THE BUILDER SEPTEMBER 1929

The Degrees of Masonry: Their Origin and History

BY BROS. A.L. KRESS AND R. J. MEEKREN
(Continued from August)

BEFORE proceeding to a final summing up of the results of this
discussion it may be well to consider a general objection to the
conclusions which seem to have emerged. And it is not an objection
that can be merely brushed aside, for the point raised therein
fairly demands consideration.

All these catechisms that have been put in evidence are evidently,
what in several cases is explicitly stated, examinations, means by
which, as it is alleged, one freemason of the period could
demonstrate his status to another, and be at the same time assured
of that of his interlocutor. On the "Single Degree" theory of
Hughan, Lyon and Mackey and their followers, no difficulty is here
presented, but, if two or more degrees be assumed as being an
integral part of the original deposit of Masonic tradition, the
question arises: How did it come about that questions relating to
a superior grade were mixed in without discrimination with the
general demand, the answers to which would be common knowledge to
all grades of Masons?

The general lines on which this difficulty may be solved have been
indicated, but the matter is too important to be left with a merely
incidental treatment, although a complete analysis would take too
much time to be practicable, and could hardly be made intelligible
except to those who had copies of all the documents before them.

We will, to begin with, refer once more to the Catechisme des
Francs Masons. As we have it reprinted in the work L'Ordre des
Franc-Masons Trahi, it is interspersed with notes, which may have
been in the original publication, but some of which certainly seem
to be due to the compiler of the later work. Disregarding these
breaks in the continuity of the Sequence of questions and answers,
we are struck at once by two obvious things. The first is that
three degrees, Apprentif, Compagnon and Maitre, are refered to,
each having secrets peculiar to it while the second peculiarity is
that the special secrets of the two higher grades are mingled quite
indiscriminately with those that are common to all Masons,
including Apprentifs. This catechism as a whole, and those
published by Prichard, are more complete, and cover more ground,
than any of the documents we have been considering, or else they
have been more subject to the process of development. It is
probable that both the alternatives are true. There are indications
in some of the older forms to lead us to suspect the incorporation
of parallel variations. This, with elaboration and explanation,
would seem to account for much of the contents of the two more
developed forms - though this development in each case was
independent. In Prichard we find three definitely separated parts,
but in the Catechism we find a most curious inconsequence.
Questions of a general character seem to form the main texture or
background, while interspersed here and there are questions proper
to one or other of the higher grades, and there are several that
have different answers according as the one answering is
Apprentice, Companion or Mastery (1). From which the necessary
conclusion is that, however illogical and inconsistent it may seem,
the lack of any sharp segregation of matter pertaining to a higher
grade does not prove that there was no such specific allotment.

EARLY CONFUSION OF GRADES ACCOUNTED FOR

The hypothesis of a "telescoping" of grades, or that of a regular
custom of conferring both at once, would each quite account for
such confusion. In the one case the distinction would have more or
less broken down, and in the other, there would be no practical
need to keep things separate and distinct. Of course, as
"telescoping" would be merely a further stage of decadence,
following on after the habit of accepting candidates as fellows
immediately after their entry, all the confusions in the Catechisms
could spring ultimately from the same root cause.

Now the distinction between Apprentice and Fellow seems to have
been almost entirely lost in the Grand Mystery and its two parallel
versions, although these seem to be otherwise much fuller and more
complete and more orderly in arrangement than any of the others. It
would be feasible to suggest that some such arrangement was
followed in the old Lodge of York at the beginning of the
eighteenth century, if we may judge from its extant minutes.

In the Examination the distinction is clear, though, from the
obscure description of the ceremonies with which the catechism is
prefaced, it would seem to derive from a locality where there was
no interval between grades, and this supposition is strengthened by
the fact that the answer to the first question combines the
Apprentice's and Fellow's response in one, although at the end the
two grades are definitely differentiated. Its companion document,
the Mystery of Freemasons, has also a mixture of grades at the
beginning, and likewise at the end differentiates them, even more
clearly than the Examination. The editorial note:

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

might point to the existence of an attempt at reform by
reintroducing a real interval, as was done at Dunblane and
Haughfoot, and, as we may guess, possibly in London, too - if we
suppose these versions to have come from that locality.

The Dumfries-Kilwinning MS. tells us least of all, though it may be
interpreted as suggesting some such intermixture as we find in the
last two documents, but on the whole it seems to be rather
incomplete. The Confession, confused as it is, definitely describes
two degrees, though the author seems to remember little of the
higher one. We could suppose that he had been well coached by his
Intender during the year's interval of which he speaks, because the
latter, being liable to a fine if his pupil were found not to he
fully instructed, saw to it that he learned his lesson.

In the Chetwode Crawley MS., in spite of its exasperating brevity,
there is no confusion at all. The questions belonging to the
Fellow-Craftsman, who is the same as the Master Mason, or Mason
Master, are quite distinct in the short catechism that is given,
and follow in order those of more general character which were
taught to the Apprentice. The Sloane MS. we are inclined to believe
is a compilation by a non-Mason, and also that the material used by
its author related to a two-degree system, and that, either by a
pure mistake in copying, or else by being interpreted in the light
of some knowledge of a more developed arrangement, it has been
given the superficial appearance of referring to three grades under
the names we are now so familiar with. Either explanation is
possible. This brings us to the deferred question regarding the
date of the Trinity College MS., and the inferences consequent
thereon.

A POSSIBLE EVOLUTION BEFORE 1717

We have said that in our own opinion it is most probable this
manuscript is later than the date endorsed upon it. But it remains
that it is not certain that this is so; and even supposing that it
is, the question arises, how much later? That is, was it later than
1723 or 1730? For while it undoubtedly refers to three degrees,
under what are practically the same names that we use today (2),
there is very little else that is recognizable. Its affinities seem
to be much closer with the other Catechisms than to any later
ritual forms. Can we then suppose it to represent a first sketch of
a tri-gradal system? Or an independent line of development?

Another question; assuming the date to be erroneous, are we to give
credit to the remainder of the endorsement - and accept it as
having belonged to some member of the Molyneux family, with the
inference therefrom that it is of Irish origin?

To use a theatrical simile, the "spot-tight" has hitherto been on
the Grand Lodge of London. In the Book of Constitutions, the
official records, newspaper allusions and so on, students have had
definite and connected material to work upon. It was therefore
natural enough to assume that all modern Masonry was transmitted
through the "four old lodges" of the English metropolis. Though the
earlier extreme view, that pre-Grand Lodge Masonry had dwindled
almost to a vanishing point or rather four vanishing points and
then revived, and from thence spread out all over the world, is now
fully recognized as untenable, yet, owing to the obscurity and
uncertainty found elsewhere, attention is still pre-eminently drawn
to the only place where the series of events is comparatively
clear. But this needs conscious correction; we have got to keep in
mind the fact that Masonry did exist elsewhere. In Scotland,
Ireland and York certainly; elsewhere in England almost certainly,
and in France (and also the Low Countries) very probably. The
erudite French historian, Albert Lantoine, cites the Jesuit father,
Louis Maimbourg, author of a history of the Crusades, as referring
to the Freemasons "as a society that is believed to have been
founded at the conquest of the Holy Land." And Maimbourg died in
1686 (3). This is only one of several references which point in the
same direction. We quote this one because it is not very generally
known. These indications may all be very doubtful and uncertain,
but to quote Lantoine again, where there is smoke there is probably
fire. Once we can free our minds of the natural bias that makes it
difficult to realize that Masonry once existed and propagated
itself very well without the elaborate machinery of Grand Lodges
and Warrants and Charters, we can see that, so far from the
existence of the fire being impossible, it is really highly
probable; and though the evidence in itself may not be rated any
higher on this account, yet its implications will seem much more in
accord with the probabilities of the case. But it is no part of our
present affair to argue for or against the existence of Freemasonry
prior to 1717 in any particular place or country, we merely wish to
draw attention that it did certainly exist elsewhere than in
London, and that there is nothing in the world to force us to
believe that all ritual evolution took its rise in the "regular"
lodges under the new Constitution. Indeed, it is inherently
probable, when we think of it, that innovations would be more
likely to rise outside the new organization. Here again we may be
very easily misled by the complex of inferences based on the older
views that still hold their ground, though those views have
themselves been rejected. The idea may still hold its place in the
back of our minds that, like Athena, the Grand Lodge sprang forth
fully armed, and clothed in the aegies of authority, on St. John's
Day in the year 1717, all out of the empty blue, without generation
or antecedents.

As a matter of fact it is very doubtful if the year 1717 can be
assigned with anything like accuracy as the date of the founding of
the Grand Lodge. There was a meeting of the same four lodges in
1716 which seems equally entitled to the honor. Such a movement
must have had some antecedents, some incubation at least, even
though we can do little but speculate about it. The New Articles in
some of the later versions of the Old Charges point to some earlier
attempt to reorganize and reform the Craft. While on the other hand
it could quite well be asserted that the Grand Lodge proper did not
really take form until 1723, when the first records begin and the
first Grand Secretary was appointed; and that previous to this
there had been, not a Grand Lodge, but a General Assembly of the
London Masons; either as a genuine tradition, or as a conscious
attempt to reconstruct it on the basis of the Old Charges, as they
were then understood. However, the point is not one that is of much
consequence for our present purpose, attention has been drawn to it
for one reason only, and that is to emphasize the fact that we are
dealing with a living social organism at a period of accelerated
evolution. And we specially wish to emphasize evolution.

THE CAUSES OF THE EVOLUTION

It is now time to gather up the various threads of the whole course
of the discussion and see what answer can be given to the final
question; how and why did our present tri-gradal system come into
being? The conclusion we have reached is that prior to the
transition period, which is represented not delimited - by the
symmetrical figure 1717, the Mason's fraternity, on its esoteric
side, had two distinct grades which, as we have defined the term,
were "degrees." We have made no attempt to determine their content,
except to indicate that the first of them comprised the essentials
of our present E. A. and F. C., and that the second contained the
germs of our M. M. This question, in spite of its great intrinsic
interest, does not come within the scope of our inquiry, except as
it bears upon the question of origins and development. It is
plainly obvious that the two things are really closely and
organically connected, and that the limitation is an artificial
one, but such restrictions have to be made in order to make
investigation possible. There is just one observation to make
before we pass on, the significance of which is greater than may at
first appear. The three degree system which appears definitely in
London in 1730, had in fifteen or twenty years spread all over the
Masonic world so completely and so silently and with so little
disturbance that for more than a hundred years thereafter no one
ever so much as dreamed that any such radical change had taken
place. Which fact, when all its bearings and implications are
considered, is in itself proof that, frowns the inside, the change
was nothing like so radical as it would appear.

Starting then with the traditional Operative two degrees, with
their origin rooted in an indefinite past, we find that in 1730
there was certainly a third degree arrangement in being. We also
have unequivocal proof that the old and the new methods overlapped
- the old system existing in scattered survivals long afterwards;
while conversely it can be confidently asserted that the three
degrees must have existed before 1730; for aside from various
allusions of earlier date, there is the general argument that such
developments must always antedate their first publication in the
nature of things. Hitherto it has been assumed, as we confess we
had done previous to this investigation, that a higher limit had
been set in 1723 by the Book of Constitutions, which refers
definitely to the old system. But we have now to accept the full
consequences of the fact that the circle of lodges that formed and
adhered to the Grand Lodge in the first years of its existence did
not comprise the whole Craft, and were probably, in point of
numbers, an insignificant minority. Thus the field in which the
evolution played its part is indefinitely extended; and it becomes
possible, and even probable, in the light of social experience,
that so far from the Grand Lodge being a hotbed of experiments and
innovations it was a conservative factor from the beginning. More
definitely, we might say that while in the field of legislation and
regulation it had to innovate by the necessities of its existence,
it balanced this by checking so far as was possible any changes in
the traditional ritual. Thus, if we had to select any name as that
of a probable "ritual tinker," it would be such a man as Dr.
Stukeley, in his independent lodge at Grantham, rather than Payne,
Desaguliers or Martin Clare. But this desire to ascribe epoch
making changes to individuals is, while natural, liable to lead us
into error. Such developments are always anonymous, they grow by
imperceptible changes, here a little and there a little, and the
whole passed on from group to group and generation to generation.
It is understood that we are speaking of the genuine article and
not the manufactured imitation.

POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE GRAND LODGE.

Now we have described the Grand Lodge as being under the spotlight,
while the rest of the stage is in darkness; but this spotlight
gives only a relative illumination unfortunately. Still we do have
here a series of events that are more or less connected, whereas
elsewhere we have only vague outlines in the obscurity. The Trinity
College and Sloane MSS. are such disconnected facts, they may or
they may not antedate 1717, they may or may not point to ritual
evolution before that date. What we wish to insist upon is that
exact dating is not possible, and further, that it fortunately is
not very important whether the developments were earlier or later,
for the really interesting and significant thing is the order in
which they happened, and the operating conditions, causes and
motives which brought them about. We shall therefore refrain from
bringing together here all the scattered allusions that point to
Masonic activity prior to 1717 or 1716, especially as most of them
have already been mentioned, and point out some general
considerations, which, though indirect, will help us to a
realization of the extent of that darkened stage at the centre of
which the Grand Lodge, in none too brilliant illumination, played
its part.

The first of these is the extraordinary rapidity with which
"regular" Masonry spread, not only in England, but in other
countries. No one can contemplate this fact without having it borne
in upon him that, even with American "quantity production" methods,
it would have been impracticable to have made Masons enough in the
lodges that are known to have existed to have founded the new
lodges that were constituted under the London authority in the
years succeeding 1717. The only answer is that there were already
Masons, and probably lodges, who enlisted themselves in the new
organization. And this not only in England, but in Europe also.

Now we are not now concerned with the propagation of Masonry or its
origin in different countries, though, like the question of the
content of the primitive ritual, it is a subject very intimately
connected with our problem, and we have perforce to touch upon it.
A suggestion has previously been made that there may have been a
very practical, and even interested motive, for men of the higher
classes of society entering a widespread fraternity in such
troublous times as continued with brief intermissions, from the
reign of Charles I to that of Queen Anne. As Hurree Chunder
Mookerjee put it, when he was initiating Kim into the secrets
("quite unofficial") of his pet invention, the Sat Bhai, it might
enable a man to "get his second wind" in an emergency. A Mason
might find shelter and assistance when it was a matter of life and
death. Let us remember in this connection that the percentage of
Masons among soldiers, sailors, travellers, explorers and pioneers,
has always been, and still is, very much higher than among other
classes of men. And we have to remember also that, according to the
custom of the time, it was of frequent occurrence for gentlemen to
go abroad and serve as volunteers at their own expense in the
continually recurring wars on the Continent. And besides this, the
French kings had whole regiments, recruited entirely, officers and
men, from Scotch and Irishmen, most of them political exiles. And
so far as the Scots were concerned, the law of averages, as we have
previously noted, makes it incredible that some Masons should not
have been found among these migrants. What happened in the army
besieging-Newcastle in 1641 might have been repeated - without
record remaining any number of times elsewhere.

There are also some further facts to be considered. It was in
France preeminently that the "high grades" later on had their
rankest development; but Ireland was not far behind in the
invention or adoption of new degrees and orders; and secret
societies, it may be remarked, have always flourished among the
Irish, as among the people of Sicily and China. Now if the Trinity
College MS. suggests the possibility of ritual development in
Ireland previous to 1717, we have to recall that already in 1745
there was in France a degree or order of Ecossais Masonry (4). But
this was not its beginning, for the first French Grand Lodge (5)
added to Anderson's General Regulations, which it adopted in full,
an additional one expressly denying the claims of Maitres Ecossais
to dominate and supervise any lodge of which they were members, or
even, as it would seem, merely visitors. Such a claim, which in
spite of this new legislation was apparently often admitted by the
lodges, must have had a history behind it. If Masonry was (as has
been generally supposed) first introduced into France under the
auspices of the Grand Lodge of London this phenomenon is quite
inexplicable. But if we assume that there had been an earlier
importation, by Scottish and Irish exiles (there were Maitres
Irlandais as well as Maitres Ecossais) the later confusion and
dissension could be explained as the inevitable conflict between
the democratic ideas of "regular" Masonry and those of an
autocratic development of the older and looser organization.

Very tentatively we would suggest that there is a possibility a
possibility merely that not only before 1717, but earlier still,
even perhaps in the seventeenth century, there existed in France,
among the Stuart partisans in exile, the germ of what was later
known as Macornerie Ecossaise. A germ only; bearing the same
relation to the swarm of "Scottish," "Perfect" and "Elect" degrees
that developed out of it that an egg does to the hatched chick. It
is certain that the first definite appearance of what is now a
heavily stressed feature (far too heavily stressed one might think)
in the rituals of English speaking Masonry, both American and
British, a feature that has never been incorporated into the
Master's grade as worked in European countries, is first found in
the Ecossais and Elu degrees (6). We refer to the section
concerning rewards and punishments. And we have also to remember
the persistent tradition in early Continental Masonry of some
relationship with Jacobite aims and pretensions. This has been
denied many times as baseless, and baseless it may be for all we
know definitely, yet so much smoke does seem to argue at least a
little fire.

JACOBITE INTERPRETATION OF THE LEGEND.

There is a theory of the origin of the legend of the third degree
which at one time had many upholders. This was that the legend was
devised as a veiled and allegorical account of the "martyrdom" of
Charles I. We certainly hope that no one will suspect us of wishing
to revive this, but it must be pointed out, that just as the
Masonic myth could be interpreted in the Order of Rose Croix as an
allegory of the death of Christ, the Word Incarnate, so it could
also have been interpreted as referring to the king slain by
traitors, as loyalists naturally regarded them. Psychologically we
can easily appreciate that it would be very natural for
dispossessed men, followers of a king in exile, whether Charles or
James, or both in turn, to so interpret such a legend, and further
that to them would it be most likely to occur that the story was
deficient in the particular point which would be uppermost in their
minds justice and vengeance.

Having said this, let us enter a caveat. We ask no one to accept
any of these suggestions, nor have we adopted them ourselves except
so far as to recognize their being possibilities, perhaps only
barely such, but still possibilities. None of all this is really
essential to our further argument, we have canvassed the subject
only to draw attention to that wider background upon which the
evolution of the primitive degrees took place within the circle of
Grand Lodge Masonry. The background we do assert was there, and it
was neither inert nor inactive. To such as would deprecate such
hypothetical reconstructions as useless, we would say that the
facts known to us do not lead to positive conclusions, and that
like indeterminate equations in algebra the only thing to do is to
work out all possible solutions to the problem. Such hypotheses
have this use, that they may lead to the discovery of further facts
that either support or negative them, and so help us to more
solidly founded results.

Should anyone feel shocked at the suggestion that new degrees might
have been in existence prior to 1717 it might be said that there is
distinct evidence that one important modification had taken place
in the legend long before the death of Charles Stuart. We refer to
the curious fact that the earliest printed English translations of
the Bible, those of Tyndale and Matthews, transliterated the name
and title of the architect of the Temple as Hiram Abi, whereas the
earlier manuscript versions, like the later printed ones, all
followed the Vulgate in rendering the second word as "his father,"
or some equivalent phrase. When we remember that these two
translations were condemned, and so thoroughly sought out and
destroyed by the authorities that they are now exceedingly rare, it
becomes to a very high degree probable that it was during the
twenty years or so of their currency, roughly between 1530 and
1550, that this peculiar phrase was adopted into Masonry.

Two things only do we carry over from this discussion. One
practically certain, the other possible. The first is that
extraneous material was at some time incorporated into the legend
of the Master from so-called Ecossais Masonry, which definitely
fits in with the view that the evolutionary process within the
Grand Lodge circle was affected by what we have called the
background. The other is, that evolution may not have been
unilateral, but may have proceeded along different lines in
different places, and also that it may have begun earlier than has
hitherto been supposed. And here there is one thing that may be
referred to again because it is like a fixed point in a fog. It has
no known antecedents, or consequents, that we know of. This is
Stukeley's "Order of the Book"; mentioned once in his diary, and
then silence. It is brought up simply because it shows that the
possibility of creating new orders and degrees was in the air, even
if the possibility that there had been any development in France or
Ireland be summarily rejected.

NOTES.

(1) After some general questions comes a word assigned to the
Apprentices, followed by one belonging to the next higher grade,
which is given in response to the question: "Are you a Companion ?"
Then follow questions about the lodge of the kind that seem
everywhere to have been common to the Apprentices, and then some
description of the forms of initiation. Then a second time comes
the question: "Are you a Companion?" followed by one about the
letter "G." which we are informed a Master answered differently
from a Companion. Then comes the Apprentice's greeting, including
the statement that he is ready to work from Monday till Saturday,
and then a question about wages for which each grade has its own
answer. Then is followed the demand: "Are you a Master?" and
several others which have different answers according to grade.
Indeed the latter part of the Catechism seems to be little more
than a disconnected series of catch questions set down as they came
to mind.

(2) The terms used actually are "Master," "Fellow Craftsman" and
"Enter Prentice."

(3) Lantoine, Histoire de la Francmaconnerie Francaise, pp. 104,
132.

(4) L'Ordre des Franc-Macons Trahi. In a note to the preface the
Abbe Perau speaks of "un certain Orde qu'ils appellent les
Ecossois, superieurs, a ce qu'on pretend, aux Francs-Macons
ordinaires, & qui ont leurs Ceremonies & Leurs Secrets a part."

(5) Lantoine, op. cit., p. 195.

(6) Compare Mackey Encyclopedia under "Elu."

(To be concluded)
