist and being arrested by the Portuguese Inquisition. Yet, somehow it became one of the most influential pieces on the Dionysian Artists to later Masons, and one favored by Manly P. Hall.
Macoy, Robert. General History of Freemasonry (as found in General History, Cyclopedia and Dictionary of Freemasonry with George Oliver). Ref. "Dionysian Architects." New York: Masonic Publishing Company. 1870.
Macoy refers to the "Dionysian Architects" as "priests" of Bacchus, and is the first to claim they were priests, though this contradicts the evidence that the cults of Dionysus were largely governed by priestesses. He claims that once they had become skilled in architecture they founded the order of "Sidonian Builders" (probably confusing his geography, and being under the impression that Gebalites were from Sidon, though they come from modern day Byblos, or perhaps confused Sidon as another name for Tyre). He claims they existed before the time of King David, and that they later built King Solomon's Temple. It is likely he is getting this from da Costa. Macoy goes on to claim the Dionysian Architects became the Roman Collegia of Architects (there is no known evidence such a college existed), which in turn became the guild corporations of the Middle Ages, which then gave rise to Freemasonry. He then claims the Dionysian Architects are the link between the ancient mystery cults and Freemasonry.
Bromwell, Henry P. H. Royal Architect Degree of Free and Accepted Architects. 1875. (Committee on Publication, Grand College of Rites. Collectanea, Vol. 4, No. 2. 1959. Pg. 96).
Bromwell makes a single passing reference to the "Dioynysian Architects," in which he claims Hiram Abif was their Grand Master when they joined the work on King Solomon's Temple. I am uncertain if he discusses them in his Restoration of Masonic Geometry and Symbolry (Bromwell Publishing Co.,1905), as it is a massive and confusing tome that I have yet to finished reading. It is doubtful Bromwell provides much more insight into the Dionysiac Architect in this book that is not derivative of previous writers. Most likely he learned about them from da Costa. It is doubtful Bromwell had any impact on later writers about this group.
(Source: printed material unavailable online and out of print)
Mackenzie, Kenneth R. H. Royal Masonic Cyclopaedia. London: John Hogg. 1877.
Sadly, I cannot find a digital version of this text, nor have I been able to find any hardcopies at this time. I will try to get a copy through interlibrary loan and update this when I do.
Mackey, Albert G. Encyclopaedia of Freemasonry, Vol. 1. Ref. "Dionysian Architects" and "Da Costa, Hippolyto Joseph." Chicago: The Masonic History Company. 1878.
Mackey is pulling from Lawrie, Macoy, and da Costa. He does not mention da Costa in his encyclopedic entry, but he has a separate entry for da Costa. He discusses a bit on the Dionysiac Artificers in his entry on da Costa, so it would appear he wanted to keep da Costa's information separate. This tracks, as the information in his entry on the "Dionysiac Architects" is entirely derived from Lawrie and Macoy. Mackey cites "Oliver" (probably George Oliver) as one of his sources, however, this seems to be an error or confusion, as Oliver never discusses the Dionysiac Artists, but Macoy does. Two works, one by Macoy and the other by Oliver, would be combined into one text, as cited above.
Mackey states they were priests of Dionysus (see Macoy), and thus were initiates of the Dionysian mysteries, and became architects around 1000 BCE. This is the first mentioning of when they were founded, and the date appears to be based on the biblical literal dating of King Solomon's Temple (1018 BCE). They built theaters and other public works. He states the "more opulent" members provided charity to the "poorer brethren" (this exact verbiage comes from Lawrie). He states the the "lodges" were called συνοικίαι oinoikiai, a term that appears to be derivative of some terms used by Lawrie, but looks like a corruption of οίκημα oikema or "lodge." Still pulling from Lawrie, he states the lodges were governed by a master and wardens, they held annual general assemblies, and that they used implements still in use by Freemasons today. They had secret signs or a "universal language" to distinguish each other. They had members across India, Persia, and Syria (Lawrie, da Costa). They were in Tyre by the time of Solomon's reign, and so were employed in the Temple's construction. Then he claims that Hiram Abif was likely a member of the Dionysiac Architects.
Mackey then claims that Solomon implored the Dionysiac Architects to impart their secrets to the Israelites, and then initiated them into the Israelite mysteries, hence "the apocryphal legends of the Dionysians would naturally give way to the true legend of the Freemason." He admits this is a speculation, but claims the statement holds true under the authority of Lawrie and "Oliver" (Macoy) — that is a hell of a way of saying, "I made this up, so if I'm wrong, blame these other guys for making me think this." Nonetheless, he believes this group is the link between the pagan and Israelite mysteries (whatever those were).
According to Mackey, they were incorporated in 300 BCE at Teos by the kings of Pergamon (Lawrie). After a decree by Emperor Theodosius I (392 CE) closed the sanctuary at Eleusis, but Mackey, like da Costa, seems to think all mystery cults were the same thing, so therefore the Dionysians went underground. Here he is clearly following da Costa, as Mackey claims they remained underground until the Crusades and relocated to Europe and became the "traveling Freemasons of the Middle Ages."
In Mackey's entry on da Costa himself, he gives a brief synopsis of the essay, which he applauds, though he does admit "his reasoning may not always carry conviction."
Weisse, John A. The Obelisk and Freemasonry: According to the Discoveries of Belzoni and Commander Gorringe. New York: J. W. Bouton. 1880. Pg. 87-90.
Weisse refers to this group as a "wandering guild of builders," devoted to Dionysus. The source Weisse cites is Mackenzie, though it is doubtful he is only looking at this text. He says the organization appeared "no later" than 1000 BCE (probably from Mackey). Weisse says they enjoyed special privileges and immunities, that they had secret modes of recognition, and bound to each other by "special ties." The richer members provided for the "poorer brethren" (probably getting this verbiage from Mackey, who gets it from Lawrie). Their organization was divided into communities called γυνοικιαι (or corruption of Mackey's term) governed by a master and wardens. Solomon ordered Hiram of Tyre to employ this organization in the building of the Temple and Solomon's palace. For whatever reason, Weisse claims the Dionysiac Architects built the Temple of Diana (Artemis) at Ephesus. Weisse then introduces the wild claim that they has a secret means of intercommunication across the globe. Then following the others, he claims "doubtless" this group became the "traveling masons" of the Middle Ages. All the great monuments of antiquity were built by this organization, and they worked in Ephesus, Rhodes, Athens, Rome, Constantinople, etc. Weisse concludes this section by describing who Solomon, Hiram, Hiram Abif, Adoniram, and the "Sacred Lodge" were. In the section on Hiram Abif, he says Hiram was a member of the Dionysiac Architects, and that they were from and associated at Tyre.
Redding, Moses W. The Illustrated History of Freemasonry. New York: Redding & Co. 1903. Pg. 33-34.
Redding outright states that all ancient mystery cults are more or less the same thing. Following Mackey, the Dionysiac Architects are priests of Dionysus founded in 1000 BCE to build temples and public works. They were established in Tyre, as he claims is "well attested by history," and were called to work on King Solomon's Temple. In 300 BCE they settled in Teos and would travel to other countries to offer their services. They were divided into companies and governed by officers similar to Masonic lodges. They practiced charity, had secret words, and used Masonic implements. Redding follows his sources that this group are "at least a part" of what became the traveling Freemasons.
Redding cites Mackenzie's Royal Cyclopedia and Mackey's Encyclopaedia as his sources. It becomes incredibly obvious that with Redding's entry in his tome on the Dionysiac Architects that we are looking at several generations of corruption of some of the earliest source material.
Hall, Manly P. Secret Teachings of All Ages, Chapters 4, 12, 16, and 40. Reader's Edition. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher / Penguin Group. 2003 (originally published 1928). Pg. 78, 188, 234, 245, and 568-574.
Where to start... At this point it should be clear that the source information has become more and more corrupt as writers rely on successive sources for their information on the Dionysiac Artists-Architects. It is like a game of telephone for bad scholars. For Manly P. Hall, he picked some of the worst sources: da Costa's essay, which is an absolute mess of immensely faulty scholarship, and Weisse, who relies on Mackenzie, so about about three or four generations removed from any primary source material. As would be expected, Hall is all over the place; he takes everything previously written as empirical fact and spreads a thick frosting of more confabulations on top of a lopsided cake. So let us briefly go over Hall.
Hall says the "Dionysiac Architects" are much like the Freemasons, an organization of builders bound to each other by "secret knowledge" of the divine sciences in architectonics. In Chapter 4 he starts off humble and hesitant to assert anything as a total fact. For instance he says they "supposedly" helped build Solomon's Temple and "it is believed that CHiram Abif" was a member. He is more assertive that they built other monuments of antiquity and had a secret language (Mackey is the first to say they had a secret language, though this appears be a misunderstanding of secret words and other modes of recognition). Then that they held annual meetings and feasts. This is the section of the book most often cited for information on this mythic organization, though the section with the most substance on them is much later in the book — indicating how few "researchers" bother reading this tome.
Chapter 12 does not specifically mention the Dionysiac Architects, but the index of the Reader's Edition points to this portion as relevant to them. For the most part, Hall is just asserting that all builders, engineers, and architects of the ancient world were initiates of the ancient mysteries, particular the Eleusinian Mysteries. He speaks poetically of nothing important in particular, and then claims these "Guilds of Builders" were progenitors of the Freemasons, and that they concealed their secret doctrines into the designs of their trade.
Chapter 16, Hall gets more assertive and confident in his claims. Now he states that "CHiram Abif" was the Grand Master of the Dionysiac Architects. Later in the chapter, after a great deal of esoteric verbal masturbation, he claims "The Dionysiac Architects were consecrated to the raising of their Master Spirit — Cosmic Beauty — from the sepulcher of material ignorance and selfishness by erecting buildings which were such perfect exemplars of symmetry and majesty that they were actually magical formulae by which was evoked the spirit of the martyred Beautifer entombed within a materialistic world." Whatever that means.
Chapter 40 has the most extensive discussion on the Dionysiac Architects with some of the most audacious claims, and has moved far beyond his humble suggestions in Chapter 4. Hall starts off by saying that they are "the most celebrated of the ancient fraternities of artisans" though apparently no one knew who they were until very recently. They are the "custodians of a secret and sacred knowledge of architectonics" and were "regarded as the master craftsmen of the earth." Hall has some weird ways of explaining things to make them seem more profound than they really are. For instance, he says that because Dionysus was the patron of theaters, these architects "specialized in the construction of buildings adapted for the presentation of dramatic performances." He could have just said "they invented theaters." Whatever. He claims that the semicircular designs were an altar to Aeschylus, the poet.
Hall falls into the category of conspiracy theorist, in that he claims they were so secret that no records exist of their teachings (but of course, Hall spends a few pages explaining their esoteric teachings). For Hall, lack of evidence is proof that something secret was going on. Then he quotes a paragraph of Weisse's Obelisk and Freemasonry.
Next he tells us that these architects spread throughout Asia Minor into Egypt and India (probably getting this from da Costa), and with the "rise of the Roman Empire" they spread in the Europe and England. He claims they built the most stately buildings in Constantinople, Rhodes, Athens, and Rome. Further, out of no where and the first to assert this, he claims Vitruvius was a member. No, no he was not. Anyone who has read Vitruvius's De Architectura will note that he spends way too much page space in the prefaces of each of his books pandering to Caesar Augustus and trying to gain some commissions to have been a member of an elite associations of builders of immense renown and prestige — if he was, why would he be pandering and begging for work? Anyway, Hall quotes a portion of Vitruvius's treatise that really does not have anything to do with anything else he is talking about. I guess Hall was getting paid by the word. He describes Vitruvius's discussion on bronze vessels placed around a theater to help the sounds on stage to amplify and carry across the rest of theater, but Hall says it was to alter the voice of the speaker, then claims this was done in initiation ceremonies and produce a variety of sound effects, though this is unfounded. Further, the buildings the Dionysiac Architects constructed were not just beautiful and follow Vitruvius's principles of architecture, but also, according to Hall, were designed to provoke emotional and spiritual effects. These buildings were not just models of the cosmos, but were supposed to be "in harmony" with the universe, thus making the buildings a "oracle," like the Ark of the Covenant was supposed to be an oracle to talk to God. Hall tries to get into aspects of environmental psychology, but it is a lot of faux criticisms and esoteric mumbo-jumbo.
He brings up da Costa's writing. If da Costa misunderstood and misrepresented much, Hall misunderstands and misrepresents da Costa. He takes da Costa's discussion on astronomical symbolism of the ancient mysteries and runs with it. He loosely speculates on star lore and astronomy in buildings.
Hall continues to claim they had secret forms of communicating. Also that this group was still around in the Middle Ages and while being openly pagan were employed in building Christian structures. He even acknowledges that this is unorthodox. Hall claims secret symbols of this fraternity were carved into the doorways of Notre Dame and destroyed in the French Revolution (how convenient), and were Rosicrucian and Masonic in nature. It is a little odd that an elite fraternity of architects from the ancient world would illicitly construct a Christian structure and then use symbols of two other secret orders from the modern era. Fulcanelli's Mysteries of the Cathedrals was published two years prior to Secret Teachings, so it is likely he is pulling his discussion on the alchemical and occult symbolism of Notre Dame from Fulcanelli. He claims the checkered pavement and trestle board of the Freemasonry were originally from the Dionysiac Architects. He then quotes Charles Heckethorn's Secret Societies in All Ages and Countries, which has long been the source of many Masonic blunders and misrepresentations (Heckethorn is just not a good researcher). Hall goes on to link the Dionysiac Architects with the Roman Collegia, and even claims they influenced Islamic culture, such as the "Mysteries of the dervishes [Sufi Muslims]."
Hall starts to go rouge and just makes stuff up the further into this section you read. He says they originally called themselves "Sons of Solomon" and that they used the "Seal of Solomon" as a symbol for themselves. However, Hall says the Seal of Solomon is two interlaced triangles (Star of David), and not the traditional pentalpha. The Knights Templar had contact with the Dionysiac Architects, borrowed symbols from them, and spread their symbols into Europe (I thought they did that themselves because they were working in Europe, but now the Templars spread their ideas... okay Hall). He then starts discussing what their spiritual philosophy was — never mind previously he said their ideologies were lost to history — but those philosophies are derivative of Masonic symbolism. He concludes this discussion with some more esoteric verbal masturbation.
The most curious thing about reviewing Hall's discussions on the Dionysiac Architects is how humble and hesitant he was to proclaim with absolute certainty in Chapter 4, and by Chapter 40 he is making wild, baseless claims, taking things from previous writers out of context (and they already were misrepresenting their sources) and just running with it. It is very intriguing to see Hall shift the dynamic of his discourse so dramatically, and really it should not be a surprise.
(Source: Sacred Texts, Chapter 4: Ancient Mysteries and Secret Societies, Part Three)
(Source: Sacred Texts, Chapter 12: Wonders of Antiquity)
(Source: Sacred Texts, Chapter 16: The Hiramic Legend)
(Source: Sacred Texts, Chapter 40: Freemasonic Symbolism)
Other materials...
It is highly likely there is more material between Lawrie and Hall. I have a sneaking suspicion that J. D. Buck (Mystic Masonry, 1911) and C. W. Leadbeater (Glimpses of Masonic History, 1926) both have a tidbit or even a passing reference to the Dionysiac Architects. There is certainly a lot of information that succeeds Hall, such as Graham Hancock, and I am willing to bet Robert Lomas and Christopher Knight probably talk about this mythic group as well. It is not my intention to ever explore anything after Hall, but if I do in future explorations find something previous to Hall that may be of some impact, I will add it. There may be things in Mackenzie that point to other sources, or Bromwell may have something in his Restorations of Masonic Geometry (1905) that points to other sources. For now, this illustrates quite thoroughly the chain of transmission in how a traveling band of drunken entertainers that incited sedition became a fraternity of architects devoted to high morals and constructing sacred buildings. That's a hell of a promotion without a pay increase.
