THE BUILDER APRIL 1929

The Degrees of Masonry; Their Origin and History

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

HAVING freely criticized the work of others it is now our turn to
present our own conclusions, to be the prey and sport of others.
Doubtless our readers have gathered much of our views on the
negative side, and perhaps something on the positive side also. But
it may be well to briefly recapitulate the different types of
theory that have emerged. The naive theory that three degrees,
essentially as they exist today, were part of the original system
is certainly untenable, and we doubt if anyone in the least
familiar with the evidence would support it. But in a modified form
it still seems to persist. Bro. Tuckett's two degrees and a
ceremony-with-secrets is a triple arrangement, and so in truth is
Bro. Vibert's theory of two grades preceded by the formalities of
swearing in the Apprentice, for the latter seems to be not much
more empty of content, considered as a "degree," than the single
ceremony, "crude" and "simple," of Hughan, Lyon and others.

The single initiation theory has taken different forms; all the way
from the bare "entry," and the communication of a password,
asserted by Gould, up to the inclusion in it of all the essentials
of the present first and second degrees, and even to embodying
those of the third degree as well.

The two degree theory has still more variants. It can be taken as
comprising the elements of our first and third, of our first and
second, and also of a bare entry as a first step, with the combined
elements of our two first degrees for the second one. And still
other combinations are possible. How is anything like order to be
evolved out of such chaos ?

It does seem to emerge, however, that many of these conclusions
have been reached, not on the implications of the evidence as it
stands, but on the latter as viewed in the light of various
prepossessions, themselves based on quite other considerations
which do not appear in the argument, or at least not explicitly; in
many cases, indeed, without any clear realization on the part of
the individual that they are there, and perhaps sometimes wholly
unconscious. For example, it certainly seems as if the well known
American students, Mackey and Pike, eagerly accepted the single
initiation theory when it was first propounded by Findel, because
of their interest in the Scottish Rite. As scholars they were
obliged to admit the eighteenth century origin of the "high" grades
out of which that Rite was formed, and this put it into an inferior
position in regard to the venerability that is conferred by
antiquity. But if the significant and fundamental part of "Craft"
Masonry, the Third Degree, were also an eighteenth century
invention, then it would, at best, have but a few years seniority
over the "Scottish" grades. This is merely one case, for such
prepossessions may be observed or suspected in perhaps most of the
brethren who have sought to explain the confusing records, as
indeed is in the nature of things practically inevitable. We are,
therefore, going to begin by as full confession as we can make of
our own prepossessions, and thus have all the cards on the table.
These may be taken as postulates for the ensuing argument. Their
truth is a separate question, to be argued separately. But we shall
put our case thus: if they are true, then the acknowledged facts
can be explained thus and thus. The conclusions reached can then be
criticized in two ways; directly, on the ground whether they do or
do not follow from the evidence in the light of the postulates: or
else indirectly, by attacking the postulates. But the defense of
the latter is outside our present limits. We can only state them
here, not explain or substantiate them.

So much turns upon the question of ritual that it is necessary to
make some general observations upon the subject, for strange as it
may seem, there appears to be no little uncertainty in its meaning
as used by Masonic writers. A great deal has been learned since our
earlier scholars did their work, and there is now little excuse for
haziness or confusion. Yet, even now, it seems as if most of those
who touch upon the subject do implicitly regard the Masonic ritual
as something that was at some time, by some one, deliberately and
consciously devised, invented and propagated. That whether it is
supposed that it was Desaguliers, Anderson or Payne, or whether it
was some unknown personage of the Stuart or the Reformation period
or in the Middle Ages, it is unconsciously assumed that the motives
and objects were of a practical, didactic or ethical character, and
would appeal as such to our civilized mentality. But the great mass
of material now available, collected by anthropologists and
students of folklore and similar subjects, presents too many
parallels to Masonic ritual for such an uncritical assumption to be
longer tenable. We know now how extremely tenacious folk or group
memory is. How resistant it is to innovation, even though subject
often enough to decay and atrophy; sometimes followed by revival.
It is not an isolated phenomenon that we are investigating, as to
earlier scholars it inevitably appeared to be.

AN ANALYSIS OF RITUAL

Following the general results of the anthropological sciences
ritual generally may be thus analyzed. There are two obvious
elements the things said and the things done. Each of these is
again naturally divisible into what is essential to the purpose of
the rite, and what is merely supplemental. The supplementary may be
also subdivided, but it is not necessary to do so here. The two
essential elements in any rite are always closely and vitally
related, the thing said is the verbal counterpart of the thing
done; in the supplementals, spoken and performed, this is not
necessarily so, things may be done that have no spoken formula as
counterpart, things may be said, exhortations and explanations for
example, unaccompanied by any action. For illustration let us take
the Christian rite of Baptism. It is of the simplest possible
character, there is one thing done, aspersion with, or dipping into
water, with its necessary accompanying verbal formula. All beyond
this in Church services is supplementary. The proof is that it can
in emergency be omitted. The Eucharist is slightly more complex; it
contains several essential actions, manipulation of the elements,
and administration, each with its accompanying spoken counterpart.
When we come to a rite like Coronation we come to something that is
really complex, and primitive too, there is much more to it than
merely putting on a crown. But it would take us too far afield to
go into that now (1). But when we analyze the Masonic ritual from
this point of view we find that it is essentially complex. There
are a number of things that are absolutely necessary to be done,
each with a corresponding verbal formula that is entirely apart
from any explanation or exhortation, and which is quite separable
from the ceremonial that inevitably grows up about the essentials
of a rite when it is performed at regular intervals in a place
especially set aside for the purpose. But the essentials remain,
complex as they may be, entirely between the neophyte and the
officiant. The latter may of course depute others to do certain
things, but however customary such deputation may become the fact
remains that, setting aside all questions of validity and
regularity, it is still possible for one individual to do
everything that is really necessary and essential in initiation.
This probably will sound very startling, but we believe that upon
reflection upon the things that are essential the truth of the
statement will become obvious. The importance of this will appear
later. It nullifies any argument from the casual methods that seem
to have been by no means rare in Scotland; that the initiation of
a candidate was sometimes performed by two or three Masons, or even
apparently by one alone in some instances, proves nothing in regard
to the character of the forms that were used.

Much of the complexity of the ritual is quite obscured in modern
recensions, in which the hortatory and didactic is so preponderant
in mass. Yet all this, genetically considered, consists of
accretions about the primitive essentials. Viewed as consciously
devised for didactic, ethical or mystical objects, the earliest
ritual forms do naturally seem "simple" or "crude," but that this
was their origin and first purpose it is difficult, in the light of
present knowledge, to believe. In our opinion, "archaic" and
"primitive" are far more accurate adjectives than "simple" or
"crude," though crude they are in one sense, and from the civilized
standpoint. But the earliest vestiges of Masonic ritual remaining
to us could no more have been invented de novo by medieval
Operatives than they could have been by eighteenth century
Speculative Masons. Their object, to our mental outlook, had
originally nothing practical in them at all, they were purely
magical. We do not mean that there was nothing more in the system
of the medieval Masons, or more probably, of the builders' crafts;
undoubtedly the old usages were adapted to the practical needs of
the period, just as they have been continuously subject to
adaptation ever since; and even at the beginning of the Grand Lodge
era, the primitive elements had become very much what the coccyx
and the vermiform appendix are in the human anatomy, i.e., residual
vestiges of organs atrophied by disuse. They may (or may not) be of
little importance in their later stages, but they cannot be ignored
in an investigation into the history of the organism or
organization.

CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIMITIVE MASONRY

The original "ceremony-with-secrets" or "narrative ceremony," that
was in some way connected with the mastership, appears in its
earliest known form as complex and primitive. We must insist on the
complexity. It is plainly closely connected in origin (in a remote
and indefinite past) with the many religio-magical folk customs
that still survive in various places. The ritual dance of the
Mummers or Guisers is an excellent parallel. We know, from recent
collections of variations of this dance (2) that the vague plot of
the drama enacted remains the same, with a significant persistence
of what at first glance seem most trivial details; while the
characters, on the other hand, change their names like patterns in
a kaleidoscope. The earliest form of the Mason's drama, or play, or
dance, has only two named characters, and the selection of these
names seems quite secondary and non-essential. But we have in it a
curious insistence on the numbers three and fifteen and on the
points of the compass. There is a ritual death, a green bush or
tree growing out of a grave, which in primitive ideas is, not a
resurrection exactly, but a continuance of life; and then a real
resurrection through a word of power, or evocation by a mystery
name. (3)

There are, also, equally magical elements in the preliminary
initiation or "making"; and it would be possible to reconstruct
hypothetically a primitive original ceremony on those lines alone,
without any trace of symbolic or moral teaching. There is the tabs
on metals, the deisul, or sunwise circumambulation, the sacred
enclosure, the contact with fetich objects, merely to mention some
of the more obvious of these survivals. How these things got into
the Masonic system, and what their line of transmission, is yet
another question. All that is necessary to say here is, that in our
opinion, they are discoverable, and that, too, not as incidental
borrowings or conveyances, but as part of the very warp of the
relics of operative ritual still extant.

Irrelevant as this may perhaps seem, we do think that it will help
to clarify the situation. The evidence with which we are dealing is
not sufficient in itself to lead to any determinate conclusion, it
must be interpreted on the basis of some hypothesis. Instead of
leaving others to guess at our conceptions, and preconceptions, in
respect to the question, we are making them explicit. And we trust
that if we draw conclusions differing from those reached by others
from the same evidence, we will not be regarded as illogical or
perverse, but that it will be recognized that we are looking at the
facts in a different light and from another point of view.

THE DEFINITION OF TERMS

There is another source of misunderstanding, and that is the
undefined and fluid terms that occur in the discussion. The meaning
or meanings of the distinctive names Master, Fellow, Mason, and
their variants and combinations, are really part of the problem to
be solved. The term degree, also, has varying meanings; and we may
here add to what has already been said about it by giving a
definition of our own. It would be preferable to use some other
word if there were one available, but there does not seem to be.
What we desire to express by it is the concept of a ceremony in and
through which certain secrets are communicated to an individual, by
others who have already received them in the same way. Or it might
be better to put it even more generally; a secret ceremony by which
an individual enters into a special relationship to a group of
others who have already passed through it.

This is a good deal more comprehensive than the ordinary Masonic
sense of the word as it is now used. It is also more indefinite.
This should be borne in mind in order to obviate any risk of
transferring characteristics common to present day degrees to the
ritual forms of the past.

THE CRITICISM OF EVIDENCE

The next thing that needs preliminary discussion is the general
question of evidence. By what canons is it to be criticized,
accepted or rejected, and what rules are to be observed in its use?

It may perhaps appear that this is a rather unnecessary digression,
seeing that the canons of historical criticism are well
established, and very generally known. While this is perfectly
true, yet there are certain features in our present problem which
seem to call for some reference to first principles. As we have
seen in tracing the discussion of the origin of degrees from its
beginning, there has not been entire agreement as to what evidence
should be received and what rejected; or how to interpret what was
received and how its weight was to be estimated. Hughan, for
example, practically rejected the ritual documents. These do
present a difficult question, and there might be a plausible case
made out for their rejection as evidence. But further than this,
Hughan, and Gould also, were inclined to minimize or ignore certain
other documents, such as the Haughfoot and Dunblane minutes, which
are undoubtedly authentic in that they are what they profess to be,
records of Masonic lodges. We are, therefore, obliged to ask if
evidence may be rejected because it will not fit into a certain
scheme or theory ? Doubtless, put generally, every one would say
no. But this is not final. Suppose that we have pieced together a
perfectly logical and selfconsistent pattern out of many scattered
fragments, and there are one or two left over that will not fit in,
we are almost obliged to give some added weight to the pieces that
fit and deduct some from those that will not.

Gould touched upon this subject in his commentary on the Regius MS.
where he says, referring specially to the old Charges (4);

The value of the evidence . . . depends upon the channels through
which it has descended.... Therefore leaving undecided all minor
questions relating to [the particular documents under
consideration] I think their inclusion among the "records of the
Craft" is of itself sufficient to demonstrate the necessity of a
legal system of classification being used concurrently with the
philological and other methods that may be called into requisition.

We have italicised the word legal, as it is significant of the
general trend of his position. He continues:

When in a court of law, ancient documents are tendered in support
of ancient possession, care is especially taken to ascertain the
genuineness of the documents produced and this may in general be
shown, prima facie, by proof that they come from the proper custody
It is not however necessary that they should be found in the best
and most proper place of deposit, but it must appear that the
instrument comes from such custody, as though not strictly proper
in point of law, is sufficient to afford a reasonable presumption
in favor of its genuineness; and that it is otherwise free from
just grounds of suspicion. Where old deeds have been produced as
evidences in eases of title, from collections of manuscripts made
for antiquarian purposes, they have been rejected. They must be
produced from the custody of persons interested in the estate.

The italics in the last passage are Gould's own. We see here quite
plainly the position he was inclined to take. "Proper custody" in
the case of Masonic documents would imply that a document was found
in the possession of a Masonic Lodge, and also that it had always
been in its archives, and further that the lodge was older than the
document. A strict application of this rule would bar out all but
some half dozen or so of the copies of the Old Charges. Gould was
even inclined to insist, at least in 1884, that the Antiquity Roll
No. 2, which had been in the possession from time immemorial of the
oldest lodge in England, could not be accepted unreservedly. His
reason being that it was dated 1686, while the engraved list of
1729, "the only official publication in which the dates of origin"
are given of the oldest lodges, gives the Lodge of Antiquity as
founded in 1691. Therefore, he argued, the MS. was older than the
lodge, and we do not know how it came into its possession. (5)

In the later pronouncement he did make the following admission:

It is true, no doubt, that the historian has no rules as to
exclusion of evidence or incompetency of witnesses. In his court
every document may be read, every statement may be heard. But in
proportion as he admits all evidence indiscriminately, he must
exercise discrimination in judging of its effect..

With which caution every critically minded student must
wholeheartedly agree. But we do not think so much weight can be
given to his earlier purely legalistic contention, and it is
necessary to explain why.

There is a constant tendency to take laws and legal rules as things
or rather objects in themselves, and to neglect the reason for
their existence or for the particular form in which they are cast.
We cannot blame lawyers for this attitude of mind, for it is forced
upon them by their profession, they have to interpret and apply the
law as it actually is. For others, philosophers or historians let
us say, and pre-eminently legislators of course (who ideally should
be both) the purpose of law should be paramount, and that it is a
means to an end, and not an end in itself, should never be
forgotten. Consider then the circumstances of a court of law. The
questions that come before it affect the property, the rights and
liberties, and even the lives of individuals. We must remember also
that normally, behind every suit or trial, there exists a state of
hostility, strife, anger or resentment between individuals. Every
condition is present to induce concealment or misrepresentation of
facts by the parties concerned. The legal rules of evidence, as
they have been evolved under the influence of English Common Law,
are eminently sound, practical and just for the special purposes in
view. But when the purposes or circumstances are changed they may
no longer apply. They may become absurdly restrictive, and hamper
instead of aiding the search for truth.

THE VALIDITY OF THE DOCUMENTS

Let us return to Gould's illustration. We can see why it should be
required that documents upon which the ownership of property
depends must be in the custody of those who are interested, in the
eyes of the law; or else that it can be shown how they were removed
from the proper custody, as for example, by theft. A deed is a
unique document, it represents the property, there cannot be more
than one. There may be copies, but each legally authenticated copy
is also unique in a secondary sense. To be of any weight legally,
a copy like the original must also have been made by the proper
persons, attested in the proper manner, and in the custody of
parties interested in the eyes of the law. Copies made for
curiosity or as an exercise in writing would be of no effect no
matter how accurate or exact. To take a very obvious and common
example; a check has a certain value under the proper conditions;
that is when it is drawn by one with sufficient funds to his
credit, and that it is presented by the person named therein. A
duplicate is valueless except under specific conditions, in which
it replaces the original, and the latter (if in existence) becomes
valueless in consequence. Photographs, drawings or other facsimiles
or copies are useless for the proper purpose of checks.

The principle that seems to underlie the uniqueness of such
documents is that they represent property, and for that reason
cannot be multiplied; secondly, being unique they pertain to
certain specified individuals who alone have interest in them, or
right to them, in the legal sense. But historical documents are not
unique in this way at all, while the interest is not restricted but
general. Copies are as good as the originals, if exact and
complete, and anyone has a right to intervene.

Gould by implication equated the Old Charges with deeds and similar
legal instruments. The analogy is a misleading one. They should be
likened rather to statute books and legal digests. A lawyer may
cite Blackstone in an argument (we believe even yet this might be
done) but the court will not ask him from what custody he produced
his copy of this author. Of course this parallel is merely
approximate, as Blackstone, who was the last of a series of
exponents of English Law which began with Glanville in the 12th
century, built upon court records which, if not often consulted,
were in existence and could be adduced in evidence.

We may however examine more closely the specific case mentioned
above. In the first place Gould seemed to think that the
discrepancies and contradictions between certain copies or families
of the Old Charges carried the implication that some of them were
faulty, inaccurate and untrustworthy. But this depends on the
purpose of our search. If we are seeking the original form, then we
will naturally prefer the older documents, and have a prejudice in
favor of any particular item found in them. If however we are
tracing the evolution of Masonic law, then the later MSS. are as
important as the earlier; nor can we summarily reject one of two of
the same age because they are inconsistent. Only on the supposition
that there was one, central, supreme, legislative organ in the
Craft could we do this. And there is not the least indication that
any such a thing existed in the past any more than in the historic
period, with the exception of the superficial, if natural,
presumption based on the references in the different versions of
the Old Charges, that the Assembly spoken of in them was an
Assembly for the whole kingdom. An assumption inherently
improbable, not to say impossible. Different rules could well exist
contemporaneously in a number of centers, each independent, and
capable of modifying old laws to fit changed circumstances.

Whether Robert Padgett copied the Antiquity Roll No. 2 in 1686, or
whether there ever was such a person, is really irrelevant. Nor is
it of consequence if the lodge is junior to the manuscript as Gould
seemed to think, any more than it is through what channel such
lodge became possessed of it whether by inheritance, in this case,
of the records and archives of the Acception of the Mason's
Company, or whether through some individual. Because, not only were
lodges properly "interested" parties, but individual Masons were
equally so. The real question is really whether or not the lodge
received this particular document as an archeological curiosity, or
as a valid copy of the traditional law as it then stood. The former
alternative is highly improbable.

Now in the investigation that we have in hand this particular
question discussed by Gould is of no consequence. So far as the
evidence of the Old Charges bears upon our problem they are
practically in accord. The important point is the principle
involved. If we are to reject evidence on such narrow and
legalistic grounds we will deny ourselves the right to consider the
highly important ritual documents, which are known as the Old
Catechisms, which all, with one exception, come to us from unknown,
and in most cases highly suspicious sources. We, therefore, insist
that the criticism of the evidence is not to be exclusively based
on the ascertained history of the documents themselves, but on
their contents. Naturally, we may gladly receive any confirmation
that can be drawn from the legal rules of evidence, but these are
not our only means of investigation nor even the most important.

Thus, just as anybody might be interested in a sonnet of Petrarch,
or a folk legend, and write it down, just as any early Christian
might have been interested in a letter from the Apostle Paul, just
so any Mason would be interested in a copy of the Charges or notes
of a (Catechism, and this interest is strictly analogous in its own
field to the legal interest the inheritor of a piece of land has in
the deed transferring it to his father or grandfather; though of
course with much greater generality, and indefiniteness, as it
would make no difference by whom, when, where or how the copies
were made or acquired; neglecting here of course questions of
accuracy.

There is a class of Masonic documents to which legal rules should
be strictly applied, and those are Charters and Warrants, precisely
because they are legal instruments. The discovery of an ancient
charter of transmission or one empowering some person to propagate
a rite or degree, in a museum or second-hand book shop gives no
right to the discoverer or purchaser to transmit or propagate
anything; and so of such documents we may demand that they be found
in proper custody, or that it be shown, without any breaks in the
chain of evidence, how they came to be elsewhere. But with these we
have nothing to do fortunately.

NOTES

(1) Those who wish to follow this further may be referred to A.M.
Hocart's work Kingship, in which Coronation, Installation and
Consecration are shown to be closely related. and also that
marriage ceremonials are largely adaptations of those of
coronation.

(2) Tiddy, The Mummers Play; Chambers, The Medieval Stage.
(3) We may refer for a more detailed, though only preliminary
expression of this view to the articles in THE BUILDER, Vol. ix,
page 177, "The Origin of the Legend of the Third Degree," and Vol.
x, page 67, "Mythology and Masonry."
(4) Q.C.A. Vol. i, page 11; Reprinted in the Essays, p. 11.
(5) A.Q.C. Vol. i, page 53.

(To be Continued)
