ANTIQUITY OF LEGEND OF THIRD DEGREE

THE BUILDER APRIL 1924

Is there any way of learning how old is the Tragedy of H.A. in our Third
Degree? I have read many theories of one kind and another.  Can't you put
into condensed form what our best authorities say on this important point?

H.B., Michigan.

Your inquiry was referred to Bro. David E.W. Williamson, who condenses
into one paragraph a great deal of information:

According to an opinion expressed in November, 1886 (See A.Q.C.), Bro. 
R.F. Gould held that the Legend of the Third Degree was of comparatively
recent origin, say 1725, but we find him writing in the A.Q.C. in 1890
(reprinted in Collected Essays, p. 133): "Our written traditions are carried
back - speaking roundly - to the fourteenth century and, to me at least, it
does not appear one whit more extraordinary that our symbolical traditions
may have enjoyed an existence in a period of time equally remote." In the
discussion upon this point in A.Q.C., Vol. XXXIII (1920, part ii), Robert H.
Baxter comments: "There is an indication of it in the Cooks MS. of early
fifteenth century transcription, which is generally regarded as the oldest text
of all copies of the Old Charges" (p. 114).

The theory of modern origin is that expressed by W.J. Hughan at the
Quatuor Coronate discussion of a paper on "The Genesis of the Third
Degree" in 1897 (A.Q.C. C, p. 133), but, so far as I have been able to
understand it, our Bro. Hughan was almost, if not wholly, alone in his
contention.  So early, though, as A.Q.C., Vol. I, p. 30, we find Rev. A.F.H.
Woodford saying: "Where did the Freemasonry of 1717 come from? To
accept for one moment the suggestion that so complex and curious a
system, embracing so many archaic remains and such skilfully adjusted
ceremonies, so much connected matter, accompanied by so many striking
symbols, could have been a creation of pious fraud or ingenious
conviviality, presses heavily on our powers of belief and even passes over
the normal credulity of our species." (Quoted by Gould, Collected Essays,
137.) Gould's paper on "The Genesis of the Third Degree" is the most
complete presentation of the facts we have, as far as I am aware, but
scattered through A.Q.C. are many isolated sentences pointing to the belief
of such men as Edward Conder that the Master Mason Degree was the
second degree until a considerable time after 1717.  For instance, in
Conder's paper on "The Hon. Miss St. Leger and Freemasonry" in A.Q.C.
VIII, p. 20, you find: "At the date of her initiation all the principal points of
the Craft were probably included in this, the second, or, as we now call it
the third degree."

In the same volume, in his relatively little known essay on "The Duke of
Wharton and the Order of Gormogons," Gould says (A.Q.C. VIII, p. 120):
"The number of Masonic Degrees known and recognized as such in 1723
* * * were two, Entered Apprentice and Fellowcraft, the former combining
the degrees of Entered Apprentice and the latter being that of Master
Mason, as we now have them." The point is made by John Lane, in his
paper on "The Early Lodges of Freemasons" (A.Q.C. VIII, 1895, p. 193), that
"in 1717 and for years prior to that date there were numerous lodges, not
only in London but also in various other parts of England, whose members
assembled by virtue of what is now termed the doctrine or power of
'inherent right,' every lodge being a law to itself, and neither exercising nor
attempting to exercise authority or jurisdiction over any other lodge or the
members of any other lodge, nor rendering obedience to any person, lodge
or organization, whatever," which is important.

It gives especial point to Dr. Chetwode Crawley's comment on Prof. Swift
A. Johnston's paper about descriptions of the Temple (A.Q.C. XII, 135 et
seq), in which he says: "It is fairly incredible that the legend could have
been introduced by one of them [Anderson and Desaguliers] as a pure
innovation.  The introduction of incomparably smaller innovation, in the
same generation raised such a storm that the Craft in England was split in
twain for many a year.  We may rest assured that the brethren at large in
the British Isles could not have accepted a totally new environment for the
tradition merely because it found favour with the lodges of the cities of
London and Westminster."

Personally, I think the last statement by Crawley is unanswerable.

David E.W. Williamson

