FIFTEEN POINTS FOR MASONIC EDUCATION
by W.Bro. Steven
B. VanSlyck
Past
Master of the Ohio Lodge of Research.
Editor of the Proceedings of the
Ohio Lodge of Research
My masonic pedigree, while not
particularly unusual, has resulted in many discussions with fellow masons
concerning the origins of Freemasonry and the reasons for variations in masonic
ritual. A member of the Order of DeMolay since I was 14, I petitioned for the
degrees as soon as my twenty-first birthday drew near. As a Lewis
I was allowed to submit my petition before coming of age, and I was initiated
less than a month following my twenty-first birthday. Being on leave from the
U.S. Navy, I was initiated and passed in my home lodge, but was raised as a
courtesy candidate in another state.
At a lodge I visited one
night, an officer of many years standing noticed that I would be
helping out with the degree work and introduced himself to me. He
asked about my home lodge and I told him about my receiving the
first two degrees in Ohio, but the third in Virginia. He replied
that he’d originally come from another state, where the work was
quite a bit different than Ohio’s, and how this sometimes presented
a challenge to him in his ritual work, even though he’d been in Ohio
now a number of years. I said I had the same problem, having been
active in Virginia for two years before getting out of the Navy.
And then it happened. Confident and
self-assured, the brother said, “Oh, that’s Southern Jurisdiction.”
I had heard variations of this comment
many times, usually along the lines of, “Oh, they’re Ancient, Free & Accepted.”
These remarks had always troubled me, so I answered, “Well, Southern
Jurisdiction only applies to Scottish Rite.” To which the brother
gave the condescending response, “Don’t kid yourself, son. All grand
lodges have different rituals.” Stunned, I was just about to follow
up when the Master called for the brethren to clothe.
I have been advised by brother masons
that Southern/Northern Jurisdiction and F. & A.M./A.F. & A.M.
designations account for differences in lodge or ritual practices on
more occasions than I care to remember. Usually such pronouncements
are made with a gravity which brooks neither disagreement nor
discussion. Knowing the importance of looking for the good in
things, I try to remind myself that I have yet to hear anyone tell
me “that Masonry in its present form started in remote antiquity.”
Believe it or not, this does happen.
Bro. Harry Mendoza, a respected masonic historian, gave a talk at an
English lodge once. As he tells it,
My
paper dealt with some of the phrases we use today – and one of them
was ‘from time immemorial.’ I said that Freemasonry as we know it
today stretched back no more than about 600 years, though some would
argue 250 years. A Grand Officer present – of some years’ seniority
– stood up and said that he couldn’t really allow that; I was
misleading the brethren. Masonry, he declared firmly, was of time immemorial; it
went right back to the time of Noah – and there were degrees to
prove it!”
I believe such statements reveal a need
for more-focused masonic education programs, programs aimed at basic
misconceptions about the Craft, its structure, and its history. What
should be the goals of such a program? Several come to mind, though
in no particular order.
Our Origins – Separating Fact from
Fiction
1. Compare and contrast traditional or ritualistic history,
historical theories, and
scholarly historical
research.
Traditional/ritualistic history dates
Masonry from Adam, and includes the story of Hiram Abif and the Lost
Word. The story of Hiram Abif is not biblical, nor does everything
in Freemasonry come from the Bible, as I have heard claimed more
than once. Sources of traditional history include such things as the
Old Charges and the ritual.
Traditional history is not history in the true sense of the word,
being for the most part fanciful products of the imaginations of
various writers. When found in the ritual, such accounts are meant
to teach concepts of morality, not to give an accurate portrayal of
past events.
Historical theories, only sometimes
supported by valid research and investigation, range from the
operative-speculative transition theory, championed by Robert Freke
Gould and Harry Carr, to the monastic inner sancta theory, proposed
by Cyril Batham.
Both of these are theories about the origin of speculative
Freemasonry. It should be stressed that no one today really knows
how the Fraternity originated, but the transition theory seems to
have taken on a life of its own, and is too often treated as the
last word on the subject.
It should be stressed to our students that these are but theories of
origin and not established facts.
Scholarly historical research requires
reliable methods of investigation and inquiry. Such works identify
opinions and theories as such, provide citations for source
materials, rely on direct evidence where possible instead of
hearsay, do not make unwarranted pronouncements or implied
assumptions, and are not subject to credible attack as to their
methodology.
Lodge education officers should both
understand for themselves and clearly identify to others which
portions of a program are based on fact, theory, or traditional
history. Theories based on poor scholarship should be discouraged in
official education programs, or at least properly identified. Lets
avoid teaching parables as history.
2. Talk about masonic research, particularly about the
publications of The Masonic Service Association, Quatuor Coronati
Lodge, the Scottish Rite Research Society, the Masonic Book Club,
and other reputable sources. Advise masons where to locate masonic
books, providing names, addresses, and telephone numbers for various
publishers. Indicate that the popularity of a book (e.g., Born in Blood) or writer (e.g., Arthur Edward Waite)
indicates neither soundness of the theories espoused, validity of
the conclusions made, nor qualifications of the author. A one-year
subscription to The Short
Talk Bulletin should be given to every mason with his first dues
card. A new mason could do a lot worse than to begin his study of
Freemasonry by reading Carl H. Claudy.
Organization and Regularity
3. Instruct masons on the structure of American Freemasonry.
Make sure new masons understand that although there is a place in
the Fraternity for the concordant and appendant bodies, the Grand Lodge is the ultimate
governing authority over the Craft,
there is no higher degree than that of Master Mason, and the
attraction of the side degrees should be viewed in its proper
perspective.
Impress upon masons that the jurisdictional arrangements of the
Scottish Rite and other such bodies have no relevance to U.S. grand
lodges nor to U.S. Craft (blue lodge) Masonry in general.
Furthermore, make it clear that neither the location of a state on
the map nor the designation of a grand lodge as F. & A.M. or A.F. &
A.M. has any bearing on grand lodge regularity. Nor do such
designations of themselves reveal anything about a grand lodge’s
parentage or pedigree.
4. Explain that the U.S. structure of Masonry does not obtain in
other countries. Explain that in some countries the Craft degrees
are under the jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite (or Ancient and
Accepted Rite), while in others (e.g., Sweden), the grand
lodge directly controls advancement to degrees beyond that of Master
Mason. Explain that advancement in many parts of the world to the
next degree (starting with the Fellowcraft) is neither fast nor
automatic, the candidate having much more study to do than is usual
in the United States. Further, explain that some grand lodges (e.g., Sweden) limit masonic
membership to Christians, though this is not the case in the U.K. or
the U.S.
5. Explain that Freemasonry in the United States is not a
Christian organization and that a brother called on to give a
non-ritual prayer at a masonic function should not use words such as
“In Christ’s Name” as doing so could well be offensive to
non-Christian masons who may be present.
It would seem the better path to keep non-ritual prayers on a basis
“in which all men agree” as the old charges suggest.
6. Tell of the controversies which gave rise to the Antients
grand lodge, which then labeled the first grand lodge as “Moderns,”
what the basic causes of the difficulties were, and how the two
grand lodges settled their differences and formed the United Grand
Lodge of England.
Explain that masons traveling to foreign countries may expect to
find different passwords in use (including the S.),
as well as different sets of working tools, different ways of
presenting the legend of the third degree, different GHSs, and other
general differences around the world, particularly between the more
popular post-Union rituals used in Britain and the Webb rituals used
in the United States.
Explain that in some parts of the world (and the U.S., too) the
Craft degrees are worked using rituals propounded by the Scottish
Rite.
Discuss the “Baltimore” Conventions of 1842, 1843, and 1847 and how
they affected American Freemasonry,
in part by launching the trend for lodges to transact business only
on the third degree and curtailing development of a general grand
lodge for the United States.
7. Explain Prince Hall Masonry.
Point out that black and Prince Hall masons are not necessarily
irregular, that irregular black and Prince Hall masons are not
irregular because of race, that a black mason is not necessarily a
Prince Hall mason, and that many black masons belong to lodges
chartered by so-called “white” grand lodges.
Irregularity stems from a grand lodge’s pedigree, not the racial
makeup of its lodges, and is, in any case, always judged
subjectively.
The
Ritual
8. Explain in general terms the history of masonic ritual.
The original masonic degrees were Apprentice and Fellow. The Master
Mason degree was more or less settled in the 1720s
and the Royal Arch arose in the 1730s,
but all other degrees are more recent innovations and arose outside
of the Craft Masonry setting.
Grand lodges have sovereign authority to determine what Craft
rituals will be used in their jurisdictions. A grand lodge may
specify a particular ritual, or may leave the matter up to local
lodges and simply set general guidelines.
The designations “F. & A.M.,” “A.F. & A.M.,” “F.A.A.M.,” or
otherwise are irrelevant as far as ritual is concerned.
9. Explain the origin of the words, “So mote it be,” being
Middle English for “So may it be” or “So be it,” and appearing twice
in the Regius Manuscript.
Provide new masons with a properly translated copy of the Regius MS
and suggest that they read John Hamill’s book, The History of English
Freemasonry.
10. Explain that masonic ritual is supposed to make sense
spiritually and emotionally, not logically or historically. Take, for example,
the Pythagorean theorem, which relates the lengths of the sides of a right
triable to its hypotenuse, stated algebraically as a2+b2=c2.
Mathematical historians dispute whether Pythagoras himself ever posited
the theorem named for him – or devised a proof of it. But in either case, the
Babylonians made use of the theory by about 2,000 B.C., some 1,400 years before
Pythagoras was born. Nothing survives of Pythagoras’ work, although the
“bride’s chair proof” or “proof walking on stilts” as it has been called,
popularized by Euclid and shown on masonic tracing boards, is as good a
representation as any of how the early Greeks would have approached the problem.
The proof is used as the Past Master symbol by our English brethren.
Nor is Pythagoras famous for saying
“Eureka,” meaning “I have found it.” It was Archimedes who gave this
exclamation when, sitting in his bath, he realized how to determine
whether the crown of Hieron II, King of Syracuse, was pure gold by
immersing it in water to discover its specific gravity. Pythagoras
was not, of course, “raised to the sublime degree of Master Mason.”
There was no such thing.
11. Foster an interest in quality ritual and encourage
establishment of lodges of instruction. The cipher ritual is not a
substitute for rehearsals and must not be used as a crutch. A lodge
of instruction could, by bringing together members of several lodges
to practice jointly, promote exchange of good ideas and discourage
unnecessary practices and bad habits. Ideas abound: teach deacons
and stewards how to hold and carry a staff properly; teach chaplains
how to time their prayers and direct them to the candidate; teach
proper voice techniques; teach speakers how to deal with unexpected
situations (e.g., an
improperly prepared EA candidate being presented to the Master).
There are two areas where lodges of instruction could be especially
helpful: demonstrating proper salutes, and teaching correct
pronunciation and delivery.
Due-guards and signs.
When I joined the Navy, I was told that salutes become sloppier in
direct proportion to the rank of the officer giving them. In
Freemasonry, however, where our only contention should be on “who
best can work and best agree” (i.e., make their wall level
and plumb), just the opposite should be true. Unfortunately it is
not. Due-guards and signs should be given in a crisp, military
manner, and accompanied by appropriate placement of the feet. Hands
should be completely flat for all due-guards and signs, except for
the moving hand in the FC sign.
For some unknown reason, the FC degree
presents special problems. There is a disturbing tendency in some
lodges to give the FC due-guard with the one arm extended. This is not correct! The
resulting gesture has no place in a masonic lodge. All signs,
including the FC sign, being p. signs, represent a ctg m and not a plg m. We are not
talking dolls, nor are we throwing salt or catching flies.
Word pronunciation and delivery.
I am reminded of the story of the new mason who went home and told
his wife of the three types of men to be found in a masonic lodge:
the walkers, the talkers, and the holy men. The walkers walk around
the lodge; the talkers talk while the walkers walk; and the holy men
(they’re the ones with aprons trimmed in purple), they sit with
their heads in their hands saying, “Ohmigod.”
Of course it’s easy to
preach from behind; its quite another when you’re sitting in the
East with all eyes upon you. We all acquire bad habits – some very
dear to the heart. In fact, certain passages sound
better with a word pronounced, shall we say, “with improvement.”
For example, I much prefer
/DAY-i-tee/, /PILE-as-tur/, and /DYE-ves-ted/. All
of which are wrong. Mispronouncing the word “divest” is
particularly popular because emphasizing the first syllable draws
attention to the distinction between investing and divesting. Which proves
the point that we must consider the message being conveyed not only
by the words but by their delivery as well. Correct pronunciation is
only a beginning, but it is a necessary one.
Before moving on, allow me to suggest
three areas where a zero tolerance policy should be employed and
absolute perfection demanded: the apron presentation, the “G”
Lecture, and the presentation and description of the FPOF. These
areas are the hearts of their degrees. I believe that anything less
than perfection in their presentation is an insult both to the
candidate and to the lodge.
So let’s pronounce the words right.
When they’re said wrong, the speaker comes across as uncaring and
un-prepared. Let’s understand the meaning, too, because correct
pronunciation will not save a speaker who doesn’t know what he’s
saying.
Some word usages (“stone,” “bourne,”
“smote”) are commonly heard only in masonic ritual. I would like to
touch on these and the more common offenses which so often arise,
but I must leave a more thorough study for the future. A number of
problem words are listed in the Appendix.
So much for ritual matters.
Mythconceptions
12. Advise masons that Freemasonry is not anti-Catholic although,
depending whom you ask, the opposite may be true.
In 1974 Cardinal Seper wrote to the
bishops, stating that “The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith . . . has ruled that Canon 2335 no longer bars a Catholic
from membership of masonic groups. . . . And so a Catholic who joins
the Freemasons is excommunicated only if the policy and actions of
the Freemasons in his area are known to be hostile to the
Church. . . .”
But there have been developments since then.
In 1983, a new Code of Canon Law was
published, wherein Canon 2335 was replaced by Canon 1374, which only
forbade membership in organizations which “plot against the Church”
and removed the penalty of automatic excommunication, replacing it
with “a just penalty.” This is in conformity with Cardinal Seper’s
interpretation. Shortly before the new Code was published, however,
the Sacred Congregation, under a new Prefect, issued a pronouncement
that Canon 1374 did not really affect the original policy. Although
the pronouncement nullifies Cardinal Seper’s earlier ruling, it was
issued prior to the effective date of the new canon. Accordingly,
some dioceses are holding that the canon supersedes the ruling and
are on that basis permitting masonic membership.
The point is that masonry is neither
“for” nor “against” any faith or denomination. The repeated need to
say so is deeply troubling as it reveals, at best, questions arising
out of on little or no capacity for independent thought.
13. Explain that the American Revolution was not a masonic plot
or conspiracy,
nor was the Boston Tea Party,
and suggest that masons curb their appetite for these stories.
Certainly masons
participated in all these events, but if Masonry as an organization
were to have done so it would be more cause for shame than
jubilation. After all, General Arnold was also a freemason.
Attending to the Gullible – and the Hateful
14. Discuss the Morgan Affair, and explain the danger of ignoring
anti-masonic sentiments.
Masons are charged not to let their zeal for the Institution lead
them into argument with those who through ignorance may ridicule it.
But anti-masons are not acting only out of ignorance. Their attacks
are not ridicule but weapons specifically employed to destroy
society’s greatest champion of freedom of conscience and universal
morality.
Masons should be strongly encouraged to study Ed King’s website at
http://masonicinfo.com. It
provides a wealth of information about the anti-mason and his
motivations.
15. Explain that Freemasonry isn’t about secrets, and that “It’s
a secret” is an unacceptable response to general questions about
the Craft. Anti-masons like to attack the straw-man of masonic
“secrecy,” attempting thereby to neatly avoid the fact that our
organization, like any other, is entitled to its privacy. As if we
should be ashamed of restricting our meetings to members only!
Make sure masons
understand that “[t]he [real] secrets in Masonry are personal
insights. They are secret not because we are pledged to conceal
them, but because they cannot be truly communicated from one person
to another.”
Anti-masons who think they’ve done something clever by publishing
what they believe to be our “secrets” are truly a sad lot. An
unexpected writer (Giovanni Casanova) put it this way:
Men who plan only to be
accepted as Freemasons with the purpose of coming to know the secret
of the Order run great risk of growing old under the trowel without
ever attaining their object. [There is] a secret, but it is so
inviolable that it has never been told nor confided to anyone. Those
who grasp at the superficiality of things believe that the secret
consists in words, signs and grips, or that in the final analysis it
is the grand word of the last degree. A mistake!
He who discovers the
secret of Freemasonry, for they never know where they are finding
it, will not arrive at that knowledge by reason of frequenting
lodges. He gains it only by the strength of reflecting, of
reasoning, of comparing, and of deducing. He will not confide it to
his best friend in Freemasonry, for he knows that if that brother
does not find it for himself as did he, the friend will not have the
talent to extract the means to do so from what shall be said in his
ear. * * *
[T]hose who by dishonest indiscretion
make no scruple of revealing what is done [in lodge] have never
revealed the essential: they do not know it, and if they have not
known, truly they cannot reveal. . . .
Unfortunately, masonic history and many
of the matters above are also not learned by “frequenting lodges.”
But unlike the secrets of the apron, square, compasses and trowel,
masonic education can be taught – and we are
the ones charged to do so.
Conclusion
Six hundred years ago, an anonymous
priest, for his masonic education project, wrote:
This good lord loved the craft full
well,
and
proposed to strengthen it, every dell;
For diverse faults that in the craft
he found,
he
set about into the land
After all the masons of the craft,
to
come to him full even straghfte [straight].
For to amend these defaults all,
by
good counsel, if it might fall,
An assembly then he could let make,
of
diverse lords in their state --
Dukes, earls, and barons also;
knights, squires, and many mo.
(And the great burgesses of that
city,
they
were there all in their degree.)
These were there each one algate
[everywhere, always],
to
ordain for these masons’ estate --
There they sought by their wit,
how
[that] they might govern it:
Fyftene artyculus
þey
þer sow3ton,
and fyftene
poyntys
þer
þey wro3ton.
My fifteen points are nothing compared
to the timeless message of the Regius Manuscript. But I flatter
myself that my points also have their place. I’ve been told that the
trouble with masonic education of this type is that it never reaches
the brethren who need it most – that is, the ones who believe that
their long tenure in lodge equals knowledge of the Craft. This is
alarming, because as the saying goes, “If you think education is
expensive, try ignorance.” These harm us and no one else, and cry
out for good counsel to be whispered in a brother’s ear.
I know that I’m preaching to the choir.
But who else is there to call on? A more aggressive masonic
education program will work – if we work it. It is
essential to raise the level of knowledge on which the average mason
stands. I pray the Craft to correct these misconceptions wherever
found, to examine the content of our education programs, to continue
being leaders and shining a brighter light into the darkness of
unconsidered speculation and hearsay which too often passes for
knowledge in our mystic circle.
  
Bibliography
The
bibliography has been incorporated into the
notes.
The author
thanks the following persons for their comments and
suggestions, all of which have contributed to this work. In
alphabetical order --
-
Wor. Bro. James G. Bennie, WM, Lodge Southern Cross No.
44, F. & A.M., British Columbia
-
Wor. Bro. Greg M. Glur, PM, Shiloh Lodge No. 1, A.F.
& A.M., North Dakota
-
Bro. Karl-Gunnar Hultland, FC, Saints John Lodge Ultima
Thule, Swedish Order of Freemasons
-
Lisa J. Kiser, Ph.D., Professor of Old English and
Middle English Literature, English Linguistics, and History of
the English Language, The Ohio State
University
-
Wor. Bro. Den Robinson, PM, Sant Beuno Lodge No. 6733,
A.F. & A.M., England
-
Wor. Bro. Richard D. Snow, PM, New England Lodge No. 4,
F. & A.M., Ohio; PM, Ohio Lodge of
Research
-
Wor. Bro. Timothy B. Strawn, PM, New England Lodge No.
4, F. & A.M., Ohio
-
Wor. Bro. Robert L. Tucker, PM, Adoniram Lodge No. 517,
F. & A.M., Ohio
-
Wor. Bro. Louis S. VanSlyck, PM, Trinity Lodge No. 710,
F. & A.M. of Ohio; PM, Ohio Lodge of Research
NOTES
Steven B. VanSlyck, Jur.D. is an attorney at law with
primary experience in trusts, estate planning, and probate, as well
as consumer bankruptcy and a few other matters, and is also an
associate member of the American Copy Editors Association. As of
publication, he is currently attending DeVry University, where is is
taking a degree in information techology, is a Past Master of the
Ohio Lodge of Research, and is serving his symbolic lodge as Senior
Steward. Ed.
The son of a mason. Also, a dovetailed tenon made of several parts
and designed to fit into a dovetail mortise in a large stone so that
it can be lifted vertically by a hoisting apparatus, typically of
three legs. Sometimes fitted into the side of a stone to aid in
horizontal movement. Also called a
lewisson.
Tresner,
James T. II, Albert Pike: The
Man Beyond the Monument, p. 15 (Scottish Rite Research Society,
1995). Sadly, as this paper goes to press this statement is no
longer true. I now know one brother who insists that Freemasonry is
at least 2,000 years old.
91 AQC 89
(1978). (AQC refers to Ars
Quatuor Coronatorum, Proceedings of Quatuor Coronati Lodge No.
2076, London, the premier lodge of masonic
research.)
A good
place to start in studying the old charges is McLeod, Wallace, The Old Charges, 99 AQC 120
(1986). It is apparently from the old charges, or at least some of
them, that Craft, or blue lodge, Masonry takes its designation as
being “York” or “York Rite” Masonry. Markham, G., The Legendary History in the Old
Charges – Why York?, 98 AQC 61
(1985).
Batham,
Cyril N., The Origin of
Freemasonry (A New Theory), 106 AQC 16
(1993).
A
particular problem with the transition theory, as discussed by Bro.
Batham: “In an article in Grand Lodge 1717-1967, which
was published by the Untied Grand Lodge of England in 1967, Bro.
Harry Carr, [sic] wrote of the Transition theory as though it was an
established fact. * * * It [must be] emphasized that his views have
been challenged by several writers since then and, as he had to
admit to me, there is not a shadow of proof to support the theory
which he had put forward.” 106 AQC 16, 17 (1993). Bro. Colin Dyer,
as an example, put forth a conflicting view in Some Thoughts on the Origins of
Speculative Masonry, 95 AQC 92 (1982), wherein he said, “[T]he
movement which gave rise to speculative Masonry was a deliberate
creation, almost certainly of a secret nature, and not necessarily
connected in any way with building or the building industry.” Id. at 142. See also,
Sandbach, Richard, The Origin
of Species: The Freemason, 108 AQC 48 (1995). The Grand Lodge of
Ohio, in its candidate orientation program, also presents the
transition theory as fact. Candidate Counselor’s Handbook, A Short
History of Freemasonry, p. 41 (Grand Lodge of Ohio,
1992).
Gilbert,
R. A., To See Ourselves as
Others See Us, 107 AQC 1 (1994).
Art
deHoyos writes, “In ‘regular’ American Masonry control over the
Craft degrees was admittedly a right of the several Grand Lodges, a
privilege which survives
today. In most Latin as well as many European countries, however,
the various Supreme Councils [of the Scottish Rite] often exercise their
prerogative of conferring these degrees. . . .” 15 Collectanea,
Part 3, p. 2 (1995) [italics mine]. Now, the Council of Emperors of
the East and West, from which the Scottish Rite eventually arose,
came into being in Paris around 1758. deHoyos, Art, The Union of 1867, 4 Heredom
7, 8 (1995). Although the “higher grades” had been developing in
France for some time before that, I think it can be said without
fear of contradiction that the grand lodge system predated the
Scottish Rite by many years. I do not understand how it can fairly
be said that any body other than a grand lodge could have a
“prerogative” to confer the Craft degrees, or that grand lodge
jurisdiction over such degrees could really be characterized as a
“privilege,” which implies some higher authority having the
right to regulate or deny such privilege. Particularly given that
the “Secret” Constitutions of 1761, on which this claim is
ultimately based, were a fraud.
It would
help to stop using phrases like “32nd degree mason,” replacing them
with the more accurate expression, “32nd degree Scottish Rite mason.” Also,
refer to bodies other than Craft lodges as conferring “side degrees”
or “later degrees” instead of the misleading “higher degrees,” a
term which originated in France. The author notes with dismay
that the term “32nd degree mason” is, at publication time, being
emphasized by the Supreme Council,
NMJ.
Stewart,
Trevor, Some Thoughts About
the Social Psychology of the ‘Extra-Craft’ Degrees, 107 AQC 179
(1994).
Don’t
shoot the messenger. Freemasonry has been non-sectarian for over 200
years, the Fraternity only requiring its members to be of “that
religion in which all men agree [i.e., belief in a Supreme
Being], leaving their particular opinions to themselves;
. . . by whatever denominations or persuasions they may be
distinguished. . . .” The Charges of a Free Mason, Article I, Of God
and Religion, a ‘fundamental law of Free Masonry’ according to
Article XII of the Constitution of the Grand Lodge of Ohio. Of
course, Christian prayers are appropriate in Knights Templar
proceedings, or otherwise where membership is limited to Christian
masons only.
The Old
Charges and the Constitution of the Grand Lodge of Ohio were first
proposed for adoption by the Grand Master in 1842 and appear in the
Proceedings for that year. Every brother interested in Ohio
ritual should review those Proceedings as the charges, prayers, and
G lecture then recommended, and which appear there, differ
significantly from our monitorial work
today.
See
Batham, Cyril N., The Grand
Lodge of England According to the Old Institutions (The Grand Lodge
of the Antients), 94 AQC 141 (1981) and Some Problems of the Grand Lodge
of the Antients, 98 AQC 109 (1985).
See
Mendoza, Harry, The Words of
a Master Mason, 102 AQC 164 (1989).
The
Hiramic Legend is no secret, having been discussed at length in
masonic research publications from Ars Quatuor Coronatorum
on down. Observant masons will notice that the Webb rituals’
treatment of this legend (so far as I have been able to
determine) has a puzzling shift in focus halfway through the
story. The story begins with extortion and murder so as to acquire
“the secret” from HA. HA and several others turn up missing. An
investigation is made, whereby it is learned that HA has been
killed. Concern is expressed that his death may have resulted in
loss of “the secret,” and a search is made for the body. On
discovery of the body, however, no more mention is made about “the
secret,” only that “the word” has been lost. Until now, nothing has
been implied that the “secret” is a “word.” Under the English
post-Union rituals, however, this does not occur because from start
to finish the emphasis remains on the secrets (plural) as a whole,
and no “lost word” is singled out for special attention. A
number of secrets having been lost, KS deals with the situation by
not dealing with it. Instead the problem is recast into some other
problem, never before raised, and KS [redacted for publication –
Ed.].
Scottish
Rite rituals for the three Craft degrees are used in various parts
of the world, including some lodges in New Orleans and New York
City. Peterson, Norman D., The Apprentice of the Ancient
Accepted Scottish Rite and an Apparatus for Study of Minute
Parallels in Ritual, 107 AQC 183 (1994). Though this
organization is called the Scottish Rite in the U.S.,
the degrees are French in origin. Id. at 187, n. 1. The Scottish Rite
degrees (1°-33° or
4°-33°) are as
beautiful as its history is intriguing, and add much to
Freemasonry’s store of moral philosophy.
There is
no dearth of suitable topics for a paper such as this, and as all
writers know, every interesting subject leads inexorably to another.
The Hydra being what it is, I respectfully surrender: a paper on the
work and effect of the these conventions will have to wait for
another day.
The
movement for a general grand lodge began at a meeting of American
Union Lodge (now No. 1 of Ohio) at Morristown, NJ on December 27,
1779. General Washington was in attendance at this meeting. Cerza,
Alphonze, The American War of
Independence and Freemasonry, 89 AQC 169, 174
(1976).
See
Draffen of Newington, George, Prince Hall Freemasonry, 89
AQC 70 (1976).
On October
20, 1995, the Grand Lodge of Ohio recognized The Most Worshipful Prince Hall
Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of Ohio, Inc., having
itself been reciprocally recognized on August 14 of the same year.
See Report of the Fraternal
Relations Committee, Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Ohio, p.
91 (1995), and Report of the
Grand Master, id. at 37-38. At the request of the Prince Hall
Grand Lodge, the committee recommended that recognition be for
visitation purposes only, not transfer of
membership.
The
harmony between brethren of the grand lodges is astonishing.
Something has happened among the masons of these two bodies which
was never before seen within either separately. There is a
brotherhood, a sprit of inner peace and harmony, which is the purest
exemplar of the best teachings the Craft. The gangrenous evil of
racism has truly been impaled on the Tyler’s
sword.
Brodsky,
Michael L., The Regular Freemason: A Short History of Masonic
Regularity, 106 AQC 14 (1993); Haffner, Christopher, Regularity of
Origin, 96 AQC 111 (1993); and VanSlyck, Louis S., Regular and
Irregular Masons, Proceedings of the Ohio Lodge of Research, 25 OLR
___ (1997-2003).
See, for
example, Dennis, Jerry, Pliny’s World: All the Facts –
And Then Some, Smithsonian, Vol. 26, no. 8, p. 152 (Nov. 1995).
Apparently Pliny the Elder was one of the sources Preston drew on in
preparing his monitor. Pliny aside, a good place to start is with
“Ritual Differences,” The
Short Talk Bulletin, Vol. 12, no. 1 (Masonic Service
Association, 1934).
Hamill,
John, The History of English
Freemasonry, p. 110 (1994).
Id. The 1813
Articles of Union which formed the United Grand Lodge of England
“declared and pronounced that pure Antient Masonry consists of three
degrees and no more; Vizt. those of the Entered
Apprentice, the Fellow Craft, and the Master Mason, including the
Supreme Order of the Holy Royal Arch. . . .” Mendoza, Harry, The Articles of Union and the
Orders of Chivalry, 93 AQC 59 (1980). See also, Ough, Anthony
R., The Origin and
Development of Royal Arch Masonry – A Short History of the Evolution
of the Organization, Government and the Ritual of the Holy Royal
Arch, 108 AQC 188 (1995) and Brodsky, Michael L., Some Reflections on the Origin
of the Royal Arch, 102 AQC 98
(1989).
The Mark
and Past Master (Virtual) degrees being possible exceptions. The
Mark degree was originally worked in lodges with and as a part of
the Royal Arch. Hamill, supra, at 128. The Royal
Arch was originally limited to Installed and Past Masters, however
this limited Royal Arch growth. The Past Master (Virtual) degree was
therefore instituted as a kind of legal fiction to allow masons who
had not yet reached the Chair to be exalted. Id. at 119-120. This degree,
referred to as the “Inner Working” in England, remains an integral
part of the third degree in that country, although used only during
installations.
For
example, Sojourner-Kilwinning Lodge No. 1798, F.A.A.M. of the
District of Columbia has authority to work both the Emulation ritual
and the District of Columbia ritual.
The last
four lines of the Regius MS, c. 1390, are: “Wel
þys
boke to conne & rede, Heven to have for 3owre mede.
Amē
amen – so mot hyt be! Say we so alle pr
charyte.”37 This
translates as: “Well
this book to know and read, Heaven to have for your meed. Amen, amen
– so mote it be! Say we so all, By Charity!” The last
line is routinely (mis)translated as “So say we all for charity,”
which is wrong in both words and meaning. The Internet repeats and
spreads these and many other blunders in wording and translation
over and over again. Its full flavor can be realized in the original
Middle English. I believe most renditions today suffer from a too
literal translation. For example, “mede,” today spelled “meed,”
means “reward.” But were we to supply our own word, “mead,” we could
not only retain the rhyme but supply the interesting metaphor of
quenchng a thirst (for knowledge) and dovetail nicely with the wine
of refreshment as a symbol of the Fellowcraft degree. “Conne”
actually means “read” in the sense of learning through study, or
knowing, so we essentially have a doublet – “to read and
read.”
Masons
tend to completely misunderstand the last two words, “par charyte.” This phrase
was a common interjection, used much as a person might end a
sentence with “by gosh” or “indeed” today. From the context, it is
doubtful that this was a specific reference to charity either in the
sense of giving generally or as a masonic virtue. I think the
translation “by charity” is therefore
better than “for charity,” which is
the usual case.
Those
wishing to learn more about the Regius MS can begin by reading the
article on James O. Halliwell in Mackey’s Encyclopedia of Freemasonry,
and continue with Hamer, Douglas, Further Consideration of the
Regius MS, 94 AQC 166 (1981).
See
generally, Dunham, William, The Mathematical Universe
(1994), and Swetz, Frank J., ed., From Five Fingers to Eternity: A
Journey Through the History of Mathematics
(1994).
With a nod to Robert
Lynn Asprin.
See
Mellor, Alec, The Roman
Catholic Church and the Craft, 89 AQC 60, 68 (1976). See also,
see Barker Cryer, Nevil, The
Churches’ Concern with Freemasonry, 95 AQC 1
(1982).
Madison,
William G., “The Miter and the Trowel,” The Philalethes, pp. 86
(Aug. 1996); continued at 111, 112 (Oct.
1996).
Cerza, War of Independence,
supra.
Cerza,
Alphonze, The Boston Tea
Party and Freemasonry, 98 AQC 207
(1985).
Cerza, War of Independence, supra,
at 174.
A good
discussion of the Morgan Affair can be found in Muir, R. Keith, The Morgan Affair and its Effect
on Freemasonry, 105 AQC 217 (1992) and 106 AQC 131
(1993).
“The
problem of anti-masonry is deep-rooted and there is no easy solution
to it. No matter how noble its aims and teachings may be,
Freemasonry cannot expand its membership as long as it is out of
touch with society. It is essential that efforts be made on the part
of freemasons so that society in general will come to have a better
understanding of the fraternity. Only by enlightening the public
about its true purposes and principles and dispelling their
misconceptions, will Freemasonry be able to grow in the Land of the
Rising Sun [and elsewhere throughout the world].” Washizu, Yoshio,
Anti-Masonry in Japan – Past
and Present, 107 AQC 85, 106 (1994).
These two sentences added by author at press
time.
Casanova
de Seingalt, Giovanni Jacopo, Memoirs, as published in
Mackey, Albert G., Encyclopedia of Freemasonry,
Vol. 1, pp. 181-182 (Rev. ed., 1946).
Fyftene
artyculus þey þer sow3ton, and fyftene
poyntys þer þey
wro3ton.
(Fifteen articles they there
sought, and fifteen points there they wrought.) The words
3ower,
sow3ton,
and
wro3ton
(your,
sought, and wrought) contain a character called the yogh, which is often
mistaken for, and wrongly transliterated as, a z. The Middle English yogh was used for two
sounds, later inscribed y at the beginning of a
word, and gh elsewhere to indicate
the velar-fricative. This shift was underway when the Regius MS was
written. The gh survives silently
today in such words as knight. Pyles, Thomas,
and Algeo, John, The Origins
and Development of the English Language, pp. 107-108, 139-140
(Third ed., 1982). Old and Middle English also had characters for
the voiced and unvoiced dental fricative th. These characters
were called the eth (Ð,
¶)
and the thorn (Þ,
þ)
respectively. Middle English used both characters, as well as th, interchangeably. My
favorite words in the poen: “Kyng
Nabogodonosor.”
back to top |
