Emulation Working: why this so-called "rite" isn't really one

On the Continent, Emulation Working remains relatively unfamiliar, and often puzzling. It is frequently described as a rite in its own right, yet that label does not quite fit what European Freemasons usually mean by a “rite”. Emulation is not a structured system like the Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite or the French Rite. It is a way of working, rooted in the particular development of English Freemasonry. So should we really speak of a “Rite Emulation”? Or does that wording create more confusion than clarity? And, more importantly, what does Emulation actually tell us about Masonic practice in England?

1. Is Emulation Working really a rite?

At first glance, the answer seems straightforward, yet the question itself is misleading. Emulation is not, in strict terms, a rite. The wording reflects a continental way of thinking that does not quite fit English Freemasonry. In England, Freemasons do not organise their practice around “rites” in the European sense, but around “workings”, meaning different ways of performing ritual within a common framework.

Emulation Working refers, therefore, to a particular way of carrying out the ritual, not to a separate system with its own degrees, symbols or distinctive regalia. Under the United Grand Lodge of England, there are no competing rites as one might find elsewhere. There is a single approach: to work in accordance with the English Constitutions.

This often confuses continental readers. Where a Freemason familiar with the Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite or the French Rite expects a structured and clearly defined system, what is found in England is something different: a shared framework, expressed through closely related practices. Emulation is simply one of these. It is not a rite in the continental sense, but one of the most widely used forms within a single, unified tradition.

2. Why did English Freemasonry divide in the eighteenth century?

Modern Freemasonry is usually said to begin with the formation of the Grand Lodge in London in 1717, or perhaps a few years later in 1721. That date is often treated as a clean starting point, as if unity followed naturally. In fact, the opposite is true. The new organisation did not bring everyone together, and resistance appeared almost immediately.

A number of lodges took issue with the direction things were going. They believed that certain practices were being altered or set aside. Among the points of contention were the removal of invocations, the disappearance of offices such as the Deacons, and changes in symbolic arrangements, including the reversal of the pillars and the words in the first two degrees. These were not minor complaints. They reflected a deeper disagreement about what should be preserved, and how the ritual ought to be worked.

One of the earliest organised reactions came from the north of England. In 1725, a lodge in York claimed the title of “Grand Lodge of All England”. It never became a dominant force and operated only intermittently, but its claim is telling. From the beginning, English Freemasonry was not a unified body, but a landscape shaped by competing views on the legitimacy of its ritual practices.

3. Antients and Moderns: a defining divide

The key divide did not lie in York, but in London, where a lasting split emerged between two camps. On one side were those later labelled the “Moderns”. On the other, those who called themselves the “Antients” — the spelling itself chosen deliberately, as a claim to older and more authentic practice.

Through the 1730s and 1740s, relations between the London Grand Lodge and the Grand Lodges of Ireland (1725) and Scotland (1736) became increasingly strained. Many Irish and Scottish Freemasons living in London chose not to affiliate with English lodges, which they regarded as having drifted from established usage. The influx of Irish migrants following the famine of 1740–1741 only reinforced this divide. Among them were numerous Freemasons, who formed lodges in line with the traditions they already knew.

In 1751, a number of these lodges came together to establish a new Grand Lodge, with a title that made its position unmistakable: it claimed to uphold the “Old Constitutions”. This was not just a matter of wording, but a clear statement of intent. The driving force behind this body was Laurence Dermott (1720–1791), an Irishman who served as Grand Secretary and whose text, Ahiman Rezon, gave shape to its identity.

Title page of Ahiman Rezon by Laurence Dermott (1764 edition), foundational text of the Antients’ Grand Lodge

The Antients worked rituals shaped in large part by Irish influence, elements of which appear in eighteenth-century exposures such as The Three Distinct Knocks (1760). Meanwhile, the Moderns continued to spread, particularly across continental Europe. In the English-speaking world, however, especially in America, the Antient approach proved more influential, supported by the presence of Irish and Scottish regiments in the British Army.

This was more than a passing disagreement. The divide between Antients and Moderns left a lasting mark on English Freemasonry. It set the stage for the eventual union, and indirectly for the emergence of what would later be known as Emulation.

4. 1813: union… and a new way of working takes shape

After decades of rivalry, the split between Antients and Moderns began to lose its momentum in the early nineteenth century. There was a growing sense, on both sides, that the division had run its course. Reconciliation became possible, but it had to be prepared.

From 1809 onwards, the Moderns took steps in that direction by setting up the Lodge of Promulgation. Its task was to review existing ritual practice and bring it back into line with what were seen as older forms. The intention was not theoretical. It was practical: to remove the obstacles that stood in the way of agreement with the Antients, as well as with Irish and Scottish practice more broadly. At the same time, discussions were opened between the two camps to work towards a formal union.

The turning point came in 1813. Leadership on both sides changed hands, and with it the tone of the negotiations. The Duke of Sussex and the Duke of Kent, both sons of George III, became Grand Masters of the rival Grand Lodges. Their support made agreement possible. On 27 December 1813, the United Grand Lodge of England was established.

Temple of the Emulation Lodge of Improvement in London, a key centre for the transmission of Emulation Working

What followed was not the creation of a new rite, but the settling of a common way of working. The Lodge of Reconciliation was charged with agreeing a form of ritual that could be accepted by both sides. In practice, the resulting form leaned towards Antient usage, which became the reference point thereafter. The objective, however, remained the same: to define how Freemasonry should be worked according to the English Constitutions.

From there, the emphasis shifted to transmission. Lodges of instruction were set up to ensure consistency in practice. Among them, the Emulation Lodge of Improvement gained particular prominence. Its influence was such that its name came to stand, by habit, for a specific working. Not because it defined a separate system, but because it became one of the most widely adopted ways of putting that common framework into practice.

5. Emulation: one working among others

This is the point at which the misunderstanding becomes clear. What is often referred to on the Continent as the “Rite Emulation” is, in fact, simply one working among several — one way of carrying out the form of ritual agreed after the union of 1813. It is not a separate system, nor was it ever intended to be one. It sits within a single, coherent approach that the United Grand Lodge of England has never divided into competing rites.

The Emulation Lodge of Improvement, founded in the early nineteenth century, became one of the principal centres for teaching this approach. Its influence grew through the consistency of its instruction and the reputation it acquired. As its practice spread, its name came to be used as a convenient label. That label endured, and from there the idea of a “Emulation Working” emerged — not because it was formally defined as such, but because it had become widely adopted.

Other workings exist, associated with different lodges of instruction: Stability, Oxford, Taylor, Standard, South London, West End. The distinctions between them are real, but limited. They concern the way the ritual is delivered rather than its structure — differences of wording, emphasis or movement. All belong to the same shared framework established after the union.

The United Grand Lodge of England has never placed one working above the others. It allows for variation, provided it remains within the bounds of the Constitutions. Emulation is therefore not a rite, but one of the accepted ways of working within English Freemasonry.

6. What sets Emulation Working apart?

For a Freemason used to continental practice, the difference is felt less in the wording than in the way the ritual is worked. What stands out is not a distinct body of teaching, but a level of formal discipline that is pushed much further than one would usually encounter elsewhere.

A fully memorised practice

In Emulation, the ritual is worked from memory. Officers are expected to deliver their parts accurately, without relying on written prompts. This may seem demanding, but it is not specific to Emulation. It is common across English-speaking Freemasonry, and reflects a preference for oral transmission over written support.

A strong emphasis on movement

The use of movement is central. Posture, positioning and gesture are all carefully defined. Nothing is left to improvisation. The ritual is not simply spoken — it is performed. What might appear rigid from the outside is, in fact, integral to the way the work is understood.

A lodge without papers

Perhaps the most striking difference is the absence of papers as they are known on the Continent. Lodge meetings do not revolve around presentations and discussion. Instead, they follow a fixed sequence: the lodge is opened in each of the three degrees in turn, and then closed again in reverse order. Outside initiation ceremonies, this forms the substance of the meeting. The ritual is not there to frame another activity. It is the activity. When talks are given, they usually take place afterwards, at the festive board.

Learning through practice

Emulation is built on repetition. It does not aim to explain, but to instil through doing. The emphasis is on familiarity gained over time, through the regular performance of the same forms. In that sense, it has something in common with some aisance martial arts disciplines where understanding comes through practice rather than commentary. The ritual becomes a discipline in itself, engaging both body and attention.

7. Is Emulation Working closer to the operative tradition?

To a continental eye, Emulation can feel like a return to an earlier way of working, where what matters is not so much what is said as how it is done. That impression should not be overstated, but it is not unfounded. The weight given to repetition, precision and controlled movement points to a mode of learning that has more in common with craft practice than with formal instruction.

In operative settings, knowledge was not primarily taught through explanation. It was passed on through demonstration and correction. One watched, repeated, and adjusted. In that respect, Emulation carries something of the same logic — not as a historical survival, but as a comparable approach to learning.

There is no need to claim a direct link. What matters is the contrast it brings into view. Continental Freemasonry has largely developed along more discursive lines, placing value on commentary and exchange. Emulation moves in a different direction. It relies on familiarity built over time, through the steady repetition of the same forms.

This does not make it better or worse, simply different. And that difference is precisely what makes it worth considering. Emulation does not present itself as a system to be analysed, but as a discipline to be worked. In doing so, it suggests that ritual can stand on its own, not as preparation for something else, but as the work itself.

Conclusion – Emulation Working as a different way of working

For all its familiar label, Emulation is not a rite in the sense usually meant on the Continent. It is a way of working that took shape within English Freemasonry after the union of 1813 and has been maintained through lodges of instruction. To approach it properly is to set aside the idea of a defined system and look instead at how the work is actually carried out.

This shift in perspective explains much of the confusion. Rather than a structured body of teaching, one finds a shared framework for working “according to the English Constitutions”, within which Emulation is simply one established form. Instead of explicit instruction, there is a method based on repetition, familiarity and practice over time. Emulation does not seek to explain. It forms through use.

Seen from that angle, it offers a useful contrast with continental habits, where ritual is often treated as a setting for something else. Without suggesting any hierarchy, it points to another possibility: that the ritual itself can be the work, and that its repeated performance may carry its own form of understanding.

By Ion Rajolescu, Editor-in-Chief of Nos Colonnes — serving a Masonic voice that is just, rigorous, and alive

Discover our collection of Emulation regalia.

Tablier Maître Pendeloques - Rite Emulation Traditionnel

EUR 50.00

EUR 60.00

Buy now

View all

Read the full transcript of the podcast here for those who prefer reading or want more detail.

Podcast – Emulation Working as a different way of working

For many continental Freemasons, Emulation is something of a puzzle. It is often described as a rite, placed alongside systems like the Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite or the French Rite. And yet, the comparison does not quite hold. Strictly speaking, Emulation is not a rite at all. It is a way of working, rooted in English Masonic practice, and that distinction changes everything.

To understand why, we need to go back to the early eighteenth century, when modern Freemasonry was taking shape in England. The formation of the Grand Lodge of London did not bring immediate unity. On the contrary, it gave rise to tensions. Some lodges felt that essential elements of the tradition were being altered or lost.

Out of these tensions emerged a lasting division between two camps: the “Moderns” and the “Antients”. The Antients, many of them of Irish origin, claimed to preserve older practices. For decades, both traditions developed side by side, not only in England but across the wider British world.

The turning point came in eighteen thirteen, with the union of the two Grand Lodges and the creation of the United Grand Lodge of England. This was not the birth of a new rite, but an effort to establish a shared framework for practice. A Lodge of Reconciliation was set up to align ritual usage, drawing largely on the traditions of the Antients.

From that point on, the focus shifted from defining a system to transmitting a way of working. Lodges of instruction were established for this purpose. Among them, the Emulation Lodge of Improvement became particularly influential. Over time, its approach spread widely, and its name came to be used as a convenient label: Emulation.

But this is where misunderstanding begins. Emulation is not a system in its own right. It is one working among others within a single English framework. The United Grand Lodge of England does not recognise competing rites, but different ways of performing the same underlying structure.

What sets Emulation apart is not its teachings, but its discipline. The ritual is memorised. Movements are precise and codified. And, most strikingly for continental visitors, the lodge meeting is not built around papers or discussion. The work consists in opening and closing the lodge through the three degrees in a defined sequence. The ritual is not a prelude to something else. It is the work itself.

This can feel unfamiliar, even austere. Yet it points to a different understanding of Masonic practice. Instead of explaining, it trains. Instead of analysing, it shapes through repetition. One learns by doing, by embodying the form until it becomes second nature.

In that sense, there is a distant echo of operative practice. Not a direct continuation, but a similar logic: knowledge transmitted through action, not exposition. The emphasis is on doing the work well, rather than commenting on it.

Emulation does not offer a system to be studied. It offers a discipline to be lived. And perhaps that is its real value: a reminder that ritual, when taken seriously, can be more than a framework. It can be a path in itself.