The Builder Magazine
October 1929 - Volume XV - Number 10
THE CITY OF PRAGUE AND BOHEMIAN FREEMASONRY
by Bro. Joseph S. Roucek, New Jersey
(Concluded from September)
In 1729, the activity of the lodge was stopped temporarily, because Sporck, its founder and Master, was imprisoned. The Jesuits accused him of treason against the state. The process against him lasted seven years, and we must thank the influence of Frantisek, Duke of Lorraine, who meanwhile had become the husband of Maria Theresa, later Empress of Austria, and, himself a Freemason, intervened with his imperial father-in-law.
The lodge continued its activity in 1735. In 1738 Count Sporck died, exhausted spiritually and bodily. Count Ferdinand Paradis was elected his successor as Master of the Lodge. Under his rule political questions were introduced, which was hardly surprising in those stormy days. The Austrian-Bavarian War gave the Count an opportunity to support, with a part of the brethren, the Bavarian Elector, Karel Albrecht. But some of the members of the lodge were opposed to this, while yet others remained neutral. Hence the lodge was divided into three parts. Perhaps as a result of this two new lodges were founded in 1741, so that there were three lodges in Prague at that time. It was only after 1743, following many conferences and discussions, that these three lodges were united into one Czech Lodge, of the Three Crowned Stars, which was headed by Count Keunigl, a partizan of Austria. But not all the members of the three lodges agreed to this union. A part of them, especially those who belonged formerly to the Bavarian Lodge, nursed their national hatred in their hearts and the old traditions in their minds, and during the year 1743 formed a new lodge in the Old City, entitled Of the Three Pillars, which in 1752 was headed by Captain Schindler. According to the historian Svatek, the Lodge of the Three Pillars was an offshoot of the Lodge Of the Three Stars with an affiliated lodge in Litomerice, named Sincerite.
We shall turn our interest now to the Lodge of the Three Crowned Stars, whose Master in 1758 was still Count Kuenigl. The lodge worked according to the Ecossois, or Scottish [really the French] ritual, and devoted itself entirely to philanthropic objects and banned all political debate in its meetings.
Freemasonry at that time was persecuted in Austria, and hence in Bohemia also, and even though Francis I gave it some protection, it was not recognized as legal, and the meetings of the lodges in Vienna and Prague had to be held in secret. The Jesuits, as ever, were its worst enemies, and they attempted to brand the members of the brotherhood as enemies of both the State and the Church. The persecution went so far that a meeting of the Viennese Lodge was dispersed by soldiers, and eighteen members thrown into prison. This forced the lodge at Prague to be still more cautious. First of all, they concealed their archives, which explains the fact that we have so little definite knowledge of the activity of Bohemian Masonry at this period. We know, however, that the lodge continued to work in secret. A Papal Bull was published against the Craft on May 18, 1751, while in 1762 Maria Theresa prohibited Freemasonry altogether. This also accounts for the fact that Bohemian Lodges were not recognized abroad. To remedy this the Lodge of the Three Crowned Stars sent an application to the Lodge of the Three Grenades at Dresden in Saxony, asking for recognition. The application was signed by such outstanding representatives of the Bohemian aristocracy as Counts Clary-Aldringen, Luetzow, Martinic and Thun; Barons Skoelen, Goetz, Pracht, Furztenberg, Schmidburg, and many others. The Dresden Lodge gave a patent to the Prague Lodge as a "proper and perfect lodge," but a draft was demanded for 300 dukats. The new lodge worked only a short time, because in 1764 a secret society called the "Roses and Crosses, " with headquarters at Prague, was suppressed and its outstanding members sentenced to six years' imprisonment in Spilberk, Brno, Moravia. It appears that some freemasons were also members of this Society, and thus discord arose between the two lodges at Prague and Dresden, fomented by the sinister role played by a certain Masonic adventurer who called himself Johnson. He was subsequently expelled from the lodge. The lodge at Prague interrupted relations with Dresden, and attached itself by affiliation to a lodge founded in Northern Germany by Count von Hund, famous as the head of the then new Order of the Strict Observance, which claimed to be founded on the Templar Order of the Middle Ages. Every member or Knight of the Order was bound to the strictest subordination, hence the title "Strict Observance". Under its jurisdiction was Silesia and a part of Poland. At the request of the Lodge of the Three Crowned Stars Prague was promoted to the rank of a prefecture under the name of Radomskoy, and Baron Skoelen became the Master and named the other Bohemian prefectures.
In 1766, upon the festival of St. John, Prague was disturbed by wild rumors that the Freemasons were planning an uprising of the people, with the object of proclaiming Bohemia an independent kingdom. The rumor was quite unfounded, but the Lodge of the Three Pillars was surrounded by soldiers and proved, they were released. The renewed prohibition of Freemasonry in Austria, however, crippled the activity of the lodge for two years. Count Martinie, the Master, gave up his office, which was in 1769 by Count Kuenigl. Difficult times followed everywhere for Freemasonry. The lodges in Prague and in other Bohemian cities only barely managed to subsist. At that time most of the European governments were negotiating about the abolition of the Jesuit order, and having to fight for their own existence the Jesuits had no time to persecute the Freemasons, and the brethren could breathe more freely. After the abolition of the Jesuit order in 1773 we find there were four lodges in Prague. A famous and learned man, Count Ignae Born, Councillor of the Mint Office, resuscitated the Lodge of the Three Pillars, which was called from that time on the Lodge of the Three Crowned Pillars. This met in the Kutnohorsky Dum (the House of Kutna Hora), situated in the still existing chief square of the City of Prague, the Vaclavske Namesti [Wenceslas Square]. Besides this Count Born founded the Lodges of the Nine Stars and Honesty. The members of these lodges and some others founded, in 1773, the Orphanage of St. John the Baptist. The first director of this institution was a Professor of the University of Prague, Karel Seibt, a member of the mother lodge of the Three Crowned Stars. In this orphanage a very interesting character was employed, the quondam Jesuit, Ignac Cornova, who was the author of a prayer book for the Freemasons published in Prague in 1784, and translated into Czech in 1914, and still more recently edited by the Quotuor Coronati Coetus Pragenses (a society founded by Grand Secretary, Dr. Oskar Posner, of the Grand Lodge Lessing zu den Drei Ringen).
In 1780 Empress Alaria Theresa gave to the orphanage the Bredovsky Palace in Bredovska Street, where the of the Three Crowned Stars continued to meet until its dissolution.
The year of 1780 was a landmark in the history of the Prague Lodges. Maria Theresa died and Joseph II ascended the throne. All Masons in the Austrian dominions had great hopes in him, and for a while it seemed that he would fulfill these desires and wishes. In 1781 the freedom of the press was proclaimed, and later the Emperor announced that though he was not initiated into the secrets of Freemasonry, he recognized its humanitarian activity, and was willing to permit the formation of lodges. In consequence of this, lodges sprang up everywhere and soon, according to the historian Svatek, there was not a city in Austria where there was not a lodge.
In Prague there was formed the lodges Union and Truth and Unity. But this area of prosperity was short. The Emperor became reactionary and disappointed the hopes of a liberal regime. Under the influence of his advisers a centralizing policy was adopted, and the Emperor began to restrict Masonic activities. By a decree of December 16, 1785, he limited the number of lodges in individual cities and districts, and ordered the publication of the names of jerking programs of the lodges. For non-obedience to this edict very severe penalties were imposed.
These measures, which deprived Freemasonry in Austria of all rights, and put it under state Surveillance, caused bitter disappointment and was the occasion of internal dispute. The Grand Master-provincial Count Stampach- gave up his office, and the Lodges of Prague were disturbed by excited scenes, when different viewpoints clashed, chiefly on the question whether the order should be obeyed or not. However, after a stormy meeting in the palace of Count Canal it was decided to submit to the decree.
After the first of January, 1786, in consequence of the royal decree, only three lodges remained: Truth and Unity of the Three Crowned Pillars, the Lodge of the Nine Pillars, and the Mother Lodge of the Three Crowned Stars. The newly elected Grand Master, Count Lazansky, announced the change to the Highest Burgrave of Prague and gave him the list of the members. On March 12, 1786, the Imperial Decree gave legal recognition to the "reformed" Freemasonry.
In the years of 1787 till 1791 Brother Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart visited Prague several times and on those occasions visited the Masonic Lodges. That beautiful work of Mozart, "The Magic Flute," originated partly in Prague, and, as it is known, Mozart took the ideal elements of Freemasonry into the fairy story of his opera.
This work of musical genius, however, proved also to be the swan song of Freemasonry in Austria, for the last year of Mozart's life was also the last year of any freedom for Masonry. With the death of Joseph II on February 20, 1790, began the period of rigid suppression of Austrian Freemasonry, and with it of Bohemian Freemasonry also.
Emperor Leopold II rescinded all the decrees of Joseph II in regard to the Fraternity as soon as he ascended the throne, and the members of the lodges, who were known to the authorities through the lists that had been furnished by the lodges, were all put under strict police surveillance.
His son and successor, Francis I, took even stronger measures, in which he was abetted by the Catholic clergy. As is well known, the clergy promulgated the reports that the French Revolution was the work of Freemasonry. In 1793 the number of the members was so reduced that it was almost impossible to continue the work of the lodges. In the first days of the year of 1794 the remaining members of the Prague Lodges decided to voluntarily cease their labors and to await the return of more propitious times. The Viennese Lodges followed suit, and thus the Craft itself forestalled the effect of a decree published in that year which absolutely prohibited Masonry in the Austrian Empire.
The Emperor let the three Prague Lodges know of his "highest satisfaction" with their decision, and "graciously" permitted them to continue the administration of their humanitarian institutions, not as Masons, but as private individuals.
In 1795 came a renewed prohibition of all Freemasonry in Austria, which prohibition, with a short intermission in 1848, lasted until the Revolution of 1918.
But even the most drastic prohibition cannot suppress the Masonic idea and thought. The faith and ideals remained hidden in hearts of a few brothers who notwithstanding all the persecution kept them alive secretly as a most precious legacy and bequest. A little spark of living fire persisted under the seemingly cold dead ashes, until the breath of a strong and mighty wind of renewed freedom blew the ashes away and fanned the spark into a new blaze, which now sheds its light in the liberated countries.
Returning to the past, a new lodge was created in Prague in 1811. During the occupation of Vienna by Napoleon I in 1809, a lodge was founded in that city under the jurisdiction of the Grand Orient of France, which survived until the Congress of Vienna in 1813. In 1811 Count Auersperg dared to found a lodge in Prague. Its existence was kept secret until 1814, when it was discovered and suppressed. At that time Pope Pius VII published a new Bull against Freemasonry, and, concurrently with this, re-established the Order of the Jesuits, while the well-known Chancellor Metternich of Austria introduced his famous police system, which suppressed even the least and most innocent expression of free thought. Bernard Bolzano, professor of the philosophical faculty of the Prague University, after whom one of the Czech Lodges is named, was a victim of the Metternich's reactionary system. It was only due to the intervention of Joseph Dobrovsky, also, a Freemason, that Bolzano was rehabilitated in 1826, and allowed his liberty under police surveillance. Various attempts of foremost Czech politicians and scholars to found associations and societies were ruthlessly suppressed. One of them, Amerling, succeeded later in getting official permission to found an educational Institute, Budec. His adherents played an important role at the Slav Congress, and during the Prague Revolution in 1848.
In February, 1849, Prof. Ludvik Lewis of Vienna revived, in Hotel Modra Hvezdu. (Blue Star), the Lodge Truth and Unity of the Three Crowned Pillars. But Prince Windisehratz brought it to a speedy end during the so-called "May Uprising." There followed a period of unreasoning persecution. In 1865 Lewis again attempted to obtain permission to found a lodge, and in 1868 a member of the Imperial Council, Dr. Foregger, supported the move. But it was all in vain.
That in the history of European Freemasonry Prague has had an important part, is evident from this brief account. The year 1918 brought a new area. As Schiller said:
Das Alte sturxt, es andert sich die Zeit under neues Leben bluht ads den Ruinen! (What is old dies, the time changes and new Life blooms from the ruins! )
In the days of October in 1918, old masks fell off, the society Charitas, which had been formed in 1909, was transformed into the Lodge Hiranz Den Drei Sternen, which later became the mother lodge of Czechoslovakia. Freemasonry was freed from its shackles, and breathed freely in the new state. It no longer had to fear its most dangerous and strongest antagonist the despotic power of the State and the Church.
What has since transpired has been described in a preceding article. It would not be amiss, however, to turn to the future and see what it seems to promise.
After the war the whole world was in a psychological state which can be described as highly nervous and antagonistic. It is the duty of us all to work sincerely for the ultimate brotherhood of humanity, after so many years of misery and oppression. Is there not for all of us Masons, without distinction, in every country, a glad prospect of a broad and limitless field of humanitarian endeavor? In the case of the brethren in Czechoslovakia they must expend more energy, because there are so few of them to labor.
It is the time to end this discussion. At the beginning we used a simile that we are on a journey, and, resting, we are looking back on the road that we have covered. We may say that we have succeeded. If throughout our road has not been and will not be the same, yet the aim remains the same, and we know that at the end of the road we shall meet and tell each other our experiences. But now--forward, brothers, only forward; we must remember the tradition, we must remember all that has been done by our brothers before us. A great task is awaiting us; we must fulfill it with courage and good will. Let us hope that at some time our universal history will conclude with the statement that the main merit for the bringing together of all nations inhabiting this earth, for its cultural and economic development, belongs to Freemasonry which sowed the seed of universal love in the hearts of the peoples, and during that time realized the idea of reconciliation, harmony, concord, brotherhood and humanity in the sense of Jan Amos Komensky:
We are all citizens of one world, we are all of one blood. To hate a man because he has been born in another country, because he speaks a different language or because he takes a different view on this subject or that, is indeed a great folly. Desist, I implore you, for we all are equally human. Let us unite all our thoughts, so that all that separates us from God, or from one another, may disappear. Let us have but one aim in view namely, the welfare of humanity, and let us put aside all selfishness or considerations of language, nationality or religion.
NOTE.
Jan Malypetr, who appears in the group with President Masaryk in the illustration on a previous page, is one of the leading statesmen of the Czechoslovakian Republic. He is an exceedingly able man, and has had a most remarkable career. He began life as a farmer, from which he has risen to his present eminent position in the councils of the state. His private estate lies near Klobuky, a little village not far from the author's own birthplace, Slany, and they have been close friends for many years.
----o----
Statistics of Freemasonry
By BRO. ALEXANDER B. ANDREWS, North Carolina
THE average man looks on a table of statistics with the same horror that he does an income tax blank or a complicated audit, which he is asked to explain to some one else. However, statistics are necessary for any business to know whether it is progressing or falling back, and in what proportion in either way.
Annually the several Grand Lodges compile statistics of membership, which in years past have been more or less noted by Masonic reviewers. In some instances several Grand Lodge reviewers have attempted to annually summarize the aggregate number of Masons, some in the entire world and some in the United States. It is regretted that very few reviewers have gone into detail of statistics, which have been kept up over a period of years. The recently inaugurated plan of Reviewer J. Edward Allen, Past Master, Wanton, North Carolina, who, since 1922, has compiled the annual review of that Grand Lodge, is well worth notice. In the review of 1928 he not only gives the table showing the statistics of Freemasonry in the United States. but also the membership figures of numerous bodies based upon Freemasonry as a prerequisite. In the same volume are statistics of the Grand Lodge of North Carolina, and General Grand Chapter, R.A.M. (50 years); General Grand Council, R. & S. M.; Grand Encampment, K.T.; Supreme Council, Northern Masonic Jurisdiction; Supreme Council, Southern Masonic Jurisdiction and the Imperial Council of the Shrine covering 30 years, then immediately past.
While statistics chronicle the happenings of events, yet the working out of statistics on a percentage basis and diagraming on graph charts present these facts much more vividly.
Taking advantage of the work of Brother Allen we find the following compiled table of statistics for forty‑nine Grand Lodges in the United States for the years 1924 to 1928, both inclusive:
Table I
49 GRAND LODGES OF UNITED STATES A.F. & A. M.
(consolidated Statistics, 1924‑1928
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
Forward
2,870,854
2,990,271
3,112,600
3,178,846
3,233,752
3,283,514
Raised
174,382
163,345
146,367
137,783
126,402
--------
Affiliated
--------
34,165
33,047
33,054
30,478
--------
Died
33,908
35,165
36,492
38,614
38,629
--------
Demitted
--------
39,125
37,311
34,777
32,203
--------
Suspended. etc
25,999
34,263
45,562
48,514
51,948
--------
Net Gain
119,417
102,512
76,800
55,462
47,919
--------
Membership
2,990,271
3,112,600
3,178,846
3,233,752
3,283,514
--------
The interesting part of this table is the increase of 425,000 Masons in five years' time, yet the student in Masonry looks deeper and notes that the railings in 1928 were 48,000 less than in 1924, the suspensions for non‑payment of dues were double in 1928 what they were in 1924 and net gain in 1928 was 47,919 as against 119,517 in 1924.
Is it possible on these statistics to forecast what will be the number of railings, deaths, suspensions, net gain, etc.. on December 31, 1929 (five months distant) ?
How would such forecast be calculated?
While the actual statistics are interesting, yet the true perspective can better be shown by translating these same statistics into percentages which, when tabulated, show up as follows:
Table II
CONSOLIDATED TABLE
Percentages, Grand Lodge of United States, A.F. & A. M., 1924‑1928
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
Forward
2,870,854
2,990,271
3,112,600
3,178,846
3,233,752
3,283,514
Raisings
6.143
5.462
4.702
4.334
3.908
--------
Affiliation
--------
1.142
1.061
1.039
.942
--------
Died
1.194
1.175
1.172
1.214
1.194
--------
Demits
--------
1.308
1.198
1.094
.995
--------
Suspensions, etc
.915
1.145
1.463
1.526
1.606
--------
Net gain
4.207
3.428
2.467
1.744
1.384
--------
These percentages are interesting as showing the steady decline of the railings and net gain, while there has been a steady increase in the number of suspensions. This is very much more vividly brought to one's attention by a diagram of these percentages, which is set out on the diagram which appears on page 295.
An examination of this diagram shows very clearly the trend of the times. The affiliations are approximately 80 per cent of the demits and are a negligible quantity. The death rate is practically constant for the five years, 1.190, which is practically age 47. With the declining rate of initiates and the increasing rate of suspensions there has been a fall in the net gain. However, the net gain line shows that on the 1928 compiled statistics the net gain is apparently not declining as fast as it has done heretofore.
On these compiled statistics, by averaging the percentages upwards or downwards of (A) one year, (B) two years and (C) three years, it is possible to make a forecast of what will be the compiled statistics of the forty-nine Grand Lodges of the United States as of December 31, 1929, which statistics are hereinbelow set out and are as follows:
Table III
FORTY‑NINE GRAND LODGES
Forecast for December 21, 1929
A
B
C
D
1 Year
2 Years
3 Years
Average
Forward
3,283,574
3,283,574
3,283,574
3,283,574
Raisings
114,334
115,286
111,313
113,644
Affiliated
27,746
28,961
28,733
28,480
Gain
142,080
144,247
140,046
142,124
Died
38,549
39,567
39,403
39,173
Demitted
29,421
29,322
29,257
29,333
Suspended
55,361
56,740
58,874
56,991
Loss
123,331
125,629
127,534
125,497
Net Gain
18,749
18,618
12,532
16,629
Membership Forecast, Dec. 31, 1929
3,302,323
3,302,192
3,296,106
3,300,201
----o----
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.
