Transformation of the degrees over time

[hanzosbm]

We all know that at one time there were only 2 degrees (while have suggested that perhaps the Master was given some further knowledge upon installation that could have constituted a third degree but was given out so sparingly as to avoid detection over the years).
At some point, it grew to 3 degrees. Some might argue that it even grew to 4 if one comes from a line that finds the Order of the Royal Arch to be a necessary part of the original knowledge.

The legend from the 3rd degree doesn't appear in the earliest descriptions of the degrees, but doesn't necessarily mean that some version of it wasn't around. The information we have from the earliest sources talks about the degrees but gives them more as the catechism and less as the actual degree, so our picture is incomplete.

At the most extreme, we have a stretching from 2 to 4 degrees. I'm curious to get some opinions (ideally with some basis) around how this was done. Were the degrees originally so lengthy that they were simply split up? Were entire degrees simply made up? If so, which ones? We could then get into a discussion around when, why, and what formed these new lessons, but my primary question has to do with what the lessons originally looked like.

 

[JJones]

It's been a long time since I've researched this so I can't be as informative as I would have been several years ago.

If you're unfamiliar with the Preston Webb ritual, of which some variation is usually practiced in North America, then that may be a good place to start. Here's a link to a good paper on the topic.

I'm also going to toss this link in here as well. The Baltimore Convention may not have affected the degree system but it did make an impact on the way most of us practice Freemasonry in the states.

 

[hanzosbm]

Thank you very much. I look forward to reading both of these.

 

[hanzosbm]

Having read through them, I found some very interesting insights.

Brother Blaisdell says "In 1745 the three-degree system was in place. Splitting the first degree into two degrees, and taking the then second degree and making it the third degree accomplished this."
I would love to get some more information on this.

He goes on to say "This was not a very effective ritual". Why not? Was the splitting of a degree done in such a way as to make the two feel incomplete by themselves or was there something else to it?

"...so in order to make the work more "acceptable" revisions were begun in 1769 by Wellins Calcutt and William Hutchinson. In 1772 William Preston joined them. In two years, Preston had completed his work, and rewrote the ritual of the three degrees. He was an excellent ritualist, and his original work is some of the most beautiful ever created. There was one small problem ... it was long! In fact, it is said the 12-parts of his lecture of the Master Mason degree actually took a half-day to recite."
Understandably, for most men, that is too much to endure sitting through let alone memorizing. But it begs the question, if at one time the lectures took half a day, what was lost when they were shortened?

One other curious thing I found in this paper was the following: "While officially, the Grand Lodge of Kentucky uses a Webb-form ritual..."
I'll need to do some reading up on this. The Kentucky Monitor was written by Henry Pirtle. I'm curious to see the similarities of what he wrote and the Webb ritual.

This is an excellent introduction to the topic

 

[pointwithinacircle2]

James, could you please point us toward some source information so we could attempt to find answers to these questions?

 

[hanzosbm]

Well...the origins of the legend actually go back further than that, and they start to have some VERY interesting parallels.

In the Cooke Manuscript from 1450, we see the fear that a collection of wisdom would be lost. In this story, we have the children of Lamech who are the holders of wisdom. The oldest was Jabal, and we are told he was the first man to know about geometry and masonry. The next in line is his brother, Jubal, who was the founder of music and song. Next in line, we have half brother Tubal Cain, who worked in metals. And finally, Tubal Cain's sister, Naamah, who held the knowledge of weaving. Knowing that God would destroy the earth at a later date by either fire or water, they constructed 2 pillars, one made of marble, one made of latres so that if one was destroyed by fire, the other would survive and vice versa.
After the flood, the two pillars are both found (which doesn't make a lot of sense if one was expected to be destroyed by water) by Hermes and Pythagoras.

Fast forward to 1726 and the Graham Manuscript and we get the story of Noah. Why the change? Maybe it was just confusion. After all, Lamech is also the name of Noah's father. Also in the Graham Manuscript we are introduced to the third person at the building of the temple. There is King Solomon, Hiram of Tyre, and Bazalliell who begins to show a lot of similarities to the story of HA.

There are many more tie ins and there is definitely a way of tying it all back to HA if one is willing to look at some of the Apocryphal books and Islamic texts. I did a significant amount of research awhile back and one can really start to see an evolution of the story. For obvious reasons, I don't want to connect the dots here, but suffice to say that it quickly becomes apparent that there is a long history of mortals who have handed down divine knowledge throughout the biblical stories. Some of the names might have gotten changed/confused/transposed/altered, but the history is there.

 

[JJones]

The ritual initially included Hermes? That's interesting. I'm curious if Enoch is mentioned at any point as well?

 

[hanzosbm]

In the ritual, no. However, when following the bouncing ball, he figures into the stories quite prominently.

 

[hanzosbm]

As I mentioned, I don't want to connect the dots publically, and no one source really tells the whole story, but I can provide the documents I've used that all intertwine and which together start to tell a very interesting story.
Keep in mind, I'm not claiming that any of these documents are telling historical truth, but they show a pool of stories that, taken together, begin to make a lot more sense than any one of them on their own.
In no particular order, they are:

Matthew Cooke Manuscript
Graham Manuscript
Book of Enoch
Book of Jubilees
Sefer Raziel
Zohar
Halliwell Manuscript/Regius Poem
The Golden Legend
Ta'rikh al-Hakama by Ibn al-Qifti
Flavius Josephus of the Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 2.

I'm still in the process of putting it all together in a coherent way, but those are the sources I'm currently using.

 

[pointwithinacircle2]

it quickly becomes apparent that there is a long history of mortals who have handed down divine knowledge

Brother, I found your entire post interesting. I wish I had the knowledge (time, I've got) to find the sources and read about this topic. However my question, the big question really, is "What is divine knowledge?". Freemasonry respects all men who pursue divine knowledge, this is why we respect men of all religions. But sometimes I wonder, what is the elusive knowledge that we all pursue? Could it be that each of us has found some of it and we are trying to discover the rest? Perhaps even that we must become strong in our character so that when knowledge is acquired it can be understood correctly and applied in a beautiful manner.

 

[hanzosbm]

Edited due to unrelated content

 

[LAMason]

The Evolution of the Hiramic Legend in England and France
Joannes A.M. Snoek,
The Heredom Volume 11 2003

 

[hanzosbm]

Edited due to unrelated content

 

[coachn]

...Brother Blaisdell says "In 1745 the three-degree system was in place. Splitting the first degree into two degrees, and taking the then second degree and making it the third degree accomplished this."
I would love to get some more information on this.

I suggest you watch the following video and pay close attention to what is shared between times 10:00 and 23:00 if you want to know about the split and other things.

http://www.molor.org/trumanlectureseries#spring2012

 

[hanzosbm]

Brother Nagy,

That presentation was extremely interesting. What I wouldn't give to have had the opportunity to speak with Brother de Hoyos after that presentation when it was only Masons. The fact that so many were against the change from the Antediluvian legend to the Hiramic legend is telling. I doubt there is any way to find out for sure, but I'd be interested to know if the Hiramic legend was simply an invention as was proposed or whether it came from some other existing tradition. Brother de Hoyos indicates that there were some 'higher' degrees around before the third degree was created. So we know that there was additional traditions that were not used in the mainstream at that time. Is it possible that one of these older tradition was combined with the noachite legend? I doubt we'll ever know.

 

[coachn]

Brother Nagy,

That presentation was extremely interesting.

I agree, as to the time between 10 and 23 minutes. I'm glad that I could refer you to it and that you enjoyed viewing it.

... The fact that so many were against the change from the Antediluvian legend to the Hiramic legend is telling. I doubt there is any way to find out for sure, but I'd be interested to know if the Hiramic legend was simply an invention as was proposed or whether it came from some other existing tradition. Brother de Hoyos indicates that there were some 'higher' degrees around before the third degree was created. So we know that there was additional traditions that were not used in the mainstream at that time. Is it possible that one of these older tradition was combined with the noachite legend? I doubt we'll ever know.

Brother, they are ALL fabricated morality plays. Does it truly matter when they were made up and added? or who was against having any one specific one replace or augment another?

The point of all these plays was not ever the plays themselves or the characters and symbols they used. It was the morality that each was making effort to convey to those who experienced them.

Freemasonic Society has all but forgot the reasons for putting these plays on and as a whole it has focused almost exclusively upon preserving them without knowing why.

Initially, the plays were extremely simple: an obligation with a little bit of pomp and pageantry. Now, they are full blown productions that take hours.

 

[Ripcord22A]

I honestly feel that the degrees should be done like u just mentioned and then maybe once a qtr the full degree is put on. As i have learned and picked up more as a cast member and sideliner then as a candidate. Kinda how the shrine obligates you and makes you a member and then later down the road the degree is actually conferred

 

[coachn]

...So why was it important to preserve the story of JtJ?

You assume that it is the story that is important and not simply the preservation of the fabricated act.

 

[Glen Cook]

The Hiram legend seems to be combination of the legend of Horus (son of the Widow Isis) and James the Just (brother of Jesus)

By some accounts James the Just was thrown down from the walls of the temple and killed with a blow to the forehead with a fullers club whereupon all work on the temple ceased.

So why was it important to preserve the story of JtJ?

I'm familiar with Eusebius' recitation of Hegesippus' version of the martyrdom, but could you provide a citation to work on the temple ceasing?

 

[hanzosbm]

I agree, as to the time between 10 and 23 minutes. I'm glad that I could refer you to it and that you enjoyed viewing it.



Brother, they are ALL fabricated morality plays. Does it truly matter when they were made up and added? or who was against having any one specific one replace or augment another?

The point of all these plays was not ever the plays themselves or the characters and symbols they used. It was the morality that each was making effort to convey to those who experienced them.

Freemasonic Society has all but forgot the reasons for putting these plays on and as a whole it has focused almost exclusively upon preserving them without knowing why.

Initially, the plays were extremely simple: an obligation with a little bit of pomp and pageantry. Now, they are full blown productions that take hours.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree. We know that the story used today is not as it was originally. We also must admit that we don't know what the original story was. If we don't know what the story was, how can we say that it is a fabricated morality play? Even assuming that it is (and I certainly agree that is the most likely case) how can we say what system of morality was being taught?
Many people believe that religion is a set of fabricated stories with the intention of teaching morality. But the moral lessons taught by different religions are not universal. Further more, even if one accepts that as being the truth, there is a lot more than just morality being taught in holy books. And to argue that understanding where the stories came from and what they were originally is irrelevant would be similar to saying that it would be okay to go ahead and rewrite the bible with completely different stories provided the moral lessons remained the same.
The lessons taught in Freemasonry are encoded in the symbols and allegories. We study them in order to decode them. But as the code is changed, pieces of it are lost. Maybe the information taught is still completely intact, maybe it's not. We have no way to know that without knowing what it originally looked like.