-
Articles/Ads
Article A DISAGREEABLE SUBJECT. ← Page 2 of 2 Article Original Correspondence. Page 1 of 2 Article Original Correspondence. Page 1 of 2 Article Original Correspondence. Page 1 of 2 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
A Disagreeable Subject.
nient . But the Editor of a paper like the Freemason is not always his own master in this respect . He has public duties to perform in the way of warning or protest as the case may be , which , though they often militate with personal feelings , and seem often to antagonize private
sensibility , are , nevertheless , ueedful courageously t 0 make and to assert in the cause of Masonic progress and the maintenance of Masonic prestige- With this little " caveat " we call attention to a matter which has forced itself disagreeably 0 n our notice , and is a growing scandal and
a nuisance to Masonry . We mean the habit of some brethren of making themselves Stewards of our Charitable Anniversaries , and forgetting , desp ite frequent appeals from the Secretaries , to pay either their Steward ' s fees or even for the tickets supplied to them and used by them
" nota bene . Were this only an occasional and exceptional case , we should have preferred to have passed over these " spots " on our '' feasts " of Charity " in silence , but the evil is increasing and is assuming very serious proportions . For not only is this the case in one charity , but
Stewards who have forgotten to pay their fees for this charity become Stewards to another festival , leaving the old score still unpaid , and we are not exaggerating when we say that there are Steward ' s fees in all the _ Charities , we believe , two and three years in arrear , while those who
have not settled with the Secretary of this good charity , despite his earnest appeals , are acting as Stewards for another charity , and probably will repeat the old story . Certain Stewards put down their names , and their fees unpaid have to be cancelled as " leakage , " considered as " bad
debts . " Can anything be a greater discredit to Freemasonry or to charity ? Such proceedings are very hard on the Secretaries , very inconsiderate to the Boards of Stewards , and thotoughly derogatory to the honourable name , of Masons and the sound cause of Masonic benevolence .
We trust we have said enough to remedy an evil and to close a " running sore . " We have not wished to exaggerate or sensationalize , we are only desirous for the sake of that charity which we all profess to admire , and those institutions we all desire to uphold , to touch upon
with no unfriendly voice and no heavy hand , a very melancholy forgetfulness by some brethren of ours of those principles they themselves declare , before the Craft and the world , they admire and seek to maintain both in theory and practice . May our words be well taken and result in guod .
Original Correspondence.
Original Correspondence .
[ We do not hold ourselves responsible for , or even approving of , the opinions expressed by our correspondents , hut we wish in 1 spirit of fair play to all , to permit—within certain necessary limits—free discussion . ]
THE COST OF THE GIRLS' SCHOOL . To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — As I fancied , the comparison which appears in the Echo , on professed Masonic authority , in respect of the expenses of the Girls' School , turns out to be a " mire's nest . "
The statement in the Echo is as follows : London Orphan Asylum , ... 540 Inmates £ 17 , 011 3 Fatherless Cnildren ... 282 ,, 8 , 076 Royal Albert Asylum ... ... irjS „ 5 > 5 21 Saint Anne's 33 s „ 12 , 707 R . M . Institution for Girls ... 195 „ IS' 3 ' 7 This statement is said not to speak " favourably for the Girls' School . "
In the first place , before this sapient critic can make good his allegation , he has to show : 1 . That the other lour Institutions arc of a similar calibre with the Girls ' School , not educating altogether , on a lower level , as well "lay be ; and 2 . What is the proportion actually expended ° n the building , & c , which is passing , and the children , & c ., which is permanent expenditure .
It seems from the following analysis of the Girls' School expenditure for 1878 , that the whole amount receded was £ 20 , 202 17 s . id ., the whole amount expended was £ 20 , 202 17 s . id ., minus a balance of £ 88 5 gs ., so that 'he actual expenditure was £ 19 , 317 8 s . Of this amount , Ihe purchase of new land essential to the School cost £ 2316 ; the new buildings cost £ 2943 is . 5 d . ; furniture , £ 583 ins . 7 d . ; and laving out the grounds , & c , £ 826
'is . 6 i | . £ 4000 were repaid to Willis and Co . ; £ 1556 -s . 8 d . were expended on special and abnormal items ; While the ordinary expenses of the School amounted to £ 7 ° 8 ; 6 s . 1 id . Tnis amount is made up as follows : ' ''" visions for 195 girls and 24 adults , 210 persons , £ 2186 14 s . 3 d . ; clothing and boots , £ 11 9 6 18 s . 4 d . ; *» aties and wages , School , £ 1053 19 s ., office , £ 663 " * ¦ 8 d . ; coals , gas , and water , £ 380 ; medical attendance , fcfo ; gardener , £ 84 3 s . nd . ; school stationery and
Original Correspondence.
books , £ 77 is . ; printing , £ 314 9 s . 51 I . ; house utensils and turnery , £ 203 13 s . 3 d . ; furniture and house linen , £ 266 05 . 6 d . ; painting and general repairs , £ 204 12 s . 7 d . ; tithes and taxes , £ 203 10 s . Some smaller items bring up the amount of the normal expenditure , as I sail before , to £ 7085 6 s . nd . This makes for 195 girls the average of £ 36 6 s . 8 d . in round numbers , and of 200 £ 33 2 s . 6 d ., exclusive altogether , be it noted , of the twenty-four adults .
And thus , even supposing you could fairly add the special items , amounting to £ 155 6 2 S . 81 ! ., to the regular expenditure , which you cannot do , because many do not occur two years running , and are clearly " abnormal" in every sense , you might slightly raise the average cost per girl , which , considering the education given and the house care afforded , is certainly most moderate and very well expended .
I think we raiv dismiss at once , then , these idle comparisons—which are often made and always failneither true in theory nor of any value in practice , and btlieve firmly—as we may taMy do— ih it our Girls ' School is most economically and efficiently conducte I ,
entirely subserving the great end of its institution , and is a cedit to all cone-. rural in its management and direction , and cn » ckiltcngc cotipiirison . with any similar existing institution in England or elsewhere . I am , dear « S r and Brother , yours fraternally , A FRIEND TO THE GIRLS' SCHOOL .
THE PRESrONMAX LECTURE . To the Editor of the "Freemason . " D- -ar Sir and Brother , — In the" Freemasons' Calendar and Pocket Biok , " amongst the "Remarkable Occurrences in Masonry , " I find the following : " Brother William Preston , of the Lodge of Antiquity , author of the ' Illustrations of Masonry , '
bequeathed , amongst othir Masonic gifts , £ 500 Consols to the Fund of Benevolence , and £ 300 Consuls for the Prcstonian Lecture , 1819 . " Now , as this lecture has not been delivered lor many years , may I be permitted to ask " the reason why , " whether any one is to blame , and if so , whom ? In former years Bro . Stephen Jones , a Past Ma ^ er of the Lodge of Antiquity , delivered annually this
lecture , the duty having been entrusted to linn by His Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex , then Grand Master , and Master of the Lidge of Antiquity , and subsequently l > y Bro . Laurence Thompson , the last surviving pupil of Preston , and its delivery always attracted a great assemblage of members and visitors . 1 believe that the hst time this lecture was delivered the duty devolved upon
Bro . Henry George Warren , the former pioprietor of the Freemasons' Magazine and Mirror , and I know from being present that it was most inf-resting and highly explinatoiy , and I should really like to know why this important Masonic legacy is never heard of at the present day , and
to what purpose , if any , the iic-ruing dividends on the £ 300 Consols are applied . I am , dear Sit and Brother , your fraternally , P . M . 177 and 11 = 8 . June 9 th , 1879 .
MASONIC GRAMMAR . To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — In the hope that you may be more charitable than * ' Lindley Murray" in your estimate of my criticisms , and at the risk of appearing to make too much of a matter which , indeed , scarcely admits of discussion at all , I beg to
write a few words in reply to yaur correspondent . He oiiginally found fault with the phrase " except in exceptionable cases . " Now , exceptionable is not the word which I should myself have used in the connection in which it occurred ; and it is an expression on the defence of which , as used in that connection , I am not now about to enter , neither did I dtfend it in what I wrote . Your
correspondent in his first letter , to which he will , perhaps , refer , clearly stated , or , by what he wrote , undoubtedly implied , that according to Johnson exceptional and exceptionable were synonymous wcrds ; and although he now informs your readers , and apparently is himself greatly pleased to find , that exceptional is not be found in Johnson at all , it was this asserted synonymy which , in the first
instance , induced me to wnte . As I have already pointed out , it is a fact that the words are not synonymous ; but it is a fact tha ' , if they were synonymous , as " Lindley Murray " made out , he had not the shadow of a ground for finding fault with the use which was made , in the report , of the word exceptionable . " Lindley Murray " is unwilling to admit that exceptional
is a legitimate word at all . He says the expression is only to be found in " slipshod writing and common conversation . " I leave to your readers , many of whom are , doubtless , more able to judge of the accuracy of such an assertion than I may be , and , perhaps , than even " Lindley Murray" is ; and I hope for the credit of the Freemason that , if that should be so , it is a word which
it , in particular , has always carefully eschewed . But will " Lindley Murray" deny that many English words have become legitimate simply because they were used in " common conversation ? " Common conversation becomes an authority in such a matter . Few expressions , for example , are more forcible than " mob" and "sham , " yet it is a fact that at the time of the Revolution these words were considered slang ; and , from all that I can see ,
grave writers , however thev have managed hitherto , will ere long be under the necessity of employing another word which is as old as Bonnell Thornton , and which is also very expressive . I mean the word humbug . It is quite amusing to see how determinedly your correspondent sets his face against the adoption of the word exceptional . Certain authorities , whom he quotes , do not recognise it . Nor will he . He does not share the belief of Horace" Licuit , semperque licebit Signatum prcesente rota procuderenomen , "
Original Correspondence.
And such I hold to be the character of the word exceptional . At the same time , I maintain that this word has already , by the sanction and use of many classical writers , been admitted as an expression with which it is useless , not to say presumptuous , to find fault . One has not the time , a :. vl , if one had , it were unnecessary , to hunt for evidence in support of a statement which none but ' •Lindley
Murray " will inpugn . I have not consulted the authorities whom your correspondent quotes , and will therefore not dispute his statement that in none of them is the word exceptional found . Were I at all doubtful about the matter , however , I should not dream of looking in s > me places where he has been agreeably disappointed . Fliigel and Velasquez , whatever
they may have done for their own languages , can scarcely be regarded as authorities whose opinions would be likely to decide such a question as this ; nor can their evidence have the weight of that of the editor of the Imperial Dictionary . It U surprising that this work—I may say the standard work on such questions—should not have been quoted ; and , had not your correspondent been a brother
Mason , I should have supposed it wai because the word is to be found there . He will also find it , however , in the Student ' s English Dictionary , published by Blackie and Son , where it is said to have the meaning whi .-h I gave it , " forming or making an exception . " I did not therefore lay this down on what has been called my " ipsie dixit . " lam in no doubt as to the woid which ought to have
been used . I should have written " unless in exceptional cases " in preference to " except in exceptional cases ; " but beyond all question the latter phrase i-s correct . Your correspondent says exceptional and exceptionable are synonymous , and therefore I say beyond all question it ought to have appeared to him that he had no business to find fault .
I have seldom come across any one who delighted to be so particular as your correspondent . It may therefore interest him to know that neither he nor myself was strictly accurate in accounting for the origin of the word stickler . A stickler originally was " an officer who cut wood for ihe Priory of Ederose within the King ' s parks of Clarendon . " Without enquiring now into the age of
the word , or the accuracy of what " Lindley Mui ray " says , 1 decline to accept his account of this matter—firstly , because it is unsupported by any evidence ; secondly , because the Imperial Dictionary distinctly gives the origin of the meaning of the word as I gave it ; and lastly , because common sense would lead us to imagine that the seconds in a pugilistic encounter , being armed with
sticks , might be in a position to interfere , whereas it would be impossible for them , b . ing so armed , to intciruut swordsmen . Let me say , in conclusion , that , whatever my letter was , it was not intended to give offence personally to your correspondent , who is unknown to me ixcept as a brother Mason writing under an assumed name . But he must
be an inconsistent brother , otherwise he could not have charged me with being personal , an'J then commit the same fault himself in a worse degree . He would appear , too , to be a busybody , a crotchety , disputatious , dogmatical brother , whose time , it is more than likely , lies heavily oa his hands . Let me urge him tn make a better use ot it in the future , and to be especially careful never to forget the
proverb : " Ne sutor ultra en pulam . " 'ltns last advice is not meant to be personally offensive , for although " Lindley Murray " m ; -y happen to be a literal " sutur , " I employ the word in its metaphorical , and therefore more harmless sense . Yours fraternally , T . M . DRON , J . W . 41 ; .
To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — The letters on Masonic Grammar wli ' uh have appeared in ihe Freemason an only raise a sm ' ue , and provoke a wish that your space were better used . ' I do not know who may have assumed the style and title of " Lindley Murray , " but it is enough to make that old worthy stir
in his grave to read su h a sentence as that which closes his modern representative ' s list letter . Read it , and say , any who remembers his own early school days , whether a third-f Jim school boy would not treat the English language better : — " Will Bro . Dron permit me to doubt his right , ' and certainly his capacity , to set up as either an " arbiter
eligantiurum " or a 'Ductor dubitantium ' much less a' master of the school . ' Having read his verbal criticisms , their proper destination appears to me , in all deference to him be it said , the waste paper basket . " For such a writer to talk about capacity , and " waste
paper baskets , " shows that theie is no lack of self-esteem in his composition , whatever there may b ^ of grammar and logic . Such criticism in private wjuld be luJurojs , in public it is mischievous . Fraternally yours , W . S . M . June 7 th .
To Hie Editor of the " Freemason . " Djar ^ Sirand Brother , — I was not previously aware that Freemasons in any way differed in the construction of the English Ianguage to others . Bro . " Lindley Murray " is good enough to call the question " a little question . " I think , with all respect to my brother , that the preservation of the English , or any other language " pure and undefiled , " is a very
great question . It is probable that the languages of Teutonic origin , viz ., English and its correlate , Germanglorified by Martin Luther—will eventually icplace all the southern forms of expression . Tongues spoken below a certain latitude appear to soften and lose much of their expressive forms and force , and hence it is that vituperation and gieat energy are required to convey meanings which our own language carries with it in a few dignified
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
A Disagreeable Subject.
nient . But the Editor of a paper like the Freemason is not always his own master in this respect . He has public duties to perform in the way of warning or protest as the case may be , which , though they often militate with personal feelings , and seem often to antagonize private
sensibility , are , nevertheless , ueedful courageously t 0 make and to assert in the cause of Masonic progress and the maintenance of Masonic prestige- With this little " caveat " we call attention to a matter which has forced itself disagreeably 0 n our notice , and is a growing scandal and
a nuisance to Masonry . We mean the habit of some brethren of making themselves Stewards of our Charitable Anniversaries , and forgetting , desp ite frequent appeals from the Secretaries , to pay either their Steward ' s fees or even for the tickets supplied to them and used by them
" nota bene . Were this only an occasional and exceptional case , we should have preferred to have passed over these " spots " on our '' feasts " of Charity " in silence , but the evil is increasing and is assuming very serious proportions . For not only is this the case in one charity , but
Stewards who have forgotten to pay their fees for this charity become Stewards to another festival , leaving the old score still unpaid , and we are not exaggerating when we say that there are Steward ' s fees in all the _ Charities , we believe , two and three years in arrear , while those who
have not settled with the Secretary of this good charity , despite his earnest appeals , are acting as Stewards for another charity , and probably will repeat the old story . Certain Stewards put down their names , and their fees unpaid have to be cancelled as " leakage , " considered as " bad
debts . " Can anything be a greater discredit to Freemasonry or to charity ? Such proceedings are very hard on the Secretaries , very inconsiderate to the Boards of Stewards , and thotoughly derogatory to the honourable name , of Masons and the sound cause of Masonic benevolence .
We trust we have said enough to remedy an evil and to close a " running sore . " We have not wished to exaggerate or sensationalize , we are only desirous for the sake of that charity which we all profess to admire , and those institutions we all desire to uphold , to touch upon
with no unfriendly voice and no heavy hand , a very melancholy forgetfulness by some brethren of ours of those principles they themselves declare , before the Craft and the world , they admire and seek to maintain both in theory and practice . May our words be well taken and result in guod .
Original Correspondence.
Original Correspondence .
[ We do not hold ourselves responsible for , or even approving of , the opinions expressed by our correspondents , hut we wish in 1 spirit of fair play to all , to permit—within certain necessary limits—free discussion . ]
THE COST OF THE GIRLS' SCHOOL . To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — As I fancied , the comparison which appears in the Echo , on professed Masonic authority , in respect of the expenses of the Girls' School , turns out to be a " mire's nest . "
The statement in the Echo is as follows : London Orphan Asylum , ... 540 Inmates £ 17 , 011 3 Fatherless Cnildren ... 282 ,, 8 , 076 Royal Albert Asylum ... ... irjS „ 5 > 5 21 Saint Anne's 33 s „ 12 , 707 R . M . Institution for Girls ... 195 „ IS' 3 ' 7 This statement is said not to speak " favourably for the Girls' School . "
In the first place , before this sapient critic can make good his allegation , he has to show : 1 . That the other lour Institutions arc of a similar calibre with the Girls ' School , not educating altogether , on a lower level , as well "lay be ; and 2 . What is the proportion actually expended ° n the building , & c , which is passing , and the children , & c ., which is permanent expenditure .
It seems from the following analysis of the Girls' School expenditure for 1878 , that the whole amount receded was £ 20 , 202 17 s . id ., the whole amount expended was £ 20 , 202 17 s . id ., minus a balance of £ 88 5 gs ., so that 'he actual expenditure was £ 19 , 317 8 s . Of this amount , Ihe purchase of new land essential to the School cost £ 2316 ; the new buildings cost £ 2943 is . 5 d . ; furniture , £ 583 ins . 7 d . ; and laving out the grounds , & c , £ 826
'is . 6 i | . £ 4000 were repaid to Willis and Co . ; £ 1556 -s . 8 d . were expended on special and abnormal items ; While the ordinary expenses of the School amounted to £ 7 ° 8 ; 6 s . 1 id . Tnis amount is made up as follows : ' ''" visions for 195 girls and 24 adults , 210 persons , £ 2186 14 s . 3 d . ; clothing and boots , £ 11 9 6 18 s . 4 d . ; *» aties and wages , School , £ 1053 19 s ., office , £ 663 " * ¦ 8 d . ; coals , gas , and water , £ 380 ; medical attendance , fcfo ; gardener , £ 84 3 s . nd . ; school stationery and
Original Correspondence.
books , £ 77 is . ; printing , £ 314 9 s . 51 I . ; house utensils and turnery , £ 203 13 s . 3 d . ; furniture and house linen , £ 266 05 . 6 d . ; painting and general repairs , £ 204 12 s . 7 d . ; tithes and taxes , £ 203 10 s . Some smaller items bring up the amount of the normal expenditure , as I sail before , to £ 7085 6 s . nd . This makes for 195 girls the average of £ 36 6 s . 8 d . in round numbers , and of 200 £ 33 2 s . 6 d ., exclusive altogether , be it noted , of the twenty-four adults .
And thus , even supposing you could fairly add the special items , amounting to £ 155 6 2 S . 81 ! ., to the regular expenditure , which you cannot do , because many do not occur two years running , and are clearly " abnormal" in every sense , you might slightly raise the average cost per girl , which , considering the education given and the house care afforded , is certainly most moderate and very well expended .
I think we raiv dismiss at once , then , these idle comparisons—which are often made and always failneither true in theory nor of any value in practice , and btlieve firmly—as we may taMy do— ih it our Girls ' School is most economically and efficiently conducte I ,
entirely subserving the great end of its institution , and is a cedit to all cone-. rural in its management and direction , and cn » ckiltcngc cotipiirison . with any similar existing institution in England or elsewhere . I am , dear « S r and Brother , yours fraternally , A FRIEND TO THE GIRLS' SCHOOL .
THE PRESrONMAX LECTURE . To the Editor of the "Freemason . " D- -ar Sir and Brother , — In the" Freemasons' Calendar and Pocket Biok , " amongst the "Remarkable Occurrences in Masonry , " I find the following : " Brother William Preston , of the Lodge of Antiquity , author of the ' Illustrations of Masonry , '
bequeathed , amongst othir Masonic gifts , £ 500 Consols to the Fund of Benevolence , and £ 300 Consuls for the Prcstonian Lecture , 1819 . " Now , as this lecture has not been delivered lor many years , may I be permitted to ask " the reason why , " whether any one is to blame , and if so , whom ? In former years Bro . Stephen Jones , a Past Ma ^ er of the Lodge of Antiquity , delivered annually this
lecture , the duty having been entrusted to linn by His Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex , then Grand Master , and Master of the Lidge of Antiquity , and subsequently l > y Bro . Laurence Thompson , the last surviving pupil of Preston , and its delivery always attracted a great assemblage of members and visitors . 1 believe that the hst time this lecture was delivered the duty devolved upon
Bro . Henry George Warren , the former pioprietor of the Freemasons' Magazine and Mirror , and I know from being present that it was most inf-resting and highly explinatoiy , and I should really like to know why this important Masonic legacy is never heard of at the present day , and
to what purpose , if any , the iic-ruing dividends on the £ 300 Consols are applied . I am , dear Sit and Brother , your fraternally , P . M . 177 and 11 = 8 . June 9 th , 1879 .
MASONIC GRAMMAR . To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — In the hope that you may be more charitable than * ' Lindley Murray" in your estimate of my criticisms , and at the risk of appearing to make too much of a matter which , indeed , scarcely admits of discussion at all , I beg to
write a few words in reply to yaur correspondent . He oiiginally found fault with the phrase " except in exceptionable cases . " Now , exceptionable is not the word which I should myself have used in the connection in which it occurred ; and it is an expression on the defence of which , as used in that connection , I am not now about to enter , neither did I dtfend it in what I wrote . Your
correspondent in his first letter , to which he will , perhaps , refer , clearly stated , or , by what he wrote , undoubtedly implied , that according to Johnson exceptional and exceptionable were synonymous wcrds ; and although he now informs your readers , and apparently is himself greatly pleased to find , that exceptional is not be found in Johnson at all , it was this asserted synonymy which , in the first
instance , induced me to wnte . As I have already pointed out , it is a fact that the words are not synonymous ; but it is a fact tha ' , if they were synonymous , as " Lindley Murray " made out , he had not the shadow of a ground for finding fault with the use which was made , in the report , of the word exceptionable . " Lindley Murray " is unwilling to admit that exceptional
is a legitimate word at all . He says the expression is only to be found in " slipshod writing and common conversation . " I leave to your readers , many of whom are , doubtless , more able to judge of the accuracy of such an assertion than I may be , and , perhaps , than even " Lindley Murray" is ; and I hope for the credit of the Freemason that , if that should be so , it is a word which
it , in particular , has always carefully eschewed . But will " Lindley Murray" deny that many English words have become legitimate simply because they were used in " common conversation ? " Common conversation becomes an authority in such a matter . Few expressions , for example , are more forcible than " mob" and "sham , " yet it is a fact that at the time of the Revolution these words were considered slang ; and , from all that I can see ,
grave writers , however thev have managed hitherto , will ere long be under the necessity of employing another word which is as old as Bonnell Thornton , and which is also very expressive . I mean the word humbug . It is quite amusing to see how determinedly your correspondent sets his face against the adoption of the word exceptional . Certain authorities , whom he quotes , do not recognise it . Nor will he . He does not share the belief of Horace" Licuit , semperque licebit Signatum prcesente rota procuderenomen , "
Original Correspondence.
And such I hold to be the character of the word exceptional . At the same time , I maintain that this word has already , by the sanction and use of many classical writers , been admitted as an expression with which it is useless , not to say presumptuous , to find fault . One has not the time , a :. vl , if one had , it were unnecessary , to hunt for evidence in support of a statement which none but ' •Lindley
Murray " will inpugn . I have not consulted the authorities whom your correspondent quotes , and will therefore not dispute his statement that in none of them is the word exceptional found . Were I at all doubtful about the matter , however , I should not dream of looking in s > me places where he has been agreeably disappointed . Fliigel and Velasquez , whatever
they may have done for their own languages , can scarcely be regarded as authorities whose opinions would be likely to decide such a question as this ; nor can their evidence have the weight of that of the editor of the Imperial Dictionary . It U surprising that this work—I may say the standard work on such questions—should not have been quoted ; and , had not your correspondent been a brother
Mason , I should have supposed it wai because the word is to be found there . He will also find it , however , in the Student ' s English Dictionary , published by Blackie and Son , where it is said to have the meaning whi .-h I gave it , " forming or making an exception . " I did not therefore lay this down on what has been called my " ipsie dixit . " lam in no doubt as to the woid which ought to have
been used . I should have written " unless in exceptional cases " in preference to " except in exceptional cases ; " but beyond all question the latter phrase i-s correct . Your correspondent says exceptional and exceptionable are synonymous , and therefore I say beyond all question it ought to have appeared to him that he had no business to find fault .
I have seldom come across any one who delighted to be so particular as your correspondent . It may therefore interest him to know that neither he nor myself was strictly accurate in accounting for the origin of the word stickler . A stickler originally was " an officer who cut wood for ihe Priory of Ederose within the King ' s parks of Clarendon . " Without enquiring now into the age of
the word , or the accuracy of what " Lindley Mui ray " says , 1 decline to accept his account of this matter—firstly , because it is unsupported by any evidence ; secondly , because the Imperial Dictionary distinctly gives the origin of the meaning of the word as I gave it ; and lastly , because common sense would lead us to imagine that the seconds in a pugilistic encounter , being armed with
sticks , might be in a position to interfere , whereas it would be impossible for them , b . ing so armed , to intciruut swordsmen . Let me say , in conclusion , that , whatever my letter was , it was not intended to give offence personally to your correspondent , who is unknown to me ixcept as a brother Mason writing under an assumed name . But he must
be an inconsistent brother , otherwise he could not have charged me with being personal , an'J then commit the same fault himself in a worse degree . He would appear , too , to be a busybody , a crotchety , disputatious , dogmatical brother , whose time , it is more than likely , lies heavily oa his hands . Let me urge him tn make a better use ot it in the future , and to be especially careful never to forget the
proverb : " Ne sutor ultra en pulam . " 'ltns last advice is not meant to be personally offensive , for although " Lindley Murray " m ; -y happen to be a literal " sutur , " I employ the word in its metaphorical , and therefore more harmless sense . Yours fraternally , T . M . DRON , J . W . 41 ; .
To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — The letters on Masonic Grammar wli ' uh have appeared in ihe Freemason an only raise a sm ' ue , and provoke a wish that your space were better used . ' I do not know who may have assumed the style and title of " Lindley Murray , " but it is enough to make that old worthy stir
in his grave to read su h a sentence as that which closes his modern representative ' s list letter . Read it , and say , any who remembers his own early school days , whether a third-f Jim school boy would not treat the English language better : — " Will Bro . Dron permit me to doubt his right , ' and certainly his capacity , to set up as either an " arbiter
eligantiurum " or a 'Ductor dubitantium ' much less a' master of the school . ' Having read his verbal criticisms , their proper destination appears to me , in all deference to him be it said , the waste paper basket . " For such a writer to talk about capacity , and " waste
paper baskets , " shows that theie is no lack of self-esteem in his composition , whatever there may b ^ of grammar and logic . Such criticism in private wjuld be luJurojs , in public it is mischievous . Fraternally yours , W . S . M . June 7 th .
To Hie Editor of the " Freemason . " Djar ^ Sirand Brother , — I was not previously aware that Freemasons in any way differed in the construction of the English Ianguage to others . Bro . " Lindley Murray " is good enough to call the question " a little question . " I think , with all respect to my brother , that the preservation of the English , or any other language " pure and undefiled , " is a very
great question . It is probable that the languages of Teutonic origin , viz ., English and its correlate , Germanglorified by Martin Luther—will eventually icplace all the southern forms of expression . Tongues spoken below a certain latitude appear to soften and lose much of their expressive forms and force , and hence it is that vituperation and gieat energy are required to convey meanings which our own language carries with it in a few dignified