All design and Graphic Work
Copyright:©Mastermason.com 1998
Web Design by:
Carl A. Davenport
Music:
The Thrill Is Gone
by B.B.King
Our Server is: Mastermason.com,
And yours should be too |
Join Freemasonry's Oldest And Most
Respected WebGuild
We're a lot more than just a fancy logo on your homepage
|
This paper is deliberately headed "some notes"
because the
subject is far too extensive to be handled in a single
paper.
This applies to the historical portion, as I am at loss as
to
how to do much with the symbolism part of it when
addressing those who have not taken the Royal Arch Degree
itself. The intent is rather to provide some thoughts for
individual research, for such activity produces
advancement
in Masonic knowledge. No attempt is made to propagate a
particular school of thought. It is more factual than
dogmatic
and the parts are not necessarily co-related.
In particular, it seems pertinent to point out to those
who are
at some pains to interpret symbolism in an esoteric sense,
that the symbols in the various Masonic degrees were
originally put there by mortal men. Esoteric knowledge is
not
a modern achievement, and even the motives behind such
demonstrations have changed over the centuries.
Ceremonial Freemasonry was born in England early in the
eighteenth century and dramatized in the United States of
America in the next century. The rituals were fabricated
by
two classes of men - those possessing considerable, if not
great, occult knowledge and those possessing none. The
one group strove to make the rituals occult, esoteric and
ceremonial while the other strove to simplify everything
or
provincialize it. We might illustrate the situation by
comparing two religious groups - men from the Roman
Church, the Church of England and Greek Church on the
one hand and men from the converts to Protestantism
unceremonialized, such as Methodists, Presbyterians,
Baptists, etc., i.e., conformists and nonconformists.
It must be kept in mind, too, that the knowledge of occult
symbolism was derived from an already existing store of
such knowledge, some of which was already grafted onto
the already existing Operative Masonic lodges by the early
Speculative Masons, who, in their turn, learned from
Rosicrucians like Henry Adamson, Sir Robert Moray,
Thomas Vaughan and certainly Elias Ashmole, who was
made a Mason in Warrinton in 1646. That Freemasonry took
its symbolism from definite earlier groups is borne out by
the
fact that there is not a scrap of evidence to show that
ceremonial Freemasonry, as we now know it, existed before
1717-23, nor that the Royal Arch degree existed in any
form
before 1738.
J.E.S. Tuckett ("Origin of the additional
Degrees" A. Q. C.
XXXII, page 5) has fairly conclusively proved that no
Masonic degrees were formed (i.e., new degrees) on the
Continent prior to 1850. We must, therefore, assume that
the
Royal Arch was "made in the British Isles" even
though we
do not know who made it or in what original form. None of
the various theories have evidence to substantiate them.
It
might be well, in passing, to mention what early pieces of
evidence regarding the degree are extant; simply some
references as to an existence of something called Royal
Arch or the like. They are the Youghal procession reported
in
1743; Dr. Fifield Dassigny's "Serious and Impartial
Inquiry" of
1744, in which he states that the Royal Arch Degree was
worked in London and York in 1740 and a little later in
Dublin; and a further undocumented statement in various
sources that the degree was worked in Sterling before
1743.
In 1746, Lawrence Dermott, Grand Secretary of the Antients,
was exalted in Dublin, we know, but there is no written
minute of the mention of such a degree until December 22,
1753, contained in the records of The Lodge at
Fredericksburg, Virginia in the Colonies.
The Antients, a group of Irishmen who formed the famous
"rival" Grand Lodge in England in 1751,
considered the
Royal Arch the very "Root, Heart and Marrow of
Freemasonry." The Grand Secretary of the original
Grand
Lodge. termed the Moderns, said in 1759 that "Our
Society
is neither Arch, Royal Arch, nor Antient."
It is impossible to give voice to the symbolism of the
Royal
Arch Degree without exposing the degree itself. As a
matter
of fact it would be difficult to understand the references
without having taken the degree. Consequently, but a few
general statements must suffice in this department.
The Royal Arch Degree is a Jewish degree and based on
Kabbalistic philosophy. If we examine the TREE OF LIFE we
find three triangles, the Supernal, the Ethical and the
Astral.
Freemasonry can be fitted onto the TREE with the Craft
degrees falling in the Astral Triangle, the Royal Arch in
the
Ethical and certain additional grades in the upper portion
of
the TREE.
In discussing a Royal Arch ritual, one would have to
decide
which ritual design he was symbolically explaining as
there
are a number of allegories and a number of differences
which are sufficient to change the whole picture. There
are
early and late rituals in England, Ireland, Scotland, the
Americas and the Sydney ritual, this latter being so
different
that the normal Royal Arch Mason might not recognize it at
all. Besides there are degrees of a similar design in the
Scottish Rite. Some refer to repairing the First Temple
and
others to rebuilding it. Then there is the matter of the
presiding officer being the King or the High Priest. For
those
interested in the Biblical references to the two
Temples-see
II Kings, Chapters 22 to 25 for the repairing of the first
Temple and Erza, Chapters 3 to 6 for the rebuilding of the
second Temple.
Then there are the emblems of Royal Arch Masonry, the
Triple-Tau and the Tetragramaton. So much has been
written about these that it is simply suggested that you
read
items in A.E. Waite's Encyclopedia; Kenneth R. H.
Mackenzies "Royal Masonic Cyclopaedia";
Castell's
"Antiquity of the Holy Royal Arch" for early
writers, and
articles by Pike, Hughan, Mackey, Oliver and Morris for
opinions of another decade. And, finally, recent writers
such
as Snodgrass, Steinmetz and Cummings, the latter being the
very finest material on the whole subject, but only
scattered
in various Masonic publications.
However, a warning must be given that every writer has his
own particular views as to the symbolic meaning of what
the
Royal Arch Degree is. Some points are common to most all,
but not many. For a degree which can be found dispersed in
all sorts of Rites and Systems of Freemasonry - greater
than
any other except the Hiramic Legend of the first three
degrees, it is not to be wondered that there is so much
written about its lessons and with such wide variance.
Generally speaking, there are two schools of thought
concerning the message of the degree or its purpose: one
group lines itself up as believing that it is the
completion of
the Master Mason's Degree; the other that it is an
explanation of the Master's Degree. A check made among a
great number of Royal Arch Masons showed that about half
of the rank and file of the membership thought it a
completion of the Craft degrees. For my part, I consider
the
two ideas the same with some interpolations. It is obvious
to
Brethren who have not received the Royal Arch Degree that
something is left wanting in the Master Mason Degree. But
it
is likewise obvious to those who have been exalted to this
degree that they have not fully received what they were
looking for, although much has been added to the allegory,
but symbolically and materially.
In building up a symbolic story of the Royal Arch Degree
it
must be warned also that there are definite sections in
the
rituals which seem to have no bearing on the general theme
whatever. They appear in the rituals at different dates
seemingly out of nowhere. One in particular, given here as
an instance, has been definitely traced. It is an
elaborate
lecture on the Royal Arch Jewel. It appeared first in the
English ritual after publication on page 374 of the
"Royal
Masonic Cyclopaedia" of Mackenzie - word for word. It
crops
up later, with minor changes, in the Irish and Scottish
rituals.
Then there are the various transplantings of the
"Passing of
the Veils" ceremony into the Excellent Master Degree
(English) and in other places - and back again into the
Royal
Arch rituals of the United States of America.
Next, there is the symbolism of the candidate finding
various
items in the Vault. The differences in what is found would
confuse a magician. The largest collection is a cube,
three
squares, coins, medals, a jewel and the V.S.L. (Irish) and
then the Ark and its usual contents - four or five in
number.
The words of a Royal Arch Mason might be mentioned for
symbolic comment were it possible without giving away the
heart of the degree. I can say that the ritual
explanations of
these are silly. As it wasn't possible to read Egyptian
hieroglyphics when the explanation of our M.M. Word was
devised, so it is with the others for similar reasons.
Thus,
when they are all taken together these explanations simply
do not make sense materially, practically or historically.
Castells believes that the Elements of the Royal Arch
Degree (Enoch or Hiramic versions, I suppose) probably
came from the Rosicrucian side and he makes out a very
good case, too. He also suggests that the Burning Bush
might be a symbol of the TREE OF LIFE.
The Vault, in one form or another, appears to be the
center
of the Royal Arch symbolism. This links it to the
Rosicrucian
"Fama," which tells the story of the finding of
the vault of
Christian Rosenkreutz (1614). The discovery in Royal Arch
Masonry, by way of the ring in the slab of stone, is in
exact
correspondence with the "Fama" story.
Historical research has shown that differences in Royal
Arch
rituals exist as the result of what might be termed
"political"
action, or as the outcome of rival beliefs and jealousies.
It is
left to the individual to make up his mind as to which is
likely
to be the most valid, if such a term can be applied to any
ritual which was compiled in the first place by a man or a
body of men who may have had other ideas as to what was
the right thing.
How are we, then, to place before the Brethren or
Companions a set of standard symbolic views of such a
degree? Further it is utterly incongruous to take any one
of
the three main Royal Arch rituals and build up a single
symbolic system for propagation, except for the use of
those
who have seen it conferred or (clandestinely, shall I say)
have read such a ritual. Even then it would be a man's, or
group of men's, opinions.
Therefore, our suggestion is to receive the Royal Arch
Degree. Then read two or three treatments, and, with these
ideas as a background, add your own ideas (keeping within
decent bounds) and build up a theory of the symbolism of
the allegory based on the symbols used in the degree as
conveyed to your mind. As imperfect as the degree is made
out to be by certain liturgists, it is the ONLY degree
which
offers the BASE MATERIAL for a full and more perfect study
of the Art - Freemasonry.
Freemasonry is an institution essentially philanthropic
and
progressive, which has for its basis the existence of God
and
the immortality of the soul. It has for its object the
exercise of
benevolence, the study of universal morality, and the
practice
of all the virtues.- CONSTITUTION GRAND ORIENT OF FRANCE.
|
This website does not speak for
the Grand Lodge of Illinois or Freemasonry
|
