THE BUILDER MARCH 1929

The Degrees of Masonry; Their Origin and History

By BROS. A. L. KRESS and R. J. MEEKREN
(Continued from February)

ANOTHER scholar, Arthur Edward Waite, an authority in his own
field, calls for brief mention, although he does not seem to have
investigated our problem very deeply himself, but depends, it would
seem, chiefly upon the conclusions reached by others. Indeed he
tells us that he has no direct interest in archeological matters.
(1) His views are not easily summarized, because to fully
understand them requires at least an acquaintance with his belief
in a "secret tradition," and a "mystical quest," a subject that is
on a different level altogether from that of the present
discussion. He is willing to accept either one, or two grades, in
the original operative system, and assumes that the present first
degree is founded more or less upon the ancient ritual. (2) He
notes that Speth held that the original two degrees embodied the
essentials of our present system, but thinks that Gould modified
this position considerably, as he says the latter held that

. . . the terms Fellow Craft and Master were interchangeable and
had reference to one and the same thing, being a Second Degree, but
he did not suggest that it contained the present elements of the
Master Grade.

We would not like to contradict this, as we gather Bro. Waite has
had better opportunities to learn what Gould's opinions really were
than we have had, but, from the latter's published works, we have
distinctly gathered the impression that in his opinion the original
second grade did comprise the elements of our third. But perhaps
this difference of opinion rests on differing idea of what the
elements of the third degree really are.

Bro. Waite expresses himself as in a painful quandary. He has
sought longingly to find some trace of the existence of the
allegory and symbolism of the Master Builder earlier than the Grand
Lodge era, but sorrowfully confesses he has not yet heard of any
indication of this; although he insists, on the other hand, that it
is incredible that any one of that particular period, and in London
of all places, could have invented it. With this we heartily agree.
It is, we believe, a psychological impossibility that it should
have been invented in the 18th century. The period is either too
early or too later. (3)

The Rev. F. deP. Castells has very recently published two books,
the Origin of the Masonic Degrees and the Antiquity of the Holy
Royal Arch. Like Bro. Waite his interest chiefly lies in the
symbolical and mystical side of the subject, but unlike him he does
not seem to retain so firm a grasp on fact. Bro. Waite frankly
admits the lack of support given by existing evidence to the
continuity of the "secret tradition," while Bro. Castells is
inclined to bridge the gap by force of suppositions and straining
of the evidence. As his books are easily obtainable there is no
call here to set forth his views in any detail. He is familiar with
most of the documents in the case, and quotes them freely. He holds
the Royal Arch to be the original end of the Masonic system, and
seems to believe in there having been two lines of descent, a
purely Operative one, and a Speculative one concealed behind the
former. Attractive as this hypothesis may be, we feel sure that the
critically minded will prefer Bro. Waite's attitude of suspension
of judgment, especially as there can be very few who know as much
about occult and mystical schools as does the latter eminent
scholar.

The Rev. Herbert Poole gave a paper before the Quatuor Coronati
Lodge in 1924 on "Masonic Secrets and Ritual Before 1717." This
exceedingly valuable essay however does not contain very much that
is relevant to the question in hand. Bro. Poole classifies and
discusses the evidence, and thence constructs a provisional sketch
of the ritual forms that seem to be implied in the fragmentary
descriptions and allusions that have come down to us. The only two
passages referring to degrees are the following. The first is from
the body of the paper:

All the sources imply (if they do not state it explicitly) that
secrets were given after the oath of secrecy, and that this oath
was administered at the commencement of the Masonic career of the
candidate. Now since an apprentice was bound to his master for
seven years, and forbidden under heavy penalties to seek work
elsewhere, it would seem to be not only unneccessary, but perhaps
even undesirable, for the apprentice to be able to prove himself a
Mason to a stranger. Is it possible that the giving of the secrets
to the apprentice indicates a "telescoping" of ceremonies for the
benefit of the speculative? I doubt if full weight has been allowed
to this possibility by past investigators of the problem of the
number of degrees of ancient Masonry. (4)

The idea of a "continuing" ceremony is far from new as we have
seen. Speth had spoken of the two degrees having "been practically
welded into one" and the hypothesis had been accepted by other
scholars. (5) The problem of the runaway apprentice is a real one,
or at least it was. There would not have been pains and penalties
so definitely provided had the phenomenon been unusual. But this is
speaking of apprentices in general, in all trades. One can imagine
that the temptation to run away was much greater in confined and
sedentary employments. Further, in Scotland express provision is
made in the Masonic code for the Apprentice to work "on his own" if
his Master have no sufficient employment for him. (6) It is a point
certainly requiring consideration however. There is evidence to
indicate at least the possibility of such "welding" or
"telescoping" of degrees, which would be a further stage of
degeneration following upon a custom of "continuing" from one to
the other on the same occasion.

The second passage referred to comes at the conclusion of the paper
where Bro. Poole says:

Before closing, I must revert to the vexed question of "degrees."
I have put this question on one side while dealing with my
material; but it cannot be left there, though I do not propose to
enter upon it now. I wish merely to throw out a suggestion, which
I do not think has ever been emphasized, that in my opinion it is
tied up with the question of "operative" and "speculative"; and
that two "degrees,"' though not the same degrees, may have been
worked by each- and that the operative "fellow" corresponded in
some way with the speculative "master-mason", while possibly, as I
have hinted earlier, the two operative degrees were communicated at
once to the speculative. Along such lines, I believe, the solution
to the question recast he searched for.

We hope that Bro; Poole will not forget his implied undertaking to
develop this further, because, aside from the general value that
his researches would have, we are not quite sure just what he has
in mind in this distinction between operative and speculative
systems. We judge that he may be referring to the present third
degree, and if this guess is correct, then it would seem that he,
like Bro. Ramsden Riley and others, holds, in common with the
supporters of one degree, that the master's grade is an innovation
in Masonry, even while admitting the existence of two grades in the
original system.

We now come to the last scholar whose views call for mention, Bro.
Lionel Vibert. He is indeed the only recent writer who has treated
this subject systematically and at length, with the one exception
of Bro. Castells. The character and aim of their respective
investigations are, however, radically different. Bro. Vibert
treats of the subject of "Ceremonies and Degrees" in a chapter of
his well known and useful work, The Story of the Craft. He has
since elaborated some phases of the problem in his Prestonian
Lectures, the second of which was very recently submitted to the
Quatuor Coronati Lodge in a somewhat amended form; the
modifications being due to such criticisms and suggestions from
other students as seemed to him to have merit. As this lecture was
quite fully reviewed in THE BUILDER last year (7) it will be
possible to treat it more briefly than its importance would
otherwise demand.

In his earlier work Bro. Vibert accepts the conclusion reached by
Murray Lyon, which has since been accepted almost as an article of
faith by Masonic students generally, that:

The Scottish operatives in early days had but one ceremony and that
was of the simplest natured

Bro. Vibert then goes on to say:

The English had a form of admission for the apprentice, and may, on
continental analogies, have had some sort of feast at all events
for the apprentice, out of his indentures, admitted to full
membership of the Guild. But of ceremonial beyond an oath and
prayers and the reading of the Charges there is no clear evidence.
Neither in Scotland nor in England was she operative master
distinguished from the Fellows by the possession of any further
secrets, or by anything that we should call a degree.

He then intimates the probability of some legend being preserved in
the Fraternity concerning Hiram the Builder. and states his
acceptance of the view that

. . . at all events by 1723, in England there were two ceremonies
recognized. One was the apprentices ceremony and the other the
Master's Part.

And a little further on he refers to the Miracle Play hypothesis of
the origin of the Third Degree, pointing out however, that no play
extant has been found that could be taken as its source. (9)

Now there here appears a chasm that is unbridged. In the indefinite
operative period there is only one ceremony; for the possible feast
hardly seems to come under the head, that is, in the same sense.
But some time before 1723 there were in London at least two
ceremonies each conferring a certain status. Bro. Vibert has made
no attempt to bridge this gap. He has only undertaken to propound
a reason for the two having been converted into three.

In broad outline his hypothesis is that this evolution arose out of
the problem created by the need for new lodges, due to the rapid
growth of the Fraternity in London in and after the year 1720. He
suggests that the establishment of permanent organized bodies (in
distinction to the casual lodges of six or seven Masons "well met,"
which formed themselves by inherent right, and dissolved
immediately) was, if not an innovation altogether, regarded as such
by the brethren. And that it was as a measure of control over the
situation that Payne compiled his Regulations. And further, that
the clause in Regulation XIII, which has been so often referred to,
was devised mainly for the purpose of keeping a cheek on those who
were to be eligible to office in the new lodges. Bro. Vibert does
not put it quite in this way, but it seems to be what is implied in
what he says.

Now the Regulations also provided that the Master and Wardens of a
lodge should be "among the Fellow Craft." As the old qualification
of the Master's Part could only be given in the Grand Lodge it is
suggested that a new degree of Fellow Craft was formed out of the
original first grades like Eve out of Adam's rib, for the purpose
of qualifying those- selected for office without going to the Grand
Lodge. Stating it thus baldly does not do the theory justice, and
as the lecture is easily accessible we must refer our readers to
it. (10)

The great attraction of Bro. Vibert's theory is that for the first
time a definite, tangible, motive is suggested which does seem to
be adequate to the known effect; for Gould's theory of
misunderstanding would be a cause rather than a motive. Precisely
for this reason it needs the closest scrutiny, for it is a general
failing to be blind to the difficulties raised by an explanation
that appeals to us. The chief difficulty here is that of seeing why
the direct way out of the dilemma was not taken. As was pointed out
in the review above mentioned, and by several of those who took
part in the discussion in Quatuor Coronati Lodge, the Grand Lodge
was merely the particular lodges in general council, and it is not
easy to see how it could persist, as a unit, in a course that was
causing general dissatisfaction to its component parts. It does not
appear to us that Bro. Vibert has altogether succeeded in meeting
this difficulty.

The discussion that followed the lecture revealed as many different
points of view as those who took part in it. To begin with, there
seemed to be no definite agreement as to the connotation of the
terms used; degree, master, fellow, apprentice, mason. And behind
this, very different prepossessions in regard to what the essential
elements of the various ritual forms might have been. As a result
the impression is given that those taking part were, to some
extent, at cross purposes. Bro. Covey-Crump doubted if "Fellow" and
"Master" were identical terms. He seemed inclined to suspect that
the masters, in the sense of employers, "bosses," had ceremonies or
traditions of their own, while the non-operative honorary members
became fellows immediately by the omission of the apprenticeship,
but that, though fellows, they were not masters. In effect this
seems to be bringing back the theory of an original three
degrees ceremonies-with-secrets  instead of two.

Bro. J. Heron Lepper also seemed to doubt the equivalence of Master
and Fellow-Craft in Regulation XIII, basing his questioning on the
fact that Pennell in his reprint (and revision) of the
Constitutions quite unmistakably makes provision for three grades.
But, as has been pointed out previously, Prichard exhibited three
degrees two months later, while the Philo-Musicae et Architecturae
Societas had apparently worked three in London four years earlier.
(11) 

Bro. Tuckett, assuming the existence of lodges and Masons
throughout the country, asked why, or how, they came to adopt the
inserted grade, which had no purpose or object outside the new
organization? And he raised the further point, that qualification
is not derived from a mere name, which was all the new degree
amounted to. That is, the new-style fellow possessed no more than
the old-style mason or apprentice; and he reverts to his own
hypothesis that the two grades of the old system were equivalent to
our first and second degrees, containing the same esoteric
essentials; and that there was the additional ceremony-with-secrets
(which was not a degree) containing the Hiramic legend, and
commonly known as the Master's Part.


Bro. W. J. Williams also doubted the equivalence of master and
fellow, and thought the use of the word "degree" in the discussion
led to confusion of thought; as in our sense degrees did not then
really exist. He argues, and quotes Gould in support, that master
meant only master of the lodge.

Bro. Poole thus summarized his understanding of Bro. Vibert's
position. Owing to the non-operative or speculative members being
made members of the Fraternity the two steps as taken by them were

1. Apprentice and Fellow

2 What we now call Master

but that in 1723, though still containing the same elements in the
same order, these became

1. Apprentice

2. Fellow Craft and Master

and gives it as his solution of the puzzle that the change was not
an innovation but a restoration of the older (operative?) practice.
That is, if we understand him, that the two ceremonies, which had
been made one for the speculative because he did not serve an
apprenticeship, now became two again. But this seems also to imply
the original existence, in some form, of three steps, grades or
ceremonies-with-secrets.

Bro. J. Walter Hobbs, however, seemed to stand by the dual system,
and affirmed the two grades to have been apprentice and master,
with fellow as an alternate term for the latter, signifying full
membership presumably, and he pertinently points out what "a whirl
of varied titles" are used in our available documentary sources.
Still he is inclined to adopt Bro. Poole's suggestion as affording
a possible avenue of escape from the confusion, that the Operatives
and Speculatives each worked two degrees but not the same degrees.
To us this would seem to promise to make the confusion worse
confounded.

Bro. Bullamore rejected the conclusion that there were only two
degrees in 1723, accepting the vague hint in the letter signed
Verus Commodus in 1725 (12), that there were "five orders" in the
Masonic system, which "orders" he seems to accept as equivalent to
degrees. The hostile skit he here referred to is hardly sufficient
authority by itself, and the phrase "the fifth order" obviously
refers, from the context, to the five orders of architecture.

Bro. Thos. M. Carter, while seeing a difficulty in the brief space
of time in which the supposed method for evading the force of
Regulation XIII came to be "practically universally adopted," sees
also a moral difficulty in such a systematic evasion. This
objection does seem to have weight, and we are inclined to hold
that this facet of the complex dilemma is best resolved by assuming
that the Regulation was merely a restatement of the old rule that
apprentices were only to be passed in the general assembly, to
which everybody was agreed in theory, while force of habit and mere
convenience tended to make the attempted revival of the old law a
dead letter from the start. There is nothing strange or unusual in
that. All organizations are subject to the same experience, not
only in their beginnings but even when well established, of making
rules that prove quite unworkable in practice.

Bro. Daynes, referring to the statement made by Bro. Vibert, that
while authority could be, and was, delegated to constitute new
lodges, there was "no delegation of the power to confer the
Master's Part," pointed out that it was not conclusive because the
Regulation expressly adds, after the general prohibition of making
Masters and Fellow-Crafts in the private lodges, the saving clause,
"unless by dispensation." Bro. Vibert said that there being no
record of Grand Lodge passing Masters and Fellows proves nothing,
which is true; but neither does the absence of any record of the
granting of dispensations prove they were not given. It may be that
they were, and that the repeal of the clause was due to the
absurdity of a practical annulment by dispensation. He also pointed
out, what the other brethren seem to have somewhat lost sight of,
that the Haughfoot records are definitely witness to a dual system
in 1702, (13) and he might have added Dunblane, a little lateral.
(14)

In reply Bro. Vibert acknowledged the difficulties raised and
sought to meet them. Admitting the confused terminology in the
sources, he yet thinks they point to the sequence, Apprentice,
Fellow and Master; changing that of Gould and Speth who interpreted
the documents as witnessing to the arrangement Apprentice, Master,
Fellow. He repeats that these ranks were given in two steps, and to
non-operatives, in the grouping A. & F., and then M. And he insists
that the character of the two steps was quite different, the first
being "purely symbolic and based on Two Pillars," while the other
"was associated with a Hiramic Legend." But this of course is
precisely one of the points at issue; was there at that time a step
or ceremony based on a Hiramic Legend? It is quite possible to deny
that there was and yet hold that there were two degrees, or ritual
steps; and as we have seen, this explanation has been advanced by
more than one authority. It is thus only in obedience to a natural
progress in the investigation that in recent years attention has
been specially turned to the problem of the origin of our third
degree.

Bro. Vibert then goes on to offer a modified version of his theory
in view of the suggestions and criticisms that had been offered to
it in its original form. It is in bare outline as follows:


The "trade system" had a symbolic step connected with Pillars. The
apprentice was merely sworn (just as in other crafts we judge) but
when out of his time, became a Fellow and full member of the
fraternity by the symbolic steps of the Pillars.

The non-operative honorary or speculative member "must needs go
through the form of being admitted an apprentice," yet nevertheless
proceeded

. . . then and there to full membership. The speculative,
therefore, as an apprentice, learnt about the Pillars, both of
them. Nevertheless the step was really a double one- it conferred
in one day the rank of full membership that in the trade was only
to be achieved after years of work and sometimes not then.

We do not know on what grounds the suggestion was made, that full
membership was not always attained, or how much it implies, but
that is aside from the point. The italics in the above passage are
Bro. Vibert's. It seems to us that the hypothesis is not the
obvious or simplest way of relating the facts. While the
Regulations do expressly give "even the youngest Apprentice" a
voice and a vote in the annual Assembly of the Grand Lodge, or
rather, concurrent with it, it does not seem that this is to be
taken as indicating that the majority of Masons present ranked only
as Apprentices, even in the light of the note in the Mystery of
Freemasons that;

There is not one Mason in a Hundred that be at the Expense to pass
the Master's Part, except it be for Interest.

Even granting that the only ceremonial in the operative period that
was worthy of the name of an initiation was that at the end of the
apprenticeship, it does not seem necessary to suppose, or even
natural, that the non-operative who, after being sworn in as an
Apprentice in ordinary form, and then straightaway given his
freedom, by being passed through the initiation that normally
followed years later, should be denied the rank of a fellow, and
held to be only an apprentice. Or to put it another way; though for
the honorary or speculative candidate, apprentice oath and
fellowship ritual were combined in a continuing, or even
"telescoped," ceremony, yet his status would be that of the higher,
not the lower rank, and he would be called fellow equally with
those who had served their full time.

Bro. Vibert then says:

While we cannot say categorically what esoteric knowledge is in
every ease implied in the use of the term Fellow or Fellow Craft,
it does appear as though, in the operative system, it cannot have
involved a knowledge of anything beyond the Pillars. Nowhere in the
Constitutions is it suggested or even hinted that the Master of the
Lodge must have prior knowledge of the narrative ceremony or its
accessories.


By "narrative-ceremony" is meant that embodying the Hiramic legend.
Bro. Vibert further asserts that, technically, by the letter of the
(English) law, a Fellow-Craft is still qualified to serve as Warden
and Master of a lodge. But while this may have real foundation in
fact, it seems here to becloud the issue. The question in point is
not whether at a later time the letter of the law qualified for
office those with the title, Fellow Craft, but, what did that title
imply in 1723? And further, while it may be true that there is no
hint that the brother elected to office as Master had to have the
status of Master Mason (and this might be questioned) (15) it does
not follow, necessarily, that "knowledge of the narrative" was not
required, if it be supposed to have been, at that time, included in
the grade of Fellow. Bro. Vibert of course does not suppose this.
His scheme seems to be:

1. Status of Apprentice, acquired by the formality of registration,
and an oath to obey his master and the rules of the trade, just as
in other occupations.

2. Fellow, attained normally at end of apprenticeship, with an
initiation concerning the Pillars

3. Master, a ceremony-with-secrets, originally restricted to
employers, and dealing with the Hiramic narrative.

This scheme being granted his hypothesis does seem logical. That is
if we grant his further contention that the office of Master of the
lodge was a new thing. And this does find support in the Old
Charges, and from other sources, too, in that it seems to be
implied that the individual who presided in a lodge was the senior
fellow. In workshops, the master was of course the man who "hired
and fired", and paid wages. Under the new regime of speculative
Masonry the new lodges elected their presidents, and called them
Masters. The old qualification for an employer (i. e. the
"narrative ceremony") might be insisted on by analogy and we
remember that Anderson takes pains to describe the speculative
lodge, figuratively, in terms of the workshop; the presiding
officer being the employer, in a speculative sense. But on the
other hand, the new elective officer might be regarded as taking
the place of the "senior fellow", who traditionally presided in
such groups; in which case no further qualification was needed. The
Grand Lodge, having assumed control of the "narrative ceremony,"
the lodges adopted the latter alternative; and then, to make more
of their ritual, enlarged the Apprentice part, by adding to its
bare formalities part of the symbolic content of the Fellow. The
difficulty here is that Regulation XIII speaks of Fellow Craft as
well as Master. That would seem to leave the lodges only the bare
formality of an oath. Bro. Vibert of course assumes that the
Fellow's part (concerning the Pillars) had been attached to that of
the Apprentice, but if so why did the Regulation include the Fellow
Craft? Was it merely pure confusion, or divergence of opinion, or
what?

We are not absolutely sure that Bro. Vibert would accept this
version of his theory. (16) we have tried to distinguish his
postulates from his argument, and to present the latter apart from
discussion of the validity of his conception of the situation. And
in our opinion, that being granted, his theory seems to fit the
case very well.

Bro. Vibert concludes by saying that the last word has not been
said; and this undoubted fact has its compensations, for were the
question finally settled there would be a distinct loss of interest
in research, for it is without doubt one of the most exciting
problems connected with the history of the Fraternity. Perhaps,
though, the interest is after all only a derived one. We have
remarked above that discussion in recent years had turned from this
particular problem to that of the origin of the Master's grade.
Really the question of the number of the original degrees is a
flank attack upon this more significant problem, and agreement on
this would doubtless greatly increase the chances of agreement on
the subsidiary investigation, the progress of which we have been
surveying.

NOTES

(1) Waite, New Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, Preface, p. vi.
(2) Ibid., vol. i, p. 280.
(3) It is impossible to enlarge upon Bro. Waite's theories of the
Master's grade, and we refer our readers to the work already
mentioned, and to Emblematic Freemasonry, Chapter iii, and
especially page 52.
(4) A. Q. C., vol. xxxvii, p. 16.
(5) BUILDER, September, 1928, p. 270.
(6) Lyon, History of the Lodge of Edinburgh, p. 16.
(7) BUILDER, February, 1928, p. 56.
(8) Vibert, Story of the Craft, p. 75.
(9) The late Bro. Robert Race was the most prominent advocate of
this theory, which he set forth in a most interesting and
suggestive article. (See Trans. Manchester Ass'n, 1918-1919 vol. ix
p. 9.) We may here remark that Bro. D. E. Williamson Associate
Editor of THE BUILDER, has carefully read every Medieval play that
has been published in English, French, German or Latin, and states
positively that there is nothing to be found that by any Stretch of
the imagination could be taken as a parallel to the legend in
question.
(10) Bro. Vibert's second Prestonian Lecture is included in the
Transactions of the Merseyside Ass'n for Masonic Research 1926, p.
47, and those of the Somerset Masters' Lodge for 1926 p. 562. In
its amended form it appears in A. Q. C., vol. xxxix, p. 208.
(11) BUILDER, January, p. 29, and December, 1928, p. 357. 
(12) Gould, History, vol. iv, p. 286.
(13) In 1707 the lodge resolved, "except on special considerations"
not to "admit to the Society both of apprentice and fellowcraft, at
the same time, but that one year at least should intervene . . ."
A. Q. C., vol. xvi p. 178.
(14) In 1716 it was enacted "that in tyme coming there he no
measons or vthers entered and passed ..... at one and the same
time." Lyon, op. cit., p. 416.
(15) It could be argued, and it is the position that we are
inclined to accept, that the term "master" in the Constitutions is
used in two, or rather three, distinct senses: (a) Master of the
Craft of the trade and its technical processes; (b) master in the
sense of an employer of other masons; and (c) master, or presiding
officer of a lodge. Indefinite as such usage may sound we submit
that there are very few places in the Constitutions where the
particular meaning is not fairly clear from the context, though
there may be places where two of the three meanings are combined.
As in the much discussed clause of Regulation xiii, "Master" may
mean both masters as competent workmen and masters as employers.
There is no contradiction or difficulty raised in such an
interpretation, for the master as employer is assumed to be master
of his trade. We think, however, that in this place (and in others
also) the latter meaning is to be taken as the dominant one.
(16) Since this was written this resume was submitted to Bro.
Vibert, and he writes us that he considers it "perfectly fair" and
remarks on the confusion the matter is in due to the looseness of
the terminology.
