I recently had the privilege of sitting in a presentation given by Fr. Ophiphos of Crux Ansata Oasis O.T.O., in which he discussed Baphomet. I had the option of watching a "Masonic" presentation on "civil discourse" by a Mason who thinks the government is, and I quote, "going to line us up into train cars" — or I could watch this presentation on Baphomet. Of course, I choose Baphomet. And I am glad I did, because it led me in an unlikely direction for something I have been struggling with concerning Henry P. H. Bromwell.
For the last year I have been intensely researching Henry Bromwell and his rite of Free and Accepted Architects. One of the tasks of mine is to fully decode the ritual of his rite. The ritual as transcribed by the Grand College of Rites is based on the old ritual books of the rite, of which I believe the only surviving copy is in the library of the Grand Lodge of New York. Even the copy in the Grand Lodge of Colorado appears to have been lost in the 1984 Welton Street fire. At some point I will travel to New York to see it, but for now I am reliant on Collectanea 4.2. The ritual is partly in single letter key (i.e. the first letter of each word, which is not so much a code as it is a mnemonic guide), partly abbreviations, and partly fully written out. It appears Bromwell was not so much trying to conceal the secrets of Masonry and his rite, which he partly does, but rather it was a shorthand. The first two degrees of the rite were written while Bromwell was residing in Illinois, so it is loosely based on Illinois Blue Lodge and Royal Arch ritual. The third degree, that of the Royal Architect, was written fourteen years later when Bromwell was living in Colorado, but by that point his ritual was not trying to imitate the ritual of other jurisdictions. As a result, there are a lot of single letter and abbreviated portions of his ritual that I am struggling with decoding. Sometimes he will code or abbreviate something and then write it out later, which makes decoding those pieces easier. However, some things are hapax legomena, i.e. they are said once and never occur again, and those have proved the most difficult.
One item in his ritual of the Royal Architect concerns the arrival of three kings, who are represented by the three candidates (this degree is conferred on three candidates at the same time, much like the Royal Arch Degree). They are said to be "Three Kings of the East, Ja n, Bo z, and M. B. H., who are Master Masons and members of this Grand Lodge."
"Ja n" and "Bo z" are clearly the names of the two pillars on the porch of Solomon's Temple, Jachin and Boaz (1 Kings 7:21), which hold particular significance in Masonry. But "M. B. H." has proved difficult for me. I have come across references to the "Three Pillars of Masonry" as well as allusions to the Three Kings in Masonry via three pillars (see for instance Jesse Hathaway's remarks in Episode 1 of the podcast Radio Free Golgotha). The three pillars could be a variety of things, such as the three classical orders of architecture that represent the Master and Wardens: the Ionic, Doric, and Corinthian. There are the three burning tapers about the altar. Et cetera. It is a curious concept relating the Three Kings of the East, i.e. the three Magi that visit the Christ child, to three pillars of Masonry, but these appear to be symbolic speculations that are posited by individual Masonic theorists, as opposed to being anything canonical in Masonry.
Initially, I presumed M. B. H. might be a play on the initials of the traditional names of the Magi: Melchior, Balthazar, and Caspar. My first thought was that Bromwell was playing with the name Caspar, and his poor understanding of Hebrew led him to use H instead of C. My train of thought was, based on other blunders Bromwell makes with Hebrew, that Caspar begins with a C, so he would mistakenly use ח Chet, which can and has been transcribed as an H. At least that is what I originally presumed, until recently.
While listening to Fr. Ophiphos's presentation on Baphomet, he quotes of portion of Aleister Crowley's Liber 333: The Book of Lies, §33, which I will now quote:
ΕΦΑΛΗΛΓ
BAPHOMETA black two-headed Eagle is GOD; even a Black Triangle is He. In His claws He beareth a sword; yea, a sharp sword is held therein.
This Eagle is burnt up in the Great Fire; yet not a feather is scorched. This Eagle is swallowed up in the Great Sea; yet not a feather is wetted. So flieth He in the air, and lighteth upon the earth at His pleasure.
So spake IACOBUS BURGUNDUS MOLENSIS17 the Grand Master of the Temple; and of the GOD that is Ass-headed did he dare not speak.COMMENTARY
33 is the number of the Last Degree of Masonry, which was conferred upon Frater P. in the year 1900 of the vulgar era by Don Jesus de Medina-Sidonia in the City of Mexico.
Baphomet is the mysterious name of the God of the Templars.
The Eagle described in paragraph 1 is that of the Templars.
This Masonic symbol is, however, identified by Frater P. with a bird, which is master of the four elements, and therefore of the name Tetragrammaton.
Jacobus Burgundus Molensis suffered martyrdom in the City of Paris in the year 1314 of the vulgar era.
The secrets of his order were, however, not lost, and are still being communicated to the worthy by his successors, as is intimated by the last paragraph, which implies knowledge of a secret worship, of which the Grand Master did not speak.
The Eagle may be identified, though not too closely, with the Hawk previously spoken of.
It is perhaps the Sun, the exoteric object of worship of all sensible cults; it not to be confused with other objects of the mystic aviary, such as the swan, phoenix, pelican, dove and so on.NOTE
17 His initials I.B.M. are the initials of the Three Pillars of the Temple, and add to 52, 13x4, BN, the Son.
First and foremost, I.B.M. has nothing to do with the computer company. Period. In order to not get confused with the computer company, we will henceforth refer to de Molay's intials as J.B.M. Second, in Latin, i and j are the same letter.
A bit of background: this section of The Book of Lies concerns the double-headed eagle of the Scottish Rite. Crowley views the 33rd Degree of the Scottish Rite as the highest and final degree of Masonry. Crowley is claiming in this section that he, Frater P[urdurabo] (one of his pseudonyms), was initiated as a Freemason and received the Scottish Rite Degrees, including the honorary 33rd Degree, while in Mexico City in 1900. Whether or not this is true, or even if the lodge he was initiated into was clandestine or not, is not relevant. It is my conviction that Crowley understood more about Freemasonry than most Freemasons today. However, the 33rd Degree is not the final degree, nor the highest. It is an honorary degree that can only be conferred by invitation. It just so happens to be the highest degree in the Scottish Rite, and is irrelevant of rank outside of the Scottish Rite.
The name Jacobus Burgundus Molensis is simply the Latin name for Jacques de Molay, with Jacob being the Anglicization of the French Jacques. "De Molay" indicates that Jacques was from Molay, a colony in the Haute-Saône region of Burgundy, France. Hence "Burgundus Molensis."
The fact Crowley relates the initials of the Latin name of Jacques de Molay to Jachin, Boaz, and an unnamed third pillar that begins with M, is curious, as it compares to Bromwell's J., B., M.B.H. Thus, for Crowley, Jacques and Jachin are comparable, and Burgundy and Boaz are also comparable.
Of course, we could surmise that a third pillar with the first letter being M could be the Master's Word. And certainly looking at the initials Bromwell gives, it looks like the first letter of each syllable of the Master's Word, just out of order. On the other hand, they are also the initials of where Jacque de Molay is from: M[olay], B[urgundy], H[aute-Saône] (which is also out of order, as it should be M.H.B.).
If this line of thought is correct, that the Three Kings of the East in Bromwell's Royal Architect Degree are named after the three pillars of Masonry, and the initials of those names are derived from the initials of Jacques de Molay's name, then we may conclude Bromwell and Crowley are looking at the same source. It does not matter if it true, and likely is a much later speculation of some Masonic theorist or another; it is doubtful the Knights Templar gave birth to Freemasonry. I myself am a Masonic Knight Templar, as well as a Past Commander of a Commandery, and I do not buy into the speculation that Masonry is connected to the Templars. I have read Born in Blood and I don't buy that theory. There are just too many "what ifs" and "it is possible." I personally think Masons looked at the Templars, the secrecy, the rites of initiation, et cetera and little more than wishful thinking is the connection between the Templars and the Masons. Perhaps it is the thought that the Templars were Gnostics that allures Freemasons to believe they are connected to the Templars.
In particular it was Christoph Friedrich Nicolai in his Trial of Accusations of the Templar Order and Its Secrets (1782) who first posits the theory that the Templars were Gnostics. He partly comes to this conclusion based on his interpretation of Baphomet, the idol that the Templars were accused of worshipping. Nicolai plays with the name Baphomet in Greek, rendering it as βαφη μητος baphe metos, which he translates as "Baptism of Wisdom." For this and other things, he claims the Templars were Gnostics, particular Manichaean. The earliest claims of connecting the Templars to Masonry is in 1737 by Chevalier Ramsay, but the first Grand Conclave of Templars was in 1791.
It really is not out concern here to prove or disprove, or really explore in any meaningful depth the supposed connections between Masonry and the Templars. The point being, Masons have long supposed there is a connection between the Templars and their own fraternity. Crowley certainly thought there was, and given the similarity between Crowley's J.B.M. and Bromwell's J., B., M.B.H., we may presume that Bromwell thought so too.
Bromwell was a Knight Templar, having been knighted at Elmwood Commandery in Springfield, Illinois in 1861. His rite of Architects is largely based on Royal Arch Masonry, and a bit on Cryptic Masonry. I previously assumed he did not bring in Templar Masonry into his rite, but if the above is correct, then this may be one of the only reference to Templary in his rite. Bromwell was not exactly interested in facts or truth in his rite or even in his tome Restorations of Masonic Geometry, but rather he was interested in the history of Masonic ideas, as he clearly states in the first chapter of Restorations (§1.5).
If indeed Bromwell's J., B., M.B.H. is related to Crowley's J.B.M., then they were likely looking at the same source. It is highly doubtful Crowley was looking at Bromwell's work, and was certainly not a member of the rite. Bromwell's rite of Architects was highly dysfunction, and overall an utter failure. (I have written an analysis of the failure of Bromwell's rite, which will be published later this year in Philalethes Vol. 74 No. 4). His book Restorations was not well distributed, and certainly not well read, and mostly sits as a nice looking book in Masonic libraries. Further, I doubt Crowley would have had patience for Bromwell's verbose writings. However, I do believe if the above is indeed related, both Bromwell and Crowley were looking at the same source(s). I have not found what that source could be, but I have a sneaking suspicious that they were both looking at something by Eliphas Levi.
Much of Bromwell's Masonic esoterica is likely derived from Levi, and Crowley pulls extensively from Levi for information and unverified personal gnosis on Baphomet, as well as a great deal of his claims about Freemasonry. I doubt the two men were looking at Levi for the same reason, but given what we know about the men and their ideas, I am willing to bet Levi is responsible in some manner for the disseminating an idea that both Bromwell and Crowley latched onto.
No comments:
Post a Comment