The egyptian ladder of initiation, and the ancient mysteries.

ML the Regius Manuscript has been dated to the late 1300 at the earliest...after the KT were disbanded.

"The Muses Threnodie" huh ? Thanks for the tip.I will have to check it out for my research.

[edit on 22-5-2007 by RWPBR]

While we're on the topic of the Halliwell Manuscript or Regius poem as it is also called, there are some things from that manuscript that cause me to believe that Masons saw themselves as the heirs of an ancient legacy, even in 1390 (the approximate date of the manuscript). For starters

"And believe on his false law,
The emperor let take them soon anon,
And put them in a deep prison;
The more sorely he punished them in that place,
The more joy was to them of Christ's grace,
Then when he saw no other one,
To death he let them then go;
By the book he might it show
In legend of holy ones,
The names of the four-crowned ones.

Their feast will be without doubt,
After Hallow-e'en eighth day.
You may hear as I do read,
That many years after, for great dread
That Noah's flood was all run,
The tower of Babylon was begun,
As plain work of lime and stone,
As any man should look upon;
So long and broad it was begun,
Seven miles the height shadoweth the sun.
King Nebuchadnezzar let it make
To great strength for man's sake,
Though such a flood again should come,
Over the work it should not take;
For they had so high pride, with strong
boast
All that work therefore was lost;
An angel smote them so with divers speech,
That never one knew what the other should
tell.
Many years after, the good clerk Euclid
Taught the craft of geometry full wonder wide,
So he did that other time also,
Of divers crafts many more.
Through high grace of Christ in heaven,
He commenced in the sciences seven;"

These passages seem to indicate that that the Masons of the Fourteenth Century saw themselves as heirs of Noah, Nebuchadnezzar, and Euclid, all very ancient personages.

Another excellent post !

The first stanza just SCREAMS Templars !

"And believe on his false law,
The emperor let take them soon anon,
And put them in a deep prison;
The more sorely he punished them in that place,
The more joy was to them of Christ's grace,
Then when he saw no other one,
To death he let them then go;
By the book he might it show
In legend of holy ones,
The names of the four-crowned ones.

Their feast will be without doubt,
After Hallow-e'en eighth day.

Alright, illuminate, my rodeo friend. Who are the four-crowned ones?

The four crowned ones were Severius, Severian, Carpophorus and Victorian. The Roman Emperor Diocletian ordered them to be beaten to death with leaded rods. For a long time their names were not known, and for that reason the Church decided to celebrate their saint's day on the same day as that of five other martyrs, Claudius, Castor, Symphorian, Nicostratos and Simplicius, who were martyred two years later. These five martyrs were sculptors who, because they refused to sculpt an idol for Diocletian, were sealed alive in lead-coated barrels and thrown into the sea, in 287 AD.

So it is on the saint's day of these five martyrs that Pope Melchiades proclaimed the commemoration of The Four Crowned ones, the four whose names were not known. And later, though the names of the four saints became known by divine revelation, the custom of calling them by the collective name of the Four Crowned Ones remained.
IIRC their feast day is close to when the Templars were arrested by Philipe the Fairy... Mid October.

it is a veiled reference to the plight of the Templars.


[edit on 22-5-2007 by RWPBR]

Originally posted by RWPBR
The four crowned ones were Severius, Severian, Carpophorus and Victorian. The Roman Emperor Diocletian ordered them to be beaten to death with leaded rods. For a long time their names were not known, and for that reason the Church decided to celebrate their saint's day on the same day as that of five other martyrs, Claudius, Castor, Symphorian, Nicostratos and Simplicius, who were martyred two years later. These five martyrs were sculptors who, because they refused to sculpt an idol for Diocletian, were sealed alive in lead-coated barrels and thrown into the sea, in 287 AD.

So it is on the saint's day of these five martyrs that Pope Melchiades proclaimed the commemoration of The Four Crowned ones, the four whose names were not known. And later, though the names of the four saints became known by divine revelation, the custom of calling them by the collective name of the Four Crowned Ones remained.
IIRC their feast day is close to when the Templars were arrested by Philipe the Fairy... Mid October.

it is a veiled reference to the plight of the Templars.


[edit on 22-5-2007 by RWPBR]

Let's assume that's true. How do you explain Noah, Euclid, and Nebuchadnezzar?

Poetic license and creative origins. The poem also mentions King Athelstane which I believe it what ML was refering to in his last post.

It was common in these days for families and guilds to ascribe their origins to great persons from antiquity.

Originally posted by Cug

Originally posted by uberarcanist

Unhuh. How do Masons have such a good understanding of the Hermetic Corpus, the Kabbalah, astrology, etc. (all of which are incredibly ancient), if they themselves are not incredibly ancient?

Why would you have to be ancient to have a good understanding of those subjects? All you need to do is read.

Another way to accomplish it is to fabricate it in the present, and then "back-interpret" it using older sources. Symbols and symbolic language can often be found repeated in the past, since they tend to be archetypal. Then all you have to do is "expertly" interpret the old symbol to mean what you want it to mean in the present.

After all, isn't a pyramid a kind of ladder that implies a filtering or winnowing as it reaches the top? It wouldn't take too much imagination (and people have plenty of imagination), to figure out a meaning to these things, and then claim that the ancient Egyptians gave it the same meaning. Then all you have to do is claim -- or imply -- that you acquired the mystical secret from them, rather than you giving it to them.

Unfortunately, for all of their secrets and dodges, I'm afraid neither the Masons nor any other mystical society has any secret information or knowledge of any particular practical value (like how to build a functional time machine, or transmute lead into gold, for instance).

Their language remains symbolic and ritualistic, and the only power it generates is the very ordinary (although considerable) power that results when people cooperate for a common purpose -- usually to control commerce and acquire wealth.

the same logic could be applied to math - it's certainly ancient, yet can be understood by modern man.

Originally posted by RWPBR
ML the Regius Manuscript has been dated to the late 1300 at the earliest...after the KT were disbanded.

Yes, but the Regius describes the York gathering circa 900 A.D.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by RWPBR
ML the Regius Manuscript has been dated to the late 1300 at the earliest...after the KT were disbanded.

Yes, but the Regius describes the York gathering circa 900 A.D.

Yes but almost 400 years later. It was more legend that history after that long. Most serious masonic scholars I have read dont put much stock in it.

Originally posted by RWPBR


Yes but almost 400 years later. It was more legend that history after that long. Most serious masonic scholars I have read dont put much stock in it.

I wouldn't go that far. Actually, I don't know any Masonic scholar who has brushed it off, although the details can not all be verified.

The Regius does show that the Craft was already in existence in some speculative form in 1390, and that the brethren at that time considered the Craft to be old.

This only one of the reasons that practically all historians have rejected the Templar theory. Another reason is that there is no mention of Templary at all in Masonry until after Ramsay's speech. Most agree that, since at the time the French didn't really care for the English, but loved Masonry nevertheless, they invented for it a French origin (Templary).

Furthermore, while English Masonry was egalitarian, the French Masons were aristocratic, and could not fathom belonging to a society founded by "lowly laborers". They therefore invented for it a chivalric origin.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by RWPBR


Yes but almost 400 years later. It was more legend that history after that long. Most serious masonic scholars I have read dont put much stock in it.

I wouldn't go that far. Actually, I don't know any Masonic scholar who has brushed it off, although the details can not all be verified.

The Regius does show that the Craft was already in existence in some speculative form in 1390, and that the brethren at that time considered the Craft to be old.

This only one of the reasons that practically all historians have rejected the Templar theory. Another reason is that there is no mention of Templary at all in Masonry until after Ramsay's speech. Most agree that, since at the time the French didn't really care for the English, but loved Masonry nevertheless, they invented for it a French origin (Templary).

Furthermore, while English Masonry was egalitarian, the French Masons were aristocratic, and could not fathom belonging to a society founded by "lowly laborers". They therefore invented for it a chivalric origin.

Almost all of my fellows in the Research Lodge consider the "King Athelstane Theory" to be historical wishful thinking... there is just not any evidence. Remember most Masons of the time counted Adam, Enoch and Noah as members as well.

I think there is as much Templar evidence as there is for other theroies, it just depends on what sources you consider valid. IMO the reference to the Four Crowned ones is a veiled reference to the Templars. Anyone alive in 1390 would have seen the connection.

Anyway I love to discuss our origins. If there is truely a mysterious conspiracy in Masonry it is our origins ! Somebody somewhere didnt want anybody to know the truth. If it was descended from simple stone masons why go to the trouble hiding it ?

Originally posted by RWPBR


Almost all of my fellows in the Research Lodge consider the "King Athelstane Theory" to be historical wishful thinking... there is just not any evidence.

Yet there is more evidence for it than Templary. At least we have a medieval document which describes the Athelstane connection. There is no attempt to reconcile Masonry with Templary until the 18th century.

Remember most Masons of the time counted Adam, Enoch and Noah as members as well.

This persisted until modern times. Salem Towne called Moses the "the Grand Master of Israel" who ushered the Hebrews into a "regular Lodge while in the wilderness". Even Mackey got caught up in it at times...his book "The Symbolism of Freemasonry" is often absurdly stupid because of such ridiculous claims without a trace of evidence to back them up.

But the Regius shows some very important points: regardless of whether the York story is true, we now that the Craft was well organized as both an operative and speculative body at the time it was written. For this to happen in the early middle ages would have taken quite some time; it would have required organizational evolution. I think therefore it is safe to assume that the fraternity existed in some form in 900 A.D., regardless of whether the king patronized their meetings.

I think there is as much Templar evidence as there is for other theroies, it just depends on what sources you consider valid. IMO the reference to the Four Crowned ones is a veiled reference to the Templars. Anyone alive in 1390 would have seen the connection.

I just don't see it. The Quatuor Coronati were honored by builders long before the Templars came into existence.

Anyway I love to discuss our origins. If there is truely a mysterious conspiracy in Masonry it is our origins ! Somebody somewhere didnt want anybody to know the truth. If it was descended from simple stone masons why go to the trouble hiding it ?

My own personal theory is Rosicrucian influence...it could even be the case that they themselves invented the Templar stuff as a blind, but also as an allegoy of themselves.

We know that Desaguilers and Ashmole both had massive collections of occult books, including all the Rosicrucian publications. Also, recall the pre-Grand Lodge - era Rosicrucian poem with the line "we have the mason word".

Originally posted by Masonic Light

My own personal theory is Rosicrucian influence...it could even be the case that they themselves invented the Templar stuff as a blind, but also as an allegoy of themselves.

We know that Desaguilers and Ashmole both had massive collections of occult books, including all the Rosicrucian publications. Also, recall the pre-Grand Lodge - era Rosicrucian poem with the line "we have the mason word".

It seems to me, that the AMORC embraces a lot of the same teachings as masonry. They are inherently connected trhough thier teachings and writings. It does however seem more in depth with the metaphysical knowledge of the body as a sacred temple, teaching its members to become more in tune with their souls. This entore post was started based on my collection of literature from authors involved with the rosicrucian order; The order that I recently joined. Their library/museum stocks original publications from some of history's greatest thinkers and philosophers. It seems like they are more connected to the ancient secret societies, than masonry. Or at least they claim to be.

Most importantly, once an initiate passed through that system, ask yourself if they could ever be persuaded that Jesus was a historical person and not an allegorical personage like Hiram Abyff. Answer: no way. Period.

I see people here making the same egregious errors that many fools in the Martinist Order make. You romanticize Christian "knights" like the Templars or some other "secret" groups having no idea whatsoever just how asinine it is. Christianity destroyed the ancient mysteries along with classical civilization. You have no idea the irony of you fools with your "Christian mysteries." The very reason the Catholic church exists was to show there was no secret doctrine. You want to ridicule this and that because there is "no evidence" while completely oblivious to the fact that that's because Christians burned the books. All with no more sense of irony than a cow.j