Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
H.R.H. Prince Leopold Duke Of Albany, K.G., Prov. G.M. Oxfordshire, P.G.W. England, &C.
as if to show more emphatically than ever how inscrutable are the ways of Providence , he was lying dead at the very time our readers first saw the announcement . But we need not dwell on the extreme painfulness of the circumstances , which have been described again and again by all our daily and weekly contemporaries . Our sad duty is to chronicle the brief but distinguished career of thc deceased Prince as a member of our ancient and honourable Brotherhood of Freemasons .
A few short weeks more and a complete decade would have passed since his Royal Highness was received into the Craft , and during all that time the enthusiasm he had shown in his Masonic labours was very great . In that comparatively brief period he had attained to high office in almost every branch of Masonry , and by the deep interest he exhibited in our several Institutions , as well as by the admirable manner in which he performed whatever
office was demanded of him , he showed to all his brother Masons that he , at all events , did not think lightly either of the aims and objects or reputation of Freemasonry . He was as zealous in our pursuits as his health would permit , and whenever a useful or graceful act was to be done that would prove serviceable , to Freemasonry , Prince Leopold was ready enough , if able , to lend his assistance .
The honour of having received his Royal Highness inlo Masonry belongs to one of our most distinguished lodges—the Apollo University Lodge , No . 357 , Oxford—in which he was initiated into the mysteries of the First ' Degree on the ist May , 1874 . He was passed on the 7 th November following , the ceremony , by dispensation from the Grand Registrar , then in charge of the province , being performed at his private residence
in Oxford—Wykcham House . On the 16 th February , 1875 , he was invested as S . W . of his lodge , thc ceremony of raising him to the Degree of M . M . not being carried out till the 171 I 1 April . In the course of a few weeks he wns appointed a Prov . Grand Steward , and on 22 nd February of the year following was installed W . M ., Bro . thc Rev . R . W . M . Pope being appointed to act as his Deputy . The next day he entered on the still more
important ollice of Prov . Grand Master of Oxfordshire , lhe ceremon y being most ably conducted by Lord Skelmersdale , D . G . Master , in the Shcldonian Theatre . Subsequently his Royal Highness became W . M . of the Lodge of Antiquity , No . 2 , which he had joined 2 & h May , 1875 , and remained such till 18 S 0 , " and he was also Master of the Royal Clarence Lodge , No . 1823 , Clare , Suffolk . In 1877 his brother , the Prince of Wales , M . W . G . M .,
appointed him to thc chair of Grand Junior Warden , that of Grand Senior Warden being filled by the Duke of Connaught . The only occasion , however , on which , we believe , the three Royal brethren met together in Grand Lodge was at the Special Communication called in March , 1882 , for thc purpose of passing a resolution of sympathy with the Onecn on her fortunate escape from the hands of
nn assassin . In Royal Arch he held a corresponding rank with that conferred on him in Craft Masonry , that is , he was Prov . G . Superintendent of Oxfordshire , having been installed in that office on the 12 th of June of last year , though his patent of appointment dates from a somewhat earlier period . Here again he received the earlier steps at Oxford , his exaltation having taken place in thc Apollo University Chapter , in June ,
1870 , while on 17 th December , 1881 , he was installed its M . E . Z ., the ceremony , however , being performed in the Friends in Council Chapter , No . 13 S 3 , in thc Masonic Hall at Red Lion-square . Last year , when Lord tie Tabley declined re-election as Grand J . of the Supreme Grand Chapter , his Royal Highness was appointed in his stead . He became Knight Templar in thc Preceptory of Coeur de Lion , Oxford , on 19 th June ,
1 S 76 , and was elected and served as E . Preceptor , with Rev . T . Cochrane as his Deputy , in 1878 . He was also a Knight Grand Cross and Constable of thc Order . Wc was perfected in tho Oxford University Chapter , No . 40 , Rose Croix , on 28 th May , 1 S 75 , and was appointed and invested as First General on the 10 th November following . He had also been elected , but had never served , thc ollice of M . W . S ., and had been made , at thc same time as his 0
brother , the Duke of Connaught , a 33 and honorary member of the Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Rite . As to the Mark Degree , he was advanced in University Lodge , No . 55 , on the 25 th November , 1875 , and had been elected , but had never filled , the office of W . M . In 18 S 1 , however , he gave a further proof of his interest in this branch of Masonry by accepting thc rank and being installed as M . W . G . M . of the
Mark Grand Lodge . Moreover , only as recently as the close of last year he had taken part in the ceremony of installing his brother , the Prince of Wales , in the same capacity , so that in Craft , Arch , and Mark Masonry the deceased Prince had risen to high office , not merely because of his exalted rank , but after having fulfilled the duties of the less exacting and less distinguished positions . As regards our Charities , it will serve to show the
interest he took in them , if we say that out of his means , as well as by his influence and advocacy , ho had done much to help them on their way . In 1877 he had undertaken to ( ill the chair at thc Festival of the Benevolent Institution , but his health intervened and prevented the fulfilment of his promise . In 1881 he presided at the Festival of the Royal Masonic Institution for Girls with a success which fully justified the hopes and expectations of its
numerous friends and supporters , and this year , but for his untimely death , he would have fulfilled the same kind ollice for the Boys' School . Wc trust , however , that if his personal advocacy is wanting , the knowledge that it was to have been exerted , had his life been scared , will bc borne in mind by the Craft , and that all Masons who have it in their power will interest themselves in such a manner that the sum raised for our Boys' School may prove
a worthy memorial of the departed Duke . That our respectful sympathy is with her Majesty , the widowed Duchess of Albany , our Grand Mastcr , and all the other members of the Royal Family need hardly be said , and if wc have failed to convey it in terms of sufficient warmth , it is because no terms will serve to express the sorrow we feel in common with all our brother Masons and fellow subjects of the Queen at the sad and sudden grief which has overtaken them .
Review.
REVIEW .
HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY . Vol . III . By Bro . R . F . GOULD , P . G . D . We have perused with much attention and gratification the third volume of that very remarkable " History of Freemasonry " which Bro . R . F . Gould is writing , and of which the long-expected third instalment has at last appeared . Interesting and effectivemost strikingly so , as were the first
, two volumes of the work , the third will not be found deficient in all that can commend it to the patient study of the expert and student Freemason . Indeed , the volume now before us is marked by most painstaking labour and a very lucid marshalling of statements , facts , and evidences , as well as by a commendable fairness of argument , accuracy of quotation , a careful record
Review.
of normal authorities , and a most elaborate verification of the assertions of previous writers . We are also struck by its thorough recognition of the efforts and contributions of others . We feel sure that this third volume will add to the popularity and prestige of the work , and that when completed in due time we shall possess in it a striking monument of the zeal , tempered with discretion , wherewith the writer deals with a very difficult and recondite
subject , as well as an honest endeavour to set forth a critical and veracious history of our great Sodality . We cannot therefore too highly praise the third volume in such respects , and feel sure that all fellow student Freemasons will with us equally acknowledge their admiration and their obligations . Having said this much , we feel bound to add , as honest censors and loyal critics of a very valuable work , that we , in order to render such a review
worth anything , ought _ not to be estopped from any friendly or personal considerations in touching upon some topics on which we have the misfortune not to be quite in accord with the able writer of the history . But as we do thoroughly agree with the historian on most points , our remarks are intended to be only the fair representation of friendly and conversational criticism , worth only this—that it is the * ' outcome , " kindly and Masonic , of the long study for years of the same evidences handled in such a masterly way by Bro . Gould .
I . The interesting evidence as to Ashmole is admirabl y brought out , and the great obligations of the writer to Bro . W . H . Rylands arc not forgotten as to this intricate portion of Masonic history . The initiation of Ashmole at a lodge in Lancashire in 1646 , and his presence at a lodge in London in 1682 , are strking landmarks in the history of seventeenth century English Freemasonry . If Ashmole ' s MSS . eventually turn up , ( and they
are still probably extant , ) we shall know more of the history of Freemasonry in general , and of the lodge at Warrington in particular . Rejecting all theories as to Ashmole ' s " Rosicrucianizing " English Freemasonry , we are not prepared to deny that we think it probable he did belong both to a Masonic and Rosicrucian Fraternity contemporaneousl y . The important fact as to Peter Sthael , the Rosicrucian , at Oxford , and his class of pupils like Wren , Locke , Boyle , & c , may yet receive further elucidation , and may be
found to have some bearing on seventeenth century rreemasonry in England . II . Bro . Gould has been permitted to see the records of the Masons ' Company , and confirms what had been an official authority promulgated some years back in the Freemason , that the Masons' Company and Society of Freemasons were distinct bodies , and that neither Ashmole , Wren , Padgett , nor Bray were members of the Masons' Company . He further confirms a previous statement by Bro . Hughan that the Masons of the
Company were termed " Freemasons . " III . Thc vexed question of Hermeticism wo gladly leave where Bro . Gould wisely does , namely , " undecided" and " sub judicc . " We may find more or less evidence of an Hermetic connection with Freemasonry as time runs on , but we apprehend that on one thing wc may depend , namely , the accumulation of evidence as regards tho existence of an Hermetic or Rosicrucian fellowshi p alike in the monasteries and the so-called Philosophic World . Wc can nave little doubt of tho existence of a Fraternity of Rose Croix before 1600 .
IV . The question of Sir Christopher Wren ' s connection with Freemasonry is a most important one , and we regret that Bro . Gould has not treated it with the same praiseworthy discretion and reserve he has dealt towards Hermeticism . Wc do not see that he has adduced any further evidence on the subject , one way or the other , though we do note that he has expressed a very decided opinion , and made a very startling deliverance on thc subject .
Neither of these wc venture humbly to submit is justified by what we do know of the facts of tho case at present , except indeed as the honest expression of independent private judgment . We venture to think on the contrary that the question is still before us , an open question , and likely to be so for some time to come . Indeed weare ourselves somewhat tried by the evident " dilemma" into which so able a writer as Bro . Gould has , to
our view , clearly fallen . For he rejects all but "positive evidence , " apparently forgetting that owing to the facts of thc case and the utter carelessness as to records which marked those days , " positive evidence " is hardl y attainable at present . Accordingly he rejects Wren ' s Grand Wardcnship as well as his Grand Mastership , and goes on to contend that he was not a member or Worshipful Master of the Lodge of Antiquity , and was not even a Freemason at all .
Though Bro . Gould cannot get over the evidence of Aubrey altogether , he endeavours to lesson its force in one direction b y pointing out that it is destructive of the Andersonian theory . And so it is , no doubt , in one sense ; but is it altogether so ? Wc think not . VVe have never denied that there are great difficulties in respect of Sir Christopher Wren and his Masonic membership , & c . The silence of his contemporaries until fas is so
far ascertained ) 1738 , the non-recognition of the Grand Lodge in 1723 of his death ; the non-mention of his name Masonically until 1738 , all these facts constitute grave " Cruxes , " which demand the closest consideration . But then on the other hand we have the part testimony of Aubrey in i 6 gii the newspaper recognition of 1723 , a continuous Masonic tradition since 1738 at any rate , together with the subsidiary witness of the Lodee of
Antiquity , and that of the so called "Wren MS ., " all pointing to a widespread belief founded on some evidence or other , of Wren ' s connection with our Order . It seems to us impossible and unjust to believe on any ground of legitimate testimony or fair deduction , that those brethren who were living in 1717 and survived until 173 8 , and must have been positively acquainted with the fact one way or the other , did not know , when Anderson issued
his fuller work , whether Wren could properly be termed a member of the Fraternity or not in 1723 , when he died , and whether he had been so previously . If Sir Christoper Wren was not a Freemason in our sense , no blame too severe can be awarded to Anderson for fabricating , and to Sayer , Desaguliers , Payne , and others , nay the entire Grand Lodge , for conniving in a ¦ wilful falsification of history to serve some purpose inexplicable to us .
Many of those living in 1738 who read Anderson ' s fuller history must have known Wren personally , and we cannot see that there is the slightest evidence for connecting such men and brethren as Desaguliers , Payne , and Anderson with such a " pious fraud . " Greater discredit even must be attached to Preston for repeating the statement in later years , and seeking to strengthen his position by a mistaken and garbled usage of the evidences of the Lodge of Antiquity . As we are most unwillimr ourselves on everv P-round of direct
and inferential evidencs at present available to accept such a "dilemma , " we must respectfully demur to and reject Bro . Gould ' s conclusions on the subject , feeling assured that other evidence will yet arise , and that his ingenious attempt to establish a negative " non est probandum . " We think ourselves that much as regards the unsatisfactoriness of our earl y evidences on the subject may be fairly ascribed to the comparative hurry with which Anderson set to work to modernize the " old gothic legends . " He does not
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
H.R.H. Prince Leopold Duke Of Albany, K.G., Prov. G.M. Oxfordshire, P.G.W. England, &C.
as if to show more emphatically than ever how inscrutable are the ways of Providence , he was lying dead at the very time our readers first saw the announcement . But we need not dwell on the extreme painfulness of the circumstances , which have been described again and again by all our daily and weekly contemporaries . Our sad duty is to chronicle the brief but distinguished career of thc deceased Prince as a member of our ancient and honourable Brotherhood of Freemasons .
A few short weeks more and a complete decade would have passed since his Royal Highness was received into the Craft , and during all that time the enthusiasm he had shown in his Masonic labours was very great . In that comparatively brief period he had attained to high office in almost every branch of Masonry , and by the deep interest he exhibited in our several Institutions , as well as by the admirable manner in which he performed whatever
office was demanded of him , he showed to all his brother Masons that he , at all events , did not think lightly either of the aims and objects or reputation of Freemasonry . He was as zealous in our pursuits as his health would permit , and whenever a useful or graceful act was to be done that would prove serviceable , to Freemasonry , Prince Leopold was ready enough , if able , to lend his assistance .
The honour of having received his Royal Highness inlo Masonry belongs to one of our most distinguished lodges—the Apollo University Lodge , No . 357 , Oxford—in which he was initiated into the mysteries of the First ' Degree on the ist May , 1874 . He was passed on the 7 th November following , the ceremony , by dispensation from the Grand Registrar , then in charge of the province , being performed at his private residence
in Oxford—Wykcham House . On the 16 th February , 1875 , he was invested as S . W . of his lodge , thc ceremony of raising him to the Degree of M . M . not being carried out till the 171 I 1 April . In the course of a few weeks he wns appointed a Prov . Grand Steward , and on 22 nd February of the year following was installed W . M ., Bro . thc Rev . R . W . M . Pope being appointed to act as his Deputy . The next day he entered on the still more
important ollice of Prov . Grand Master of Oxfordshire , lhe ceremon y being most ably conducted by Lord Skelmersdale , D . G . Master , in the Shcldonian Theatre . Subsequently his Royal Highness became W . M . of the Lodge of Antiquity , No . 2 , which he had joined 2 & h May , 1875 , and remained such till 18 S 0 , " and he was also Master of the Royal Clarence Lodge , No . 1823 , Clare , Suffolk . In 1877 his brother , the Prince of Wales , M . W . G . M .,
appointed him to thc chair of Grand Junior Warden , that of Grand Senior Warden being filled by the Duke of Connaught . The only occasion , however , on which , we believe , the three Royal brethren met together in Grand Lodge was at the Special Communication called in March , 1882 , for thc purpose of passing a resolution of sympathy with the Onecn on her fortunate escape from the hands of
nn assassin . In Royal Arch he held a corresponding rank with that conferred on him in Craft Masonry , that is , he was Prov . G . Superintendent of Oxfordshire , having been installed in that office on the 12 th of June of last year , though his patent of appointment dates from a somewhat earlier period . Here again he received the earlier steps at Oxford , his exaltation having taken place in thc Apollo University Chapter , in June ,
1870 , while on 17 th December , 1881 , he was installed its M . E . Z ., the ceremony , however , being performed in the Friends in Council Chapter , No . 13 S 3 , in thc Masonic Hall at Red Lion-square . Last year , when Lord tie Tabley declined re-election as Grand J . of the Supreme Grand Chapter , his Royal Highness was appointed in his stead . He became Knight Templar in thc Preceptory of Coeur de Lion , Oxford , on 19 th June ,
1 S 76 , and was elected and served as E . Preceptor , with Rev . T . Cochrane as his Deputy , in 1878 . He was also a Knight Grand Cross and Constable of thc Order . Wc was perfected in tho Oxford University Chapter , No . 40 , Rose Croix , on 28 th May , 1 S 75 , and was appointed and invested as First General on the 10 th November following . He had also been elected , but had never served , thc ollice of M . W . S ., and had been made , at thc same time as his 0
brother , the Duke of Connaught , a 33 and honorary member of the Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Rite . As to the Mark Degree , he was advanced in University Lodge , No . 55 , on the 25 th November , 1875 , and had been elected , but had never filled , the office of W . M . In 18 S 1 , however , he gave a further proof of his interest in this branch of Masonry by accepting thc rank and being installed as M . W . G . M . of the
Mark Grand Lodge . Moreover , only as recently as the close of last year he had taken part in the ceremony of installing his brother , the Prince of Wales , in the same capacity , so that in Craft , Arch , and Mark Masonry the deceased Prince had risen to high office , not merely because of his exalted rank , but after having fulfilled the duties of the less exacting and less distinguished positions . As regards our Charities , it will serve to show the
interest he took in them , if we say that out of his means , as well as by his influence and advocacy , ho had done much to help them on their way . In 1877 he had undertaken to ( ill the chair at thc Festival of the Benevolent Institution , but his health intervened and prevented the fulfilment of his promise . In 1881 he presided at the Festival of the Royal Masonic Institution for Girls with a success which fully justified the hopes and expectations of its
numerous friends and supporters , and this year , but for his untimely death , he would have fulfilled the same kind ollice for the Boys' School . Wc trust , however , that if his personal advocacy is wanting , the knowledge that it was to have been exerted , had his life been scared , will bc borne in mind by the Craft , and that all Masons who have it in their power will interest themselves in such a manner that the sum raised for our Boys' School may prove
a worthy memorial of the departed Duke . That our respectful sympathy is with her Majesty , the widowed Duchess of Albany , our Grand Mastcr , and all the other members of the Royal Family need hardly be said , and if wc have failed to convey it in terms of sufficient warmth , it is because no terms will serve to express the sorrow we feel in common with all our brother Masons and fellow subjects of the Queen at the sad and sudden grief which has overtaken them .
Review.
REVIEW .
HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY . Vol . III . By Bro . R . F . GOULD , P . G . D . We have perused with much attention and gratification the third volume of that very remarkable " History of Freemasonry " which Bro . R . F . Gould is writing , and of which the long-expected third instalment has at last appeared . Interesting and effectivemost strikingly so , as were the first
, two volumes of the work , the third will not be found deficient in all that can commend it to the patient study of the expert and student Freemason . Indeed , the volume now before us is marked by most painstaking labour and a very lucid marshalling of statements , facts , and evidences , as well as by a commendable fairness of argument , accuracy of quotation , a careful record
Review.
of normal authorities , and a most elaborate verification of the assertions of previous writers . We are also struck by its thorough recognition of the efforts and contributions of others . We feel sure that this third volume will add to the popularity and prestige of the work , and that when completed in due time we shall possess in it a striking monument of the zeal , tempered with discretion , wherewith the writer deals with a very difficult and recondite
subject , as well as an honest endeavour to set forth a critical and veracious history of our great Sodality . We cannot therefore too highly praise the third volume in such respects , and feel sure that all fellow student Freemasons will with us equally acknowledge their admiration and their obligations . Having said this much , we feel bound to add , as honest censors and loyal critics of a very valuable work , that we , in order to render such a review
worth anything , ought _ not to be estopped from any friendly or personal considerations in touching upon some topics on which we have the misfortune not to be quite in accord with the able writer of the history . But as we do thoroughly agree with the historian on most points , our remarks are intended to be only the fair representation of friendly and conversational criticism , worth only this—that it is the * ' outcome , " kindly and Masonic , of the long study for years of the same evidences handled in such a masterly way by Bro . Gould .
I . The interesting evidence as to Ashmole is admirabl y brought out , and the great obligations of the writer to Bro . W . H . Rylands arc not forgotten as to this intricate portion of Masonic history . The initiation of Ashmole at a lodge in Lancashire in 1646 , and his presence at a lodge in London in 1682 , are strking landmarks in the history of seventeenth century English Freemasonry . If Ashmole ' s MSS . eventually turn up , ( and they
are still probably extant , ) we shall know more of the history of Freemasonry in general , and of the lodge at Warrington in particular . Rejecting all theories as to Ashmole ' s " Rosicrucianizing " English Freemasonry , we are not prepared to deny that we think it probable he did belong both to a Masonic and Rosicrucian Fraternity contemporaneousl y . The important fact as to Peter Sthael , the Rosicrucian , at Oxford , and his class of pupils like Wren , Locke , Boyle , & c , may yet receive further elucidation , and may be
found to have some bearing on seventeenth century rreemasonry in England . II . Bro . Gould has been permitted to see the records of the Masons ' Company , and confirms what had been an official authority promulgated some years back in the Freemason , that the Masons' Company and Society of Freemasons were distinct bodies , and that neither Ashmole , Wren , Padgett , nor Bray were members of the Masons' Company . He further confirms a previous statement by Bro . Hughan that the Masons of the
Company were termed " Freemasons . " III . Thc vexed question of Hermeticism wo gladly leave where Bro . Gould wisely does , namely , " undecided" and " sub judicc . " We may find more or less evidence of an Hermetic connection with Freemasonry as time runs on , but we apprehend that on one thing wc may depend , namely , the accumulation of evidence as regards tho existence of an Hermetic or Rosicrucian fellowshi p alike in the monasteries and the so-called Philosophic World . Wc can nave little doubt of tho existence of a Fraternity of Rose Croix before 1600 .
IV . The question of Sir Christopher Wren ' s connection with Freemasonry is a most important one , and we regret that Bro . Gould has not treated it with the same praiseworthy discretion and reserve he has dealt towards Hermeticism . Wc do not see that he has adduced any further evidence on the subject , one way or the other , though we do note that he has expressed a very decided opinion , and made a very startling deliverance on thc subject .
Neither of these wc venture humbly to submit is justified by what we do know of the facts of tho case at present , except indeed as the honest expression of independent private judgment . We venture to think on the contrary that the question is still before us , an open question , and likely to be so for some time to come . Indeed weare ourselves somewhat tried by the evident " dilemma" into which so able a writer as Bro . Gould has , to
our view , clearly fallen . For he rejects all but "positive evidence , " apparently forgetting that owing to the facts of thc case and the utter carelessness as to records which marked those days , " positive evidence " is hardl y attainable at present . Accordingly he rejects Wren ' s Grand Wardcnship as well as his Grand Mastership , and goes on to contend that he was not a member or Worshipful Master of the Lodge of Antiquity , and was not even a Freemason at all .
Though Bro . Gould cannot get over the evidence of Aubrey altogether , he endeavours to lesson its force in one direction b y pointing out that it is destructive of the Andersonian theory . And so it is , no doubt , in one sense ; but is it altogether so ? Wc think not . VVe have never denied that there are great difficulties in respect of Sir Christopher Wren and his Masonic membership , & c . The silence of his contemporaries until fas is so
far ascertained ) 1738 , the non-recognition of the Grand Lodge in 1723 of his death ; the non-mention of his name Masonically until 1738 , all these facts constitute grave " Cruxes , " which demand the closest consideration . But then on the other hand we have the part testimony of Aubrey in i 6 gii the newspaper recognition of 1723 , a continuous Masonic tradition since 1738 at any rate , together with the subsidiary witness of the Lodee of
Antiquity , and that of the so called "Wren MS ., " all pointing to a widespread belief founded on some evidence or other , of Wren ' s connection with our Order . It seems to us impossible and unjust to believe on any ground of legitimate testimony or fair deduction , that those brethren who were living in 1717 and survived until 173 8 , and must have been positively acquainted with the fact one way or the other , did not know , when Anderson issued
his fuller work , whether Wren could properly be termed a member of the Fraternity or not in 1723 , when he died , and whether he had been so previously . If Sir Christoper Wren was not a Freemason in our sense , no blame too severe can be awarded to Anderson for fabricating , and to Sayer , Desaguliers , Payne , and others , nay the entire Grand Lodge , for conniving in a ¦ wilful falsification of history to serve some purpose inexplicable to us .
Many of those living in 1738 who read Anderson ' s fuller history must have known Wren personally , and we cannot see that there is the slightest evidence for connecting such men and brethren as Desaguliers , Payne , and Anderson with such a " pious fraud . " Greater discredit even must be attached to Preston for repeating the statement in later years , and seeking to strengthen his position by a mistaken and garbled usage of the evidences of the Lodge of Antiquity . As we are most unwillimr ourselves on everv P-round of direct
and inferential evidencs at present available to accept such a "dilemma , " we must respectfully demur to and reject Bro . Gould ' s conclusions on the subject , feeling assured that other evidence will yet arise , and that his ingenious attempt to establish a negative " non est probandum . " We think ourselves that much as regards the unsatisfactoriness of our earl y evidences on the subject may be fairly ascribed to the comparative hurry with which Anderson set to work to modernize the " old gothic legends . " He does not