How Curiously Some Masons Reason.

HOW CURIOUSLY SOME MASONS REASON .

BY BRO . JACOB NORTON . BRO . FELLOWS P . G . M . of Louisiana , Past K . T Grand Master of the U . S ., and a Thirty-thirder in

the Scotch Rite , and now Chairman of the Committee of Correspondence for tho Grand Lodgo of Louisiana , seems to have read some of the recently published Masonic histories , which have disturbed his faith in the old Masonic writers . In his " Foreign Correspondence " he says : —

" Until within a few years the history of Freemasonry has been for the most part either a repetition of old traditions , or of theorizing the facts of history supposed to be reliable . "

The above would imply that Bro . Fellows is wiser now than he was formerly ; but his method of reasoning from the *' •Old Charges " shows that ho is as much in tho dark as ever . He says : — " However extensive these organizations of Masons wore ,

they were simply guilds of operative Masons , among whom were Architects and Master Bnildors , who naturally were at the head of the organisation ; and , being necessarily

men of ability and learning , may havo added , and probably did add , to tlie dignity and importance of the assoeiiUion of which they were the head leaders . *" But that is not all , for he goes on to say : —

"Tho writer is inclined to believe that there was from prehistoric times something more than mere operative character to the institution . It ia now claimed that a speculative character was added only during the 17 th century , when persons in no way connected with building were first initiated , as Elias Ashmole in MiGl .

If the term speculative is confined to the practice of initiating persons not of tho operative class , then thc rsnppoi-ition is correct ; but if the term is to be nsed as designating an esoteric work , something besido the knowledge of bnilding , or the learning of a trade , then , I think , the fucfc is more than presumable that specula * ive

features go back to prehistoric times , and nearly , if not quite , to the organisation of the labour guilds themselves . Distinguished architects , uien of learning , men in the monasteries , builders of renown , were of the organisation , and it is certainly sure that they would have had some sort of association among themselves , apart

from the labourers , journeymen and apprentices . . . . Human nature must have totally changed in that respect , which is not to be supposed , if those who had successfully passed their apprenticeship and become skilful workmen , did not organize a higher and separate grade for themselves ; nr * r is it again supposublo that master

builders , contractors and architects , all men of brain and lparning , should not have had an organisation of their own apart from and above that of their hired labourers and of their apprentices . Such must have beeu from necessity the case . They met and devised the proceedings to be held in Lodges , and being men of capacity ancl

ability , controlled by thoir influence tho votes and actions of the mass of the Lodge , without the latter oven surmising the preco-icerted action .- This , many of us know , is done to-day in political , religious , moral and business affairs . Thei'e is a ring in politics ,

thongh of another name ; also in religion and all other organisations , and nothing of the inner proceedings appears on tho minutes of the regular organisation , nor could they appear ; their absence , therefore , proves nothing .

"Again , when men of culture and brain meet habitually together they are never content to be confined to mere matter of business , or the control of the affairs of those not of them , but yet with whom they nre associated . They invariably—such is the nature of man—invent a ceremony for initiation , the reception of their new

members , and signs and methods by which they may know each other ; and in times in the history of the human race , such as prevailed during the middle ages in the civilization of Europe , thoy may have , and probably would have , invented , more or less elaborate , a species of initntion particular to themselves , which would in time

become what we call degrees , the fundamental always remaining ne « rly or essentially the same , while the detailed ceremonies would differ from year to year , and in different locations . We take this to have been the case with Freemasonry in its origin , and during the time of unwritten historv . "

Now , the error Bro . Fellows committed was in attaching any importance to whatever meaning our modern dreamers have ascribed to the phrase " Speculative Mason . " Suppose th y call Elias Ashmole a " Speculative Mason ? " and suppose that they even believe that lie speculated , and that he belonged to a hip-h desrree Lodce similar to some of the

degrees now so fashionable among our Grand Lodge dignitaries , what does their mere belief amount to ? If , as our Brother admits , Masons of recent times were satisfied ¦ with " a repetition of old traditions , or of theorising upon the parts of history supposed to be reliable , " the question

then would be : suppose our modern dreamers do believe that Ashmole was a speculative Mason , what guarantee have I thafc their opinion is reliable ? Ashmole himself certainly never called himself a " Spoculative Mason , " nor did any other man ever call him so . Non-operatives were ,

in those days , affiliated with all kinds of Craft Guilds , but no ono ever pretended that the non-operatives were Speculatives . For instance , in Nicol ' s " Progress of King James lst , " I find that Sir Leonard Holliday was elected Lord Mayor in 1605 . The Lord Mayor was probably a

Tailor , and the Tailors' Guild got the poet and dramatist Anthony Munday , who was also a Bro . Tailor ( though he knew nothing about tailoring business ) , to write a new play

for the occasion , which he called the " Triumph of Reunited Britannia . " The play was performed by children , in which the following verses were recited : —

I find recorded in my register Seven kings have honoured this society , Fourteen great dukes did willingly prefer Their love and kindness to this Company :

Three score eight lords declared their anaitie , Terming themselves all brethren of this band , The very worthiest lords of all the land ; Three dukes , three earls , four lords of noble name , AU in one year did join in Brotherhood .

Of bishops and deans , to those before , My record could afford as many more . In 1607 King James I ., together with his eldest son Henry Prince of Wales , with " a host of courtiers , " visited

the London Bro . Tailors , when another poem was recited , in which it was claimed that the first royal Bro . Tailor was King Richard II . During that visit the Prince of Wales , with the " host of courtiers , " were made Bro . Tailors , and

His Majesty declined to join the Tailors because he was a brother of the Cordwainer Guild , or a brother shoemaker . But yet I venture to say that not one of the Tailor kings , dukes , princes , bishops and deans , nor even the poet

Anthony Munday , ever dreamed of Specidafive Tailoring , or of high degrees for the Tailoring Fraternity . Why , then , does our Bro . Fellows suppose that the more cultured Masons of the Fraternity must have invented some forms of initiation , or high degrees , exclusively for themselves ?

Again , the author of the Matthew Cooke MS ., when referring to Prince Edwin of York says , " He wisfc well that handcraft had the practice of geometry so well as Masons , wherefore he drew to him to council and learned

[ the ] practice of thafc science fco his speculative , for of speculative he was a master . " Brother Cook was of course delighted to find the word speculative in the MS . ; but a friend , " not a brother , " suggested that by

speculative the writer of the MS . simply meant an architect , and I have no doubt that this suggestion was correct . Now the said Matthew Cooke MS . is doubtless the parent of all the subsequent MSS ., designated by Bro . Hughan as

" Ancient Charges ; ' but the word " speculative " is nofc repeated in either of the said Ancient Charges . Nor could I find the phrase " speculative Masonry " iu either of Anderson ' s Constitutions , nor in the Defence of Masonry

of 1730 , neither in "Euclid's letter to the author , " nor in any of the rituals that I had access to between 1723 and 1768 , nor in the Ahiman Rezon of 1756 and 1764 , nor in Calcott ' s Disquisition . I found it , however , in Preston ,

who was probably the originator of that phrase , and the application of the phrase " Speculative Masonry" to a pre-1717 non-operative , like Elias Ashmole , did not

probably originate until after Dr . Oliver began to shine as a Masonic luminary . Bro . Fellows' reasoning from the phrase of " Speculative Mason " must , therefore , be pronounced groundless .

Again , reasoning from analogy may sometimes be all right , but it may also be all wrong . Now , our Bro . Fellows is doubtless well acquainted with the modus operandi of American " political rings ; " he knows how the wire-pullers

or Bosses pre-arrange everything that is to be done at primary meetings ; how they in secret conclaves ordain who is to be chairman , who are to be the speakers , who are to draw up the resolutions , and how they appoint the delegate

to the State or United States convention ; bow tbe office hunters iu the political primary meetings obey the hints of the Bosses , and how the ignorant voters are duped by the party leaders . He knows that some of the American

Grand Lodges are ruled after the same fashion . Hence he imagines that the Masonic assemblies in the Middle Ages must also have been ruled by Bosses ! and as the present

American Grand Lodge Bosses are intelligent or crafty high degreers , he therefore jumps to the conclusion that in olden times the Masonic leaders were architects , or men of the highest culture , men of the monastery , & c . Now , the only sources wherefrom wo can derive information about the Masons of the middle ages are , in the