-
Articles/Ads
Article Notes For Masonic Students. Page 1 of 1 Article Notes For Masonic Students. Page 1 of 1
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Notes For Masonic Students.
Notes For Masonic Students .
— : o : — THE HAELEIAN MS . 1942 . WHEN we consider this MS . more carefully in collation wifch others of a like bearing , we find thafc we can certainly establish certain points respecting it . Spe iking " expertly , " it comes out of " safe custody ; " ifc represents an admitted existence real and unquestionable , as well as an admitted date , owing to the Collection ifc is in ; at least a pre 1700 date , a fact hitherto overlooked by that
ablo and acute writer Brother Gonld . This fact , not appreciated sufficiently by some , has a great bearing on the entire controversy . There is nothing abont the MS . to lead any expert to doubt its genuineness or its authenticity . Ifc was used for the first time apparently by Roberts , 1722 , quite uucontroversially , and he wonld seem
to have dealt with it , or a transcript of it , with entire faith in its reality and reliability , and in a way whioh serves to illustrate his belief in the perfect " bona fides " of the MS . Anderson also used it , or a transcript of it , probably , for he does nofc refer to it specifically , to establish a point aa regards a date in whioh , curiously
enough , be differs from Roberts . Roberts gives ifc the date of 8 th December 1663 . Anderson particularises thus : — "Feast of St . John ' s Day , December 27 , 1663 . " This would almost seem to show that Anderson saw another transcript , as the MS . itself supplies no date , but these very minutiae of discrepancy rather increase than
diminish fche fact of the honest testimony of fche MS . itself . The Harleian 1942 therefore stands or falls by its own merits , and as Brother Hnghan well put it in 1872 , is a " . mosfc valuable and important MS . " Some objections latterly seem to have been raised fco ifc , to whioh
we will now give our attention . 1 . As to its date . The fact of its being , as I before said , in the Harleian Collection , seems to close the door to any further useful discussion on that head . 2 . Ifc is urged that it says too much , that ifc is " too pat , " as we
put ifc , in regard of both questions and matter . But in saying this , objectors , I beg to observe , beg the whole question . We may indeed be apt to think , per contra , it says too much , because our minds are intent on later controversies , aud recent studies and discussions . Nor can any such charge be really established against Harleian
1942 , I ventnre to think , in any sense whatever , or in the remotest degree . The whole discussion in fact centres round , and turns upon the " new articles ; " if these were not there , the MS . would at once pass muster , and merely stand on the level of the Lodge of Hope and York 4 MSS .
But these new articles are in the way of certain later assumptions , theories , views , " fads , " call them what you like , and therefore they must be got rid of , and so the whole MS . is impeached . It seems a very uncritical and unexperfc way of proceeding , bufc so it is .
If the Harleian 1942 be , as it probably is , a Posfc Restoration MS ., based on a MS . contemporaneous with York 4 , but used for Posfc Restoration purposes and meetings of the Grand Assembly , there is nothing in what is alleged against ifc to invalidate its authority in
any way . Its language is no donbt modernized comparatively , but that is in itself not much to be astonished at towards the end of the seventeenth
centnry , and is , as I say , easily explainable . It possesses , let ns note , the invaluable Apprentice Charge , possessed by only three , and would serve to tack it on in some form to York 4 .
3 . It is alleged that the use of the word certificate , for instance , is later much than 1663 , and therefore seems to show thafc its real date must be coeval with a use of certificates . No doubt the use of certificates is late , if the expression ia referred to certificate in our more modern sense ; but the very context
shows it does not . Nofc only are there " certificates and certificates , " but the MS . simply alludes to a certificate of acceptation , which tallies with the oldest entries in some of the Swalwell Minutes , and even with fche Scottish regulations of an earlier date as to " Entered Prenteissis . "
Registration on a roll is clearly not modern , aud points to a much older usage ; and hence here again , if we make such an objection as this , in our knowledge of to-day , we are seeking to explain these earlier words and usages by the customs and nsages and terminology of onr modern body , so as to make them square with
our preconceived or special views of what they must moan , as we think j a procedure altogether wronsr , unexperr , and uncritical . There is nothing iu any way , therefore , whether wo look afc its established approximate date , its verbiage or its special claims , to warrant any distrust in its reality , or to invalidate ita bond fide
claim to be considered a pre 1700 MS . It is surely unwise aud idle in highest measure to go oufc of our way , because we cannot fully explain ita witness , to start fcho " hare " of a fraudulent MS . Fraudulent ! What for ? With what good or intent ?
Assuming its date , as we may fairly do , to be pre 1700 , from its existence in the Harleian Collection , how is ifc possible to affect it by onr later contentions or questions ? We may not make it agree with oar views to-day , but wa cannot put ifc ou one side . Mnch of thia new and wonderful theory of falsification of MSS . ia
based on Auderaon ' s modernization of tbe old Guild Legends . We shall all probably agree in this , that Audersou was most unwise in adopting the special Masonic terms of 1723 to describe the archaic history of Masons , as he deemed it preserved in the
Guild Legends . But while we all regret this fancy weakness of that hour , ( a warning to ns by the way ) , I cannot see how it affects Anderson's general work , much less any earlier or contemporary documents .
Notes For Masonic Students.
It is so easy to discover Anderson ' s usage of titles and fche like in modern Masonio language , that there is very little gained and nothing lost by his critical weakness in this respect . If it be true , that in so using the old documents be has gone a
little astray , either in his zeal or his pedantry , in his wish to gratify the tastes of an uncritical audience , how can Anderson's plain , and specific interpolations affect a MS . which simply records " new articles" as many of the old Guild rules do also . See Toulmin Smith
passim . If there has been this falsification , where does ifc begin , and where does ifc end ? Those are questions which we have aright fco bave answered before we even affect to disenss what may be fairly set down as an untenable
and unscientific treatment of a very valuable MS . There are diffi . culties enough in Masonio study and for Masonio students , to forbid any of us who care for such things , increasing the already serious labours of loyal students by encouraging , in any measure , these
subtleties of intellectual amusement , which , though highly ingenious in themselves , may tend , as they inevitably will , to the serious hindrance of steady Masonic study , and the great disparagement of critical Masonio research .
One more point has to be educed . The qualification of safe custody and Masonic care as affecting the value of certain MSS . is purely arbitrary , and certainly not expert . Indeed , by experts it would not be accepted at all , rather for obvious reasons fche reverse , and oven Masonically ifc is of little value as regards the MS . qua a MS .
For instance , let us take a late MS ., transcribed by a very ignorant scribe . It could not rightly be said , that because it was in Lodge custody , it was of any real value . To experts ifc would be simply valueless . W .
THE ROSICRUCIANS . A QUESTION has arisen , or rather has been raised by some modern students , whether the Rosicrucian body ever really existed , or whether this idea of a Society was not elaborated oufc of the inner consciousness , whether of Valentin Andreas , or the Hamburger Yung ! Kloss , at page 174 of his invaluable " Bibliographic , " & c , gives , in
1884 , in Chapter X ., a list of 275 works pro and coiv the Rose Croix body . This list , however , does not profess to be exhaustive of Rosicrucian literature , and it could nofc be , as many works anterior to Kloss have tnrned up since , and even mentioned works in 1620 , all of which he was not able to verify , undoubtedly exist .
It seems prima facie unaccountable in itself , and quite unreasonable to suppose , that all these treatises and books should have been composed , all this mental labour gone through , for a purely mythical , non-existent Society , which never had existed , ( according to some modern writers ) , aud that those who defended it , and those who
attacked it , were so foolish or so ill-informed as to devote so much time and trouble , space aud thought , fco a pure figment ; of the human imagination . Something may indeed be alleged for the continuous credulity of mankind , bnt such an outcome of ignorantism and obscurantism
combined surpasses anything we have ever read of , or heard of anywhere , in any form , in any age , in any land . From 1614 to 1020 ( six years ) there wero no less than 170 works published , both friendly and hostile ; and even this large number , as I said before , is not the full representation of that special literature .
It is to be observed here that 1614 seems to bo so far the earliest date of a printed work in which mention of the Rosicrucians is found , though earlier MSS . exist , aud one notably in the Bodleian , among Ashmole ' s MSS ., before 1610 . Kloss himself points out a peculiar difficulty in this discussion—namely , thafc there is evidence of a
printed " answer in 1613 to a work which professedly only appeared iu 1614 . Either then there is an error iu the date of fche " answer , " or thero is an earlier printed work than 1614 . In the " Rosa Jesuitica , " published afc Prague in 1620 , and as Kloss says , afc Brussels originally iu 1619 , the existence of the Order is assumed as
a matter of fact ; true and false brethren are mentioned , and the writer admits charges brought against the Fratres of goldmaking and magic even then , but he only addresses fche true Rosicrucians , the " Philosophers , Medicinists , and Theosophists . " As this is a serious work , written by a religious brother to a doctor of
theology , comparing the Jesuits and the Rosicrucians , it is an evidence , as to actuality of evidence , which cannot be ignored . He even dbensses the derivation of the name . There is an old work of 1618 , at Rostock , by a member of one of the religious orders , who
terms them " a new Arabic and Moorish Fraternity , " which had published a confession , & c , at Cassel in 1614 , and at Marburg in 1615 . The writer of "Rosa Jesnitica" mentions six works published before 1619 , aud of these Kloss has verified five , but one is still unverified . " Rosa Florescens . "
Surely , then , it is impossible and uncritical to contend that the whole of this long array of writings and writers , friendly and hostile , appeared under gross ignorance , grave delusion , or deliberate mendacity , and thee inclusion seem * to be irresistible and uncontrovertible , really and truly , thafc wo have in these writings and writers
conclusive evidence as to the existence of this Fraternity of the Rose Croix ! Thus far we havo not fonnd tho Rosicrucians mentioned in the older Hermetic writings , though there are hints of a Fraternity . Tho old Hermctics only circulated rare works in MS . for the adepts
and illuminated , but when printing was established these curious MS . found their way into print . The Rosicruciau Fraternity would almost seem to be ( though , so
far , we cannot trace them earlier than 1600 ) fche continuation of those Hermetic Societies which we know existed in the 15 th century , from other writers and evidences , and which as undoubtedly orig inally come from the East . SPEEO .
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Notes For Masonic Students.
Notes For Masonic Students .
— : o : — THE HAELEIAN MS . 1942 . WHEN we consider this MS . more carefully in collation wifch others of a like bearing , we find thafc we can certainly establish certain points respecting it . Spe iking " expertly , " it comes out of " safe custody ; " ifc represents an admitted existence real and unquestionable , as well as an admitted date , owing to the Collection ifc is in ; at least a pre 1700 date , a fact hitherto overlooked by that
ablo and acute writer Brother Gonld . This fact , not appreciated sufficiently by some , has a great bearing on the entire controversy . There is nothing abont the MS . to lead any expert to doubt its genuineness or its authenticity . Ifc was used for the first time apparently by Roberts , 1722 , quite uucontroversially , and he wonld seem
to have dealt with it , or a transcript of it , with entire faith in its reality and reliability , and in a way whioh serves to illustrate his belief in the perfect " bona fides " of the MS . Anderson also used it , or a transcript of it , probably , for he does nofc refer to it specifically , to establish a point aa regards a date in whioh , curiously
enough , be differs from Roberts . Roberts gives ifc the date of 8 th December 1663 . Anderson particularises thus : — "Feast of St . John ' s Day , December 27 , 1663 . " This would almost seem to show that Anderson saw another transcript , as the MS . itself supplies no date , but these very minutiae of discrepancy rather increase than
diminish fche fact of the honest testimony of fche MS . itself . The Harleian 1942 therefore stands or falls by its own merits , and as Brother Hnghan well put it in 1872 , is a " . mosfc valuable and important MS . " Some objections latterly seem to have been raised fco ifc , to whioh
we will now give our attention . 1 . As to its date . The fact of its being , as I before said , in the Harleian Collection , seems to close the door to any further useful discussion on that head . 2 . Ifc is urged that it says too much , that ifc is " too pat , " as we
put ifc , in regard of both questions and matter . But in saying this , objectors , I beg to observe , beg the whole question . We may indeed be apt to think , per contra , it says too much , because our minds are intent on later controversies , aud recent studies and discussions . Nor can any such charge be really established against Harleian
1942 , I ventnre to think , in any sense whatever , or in the remotest degree . The whole discussion in fact centres round , and turns upon the " new articles ; " if these were not there , the MS . would at once pass muster , and merely stand on the level of the Lodge of Hope and York 4 MSS .
But these new articles are in the way of certain later assumptions , theories , views , " fads , " call them what you like , and therefore they must be got rid of , and so the whole MS . is impeached . It seems a very uncritical and unexperfc way of proceeding , bufc so it is .
If the Harleian 1942 be , as it probably is , a Posfc Restoration MS ., based on a MS . contemporaneous with York 4 , but used for Posfc Restoration purposes and meetings of the Grand Assembly , there is nothing in what is alleged against ifc to invalidate its authority in
any way . Its language is no donbt modernized comparatively , but that is in itself not much to be astonished at towards the end of the seventeenth
centnry , and is , as I say , easily explainable . It possesses , let ns note , the invaluable Apprentice Charge , possessed by only three , and would serve to tack it on in some form to York 4 .
3 . It is alleged that the use of the word certificate , for instance , is later much than 1663 , and therefore seems to show thafc its real date must be coeval with a use of certificates . No doubt the use of certificates is late , if the expression ia referred to certificate in our more modern sense ; but the very context
shows it does not . Nofc only are there " certificates and certificates , " but the MS . simply alludes to a certificate of acceptation , which tallies with the oldest entries in some of the Swalwell Minutes , and even with fche Scottish regulations of an earlier date as to " Entered Prenteissis . "
Registration on a roll is clearly not modern , aud points to a much older usage ; and hence here again , if we make such an objection as this , in our knowledge of to-day , we are seeking to explain these earlier words and usages by the customs and nsages and terminology of onr modern body , so as to make them square with
our preconceived or special views of what they must moan , as we think j a procedure altogether wronsr , unexperr , and uncritical . There is nothing iu any way , therefore , whether wo look afc its established approximate date , its verbiage or its special claims , to warrant any distrust in its reality , or to invalidate ita bond fide
claim to be considered a pre 1700 MS . It is surely unwise aud idle in highest measure to go oufc of our way , because we cannot fully explain ita witness , to start fcho " hare " of a fraudulent MS . Fraudulent ! What for ? With what good or intent ?
Assuming its date , as we may fairly do , to be pre 1700 , from its existence in the Harleian Collection , how is ifc possible to affect it by onr later contentions or questions ? We may not make it agree with oar views to-day , but wa cannot put ifc ou one side . Mnch of thia new and wonderful theory of falsification of MSS . ia
based on Auderaon ' s modernization of tbe old Guild Legends . We shall all probably agree in this , that Audersou was most unwise in adopting the special Masonic terms of 1723 to describe the archaic history of Masons , as he deemed it preserved in the
Guild Legends . But while we all regret this fancy weakness of that hour , ( a warning to ns by the way ) , I cannot see how it affects Anderson's general work , much less any earlier or contemporary documents .
Notes For Masonic Students.
It is so easy to discover Anderson ' s usage of titles and fche like in modern Masonio language , that there is very little gained and nothing lost by his critical weakness in this respect . If it be true , that in so using the old documents be has gone a
little astray , either in his zeal or his pedantry , in his wish to gratify the tastes of an uncritical audience , how can Anderson's plain , and specific interpolations affect a MS . which simply records " new articles" as many of the old Guild rules do also . See Toulmin Smith
passim . If there has been this falsification , where does ifc begin , and where does ifc end ? Those are questions which we have aright fco bave answered before we even affect to disenss what may be fairly set down as an untenable
and unscientific treatment of a very valuable MS . There are diffi . culties enough in Masonio study and for Masonio students , to forbid any of us who care for such things , increasing the already serious labours of loyal students by encouraging , in any measure , these
subtleties of intellectual amusement , which , though highly ingenious in themselves , may tend , as they inevitably will , to the serious hindrance of steady Masonic study , and the great disparagement of critical Masonio research .
One more point has to be educed . The qualification of safe custody and Masonic care as affecting the value of certain MSS . is purely arbitrary , and certainly not expert . Indeed , by experts it would not be accepted at all , rather for obvious reasons fche reverse , and oven Masonically ifc is of little value as regards the MS . qua a MS .
For instance , let us take a late MS ., transcribed by a very ignorant scribe . It could not rightly be said , that because it was in Lodge custody , it was of any real value . To experts ifc would be simply valueless . W .
THE ROSICRUCIANS . A QUESTION has arisen , or rather has been raised by some modern students , whether the Rosicrucian body ever really existed , or whether this idea of a Society was not elaborated oufc of the inner consciousness , whether of Valentin Andreas , or the Hamburger Yung ! Kloss , at page 174 of his invaluable " Bibliographic , " & c , gives , in
1884 , in Chapter X ., a list of 275 works pro and coiv the Rose Croix body . This list , however , does not profess to be exhaustive of Rosicrucian literature , and it could nofc be , as many works anterior to Kloss have tnrned up since , and even mentioned works in 1620 , all of which he was not able to verify , undoubtedly exist .
It seems prima facie unaccountable in itself , and quite unreasonable to suppose , that all these treatises and books should have been composed , all this mental labour gone through , for a purely mythical , non-existent Society , which never had existed , ( according to some modern writers ) , aud that those who defended it , and those who
attacked it , were so foolish or so ill-informed as to devote so much time and trouble , space aud thought , fco a pure figment ; of the human imagination . Something may indeed be alleged for the continuous credulity of mankind , bnt such an outcome of ignorantism and obscurantism
combined surpasses anything we have ever read of , or heard of anywhere , in any form , in any age , in any land . From 1614 to 1020 ( six years ) there wero no less than 170 works published , both friendly and hostile ; and even this large number , as I said before , is not the full representation of that special literature .
It is to be observed here that 1614 seems to bo so far the earliest date of a printed work in which mention of the Rosicrucians is found , though earlier MSS . exist , aud one notably in the Bodleian , among Ashmole ' s MSS ., before 1610 . Kloss himself points out a peculiar difficulty in this discussion—namely , thafc there is evidence of a
printed " answer in 1613 to a work which professedly only appeared iu 1614 . Either then there is an error iu the date of fche " answer , " or thero is an earlier printed work than 1614 . In the " Rosa Jesuitica , " published afc Prague in 1620 , and as Kloss says , afc Brussels originally iu 1619 , the existence of the Order is assumed as
a matter of fact ; true and false brethren are mentioned , and the writer admits charges brought against the Fratres of goldmaking and magic even then , but he only addresses fche true Rosicrucians , the " Philosophers , Medicinists , and Theosophists . " As this is a serious work , written by a religious brother to a doctor of
theology , comparing the Jesuits and the Rosicrucians , it is an evidence , as to actuality of evidence , which cannot be ignored . He even dbensses the derivation of the name . There is an old work of 1618 , at Rostock , by a member of one of the religious orders , who
terms them " a new Arabic and Moorish Fraternity , " which had published a confession , & c , at Cassel in 1614 , and at Marburg in 1615 . The writer of "Rosa Jesnitica" mentions six works published before 1619 , aud of these Kloss has verified five , but one is still unverified . " Rosa Florescens . "
Surely , then , it is impossible and uncritical to contend that the whole of this long array of writings and writers , friendly and hostile , appeared under gross ignorance , grave delusion , or deliberate mendacity , and thee inclusion seem * to be irresistible and uncontrovertible , really and truly , thafc wo have in these writings and writers
conclusive evidence as to the existence of this Fraternity of the Rose Croix ! Thus far we havo not fonnd tho Rosicrucians mentioned in the older Hermetic writings , though there are hints of a Fraternity . Tho old Hermctics only circulated rare works in MS . for the adepts
and illuminated , but when printing was established these curious MS . found their way into print . The Rosicruciau Fraternity would almost seem to be ( though , so
far , we cannot trace them earlier than 1600 ) fche continuation of those Hermetic Societies which we know existed in the 15 th century , from other writers and evidences , and which as undoubtedly orig inally come from the East . SPEEO .