THE BUILDER JULY 1929

The Degrees of Masonry; Their Origin and History

By BROS. A. L. KRESS and R. J. MEEKREN

(Continued from June)

WE will now have to traverse once more the same ground (1) that we
did last month, this time in order to bring out another feature
characteristic of old Scottish Masonic usage, as that is exhibited
in the records of the ancient lodges of that country. The often
quoted clause of the Schaw Statutes relating to the admission of
Fellows, requires, among its other provisions, that the reception
or admission should be duly recorded, "ord'rlie buikit," in the
lodge books, and that

. . . the names of the intendaris that Salt be chosin to evrie
persone to be alsua insert in thair buik.

The interpretation of this is a matter open to some doubt. The
indefinite phrase "shall be chosen to [for] every person" leaves us
uncertain whether the intenders had been the official instructors
of the apprentice who was then being "received or admitted," or
whether they were then chosen to instruct the newly made fellow of
craft, as such. A good deal depends on the answer we give to this.

It is to be remarked that the minutes of the Lodge of Edinburgh do
not seem to mention intenders (2), so that we are unable to say
whether they were appointed there or not. This metropolitan lodge,
however, seems as exceptional in its way as Dunblane or Haughfoot
were in theirs. This is only one feature in which it differed from
other lodges. But the most marked and characteristic difference was
the sharp cleavage between employers and employed, the former
seemingly to have been well on the way to becoming a caste apart.
In none of the other lodges does this strong distinction appear;
indeed, in the Aitchison's Haven Lodge the term "Masters" is hardly
ever used in speaking of the composition of the lodge. In the
excerpts published by Bro. R. E. Wallace-James, the usual formula
is "the brethren," or "the brethren of the lodge," when speaking
collectively, or "fellow of craft," when they are mentioned by
name.

THE PROBLEM OF THE INTENDERS

The first example we will take of the appointment of intenders is
that of the "entry" of William Brotherstains at Peebles in 1716,
which has already been cited. He chose for his intenders, David and
Richard Whyts, who were fellows of craft and masters of the lodge.
Alexander Veitch, described as "enter'd prentise," was "received"
on the same date, presumably as a fellow of craft seeing that he
was already "entered." So that it is evident that intenders were
appointed both for the newly entered apprentice, and the master or
fellow craft who was received. The appointment of intenders was
regularly recorded in this lodge, but there is no need to quote
further and later instances.

At Aberdeen a special article appears in the Statutes forbidding
any member of the lodge to 

. . . teach or instruct ane entered prentise untill such tyme as he
be perfyted be his Intender.

But when

His Intender and his Maate gives him over as being taught any
person hath liberty to teach him anything he forgets.

And then it is enacted that if, when the apprentice "is interrogat
at our publict meetings" [i. e., general meetings of the lodge] he
has forgotten anything "he must pay for it," unless he could show
it was something he had not been taught, in which case the intender
was fined instead.

But there is nothing here to show who the apprentice's intenders
were; that is, whether they were also apprentices or fellows.
Fortunately the Aitchison's Haven minutes make this quite clear. In
the second minute, which has already been cited, the entrant,
Alexander Cubie, chose two intenders who are expressly stated to
have been Apprentices. The minute gives the names of the fellows of
craft, and then those of four apprentices. and adds

. . . of ye quhilk enterit prentiseis Alexander Cubie chois
Archibald Glene and James Pettiecrief to be his instructoris. .

As we have already seen, in quoting these minutes before, Alexander
Cubie was chosen two years later by Andrew Patten as one of his
intenders, Cubie being himself still an apprentice. But this is not
all. Robert Widderspone, who was made a fellow of craft two days
before Cubie was entered an apprentice, is recorded as choosing
George Aytoune and Johne Pedden "to be his intenders and
instructouris," and these had just been named in the list of
fellows of craft present. Thus we see that in a lodge whose Warden
(or Master as we should say) had signed the Schaw Statutes, both
apprentices and fellows of craft chose intenders, which intenders
were of their own grade. Further instances could be cited in which
this also appears quite unequivocally, but it is hardly necessary
to do so.

There is another entry which is puzzling, and may be significant.
Andrew Patten was "entered" as we have seen, on the second day of
January, 1600. But on the seventh day of June in the year before,
1599, he had already been mentioned in what must be regarded as a
most important minute:

Upon ye quhilk day Andro Pattene payit xx sh to his buiking and had
servit VI zeiris of his prentisehip II zeiris to serve before vir
witnes Johne Fender Wilzame Aytone, etc.

As the scribe was economical of words and punctuation alike we
would paraphrase the statement thus:

Upon the which day Andrew Patten paid 20 shillings for his
registration and [declaration was made] that he had served 6 years
of his apprenticeship, [and had] two years more to serve, before
the [following] witnesses, John Fender, William Ayton, etc.

This brings definitely before us that question which has appeared
vaguely in the background, suggested by the variations in the
phraseology of the different records. It has already been remarked
that sometimes it was doubtful from the phraseology used, whether
"entry" meant anything more than mere "booking" or registration.
Here apparently we have the two things definitely recorded, as done
at digerent times. Patten at the lowest, must have been seventeen
or eighteen years old in 1599, seeing that he had then been an
apprentice for six years, and this was six months before he was
made an entered apprentice. This seems decidedly to confirm our
suspicions that the apprenticeship of the lodge was as distinct
from legal apprenticeship, as, let us say, civil marriage and
church marriage are in France and some other countries. And to
accept this as an hypothesis would clear up many obscurities which
appear in the various references and allusions to apprenticeship in
the Mason's Craft.

WHAT INSTRUCTIONS DID THE INTENDERS GIVE?

But more than this follows from these minutes. A young man of
eighteen who had worked at the trade for six years must have been
a fairly competent Craftsman if he had had normal ability and
intelligence to begin with. What then did he need intenders and
instructors for? This question becomes still more pressing in the
case of the "accepted" fellow of the craft. Ex hypothesi he was a
competent and skilled Mason or he would not have been passed why
then did he need instructors? What were they to teach him ?

It is possible that those who have had no experience of skilled
handicraftsmanship, and the way it is learned in
apprenticeship which is more a soaking in of information than the
result of set instruction may fail to see the full force of this
question. But, though books and lessons can make things easier, and
can shorten the time of pupillage if intelligently used, the
technique of a skilled trade can only be learned by working at it,
as we have had occasion to remark before. The only answer we can
give to the question raised is that the intenders taught the
neophyte the formal secrets of the society whatever they were.
Perhaps those "simpel questions and answers" to which the brethren
of Melrose reduced their ritual in 1764 may serve us here as the
basis of a guess.

But yet another thing follows if this be accepted, and that is,
that the things taught to the "fellow of craft," in spite of the
fact that two apprentices at least were required to make the lodge
complete, were something that the latter did not know; though the
same reasoning leads us to the conclusion that they also had been
taught something that was kept strictly from the outside world,
cowans and un-entered apprentices alike. In short, that there were
two "degrees," according to our definition of that term.

THE ANNUAL EXAMINATION

All this illuminates the various regulations and ordinances and
enactments concerning periodical examinations. We have already
cited the Aberdeen statute. If it be understood that the
apprentice's intenders there referred to were themselves
apprentices, then the point of their having full responsibility,
and their liability to fine if they omitted anything, becomes quite
clear in effect they also were being examined.

The tradition of such formal or ritual examinations was a
continuous one in Scotland from the earliest times of which there
is record into and through the eighteenth century (3). It also
appears as something taken for granted in the earliest days of
English speculative Masonry. So much so that the "work" of the
lodges in the eighteenth century was understood to be this
rehearsing of examinations, and not (as it now signifies in
America) the initiation of candidates. This last, indeed, was
regarded as something apart, almost as an interruption to the
regular labors of the lodge. However this merely falls into place
with our supposition, it hardly lends it any weight. We will
therefore go back to the Schaw Statutes, No. 2, the version
pertaining especially to Kilwinning. The fifth clause enacts

. . . that the Warden of Kilwinning . . . elect and chuis sex of
the maist perfyte and worthiest of memorie within [the bounds of
the lodge] to tak tryall of the qualificatioun of the haill masonis
within the boundis foirsaid, of their art, craft scyance and
antient memorie, to the effect the warden deakin may be answerable
heirafter for sic personis as is committit to him, and within his
boundis and jurisdictioun (4).

The conjunction of art, craft, science and ancient memory as
subjects for examination is very curious and intriguing. Art and
craft may refer to manual skill. Science could mean ability to make
plans, lay out work and estimate costs. But what was "antient
memorie" ?

The thirteenth paragraph of the Statutes returns to the subject.

Item, it is ordianit . . . that the luge of Kilwynning . . . tak
tryall of the art of memorie and science thairof, of everie fallow
of craft and everie prenteiss according to ather of their
vocationis, and in case that thai have lost onie point thairof
eurie of thame to pay the penalty as followis for their
slewthfulness...

the faulty fellows twenty shillings and apprentices eleven. In this
we have "art of memories as well as "science." And these were
apparently divisible into "points." Here again we have a term that
survived into the eighteenth century with a technical and, as one
might say, speculative sense. Attention too must be called to the
phrase, "according to either of their vocations," to modernize the
spelling. This certainly seems to imply a different content for the
"art of memorie" in the two grades or classes.

The tenth clause states the fees that all "fallows of craft at his
entries is (or are) to pay to the "common box," and the value of
the gloves to be given to the members of the lodge "or euir he be
admittit," and then comes the proviso:

. . . and that he be not admitted without ane sufficient essay and
pruife of memorie and art of craft, be the warden, deacon and
quarter maisteris of the ludge. . .

Here we have "proof of memory" and "art of craft." The changes have
been pretty well run on these terms, and the natural interpretation
is that none of them was used very strictly. The essay was
undoubtedly the "master piece" which proved the candidate's manual
skill and ability to design and plan. And that is the most obvious
and effective way of discovering a Craftsman's capability; and we
must insist again, that this kind of capability once acquired is
never forgotten, any more than one forgets how to swim or ride a
bicycle once either art has been acquired.

While it must be remembered that these statutes, and the ordinances
of most of the Scottish lodges, primarily regulated the craft and
trade by which the masons earned their livelihood, it must not be
forgotten that they seem to have been very largely re-enactments or
reinforcements of old usage and custom. To argue that their main
purpose necessarily excluded reference to anything except the
severely practical is to argue from an assumption; in effect the
importation of our own mental habits and point of view into the
past. At least the phraseology suggests more than a concern limited
strictly to practical skill and knowledge of craft technique; and
it would seem as if these references, and all those previously
adduced, will be most reasonably treated by interpreting them to
relate to some formal and conventional body of information, very
probably in the form of catechetical questions and answers,
concerning which it would be quite possible to examine everyone at
an annual assembly, and in which it would be at once apparent
whether a man had forgotten any "point" or not.

Thus our picture is still further developed. The main lines are now
fairly clear and definite. The three classes of evidence so far
examined, taken as a whole, are all explicable upon this suggested
interpretation; and the mutual support thus given by each class to
the others raises the probability of the hypothesis to a
considerable degree. But the details are still missing, and for so
much of these as can be recovered we must look to the last group of
documents.

THE VESTIGES OF OPERATIVE RITUAL

We have already indicated that the small and curious group of
documents known as the "Old Catechisms" are all of unknown origin
and of dubious character. They are untrustworthy witnesses whose
evidence, unless otherwise supported, is not to be relied upon.
Unfortunately there is nothing else. Aside from them there is
scarcely a hint as to what the ritual usages of the pre-Grand Lodge
of Masons may have been.

It is to be regretted that, though the greater number of these
documents have been published, and though they have been frequently
discussed, and still more frequently quoted, they have never been
systematically and critically examined and classified in the same
way as the Old Charges have been, as by Hughan and Begemann, to
mention two of the foremost scholars in this field. It seems best
therefore to briefly give some account of them here.

We have first three printed examples, all of which were published
as expose's during the first years of the Grand Lodge of 1717; in
consequence, it may be presumed, of an aroused curiosity upon the
subject of Freemasonry on the part of the general public. The first
of these in point of date is the Mason's Examination, published in
the Flying Post, or Post Master of April 13, 1723. It will be
remembered that the first Book of Constitutions was in print, and
apparently on sale to the general public in the early part of the
same year. The sanction to publish at the end of the work being
dated Jan. 17, and this was probably printed just before
publications

The printed Constitutions were apparently the cause of a good deal
of excitement within the Fraternity, and of curiosity and gossip
outside it. The Examination appears in the Flying Post as a
communication to its editor from an anonymous contributor. The
preface, in the form of a letter, is quite complimentary to the
Craft, and introduces the communicated document as a forgery, that
was pretended by its inventors to have been found among the papers
of "a Fellow Mason lately deceased." As there was an earlier
publication of like character (of which no copy remains) it is
possible that this was merely a reprint with a new introduction.

The following year a pamphlet entitled, The Grand Mystery of the
Free Masons Discover'd appeared, which contained also, "Two Letters
to a Friend", signed by "Verbs Commodus." This Catechism is
likewise said to have been "found in the Custody of a FreeMason who
Dyed suddenly." The two letters are "propaganda" for the rival
society of the Gormogons. The first of them decrys and ridicules
the Masonic Fraternity, and the second eulogizes the upstart rival
organization now so dead that few but scholars have even heard its
name.

Six years later appeared the Mystery of Freemasonry in the Daily
Journal of Aug. 15, 1730, and in the following October came the
first edition of Prichard's Masonry Dissected.

The Mystery of Freemasonry (or of Freemasons) must not be confused
with the Grand Mystery Discovered of 1724, as it is quite a
different document. It, too, was said to have been "Taken from a
Manuscript found amongst the Papers of a Deceased Brother." It may
be remarked here that there is nothing inherently improbable about
this having happened, not only once but a number of times. On the
other hand it must also be remembered that this explanation of how
such a thing came to be in hands of outsiders would be very likely
to occur to a forger or fabricator, and also that the earliest
example extant is characterized as an invention by the Flying
Post's contributor. It follows that we cannot safely come to any
definite conclusion, and must leave the question of authenticity
open.

The MS. Catechisms are even more dubious as to origin than the
printed ones. With the single exception of the Dumfries-Kilwinning,
No. 4; they have turned up in between the leaves of old books, or
in collections of papers and MSS., with nothing discoverable as to
their antecedents; but again there is one exception, the Trinity
College MS., which bears an endorsement in another, and later hand;
"Molineux Family Papers, Freemasonry Feb., 1711." In fact so
casually have these MSS. appeared that it gives some verisimilitude
to the claim made by the publishers of the printed catechisms; that
the originals belonged to deceased Masons.

The existing MSS. are the Dumfries-Kilwinning MS., No. 4; the
Trinity College MS. above mentioned; the Sloane MS. No. 3329; the
Chetwode Crawled MS.; the Essex MS. and the Institution of
Freemasons, the last two of which are later than 1750; and a copy
of the Mystery of Freemasons which may or may not be independent of
the printed version of 1730. Finally we have the confused and
fragmentary Mason's Confession, published in the Scot's Magazine in
1755, which professes to refer to a quarter of a century earlier
(6); namely,. "about the year 1727."

Three of these Catechisms are versions of a common original, the
Grand Mystery, the Essex and the Institution. The first was
printed, as we have seen, in 1724. The two latter can be shown, by
minor variations, to be independent versions, so that in spite of
their late date as copies, they support the earlier printed
document. This makes it practically certain that the original
version, from which all three are independently derived, must be
older than 1724 by a number of years. The same thing is true of the
Examination and the Mystery of Freemasons, which are also
independent versions of a common original. The remaining documents
all stand alone, having no specially close relationships. So far as
the probable date of the MSS. can be determined from the paper and
handwriting, they might all be earlier than 1717, with the
exception of the Essex and the Institution. But most of them have
been set later than this on account of their contents. However, as
the age of these contents is a question at issue, this cannot be
accepted as a conclusive argument against an earlier dating. Into
this controversy there is no need for us to enter now; it is
sufficient to say that all these independent MSS. are of about the
same period as the printed Catechisms. Probably the contents of all
are, in the main, older than 1717, but all are open to the
suspicion of being modified, added to or re-arranged at some time
after this date.

These rather tedious prefatory remarks have been necessitated by
the fact that the documents are practically unknown to the average
Masonic reader, in spite of the fact that much of the Grand Mystery
is to be found in Mackey's History, and that Gould published it,
and the Examination in full (7). A general idea of the nature of
the Catechisms may thus be gained from these well-known works. We
shall strictly limit ourselves here to such passages as may throw
light on the existence of separate degrees, and these are
fortunately not very numerous. And in respect to this, we shall
merely inquire what it is they tell us, regardless of their general
lack of authority and the uncertainty as to their date. And in
doing this we shall treat them as a whole, so far as that may prove
to be possible.

THE POINTS OF FELLOWSHIP

First we will take that group which may be designated by the name
of its published exemplar the Grand Mystery. In each of these three
catechisms we have this question and answer:

Q. How many proper points?
A. Foot to foot, knee to knee, hand to hand, heart to heart and ear
to ear.

By itself this signifies little to our purpose, but as has been
said, these cryptic statements must be treated as a whole, and we
have to interpret one by parallel passages elsewhere, when such
exist. The same answer appears in the Examination and the Mystery,
with the slight variation, "mouth to ear" instead of "ear to ear,"
but the question makes it much more significant in view of our
present object. It is, "How many points be there in Fellowship ?"
In view of all that has gone before this can hardly be assigned to
apprentices.

In the Chetwode Crawley MS. we find this passage:

Q. Are you a Fellow Craft?

A. Yes

Q. How many points of fellowship are there?

The answer being the same as the enumeration in the Grand Mystery
of the "proper points."

Returning to the latter, and the two related versions, the Essex
and the Institution, we find almost at the beginning these
questions and their answers:

Q. What is a Mason?

A. A Man, begot of a man, born of a woman, and Brother to a King.

Q. What is a Fellow?

A. A Companion of a Prince.

This has no close parallel elsewhere in our sources, but there is
a passage in the Dumfries-Kilwinning MS. No. 4 which seems to be an
echo. It will be best to give it in full.

Q. What are you? 

A. I ame a Man.

Q. How shall I know that? 

A. By all true signs . . . 

Q. What, are you no more to us? 

A. Yes, but a man, I was begotten of a man and born of a woman, and
besides have several potentat kings and mighty prinees to my
brothers.

The spelling in this MS. is fearful and wonderful, and punctuation
is practically absent we have inserted several commas to bring out
the apparent meaning.

As the first answer stands it makes very little sense, and is
probably corrupt, as perhaps the whole passage. If we could suppose
that the original answer was "I am a Mason," the rest would be
significant.



NOTES

(1) See BUILDER, May, p. 168, note 17. To the works there cited
should have been added W. F. Vernon, History of Freemasonry in the
Province of Roxburgh Peebles and Selkirkshire.

(2) That is, so far as ean be judged from such excerpts as have
been published.

(3) For other instances see Gould, Hist., voI. iii, p. 57 and note
5.

(4) This and the following citations are quoted by Gould loc. cit.
in his notes. For the text see Lyon, Hist., p. 12, et seq.

(5) The "Sanction to Publish" at the end of the book is dated Jan.
17, 1723, and this was probably printed shortly before publication.
See Vibert, BUILDER, 1923, p. 230.

(6) The Dumfries-Kilwinning was published by John Lane A. Q. C.,
vol. vi, p. 41; the Sloane MS. has been published a number of
times; see BUILDER, 1928, p. 248, note 4; also for the Institution.
The Trinity College, the Chetwode Crawley and the Essex MS., have
never been published. Compare also the discussion of these
documents by Bro. Herbert Poole, A. Q. C., vol. xxxvii, p. 5, et
seq.

(7) In the Appendix to his large History. In the American Edition
it will be found in the middle of the last volume at p. 276.

(To Be Continued)
