THE BUILDER OCTOBER 1929


The Degrees of Masonry; Their Origin and History

BY BROS. A.L. KRESS AND R. J. MEEKREN
(Concluded from September. All rights reserved.)

WE will now return to more solid ground the Book of Constitutions.
Here we find that the Duke of Wharton when Grand Master used a new
ceremonial devised for the formal inauguration of new lodges and
the installation of their officers. The latter forms the basis of
our present Installation Ceremonial. Now it is almost (though not
quite) definitely said by Anderson that there were secrets
connected with this formulary, that parts of it could not be
printed. Whether any such part was peculiar to Installed Masters
only does not appear (1). Certainly later on the most important
sections of the Installation Ceremonies became, in all essentials,
a degree, as we have already noted. Out of it, or rather an archaic
variant of it, came the Past Master's Degree of the American
Capitular Rite. And a certain significant part of this ritual, one
which bears all the marks of antiquity, points to the ceremony
having been originally conceived as a third and culminating degree,
just as a number of the high grades show similar marks of being
composed as a fourth, that is, as following our third, or Master
Mason's, degree. We cannot be more explicit.

Now here we can begin to put things together. Back in the fog is
the possibility of evolution of new ritual forms on the Continent,
with echoes in Britain. Then we have the very definite
Installation, that certainly later on became a degree (in our sense
of the term) at the very time that the balance of the evidence
points to the old two-grade system still holding the ground in the
Grand Lodge circle. The possible inference is, that in England the
earliest "three degree" system was Apprentice, Master or Fellow,
and Master of the Lodge. And as a matter of fact the last of these
has continuously remained at the apex of the ritual Sequence worked
in the lodge, in spite of the legal fiction that it is not a
degree.

INSTALLATION AND PAST MASTER.

This inference is not particularly welcome, for it seems to
complicate further an already too complicated affair. However,
there it is and nothing is gained by ignoring it. Let us then
proceed with the facts. This Installation business was apparently
devised, or at least first used, in 1722. Between 1723 and 1730
another degree was slipped in. The Past Master's degree contains
certain features that seem once to have been part of the ancient
tradition of Masonry; again we cannot be explicit and must leave it
to Past Masters to search and interpret for themselves. So also
this later, inserted, grade contained nothing essentially new, for
it was probably at first no more than a cutting in two of the
Apprentice part. We may say then that the situation in 1728, or
thereabouts, was roughly this. In some lodges, yet untouched by the
novelties, there were two ceremonies employed, in others only one,
combining the two, either in immediate sequence or "telescoped"
together. While those lodges which were in the forefront of the new
movement had three or four. Yet the Fellow of either kind of the
older lodges had received everything that was communicated to the
Installed Master of the last group, except perhaps some things that
were absolutely new inventions devised to round out a ritual. This
would account for the fact that the new system made its way under
ground, as it were, and with no apparent disturbance; and anything
that can account for so remarkable a phenomenon is indeed welcome,
and by that fact alone commends itself as credible. To make the
transition still easier, the first and second degrees of the new
System were for many years (so it appears) invariably given
together. Thus it was in effect little more than a change of
nomenclature, the Apprentice of one lodge was equal to the Fellow
Craft of another. The Fellow or Master of the first was the same as
the Master Mason of the Second. As there were never any Entered
Apprentices of the latter lodges (seeing they were all "passed" as
Fellow Crafts on the same occasion as being "made" Apprentices)
there could be no confusion in visiting and communicating.

But having suggested a "how" for the process we now have to seek a
"why." Which is a harder (and more elusive) nut to crack. First we
must assume that there was a keen interest in the ritual, on the
part of some Masons at least; and the first step of these
interested brethren would be (what it always has been since) the
collecting and comparing variations. And as everything was fluid,
and there were no authoritative standards, there would be probably
a good deal of compilation; improving one tradition by the addition
of bits from others. The old Catechisms, as we have noted, contain
evidences of such a process antedating our period by an unknown
number of years. The next step would be rationalization. To some
extent this would be a necessary consequence of the compilation
work, the pieces of the mosaic would have to be made to fit. But
the open field for such enterprise would be the Legend. According
to the probabilities indicated by the scanty scraps of evidence,
this reached our ritualists in a form very like a folktale; the
master was dead - the master was alive; the word was lost - the
word was found. As a ritual myth this fairy-story inconsequence was
of no moment - it had the logic of its species; that is, it closely
conformed to the ceremony of which it was the verbal counterpart
and accompaniment. But our brethren of the "Age of Reason" knew
nothing of ritual myths; they took the story literally at its face
value. It was for them a history that had become corrupted by
transmission through dark ages of ignorance and superstition; and
they supposed, quite confidently, that to apply the standards of
reason to it, and to prune out the inconsistencies, would restore
it to its original form. But even so they were cautious and
conservative, and though a good deal was added bit by bit as time
went on, the actual changes made in the original deposit were
always the least possible. A dead man could not come to life, but
his body might be exhumed and reburied; being dead he could not
transmit the word and so it was lost, and a substitute had to be
provided, and so on.

But this elaboration apparently led to a situation where he
dramatis personae of the tale came to be represented by the
officers of the lodge; and in the newer version of the story two of
these also had the word but were debarred by a technicality from
communicating it. It might then come about, in that spirit of
serious make-believe which as had so much to do with the
development of Masonic ritual, that the word communicated to the
Master at his installation was taken to be the real word that had
been lost. It would have a semblance of fitness it was a word that
he could not communicate either to the candidate or to the Fellows
(i.e., Masters) of the lodge. Perhaps the better way to express it
would be to say that it was taken to represent the word supposed to
be lost. Outside of the make-believe they probably knew then, as
Masons take for granted now, that the substitute word is in fact
and in truth the real master's word, whatever symbolism may be
attached to the idea of substitution.

THE PAST MASTER AND THE ROYAL ARCH

This of course is pure hypothesis, a speculation about what might
have happened. And if it did happen, it could ever have occupied
the whole field or been more than a rapidly passing phase. But it
affords a framework on which several fragments of fact may be hung
in what seems to be an ordered relation with the whole, and which
otherwise are hard to place. For instance, there is the remarkably
close and intimate connection of the Installed or Past Master with
the Royal Arch. And incidentally, it appears that the original
Royal Arch, by a subdivision like that hypothetically suggested for
the original first degree, gave birth later on to the different
"excellent" masterships, and the Orders of Red Cross and Knight
Templar. But there is a still closer and more significant
connection between the Past Master and the Royal Arch. It is very
possible that the tri-syllabic phrase which is the culminating
secret of the latter grade is derived directly from that word which
was taken out of the "points" of the original Fellow and made the
significant word of the Installed Master. We can hardly say much
about it here, at if those who have received both words will look
in the right places, a series of intermediate forms may be found at
lead from one to the other by easy and natural stages.

But while evolution was working upwards it was operative also in
the other direction. Possibly even sooner. It would be felt almost
at once that this system was ill-balanced, and unsatisfying. The
climax, instead of coming at the third stage (as by all symbolical
analogy it should), came second, while the third grade in
comparison was an empty husk. This would give a strong impulsion to
follow any line by which the balance could be adjusted and bring
the climax into its fitting place. The expedient of a division of
the first grade would accomplish this with the least possible
disturbance. But how would the idea of division arise ?

SOURCE OF THE IDEA OF DIVISION.

There were several things that might have suggested it. There was
(on the basis of our previous conclusions) a precedent in the
separation of the amalgamated two degrees in those places where
such amalgamation or telescoping had existed. The investigations of
our hypothetical zealous ritualists would very soon discover this
corruption and seek to remedy it. The Haughfoot and Dunblane
resolutions forbidding entering and passing at the same sederunt,
may be taken as the results of such attempts at reform. (1)

But the discovery that a single ceremony had been really the
decadent amalgamation of two distinct rites, would create a
receptive state of mind for any suggestion that there had been
further telescoping. Here a possible, and even probable,
misunderstanding of the relationship of Masters and Fellows, as
well as of "Master Masons" and "Fellow Crafts" would come in. To
the brethren of this period, largely or entirely divorced from all
operative connection, and in any case living at a time when, in all
trades and crafts, the masters or employers and their journeymen
had come to be quite distinct classes, the original equivalence of
"Fellows" and "Masters" would be obscured. It would appear, from
their reading of the Old Charges, that there were properly three
grades. They had separated one into two, but to complete the reform
required a further division.

A line of demarcation would be at once apparent. There were two
words held sacred in the Apprentice grade, as there had been two in
the Fellow's also. One of the latter had been taken into the new
Installed Master (or alternatively, was eventually to be so
transferred - the sequence does not affect the argument vitally)
and so these two Apprentice words would each form the nucleus of
the ritual of a degree. And, as we have seen, the first form of the
division was actually more nominal than real. In 1745 in France we
find the candidate still being made a Fellow at once, under the
designation of Apprentice-Fellow (Apprentif-Compagnon); and that
literally described the process. The ceremony and the secrets were
the same as for the old Apprentice. The novelty was all in the
added name. The candidate was told that the first word belonged to
Apprentices, the second to Fellow Crafts, and that he was an
Apprentice-Fellow Craft. But naturally the first part of the
appellation was dropped in time, and more differentiation grew up
in the re-duplicated ritual until by a series of additions,
constructed by analogy, the Fellow Craft Part became a full degree.
Though even after this had come about the two were still
customarily given at the same time, with no longer interval between
them than was required for a withdrawal from the lodge by the
candidate to allow its being opened in the higher grade. But
eventually, the same feeling that had caused earlier separation
between Apprentice and Master would lead to a real interval being
demanded by the two separated, and now autonomous parts of the
Apprentice ceremony.

SIMPLE EXPLANATION INADEQUATE.

We grant willingly that this reconstruction is speculative in the
highest degree, but in formulating it we have endeavored to arrange
all the scattered and fragmentary facts in such a way as to link
them all together. We are also perfectly ready to believe that
other causes and motives may have been at work, and influenced the
final result. Indeed we are inclined to put it more strongly, and
say that for such a complex result there must have been other
causes involved. No theory that supposed deliberate and conscious
invention can, in our opinion, ever be accepted as adequate. The
history of such an institution as the Masonic Fraternity is a
process, analogous to that of a living organism, and it is
impossible in the nature of things that any simple, clear-cut
theory should cover the whole ground.

The time has now come to make some brief recapitulation of the
results of our discussion. This falls into two parts. The first is
the attempt to discover the actual structure of the Craft in regard
to grades or degrees at the critical point of the transition, that
is, the year 1717, or better, the period between 1717 and 1730; the
second is the more risky enterprise of reconstructing the process
by which the traditional structure developed into the system now
existing.

In regard to the first of these correlated efforts the really
fundamental evidence upon which we have to adjudicate is that of
the remaining minutes and records of the old lodges whose existence
antedated the critical period of change. We venture to think that
we have conclusively demonstrated from these records that two
degrees, in the sense in which we have defined the term, were in
existence everywhere that definite evidence of this kind is found;
providing, that is, that it first be admitted that there was
something of an esoteric nature initiatory ceremonies and secret
means of recognition.

This conclusion is reinforced both by the dubious evidence of the
Old Catechisms on the one hand, and that of the respectable but
obscure MS. Constitutions on the other. These last, so interpreted,
carry the two degree system back several centuries, and thus lead
to the inference that this system was not only ancient, but
general.

A MEDIEVAL EVOLUTION POSSIBLE

It does not of course follow that there were always two degrees in
the distant past. While it is purely a matter of speculation in the
utter lack of evidence, it is possible that the two-degree system
was the result of an early Medieval evolution. Originally there
might have been one initiation ceremony, coming at the end of the
stage of pupillage, when the Apprentice became a free craftsman and
his own master, in the limited sense that any man was his own
master in those days. Medieval society tended strongly to
restrictions, quantity production was undreamed of, and not only
undesired, but would have been vigorously suppressed had it been
attempted. The effort was made, both consciously and unconsciously,
to prevent over production of anything, goods or workmen. This
economic and social tendency tended toward the extension of the
time of training by the addition of a period during which the young
workman was neither properly an apprentice nor yet fully free of
his Craft. The extra period of seven years prescribed by the Schaw
Statutes before the Entered Apprentice could become a Fellow of
Craft might be taken to indicate something of this sort, and it
might be plausible to assume that in thus increasing the transition
stage between the status of pupil and that of master, the
initiation that marked it traditionally was cut in two, and part
given at the beginning and part at the end of the period. But this
is really outside the limits of our subject even were it anything
more than mere speculation. The point that we regard as established
is that modern Freemasonry inherited two degrees from the Medieval
institution.

Subsidiary inferences from the same evidence point to modifications
due to changing social and economic conditions. The restrictions of
the older order were breaking down. Competent workmen came into
existence who did not belong to the old organization. In
compensation, many entered it who were not craftsmen at all, except
in an honorary sense, in germ a symbolic sense too, it may be, and
this led very naturally to a breakdown of the distinctions between
the two grades, first by the elimination of the interval between
them and possibly in places, by a further stage of decay, to an
amalgamation of the two ceremonies into one. But, as there was no
central controlling mechanism there was no uniformity, and all
stages existed simultaneously in different places. This secondary
conclusion we regard as practically established, but not quite so
definitely or certainly as the primary one that the two-degree
system was the traditional inheritance of the Craft.

In reconstructing the stages of the evolution from a two to a
three-degree arrangement we start from quite solid ground. By
applying the general results of modern anthropological researches
to the content of the degrees - which of course has been no more
than baldly stated - for obvious reasons - we are led to the
conclusion that the present third degree is as archaic and
primitive in its constituent elements as the first, while a
comparison of rituals reveals that the second is merely an echo or
duplication of the first, or more correctly, was no more than this
in its inception, while the special characteristics it now
possesses bear the obvious marks of the century in which they were
invented. From this, it seems to a very high degree probable that
the original two grades became three by the division of the first
one into two parts.

The obvious practical difficulties presented by this deduction from
the contents of the degrees are apparent only, as we have shown.
The fact that the new first and second degrees were always given at
the same time until long after the third degree system had become
general obviated the confusion that would otherwise have been
created. But the psychological difficulties are another matter. To
answer the question "Why " is always harder than to show "how."

Our suggested answer is no more than a guess controlled by the
facts. Up to this point we believe the conclusions reached are the
most probable interpretations of the existing evidence. From here
on we enter the realm of hypothesis, and for this reason have done
no more than barely sketch our tentative explanation.

One new point was developed, which is that we do not have, as has
been generally supposed since Gould wrote, any higher limiting date
for the beginning of the evolution, for Anderson's Book of
Constitutions only shows that the Grand Lodge began with two
degrees, and does not prove that no incipient third degree could
have existed outside that organization. While very little can be
built on a mere possibility, it does negate any argument founded on
a presumed impossibility, which may be very important sometimes.

THE NATURE OF SOCIAL EVOLUTION.

In the evolution of a social organism, as in a physical one, every
part has some effect upon the whole. Some more, and some less,
naturally. Outstanding leaders, whether known to history or not,
have left their mark more deeply than the rank and file that is
inevitable. Payne and Anderson, Dermott and Preston, Webb, Mackey
and Pike, to mention a few whose names are known to most Masons,
undoubtedly had much to do with modifying the Masonic system. But
only as the body was prepared to assimilate their ideas only as
they took the lead along the general line of evolution along which
the Craft as a whole was moving. So that on the whole we can say
that even the greatest Masonic leaders and teachers have had less
effect, much less effect really, than they seem to have had. And in
view of all this we believe there is still plenty of room for other
students to re-examine the facts and bring out fresh combinations,
and further motives and movements that played their part in the
final result, which we have so far missed.

We suggest that, in the nature of things, it is very probable that
there should have been abortive beginnings parallel to the one that
finally held the field. Just as a number of seeds sprouting
together aid each other in pushing out of the ground, while later
one or two will crowd cut the rest, which finally die of inanition,
or are thinned out by the gardener, so every development in a
social organism is preceded or accompanied by similar or parallel
movements looking to the same end.

In the first place it is not only probable, but almost inevitable,
that some Masons of a curious turn of mind, and especially those of
antiquarian tastes, should have speculated about the origin of the
mysterious institution of which they had become members. The by-
laws of the old Lodge of York (3) provided for an hour "to talk
about Masonry. " Compilation of variants, and suggested
explanations that had met with approval, would gradually well the
ceremonies. The cold hand of logic could seize hold of the
impossibilities in the ritual Myth of the Master. The word, once
said to have been found, would be explained is a substitute; and
this would open up a prolific field of speculation as to what the
real word was, and whence it came and what it meant. And this again
would fit in with speculations as to the origin of the Fraternity
and its real purpose. The skit attributed to Dean Swift (4) proves
that even in 1724, thirteen years earlier than Ramsay's famous
oration, the hypothesis of an origin in the Crusades and some
connection with the chivalric orders of soldier monks, was
sufficiently widespread to be almost public property, and then
there are the vague rumors of some entanglement with the hopes and
plans of the partizans of the Stuarts. All these things show at
least an active interest in the origin and meaning of the
institution, which would form a fertile seed bed for definite
formulations in ritual guise, once the idea of new grades or
degrees was presented. Stukeley's "Order of the Book" may have been
such an attempt at explanation and interpretation in ritual form
for all we know; though equally it may have had nothing to do with
Masonry at all.

But two organized interpretations did emerge eventually and have
persisted and flourished till now, the Royal Arch and Ecossaism,
the so-called Scottish degrees. The connection between the secrets
of the Installed Master and the Royal Arch could only be explained
in a Chapter of Royal Arch Masons in America, or in private in
England to Royal Arch Masons who were also Installed Masters, so
all that can be said here is that in our judgment it is a very
close and intimate one, and that the one developed out of the
other. But the Installation of the Master of a Lodge came into
existence earlier than any other development is known to have done.
This presents the possibility that within the Grand Lodge
organization it may have given the idea and the impetus which led
to the division of the first degree into two to make a tri-gradual
system. Though it remains possible that the idea, and the first
essays along this line, came from outside that circle, and leaked
into it against the will of its directing spirits.

If it be objected that this is all very hazy and unsatisfactory we
can only say that tentative and hypothetical answers are all that
the evidence will yield. We cannot get a clear-cut answer out of
the disjointed and fragmentary facts. Any such answer stands self-
convicted of going beyond the evidence.

Finally we would point out that these suggestions are not
necessarily inconsistent with such other hypotheses as have been
offered. That of Bro. Vibert, for instance, is quite compatible
with them - it is only offering a double motive for what was done.
Even Gould's theory of misunderstanding can be fitted in, if it be
somewhat enlarged, and not confined to a misunderstanding of the
phraseology of the Book of Constitutions merely. Doubtless there
are other possible motives and reasons and causes that could be
discovered and shown to be complementary. We hope others may follow
along and pick them out of relations and connections in the
evidence that we have failed to observe.

Coming now to the "very end," as signallers put it, we shall be
very grateful for any suggestions, criticisms or corrections. We
are hoping to republish these articles in book form, and would like
to make them as useful and reliable as possible, in the hope that
others may build on the foundations we using the work of our
predecessors have laid. The task has been much greater than was
anticipated when it was begun, and we confess that it is not
without relief that we now bring it to a close.

NOTES.

(1) The passage referred to is at page 72 of the first edition and
for convenience we cite the particular sentences which imply
Something of an esoteric nature.

And the Candidate [Master-elect] signifying his cordial submission
thereto [i. e., the Charges of a Master], the Grand Master shall,
by certain significant Ceremonies and ancient Usages install him,
and present him with the constitutions, the Lodge Book, and the
Instruments of his Office, not all together, but one after another;
and after each of them the Grand Master, or his Deputy, shall
rehearse the short and pithy Charge that is suitable to the thing
presented.

There is no indication here of anything not open to the members of
the lodge. It is only the fact that, at some later time, the
Installation did develop into a degree (in our sense of the word)
that leads us to see any Special Significance in the passage.

(2) The "telescoped" ritual could very easily have grown up. In an
operative lodge the non-operative entrant was an honorary member.
For him the rules were naturally relaxed. The Apprenticeship was
omitted; the forms might or might not be gone through, but in any
case he came at once to membership and fellowship. Now gradually
the number of honorary members increases, till finally the
operative membership is extinct. During this change a tradition has
grown up of some form of combination of the two ceremonies. After
a while, the more curious and interested brethren begin to consider
the symbolism or the ritual, and they come to feel that to omit
apprenticeship has led to a loss of significance. They perhaps find
out that in some lodges (possibly still in part operative) there
are two distinct ceremonies, and they begin to urge a return to the
old ways, as they understand them. But the old ways have suffered
a "sea change." The apprenticeship as restored is purely
Symbolical, and while the brethren of Haughfoot postulated the
interval of a year, Dunblane was satisfied (as most lodges since)
with simply a second meeting.

(3) Gould. Hist. vol. iii, p. 159, Rule 13. Mackey was rather
scornful of this rule, but in how many lodges in his day (there is
little need to ask how many now) was any time set aside regularly
to "talk Masonry?" See Mackey, Hist., vol. iv, page 1134, note 3.

(4) Chetwode Crawley in Sadler's Masonic Reprints add Historical
Revelations (1898), page 375 of the reproduction. Also Lepper and
Crossle, History on the Grand Lodge of Ireland, page 457.


