Can Antiquity Of Speculative Masonry Be Proved.

CAN ANTIQUITY OF SPECULATIVE MASONRY BE PROVED .

Bv Bi ; o . JACOB NORTON .

TO tho abovo question I answer most decidedly , No . Our Bro . Gould has furnished nothing that deserves the name of evidence , either for tho antiquity of speculative Masonry or for tho antiquity of Masonic degrees . All his arguments in behalf of his " new departure" amount

simply to conjecture , hypothesis , assumption , aud farfetched analogies and quotations from writings of partizan antiquity lianlcerers . Before , however , I proceed to give

specimens of tho said quotations , I must give , in his own words , the cause of his change iu opinion , or rather of his " new departure . " On page 1 G of the last Q . C . Transactions Bro . Gould says : —

" This MS . [ the Regius Poem ] evidently belonged to a Guild or Fraternity of Masons , as it gives the legendary history of their Craft , and furnishes regulations for their conduct , bnt it is chit fly remarkable on account of the last hundred linos being almost exactly the same as a non-Masonic poem , called ' Urbanitatis , ' giving minute diiections

for behaviour in the presence of a lord—at tabic—and among ladiesall of whioh being clearly intended for gentlemen of those days , ib has been argued , would havo been oat of place in a code of manners drawn np for the use of a Guild or Craft of artisans , and henco that

the MS . must havo been possessed by a Guild or Fraternity , whioh commemorated the science , but without practising the art of Masonry , that is , that they wero whafc we should now call , Speculative or Symbolical Masons . "

Now , tho fact is , a poem called Urbanitatis , said by tho editor thereof to have been written in 1460 , contains the following lessons for good behaviour , viz .: — " When you come before a lord take off your cap or hood , and fall on your knee twice or thrice . Keep yonr cap off till you are told to

pat it on . Hold your chin up . Look the lord in the face . Keep hands and feet still . Don't spit and snot . Break wind quietly . Behave well when you go into the Hall . See that your hands are clean and yonr knife sharp . Don't clatoh the best bit . Keep yonr hands from dirtying the table cloth , and don't wipo your nose on it , " & o ., & o .

Tho above lesson was evidently designed by the author of Urbanitatis for rude , ignorant , dirty misbehaved boys , of the poorest class . " Our Masonic poefc appropriated tho above portion of Urbanitatis , aud tacked it on to tho end of his Masonic poem . And , because ho did so , and because a

lord s table is mentioned therein , therefore , says Bro . Gould , the said lord must have been a Freemason , and a Speculative Freemason too , and that he was a member of a Lordly Lodge of Speculative Masons . Hence ifc is now cocksure that Speculative Masonry existed iu the 15 th century at least .

Now , with all duo respect to Bro . Gould , I venture to say that if he submitted his jjoem argument to an unbiassed jury , that as soon as his last word was uttered , without

leaving the jury-box , tho jury would at once render a unanimous verdict of " not proven . " Bro . Woodford said ( see p 19 , last issue of Q . G . Trans * actions : —

" To accept for one moment the suggestion thafc so complex and curious a system , embracing so many archaic remains , and such skilfully adjusted ceremonies , so much connected matter , accornpauiedby so

many striking symbols , could havo been tho creation of a pious fraud or ingenious conviviality , presses heavily on our powers of belief , and even passes over the normal credulity of our species . tZ' / te traces oj antiquity are too many to be overlooked or ignored . "

Now , as no one doubts that our Masonry docs not go back as far as the building of Solomon ' s Temple , it must therefore have been manufactured some timo or other ; and if so , as we have nofc a particle of genuine evidence that Masons had either Masonic degrees or Speculative

Masonry before 1717 , why then could it nofc have been manufactured after 1717 ? Surely the men that formed the Grand Lodge in 1717 , which was an entirely new

invention , and the men who adopted an entire new Constitution , wero moro capable of manufacturing ceremonies , rituals , and degrees than even Lords were able to invent in the 15 th century . But , says Bro . Rylands : —

"Ifc had always appeared to him impossible to imagine thafc in 1717 an entirely new system arose . Gradual changes ( ho said ) there were no doubt , and supplemental matter may havo been introduced ; but to his mind the greater part of our symbolism certainl y antcceded the Grand Lodge of England " ( soo p 26 ) .

And Bro . Gould repeats tho same ideas on page 30 , as follows : " It would havo been impossible to introduce new symbols after the revival in 1717 "; and on pago 15 Bro . Gould says ;—

Can Antiquity Of Speculative Masonry Be Proved.

" That class of workmen lasfc referred to possessed some knowledge of architectural symbolism , or , to use more familiar words , that they symbolised the implements of their trade , has been assumed by many writers , a conclusion to which I am also led , and , although incapable of strict proof , may , as it seems to me , be fortitied to some slight extent by analogy . "

Before I proceed to demolish the abovo fallacious method of reasoning , I will quote Bro . Albert Pike's opinion ou Masonic Symbolism . On page 10 , in a foot note , Brother Gould gives the following quotation : — " I am quite ready to believe ( says Bro . Pike ) , and think it can

be shown that there had been symbolism in Masonry long before 1717 . But that the working-class of Masons iu tho Lodges had no knowledge of it , ifc being confined to the men who , of another class , united themselves with the Lodges [ meaning , doubtless , the old Scotch Riters , and othor Kings of high degreers , who were the

original inventors of Masonio Symbolism , " the Lord alono knows when . " ] If that was even so , those Lodges whioh had no mem . bers of thafc class [ meaning they had no high degreers ] had no symbolism in their Masonry . So that I do not think we can ba warranted in assuming that among Masons generally — in the

body of Masonry—the symbolism of Freemasonry is of earlier date that 1717 , while I think yon can prove that among Freemasons of a certain class aud limited number [ high degreers , of course ] the same symbolism , or a larger part of the same , afterwards placed in tbe degrees , did exist before , perhaps some centuries before 1717 . "

Now , I agree to the fact that symbolism , metaphor , and allegory are as old as human speech . So soon as man acquired the ability to convey his ideas to , his fellow men by the uso of words , metaphorical and allegorical expressions were used , and symbols , too , bufc it does not necessarily

follow that there was any secret attached to the symbols . I believe that every crest on a gentleman ' s carriage is a symbol , and every sign of every public-house is a symbol . " The Goose and Gridiron , " representing a goose playing on what looks like a harp , was a symbol thafc musical

entertainments were given in that public-house . The London tailors , in the days of Henry VIE ., adopted the scissors as their trade symbol ; the Masons , as well as the Carpenters , alike adopted the Square and Compasses as symbols of their respective trades ; but no one ever heard that the

tailors or carpenters spun any yarns about a secret philosophy which their respective symbols conveyed to fcheir respective fraternities ; and as there is not a particle of evidence that the pre-1717 Masons attached any higher importance to the Square and Compasses

than carpenters and tailors attached to their working tools , the inference is that the pre-1717 Masons symbolised no more than the carpenters and tailois did . As to the assertion of impossibility of the 1717 Masons adopting new symbols and new degrees , that is all clap 4 rap , for we

know that the same Masons adopted an entire new code of laws in 1723 . We also know that hundreds of new degrees and new symbols have beon palmed off on Masons since 1717 , and we further know that in 1736 thirty

Lodges in Scotland all at once adopted new degrees and new symbols . It is therefore not impossible for three London Lodges , in 1717 or so , to havo adopted new degrees and now symbols when urged to do so by an array of very learned brethren of Lodge No . 4 .

Nor need we suppose , as Bro . Byland does , that the three degrees of , say 1723 , wero identical with those we have now , for an examination of the early rituals proves a succession of changes which the ritual underwent sinco 1723 . For instance ; compare the O . B . in the five

earliest rituals , and you will find that in each successive ritual tho O . B . is nearly twice as long as in the preceding one . Again , in four out of the five earliest rituals , " Bible , Square and Compasses " are never mentioned in connection with each other : indeed , with the exception of swearing on

the Bible , the Bible is nofc mentioned at all in the four rituals . In the fifth ritual the Bible , Square and Compasses are not called " Great Lights , " but " the Furniture of the Lodge . " As late as 1738 the Grand Lodge was opened without Bible , Square and Compasses lying on

the pedestal ; and who knows whether Lodges in 1738 were opened in a different fashion ? Bnt not only were additions to the ritual made since then , bufc erastires were also made . Thus , in one of the said rituals the threo great lights represented the Trinity . Again :

" Question . —Who ia that on earth that is greater than a Mason ? " Answer . —He yt was carryed to ye highest pinnacle of the Temple of Jerusalem , "

They also had a great deal to say about an ivory box , a chain , and a key , all of which has since then been lopped off . But our symbolic antiquity hankerers will bo surprised to learn that in neither of the five earliest rituals