There's another thread here talking about how long a brother must wait between degrees. It got me thinking about the early(er) days of Freemasonry where one had to be an EA for 7 YEARS before being passed/raised (only 2 degrees then).
We have also had some discussions as of late regarding deeper meanings behind the rituals, "true secrets", and different groups of brothers who are after different things in the Craft.
Freemasonic Secrets are an allusion. Masonic Secrets are Evasive.
In an operative setting, 7 years as an EA makes sense, but what about for speculative purposes?
They make even more sense. How much time do you think it takes to do all that is required to bring a youth to manhood? A month? A day?
I have this to say about it:
Ya can't sprout hair overnight! And you can't cultivate Maturity going through a play or memorizing its script.
I haven't done an exhaustive search to see exactly when this requirement fell away,
It never existed! Freemasonry's highest degree when it first was created was the 2nd Degree, and that was only given when someone wanted to run a lodge. It was called "The Master's part"; it could only be put on by the GL initially.
The Master's part was put aside at that time and the original apprentice degree was split in two, thus forming two degrees, the current base for the EA and FC. This allowed lodges, rather than the GL, to put on FC degrees so that members could sit in the East as a Master of the Lodge.
The Masters part was put aside only to be added later after the drama was added and available for deliver about 1725-ish; it was not required until years later. Until the split occurred, you were a full member as an Apprentice. No Apprenticeship term was required.
...but I know that as of 1724 in the Briscoe document it is mentioned and in 1728 in Cole's Constitutions is says either 5 or 7 years.
Sure, they are mentioned, but keep in mind what I just shared. Not required initially!
Clearly, we are well into the time of speculative Masonry here.
Yes, we are now post change(s) and we are told to call what we do, "speculative", but speculation is not what we do at all. There is nothing we do as an organization that supports speculation.
So, what was it about speculative Masonry in those days that required an EA 7 years to advance?
Which days? Time frame please!
Was it purely to create an arbitrary hierarchy?
Based upon all evidence, it sounded good and it added to the realism of what was being acted out for the benefit of the paying patrons.
Was it a blind following of tradition left over from the operative days?
Perhaps, but more likely, it was for effect more than anything else.
Was it a requirement to learn every single part of every single ritual word for word mouth to ear (which would take a considerable amount of time) ?
Not originally. Remember, initially you were considered a full member if you were an Apprentice.
Food for thought though: Learning a script and related choreography only perfects your skill as an actor and role-player. It neither lays a suitable foundation for Building nor perfects your skill as a Speculative Builder.
And why do we not see a time requirement to go from FC to MM?
Well, if you go along with the premise laid out by Ritual, it takes a long time to both study and learn the seven liberal arts and sciences. Have you done this? How long did it take you?
The MM degree started showing up sometime between 1723 and 1730, so, depending on that timing, there very easily could've been an overlap of time where the 7 year rule for EA was in effect and when there were 3 degrees.
What are your thoughts?
Your last comments say it best. And if you know what Freemasonry actually is, it all fits together quite nicely. If you don't know, you're likely to get very frustrated making sense of what you are led to believe.