Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Contents.
CONTENTS .
LEABERS 4 ° 7 Special Grand Lodge 40 S CORRESPONDENCEThe Status of Past Masters 410 Reviews 4 11
Notes and Queries 411 Ro > al Masonic Institution for Hoys 411 Royal Masonic Bentvoleni Institution 411 Provincial Grand Lod ^ e of I . incolnsiiirc . — laying a Corner-stone with Masonic Ceremoni- at Grantham 411
Provincial Grand Lodire of Suffolk—Laying a Corner stone at Bim- St . Edmund's 41 a Provincial Grand Chapter of Kent 412 RRI ' HRTS OF MASONIC MEETINGSCraft Masonry 413
Red Cro-sof Constaniine 414 Jamaica 414 i- ' ashionable Wedding at Upper Norwood ... 414 Obituary 414 Masonic and General Tidings 415 Lodge Meetings for Next Week 410
Ar00101
THE Special Grand Lodge for the consideration of the Revised Book of Constitutions took place on Wednesday last , under the presidency of Bro . Lord HOLMESDALE , Prov . G . M . Kent , before . 1 very meagre attendance of brethren . Our readers had better study the official report themselves .
THE present position of Masonic arch-neology deserves the careful and thoughtful consideration of all Masonic students . It has been quite clear to us for some time , as our frequent remarks testify , that we are on the verge of a " new departure , " a fresh treatment of the whole wide question of
Masonic history . For no one theory , we venture to say , will exhaust the entire subject , not even several theories will satisfy all the various and conflicting evidences which are accumulating for us loyal searchers into the past of that wondrous Order to which it is our happiness and our privilege to belong . At
different times and by antagonistic schools certain views of Masonic archaeology have been vivaciously propounded and tenaciously upheld , which , though containing no doubt an element of historical truth in themselves , do not fulfil all the conditions or satisfy all the exigencies of that imperious Autocrat ,
destructive criticism . The mysteries , the secret societies , the Roman Collegia , the building corporations , the monastic fraternities , the mediaeval gilds , the Compagnonage , the operative lodges , the knightly orders , the Hermetic associations , may all have had something to do with Freemasonry ; but the
history of the Craft proper is most likely , we think , to be found in a combination of all these various sources , like confluent streams running to the great sea , rather than in isolated associations or separate bodies . Indeed , the history of Freemasonry , according to us , requires to be sought for in
various sources , and even in apparently opposing origins and continuations . So far it seems patent , according to the unfailing laws of true criticism , that not one of these various suggestions fills up all voids , meets all objections , smooths away all difficulties , or harmonizes all incongruities . As the humour
leads or the fancy prompts , one or other of these favourite "fads " occupies our time , monopolizes our thoughts , gratifies our tastes . But yet all in vain , for the inexorable voice of a cynical and unfeeling criticism will be heard , and we idly seek to still it , or overpower it by
dogmatic declarations or audacious assertions . Just now recent researches and prevailing notions have made us reconsider the statements of our earliest historians and carefully scrutinize the theories , and asseverations of the last 20 years . It is evident that a great deal must
turn on what was really and truly the Freemasonry of the seventeenth century , before we can safely pronounce as to what was its antecedent and subsequent condition , what its ancient history , what its modern developement . As earl y as 1600 , there is now evidence available , the . " fraternity of Fremasons "
was an existing body , but what its relationship to the mediaeval gilds , the companies of the towns , or the revival of 1717 , is the " Crux " yet to be explained and decided by the studious and the sagacious . That there was a seventeenth century Freemasonry to which ELIAS ASHMOLE and RANDLE
HOLMES belonged , of which PADGETT and BRAY were members , to which LEO J UDAH and others of the * ' Astrologers" like Sir J . HEYDON , may have been affiliated , is now apparently coming out clearly from the haze which ignorance and inattention and carelessness combined , have managed to throw
around the English seventeenth century history of Freemasonry . Our earliest historian , ANDERSON , like the well known author of " Multa Paucis " later , makes the revival of 1717 the ' perpetuation of an earlier system of Quarterly Communication of a mainly Operative Body . No doubt the clause in one of the Harleian MSS . may be appealed to
Ar00102
to strengthen ANDERSON ' S contention , but in onr opinion , though interesting and important in some sense in itself , it by no means settles the question . Its actual date is by no means certain according to the view of " experts , " and it is apparently but the repetition of a previous enactment of some kind . Thus OLIVER ' S entire theory raised upon it falls to the ground .
Even as regards Sir CHRISTOPHER WREN all is historical uncertainty , and rests only on lodge tradition , though no doubt carefully preserved , and not to be contemptuously disregarded . His connection with Freemasonry depends upon a MS . note of AUBREY , a statement of ANDERSON ' S in 173 S , the later and fuller documents of PRESTON , and the chtrished belief of the I . odo-e of
Antiquity . Of historical evidence properly so-called there is none . We can find no trace of his membership in life , or of his acknowledgment in death . He is called " that worthy Freemason " in a contemporary newspaper in 1723 , and though convincing evidence of his Masonic membership may exist , we think it probably does , it has not so far been found . It
is impossible we think to accept the account of our historians as regards his seventeenth century connection with Freemasonry , and if we reject his early connection with Freemasonry , we can hardly contend for his later , the more so as he does not claim it himself , ( as far as is known now ) , and the Grand Lodgeof 1723 seems to know nothing about
him . DERMOTT ' S explanation of his disfavour with the Craft may be true , but it has yet to be historically confirmed . With the uncertainty attendant on his Masonic claims , many other similar traditions and favourite assertions fall of course to the ground . If then we can depend positively on none of the grouping of facts beiore
1717 in our accredited histories , where are we ? We must endeavour to connect seventeenth century Freemasonry with eighteenth century Freemasonry , and then perhaps we may attain to something . Neither can we safely forget , though too often overlooked , the fact of a contemporary Hermeticism . How far the Hermetic
societies which , according to Prolessor MORLEY , began in the * fifteenth century , and of which even ASHMOLE was certainly a member in some form , influenced Freemasonry , is one of those " moot points " and " nice questions" which we cannot no longer afford to ignore or despise . FINDEL , as we know , took the bold course of discrediting and disclaiming
them altogether . Later writers feel that , in the face of growing evidences , it is neither prudent nor just , above all in an historical and critical point of view , to ostracize the mention and consideration of Hermeticism . Its influence may be overvalued or underestimated , as the case may be ; but it must be " weighed in the balances , " and if found wanting , rejected ; if
prevailing , accepted . Nothing is gained by contemning its claims , except an incomplete statement or an unscientific history . We have long been of the opinion that we are on the eve of valuable discoveries and molified views on many accredited points of Masonic history and archaeology . As gild charters and returns are collected and classified , as old reperu . ries of
Masonic apathy and neglect are opened out and studied , as we ourselves are not ashamed or unwilling to devote time , expense , and thought to the elucidation of old Masonic traditions and the verification of alleged Masonic
facts , we shall come , we have not the slightest doubt , to a fuller and clearer realization of the remarkable history of our wonderful Ord « r than our forefathers ever attained to , or than it has been our lot and privilege , so far , to master and comprehend .
* WITH respect to the status of Past Masters we refer to our report of the proceedings ol Grand Lodge . We think it hardl y worth while to follow
our correspondents through their various arguments , though we think we could clearly show the fallacy of them one and all . But surelv on this " vexata quasstio , " as to many other similar matters , " sufficient for the day is the evil thereof . " We may recur to the subject in our next .
* # « WE beg to call special attention to Bro . BINCKES' important statement at the last Boys' School General Committee with respect to thc proportions allotted to the New Building Fund and the General Fund of the Boys ' School , out of the returns thus far of 1883 .
* # WE are truly sorry to note in the Monde Maconnique the account of the death of Bro . ADRIEN GRIMAUX , Chief Secretary of the Grand Orient , and lately editor of the Monde Maconnique . As we have had in the pages of the
Freemason one or two friendly encounters with our amiable and lamented brother , we hasten to offer our sympathy with his many Masonic friends , and to regret equall y with them the loss of so able a " confrere , " and so kindl y and good a brother Freemason .
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Contents.
CONTENTS .
LEABERS 4 ° 7 Special Grand Lodge 40 S CORRESPONDENCEThe Status of Past Masters 410 Reviews 4 11
Notes and Queries 411 Ro > al Masonic Institution for Hoys 411 Royal Masonic Bentvoleni Institution 411 Provincial Grand Lod ^ e of I . incolnsiiirc . — laying a Corner-stone with Masonic Ceremoni- at Grantham 411
Provincial Grand Lodire of Suffolk—Laying a Corner stone at Bim- St . Edmund's 41 a Provincial Grand Chapter of Kent 412 RRI ' HRTS OF MASONIC MEETINGSCraft Masonry 413
Red Cro-sof Constaniine 414 Jamaica 414 i- ' ashionable Wedding at Upper Norwood ... 414 Obituary 414 Masonic and General Tidings 415 Lodge Meetings for Next Week 410
Ar00101
THE Special Grand Lodge for the consideration of the Revised Book of Constitutions took place on Wednesday last , under the presidency of Bro . Lord HOLMESDALE , Prov . G . M . Kent , before . 1 very meagre attendance of brethren . Our readers had better study the official report themselves .
THE present position of Masonic arch-neology deserves the careful and thoughtful consideration of all Masonic students . It has been quite clear to us for some time , as our frequent remarks testify , that we are on the verge of a " new departure , " a fresh treatment of the whole wide question of
Masonic history . For no one theory , we venture to say , will exhaust the entire subject , not even several theories will satisfy all the various and conflicting evidences which are accumulating for us loyal searchers into the past of that wondrous Order to which it is our happiness and our privilege to belong . At
different times and by antagonistic schools certain views of Masonic archaeology have been vivaciously propounded and tenaciously upheld , which , though containing no doubt an element of historical truth in themselves , do not fulfil all the conditions or satisfy all the exigencies of that imperious Autocrat ,
destructive criticism . The mysteries , the secret societies , the Roman Collegia , the building corporations , the monastic fraternities , the mediaeval gilds , the Compagnonage , the operative lodges , the knightly orders , the Hermetic associations , may all have had something to do with Freemasonry ; but the
history of the Craft proper is most likely , we think , to be found in a combination of all these various sources , like confluent streams running to the great sea , rather than in isolated associations or separate bodies . Indeed , the history of Freemasonry , according to us , requires to be sought for in
various sources , and even in apparently opposing origins and continuations . So far it seems patent , according to the unfailing laws of true criticism , that not one of these various suggestions fills up all voids , meets all objections , smooths away all difficulties , or harmonizes all incongruities . As the humour
leads or the fancy prompts , one or other of these favourite "fads " occupies our time , monopolizes our thoughts , gratifies our tastes . But yet all in vain , for the inexorable voice of a cynical and unfeeling criticism will be heard , and we idly seek to still it , or overpower it by
dogmatic declarations or audacious assertions . Just now recent researches and prevailing notions have made us reconsider the statements of our earliest historians and carefully scrutinize the theories , and asseverations of the last 20 years . It is evident that a great deal must
turn on what was really and truly the Freemasonry of the seventeenth century , before we can safely pronounce as to what was its antecedent and subsequent condition , what its ancient history , what its modern developement . As earl y as 1600 , there is now evidence available , the . " fraternity of Fremasons "
was an existing body , but what its relationship to the mediaeval gilds , the companies of the towns , or the revival of 1717 , is the " Crux " yet to be explained and decided by the studious and the sagacious . That there was a seventeenth century Freemasonry to which ELIAS ASHMOLE and RANDLE
HOLMES belonged , of which PADGETT and BRAY were members , to which LEO J UDAH and others of the * ' Astrologers" like Sir J . HEYDON , may have been affiliated , is now apparently coming out clearly from the haze which ignorance and inattention and carelessness combined , have managed to throw
around the English seventeenth century history of Freemasonry . Our earliest historian , ANDERSON , like the well known author of " Multa Paucis " later , makes the revival of 1717 the ' perpetuation of an earlier system of Quarterly Communication of a mainly Operative Body . No doubt the clause in one of the Harleian MSS . may be appealed to
Ar00102
to strengthen ANDERSON ' S contention , but in onr opinion , though interesting and important in some sense in itself , it by no means settles the question . Its actual date is by no means certain according to the view of " experts , " and it is apparently but the repetition of a previous enactment of some kind . Thus OLIVER ' S entire theory raised upon it falls to the ground .
Even as regards Sir CHRISTOPHER WREN all is historical uncertainty , and rests only on lodge tradition , though no doubt carefully preserved , and not to be contemptuously disregarded . His connection with Freemasonry depends upon a MS . note of AUBREY , a statement of ANDERSON ' S in 173 S , the later and fuller documents of PRESTON , and the chtrished belief of the I . odo-e of
Antiquity . Of historical evidence properly so-called there is none . We can find no trace of his membership in life , or of his acknowledgment in death . He is called " that worthy Freemason " in a contemporary newspaper in 1723 , and though convincing evidence of his Masonic membership may exist , we think it probably does , it has not so far been found . It
is impossible we think to accept the account of our historians as regards his seventeenth century connection with Freemasonry , and if we reject his early connection with Freemasonry , we can hardly contend for his later , the more so as he does not claim it himself , ( as far as is known now ) , and the Grand Lodgeof 1723 seems to know nothing about
him . DERMOTT ' S explanation of his disfavour with the Craft may be true , but it has yet to be historically confirmed . With the uncertainty attendant on his Masonic claims , many other similar traditions and favourite assertions fall of course to the ground . If then we can depend positively on none of the grouping of facts beiore
1717 in our accredited histories , where are we ? We must endeavour to connect seventeenth century Freemasonry with eighteenth century Freemasonry , and then perhaps we may attain to something . Neither can we safely forget , though too often overlooked , the fact of a contemporary Hermeticism . How far the Hermetic
societies which , according to Prolessor MORLEY , began in the * fifteenth century , and of which even ASHMOLE was certainly a member in some form , influenced Freemasonry , is one of those " moot points " and " nice questions" which we cannot no longer afford to ignore or despise . FINDEL , as we know , took the bold course of discrediting and disclaiming
them altogether . Later writers feel that , in the face of growing evidences , it is neither prudent nor just , above all in an historical and critical point of view , to ostracize the mention and consideration of Hermeticism . Its influence may be overvalued or underestimated , as the case may be ; but it must be " weighed in the balances , " and if found wanting , rejected ; if
prevailing , accepted . Nothing is gained by contemning its claims , except an incomplete statement or an unscientific history . We have long been of the opinion that we are on the eve of valuable discoveries and molified views on many accredited points of Masonic history and archaeology . As gild charters and returns are collected and classified , as old reperu . ries of
Masonic apathy and neglect are opened out and studied , as we ourselves are not ashamed or unwilling to devote time , expense , and thought to the elucidation of old Masonic traditions and the verification of alleged Masonic
facts , we shall come , we have not the slightest doubt , to a fuller and clearer realization of the remarkable history of our wonderful Ord « r than our forefathers ever attained to , or than it has been our lot and privilege , so far , to master and comprehend .
* WITH respect to the status of Past Masters we refer to our report of the proceedings ol Grand Lodge . We think it hardl y worth while to follow
our correspondents through their various arguments , though we think we could clearly show the fallacy of them one and all . But surelv on this " vexata quasstio , " as to many other similar matters , " sufficient for the day is the evil thereof . " We may recur to the subject in our next .
* # « WE beg to call special attention to Bro . BINCKES' important statement at the last Boys' School General Committee with respect to thc proportions allotted to the New Building Fund and the General Fund of the Boys ' School , out of the returns thus far of 1883 .
* # WE are truly sorry to note in the Monde Maconnique the account of the death of Bro . ADRIEN GRIMAUX , Chief Secretary of the Grand Orient , and lately editor of the Monde Maconnique . As we have had in the pages of the
Freemason one or two friendly encounters with our amiable and lamented brother , we hasten to offer our sympathy with his many Masonic friends , and to regret equall y with them the loss of so able a " confrere , " and so kindl y and good a brother Freemason .