Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Review.
seem to have done more than attempt a crude and partial treatment of Masonic tradition . He was unaware apparently of Ashmole ' s membership , though Mr . Burman's " Life " had appeared in 1717 , and as there is evidence how unwillingly the Freemasons of the day allowed any publication at all , we mustregard the performance of 1723 as a perfunctory and incomplete one , practically an enforced " minimum " of information . And though it may
be true that pains were taken with the 1723 work , yet it is evident that in r 738 , when Anderson had also seen the "lodge records , " his work became fuller at once . He mentions Wren and Ashmole and others , and may have had access to some authorities now out of sight . But we repeat to make the Grand Lodge of 1738 officially promulgate an " historical falsification " is a charge which ought not to be lightly made , is not supported , except by
purely inferential arguments , by any evidence we are aware of , and is a conclusion , as we said before , we cannot , in all deference to Bro . Gould , possibly accept . We therefore do not regard his judgment as to Wren as final . V . With respect to the Guild Legends , we think Bro . Gould ' s treatment of the question scholarly and lucid , and a help to Masonic students . Some observations , however , necessarily arise , as we do not quite concur with all
his details , but which we will allude to more fully in a subsequent review . We cannot acquiesce in his depreciatory view of Harleian MS . 1942 . We think , in the first place , after mature consideration , that Mr . Bond is right as to its earlier date , and that it is in itself a most important and valuable MS . A good deal of misconception apparently exists as to these Guild Legends , or Constitutions . They are in no case transcripts from a sealed
book j they were not issued apparently by any one or central authority ; they must be expected to vary according to the education of the transcribers , and according to local ideas , singularities , and colouring , and that they do so vary is an undoubted fact . We cannot at present accept without much further consideration and evidence any thing which makes the various texts dependent and derivable from any one particular text . Anv theory
that you can deduce nearly all the Constitutions from one text is , we feel sure , a crucial blunder . Even the grouping of the Constitutions into distinct families requires the greatest caution , as there is always a tendency in such manipulations of MSS . and thc like , to make ceitain forms accommodate certain theories and ideas . The transcriber of the Harleian MS . 1042 has made some patent blunders in his work .
He has omitted "Edwin from the context , and one or two lines of " copy " ( a line in a MS . is often wanting ) , and he has unaccountably interpolated the new articles between the two sets of charges , thc normal and Apprentice charges , instead of placing them last of all , as was their natural place . But these peculiarities in no sense detract from thc value of thc text , transcribed as it is by one hand , with no ulterior object apparently , and the
MS . is , so far as we see , a perfectly bona-fidc one . Its early history is apparently up to the present unknown ; but it has been alluded to frequently , and partly and fully published . Anderson knew of it , and used it , and we can discover nothing in the arguments of Bro . Gould which militates with ils value as a form of Guild Legend , or against its genuineness , except that its contains certain peculiarities which others do not . On thc
wellknown " canon" of textual criticism , its abnormal form deserves attention , simply because it is not normal . Whether it be of earlier or later date appears to us to bo an utterly indifferent consideration , as thc objection of Bro . Gould goes to its reality , and he evidently treats it as if it was a form of no historical reality , no critical importance j in fact , to bc rejected , whatever its date may be . Wc venture to add that the MS . clearly cannot be
rejected on any such grounds ; neither have we any warrant , as using our knowledge in i 88 . | , of what has been and what is now , to attempt to deal with what was in the mind of a writer transcribing a MS . in 1625-30 . There is no " a priori" reason against the verity of the Harleian M . S . 1942 , except what arises from its variations , peculiarities , and thc solitariness , so to say , of certain clauses . Without
questioning Bro . Gould s great ability and right to form an independent opinion , which deserves all respect , we cannot concede on critical grounds that he has alleged any valid reason for doubt or rejection of the MS . so historically important . Even the canons of criticism and comparison he quotes must be taken cautiously , as their bearing in this particular instance appear somewhat strained . These special clauses demand no
doubt thc closest scrutiny , but they do not constitute insuperable objections to the MS . itself . At least if such an objection is to prevail in the study of Palasography , tr . any very curious MSS . must be given up . It is no doubt the case that the MS . is singular not only in the New Articles , but in a form of special " obligation" therein contained ; a different form but equally " sui generis" is preserved in Randle Holiness 2054 Harleian .
Indeed , if peculiarities are to lead to the rejection of a Mb ., No . 2054 Harleian is marked by one or two almost inxeplicable variations . It must be borne in mind that these Constitutions belonged to lodges , and just as the Apprentice charge is only found in three , and the Orders of Antiquity in one , so the " New Articles" are confined to Harleian 1942 . As regards the New Articles they were formerly attribued to 1663 , but not , we think , critically .
The " idea "that 1663 svas the " new departure"for Speculative Masonry must we think be received with great caution , but we are not all prepared to say that certain articles passed by a lodge in 1630 may not have been confirmed by a Grand Assembly in 1663 . We therefore feel bound to say that we cannot see that any real objection can exist as to accepting the New Articles , however they may ' * dovetail " in with seventeenth century
English Freemasonry . Any argument that a Scribe in 1623 or even 1660 could antedate certain subsequent usages , and educe them from his "inner consciousness , " is too great a paradox , in our humble opinion , to need confuting . It is quite clear from Bro . Rylands ' s discoveries lhat the Speculative clement had forced an entrance Into thc Operative bodies earlier than was formally
believed , and it may well turn out , that from the beginning of the seventeenth century the admission of Speculative Masons had been going on in lodges though not formally conceded until later in the seventeenth century . Bro . Gould will no doubt eventually ably connect seventeenth century Freemasonry with the revival of 1717 . He objects , we note , to the use of the uuwcvci actui cuiuinui
word revival . vvu can naiuiy ; suggest , U ^ JILUCI . which so accurately describes the real state of affairs in 1717 , namely the springing up into life and activity then , for some reason , of an apparently dormant and inactive Body . Believing the meeting of 1717 to be the actual " outcome " of a seventeenth century organization for some reason in a
condition of " sommeil , we prefer the good old fashioned and meaning word " revival . " We commend in conclusion this third volume to all our readers , for reference , study , perusal , and approval . It will well repay the careful application and intelligent attention of all students and all Freemasons everywhere , as well in-America as in England . We shall hope shortly to give a second notice of a singularly able work .
History Of The Royal Masonic Institution For Boys.
HISTORY OF THE ROYAL MASONIC INSTITUTION FOR BOYS .
It is on record that thc Masonic Institution for Boys was founded in ihe year 1798 by that section of the Craft which at the time was designated as the Ancient , or Atholl , Masons , and it is known with a considerable degree of certainty that it was the Lodge of United Mariners , ranking as No . 23 on the roll of the Ancient , or Atholl , Grand Lodge , which played the lending part in establishing it . It has also been shown by bro . Binckesthe
, present Secretary of the Institution , in the short yet interesting sketch he compiled some few years since , that a somewhat similar Institution was organised in 1808 by Bro . Francis , afterwards Sir Francis , Columbine Daniel , and his brother members of the Royal Naval Lodge , then ranking as No . 57 on the roll of the Modern , or Regular , Grand Lodge of Freemasons , and that in 1817 a conjunction was happily effected between these two
Institutions , and they became , and have ever since remained , one . It is likewise a well-established fact that our Boys' School ranks deservedly high among the scholastic institutions of which this country has so much reason to be proud , and that the children whoare received from year to year within its hospitable gates are tended with every possible kindness and consideration . Their moral and mental training is in the hands of a most efficient
educational staff , presided over by a scholar of high repute . Their home comforts—for in this case the School is a veritable home—are the subject of daily care to a matron of long and tried experience , while above all is the governing body , with her Majesty as Grand Patron and H . R . H . the Grand Master as President , whose duty it is to regulate and direct the affairs of the Institution , as well as to propose and carry out whatever may appear to be most conducive to the
present and future well-beingof thc youthful inmates . This much is known or has been established by a long array of evidence which cannot bc refuted , but if any among our readers arc under the impression , or have been led to suppose that thc School as it is to-day bears the slightest resemblance to thc Institution as it was originally founded in 1798 , and as it remained during considerably more than the first 50 years of
its existence , they arc grievously in error or have been grievously misinformed . What it is now will bc shown hereafter in ils proper place . What it was at first and for very many years afterwards will perhaps be most truthfully described if we say it was an Institution which existed , but gave no outward and visible sign of its existence . There were subscribers who provided thc funds ; there was a committee which
administered the funds ; and there were boys on whose clothing nnd education the funds were expended ; but there was no School . Thc children were scattered about all over thc metropolis and in thc country , and it was next to impossible for the Governors and supporters of thc Institution to feel ; . i personal interest in boys whom they rarely , if ever , saw . If they made progress in their studies , the masters got all thc credit ; if they misconducted
themselves , it was next to impossible to say who was primarily responsible for the misconduct—the masters , through laxity or excessive strictness of discipline ; the boys , or their parents or guardians . Once a year , when the Stewards of the Charity and their friends held high festival at thc Crown and Anchor or Freemasons'Tavern for thc purpose of raising a fresh supply of money , the boys were gathered together and marched into thc banquet
room , clad in their newest attire . I hey moved round the room in slow procession , to the strains of solemn music , and amid the hearty applause of the admiring guests . And when they had sung a hymn and two or three of them had received thc rewards of merit they were entitled to , they withdrew and dispersed to their several homes , till next year ' s Festival brought them once again under the personal notice of their patrons and benefactors . This
is what the Masonic Boys' Institution was during the first 5 8 years of its existence , and were it not that during all that time an incalculable amount of good was being done for those children of deceased or indigent Masons whom thc governors and subscribers had taken under their care , tlie picture would be tlie reverse of impressive . However , the will was not wanting to confer more substantial educational benefits on their young charges . It
was contemplated trom tne very beginning to erect a school building lor their accommodation , but all these years elapsed before the requisite funds could be obtained , and now , as we have already pointed out , thc Masonic Boys' School is in the front rank of English scholastic institutions , with apparently before it a long career of still more widely extended usefulness . It is to be regretted that the official records of the School during the
earl y years of its existence have been lost . Inquiries , successfully prosecuted in different directions , have enabled us to form a fairly accurate idea of thc circumstances which attended its establishment , the difficulties it encountered at thc outset of its career , and thc means by which those difficulties were overcome . But secondary evidence thus obtained , though it may bc ample and altogether trustworthy , is rarely , if ever , so attractive as even thc
simplest and most meagre narrative by thc principal actors , especially if it has been preserved to us through a long series of years . In reading the story as originally told , we seem to take a deeper personal interest in thc events that happened . When successes are achieved , wc rejoice as though we had had a hand in achieving them . If difficulties occur , wc immediately busy ourselves in scheming to overcome them . In fact , we forget that we are
merelyspectators of what is passing , and become , as it were , actors . Happily , those who played the chief part in founding the Masonic Boys' School were among the principal supporters of one of the two rival sections into which English Freemasonry was at the time divided . Some were for a brief period members of both sections i some migrated or were driven from one section into the other , while the majority ot them lived to witness , if they
did not help to bring about , that union of the two to which thc Craft all the world over is so greatly indebted for its present degree of prosperity . Moreover , very many of these worthy brethren were members of Grand Lodge , and enjoyed opportunities of enlisting the support and sympathy of that body , of which they were not slow to avail themselves . Consequently , though the early minute books of the Charity are wanting , wc find much
relating to it in those of thc Atholl and United Grand Lodges , and it is principally by the aid of these frequent references that we have been enabled to a certain extent to make good what was wanting—a connected official history of our Boys' School . But these have not been our only sources of information . VVe have learnt much from unofficial and even
from non-Masonic publications , and if our story is not as complete in all its parts as we could have wished , it is nevertheless far more complete than wc ever expected it would be . Fortune has certainly favoured us in the prosecution of our task , but we must leave it to our readers to judge if we have made the most of her kind assistance . The School was founded in the summer of 1798 , and the circumstances attending its foundation are described in the " Ahiman Re ^ cn "—that is ,
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Review.
seem to have done more than attempt a crude and partial treatment of Masonic tradition . He was unaware apparently of Ashmole ' s membership , though Mr . Burman's " Life " had appeared in 1717 , and as there is evidence how unwillingly the Freemasons of the day allowed any publication at all , we mustregard the performance of 1723 as a perfunctory and incomplete one , practically an enforced " minimum " of information . And though it may
be true that pains were taken with the 1723 work , yet it is evident that in r 738 , when Anderson had also seen the "lodge records , " his work became fuller at once . He mentions Wren and Ashmole and others , and may have had access to some authorities now out of sight . But we repeat to make the Grand Lodge of 1738 officially promulgate an " historical falsification " is a charge which ought not to be lightly made , is not supported , except by
purely inferential arguments , by any evidence we are aware of , and is a conclusion , as we said before , we cannot , in all deference to Bro . Gould , possibly accept . We therefore do not regard his judgment as to Wren as final . V . With respect to the Guild Legends , we think Bro . Gould ' s treatment of the question scholarly and lucid , and a help to Masonic students . Some observations , however , necessarily arise , as we do not quite concur with all
his details , but which we will allude to more fully in a subsequent review . We cannot acquiesce in his depreciatory view of Harleian MS . 1942 . We think , in the first place , after mature consideration , that Mr . Bond is right as to its earlier date , and that it is in itself a most important and valuable MS . A good deal of misconception apparently exists as to these Guild Legends , or Constitutions . They are in no case transcripts from a sealed
book j they were not issued apparently by any one or central authority ; they must be expected to vary according to the education of the transcribers , and according to local ideas , singularities , and colouring , and that they do so vary is an undoubted fact . We cannot at present accept without much further consideration and evidence any thing which makes the various texts dependent and derivable from any one particular text . Anv theory
that you can deduce nearly all the Constitutions from one text is , we feel sure , a crucial blunder . Even the grouping of the Constitutions into distinct families requires the greatest caution , as there is always a tendency in such manipulations of MSS . and thc like , to make ceitain forms accommodate certain theories and ideas . The transcriber of the Harleian MS . 1042 has made some patent blunders in his work .
He has omitted "Edwin from the context , and one or two lines of " copy " ( a line in a MS . is often wanting ) , and he has unaccountably interpolated the new articles between the two sets of charges , thc normal and Apprentice charges , instead of placing them last of all , as was their natural place . But these peculiarities in no sense detract from thc value of thc text , transcribed as it is by one hand , with no ulterior object apparently , and the
MS . is , so far as we see , a perfectly bona-fidc one . Its early history is apparently up to the present unknown ; but it has been alluded to frequently , and partly and fully published . Anderson knew of it , and used it , and we can discover nothing in the arguments of Bro . Gould which militates with ils value as a form of Guild Legend , or against its genuineness , except that its contains certain peculiarities which others do not . On thc
wellknown " canon" of textual criticism , its abnormal form deserves attention , simply because it is not normal . Whether it be of earlier or later date appears to us to bo an utterly indifferent consideration , as thc objection of Bro . Gould goes to its reality , and he evidently treats it as if it was a form of no historical reality , no critical importance j in fact , to bc rejected , whatever its date may be . Wc venture to add that the MS . clearly cannot be
rejected on any such grounds ; neither have we any warrant , as using our knowledge in i 88 . | , of what has been and what is now , to attempt to deal with what was in the mind of a writer transcribing a MS . in 1625-30 . There is no " a priori" reason against the verity of the Harleian M . S . 1942 , except what arises from its variations , peculiarities , and thc solitariness , so to say , of certain clauses . Without
questioning Bro . Gould s great ability and right to form an independent opinion , which deserves all respect , we cannot concede on critical grounds that he has alleged any valid reason for doubt or rejection of the MS . so historically important . Even the canons of criticism and comparison he quotes must be taken cautiously , as their bearing in this particular instance appear somewhat strained . These special clauses demand no
doubt thc closest scrutiny , but they do not constitute insuperable objections to the MS . itself . At least if such an objection is to prevail in the study of Palasography , tr . any very curious MSS . must be given up . It is no doubt the case that the MS . is singular not only in the New Articles , but in a form of special " obligation" therein contained ; a different form but equally " sui generis" is preserved in Randle Holiness 2054 Harleian .
Indeed , if peculiarities are to lead to the rejection of a Mb ., No . 2054 Harleian is marked by one or two almost inxeplicable variations . It must be borne in mind that these Constitutions belonged to lodges , and just as the Apprentice charge is only found in three , and the Orders of Antiquity in one , so the " New Articles" are confined to Harleian 1942 . As regards the New Articles they were formerly attribued to 1663 , but not , we think , critically .
The " idea "that 1663 svas the " new departure"for Speculative Masonry must we think be received with great caution , but we are not all prepared to say that certain articles passed by a lodge in 1630 may not have been confirmed by a Grand Assembly in 1663 . We therefore feel bound to say that we cannot see that any real objection can exist as to accepting the New Articles , however they may ' * dovetail " in with seventeenth century
English Freemasonry . Any argument that a Scribe in 1623 or even 1660 could antedate certain subsequent usages , and educe them from his "inner consciousness , " is too great a paradox , in our humble opinion , to need confuting . It is quite clear from Bro . Rylands ' s discoveries lhat the Speculative clement had forced an entrance Into thc Operative bodies earlier than was formally
believed , and it may well turn out , that from the beginning of the seventeenth century the admission of Speculative Masons had been going on in lodges though not formally conceded until later in the seventeenth century . Bro . Gould will no doubt eventually ably connect seventeenth century Freemasonry with the revival of 1717 . He objects , we note , to the use of the uuwcvci actui cuiuinui
word revival . vvu can naiuiy ; suggest , U ^ JILUCI . which so accurately describes the real state of affairs in 1717 , namely the springing up into life and activity then , for some reason , of an apparently dormant and inactive Body . Believing the meeting of 1717 to be the actual " outcome " of a seventeenth century organization for some reason in a
condition of " sommeil , we prefer the good old fashioned and meaning word " revival . " We commend in conclusion this third volume to all our readers , for reference , study , perusal , and approval . It will well repay the careful application and intelligent attention of all students and all Freemasons everywhere , as well in-America as in England . We shall hope shortly to give a second notice of a singularly able work .
History Of The Royal Masonic Institution For Boys.
HISTORY OF THE ROYAL MASONIC INSTITUTION FOR BOYS .
It is on record that thc Masonic Institution for Boys was founded in ihe year 1798 by that section of the Craft which at the time was designated as the Ancient , or Atholl , Masons , and it is known with a considerable degree of certainty that it was the Lodge of United Mariners , ranking as No . 23 on the roll of the Ancient , or Atholl , Grand Lodge , which played the lending part in establishing it . It has also been shown by bro . Binckesthe
, present Secretary of the Institution , in the short yet interesting sketch he compiled some few years since , that a somewhat similar Institution was organised in 1808 by Bro . Francis , afterwards Sir Francis , Columbine Daniel , and his brother members of the Royal Naval Lodge , then ranking as No . 57 on the roll of the Modern , or Regular , Grand Lodge of Freemasons , and that in 1817 a conjunction was happily effected between these two
Institutions , and they became , and have ever since remained , one . It is likewise a well-established fact that our Boys' School ranks deservedly high among the scholastic institutions of which this country has so much reason to be proud , and that the children whoare received from year to year within its hospitable gates are tended with every possible kindness and consideration . Their moral and mental training is in the hands of a most efficient
educational staff , presided over by a scholar of high repute . Their home comforts—for in this case the School is a veritable home—are the subject of daily care to a matron of long and tried experience , while above all is the governing body , with her Majesty as Grand Patron and H . R . H . the Grand Master as President , whose duty it is to regulate and direct the affairs of the Institution , as well as to propose and carry out whatever may appear to be most conducive to the
present and future well-beingof thc youthful inmates . This much is known or has been established by a long array of evidence which cannot bc refuted , but if any among our readers arc under the impression , or have been led to suppose that thc School as it is to-day bears the slightest resemblance to thc Institution as it was originally founded in 1798 , and as it remained during considerably more than the first 50 years of
its existence , they arc grievously in error or have been grievously misinformed . What it is now will bc shown hereafter in ils proper place . What it was at first and for very many years afterwards will perhaps be most truthfully described if we say it was an Institution which existed , but gave no outward and visible sign of its existence . There were subscribers who provided thc funds ; there was a committee which
administered the funds ; and there were boys on whose clothing nnd education the funds were expended ; but there was no School . Thc children were scattered about all over thc metropolis and in thc country , and it was next to impossible for the Governors and supporters of thc Institution to feel ; . i personal interest in boys whom they rarely , if ever , saw . If they made progress in their studies , the masters got all thc credit ; if they misconducted
themselves , it was next to impossible to say who was primarily responsible for the misconduct—the masters , through laxity or excessive strictness of discipline ; the boys , or their parents or guardians . Once a year , when the Stewards of the Charity and their friends held high festival at thc Crown and Anchor or Freemasons'Tavern for thc purpose of raising a fresh supply of money , the boys were gathered together and marched into thc banquet
room , clad in their newest attire . I hey moved round the room in slow procession , to the strains of solemn music , and amid the hearty applause of the admiring guests . And when they had sung a hymn and two or three of them had received thc rewards of merit they were entitled to , they withdrew and dispersed to their several homes , till next year ' s Festival brought them once again under the personal notice of their patrons and benefactors . This
is what the Masonic Boys' Institution was during the first 5 8 years of its existence , and were it not that during all that time an incalculable amount of good was being done for those children of deceased or indigent Masons whom thc governors and subscribers had taken under their care , tlie picture would be tlie reverse of impressive . However , the will was not wanting to confer more substantial educational benefits on their young charges . It
was contemplated trom tne very beginning to erect a school building lor their accommodation , but all these years elapsed before the requisite funds could be obtained , and now , as we have already pointed out , thc Masonic Boys' School is in the front rank of English scholastic institutions , with apparently before it a long career of still more widely extended usefulness . It is to be regretted that the official records of the School during the
earl y years of its existence have been lost . Inquiries , successfully prosecuted in different directions , have enabled us to form a fairly accurate idea of thc circumstances which attended its establishment , the difficulties it encountered at thc outset of its career , and thc means by which those difficulties were overcome . But secondary evidence thus obtained , though it may bc ample and altogether trustworthy , is rarely , if ever , so attractive as even thc
simplest and most meagre narrative by thc principal actors , especially if it has been preserved to us through a long series of years . In reading the story as originally told , we seem to take a deeper personal interest in thc events that happened . When successes are achieved , wc rejoice as though we had had a hand in achieving them . If difficulties occur , wc immediately busy ourselves in scheming to overcome them . In fact , we forget that we are
merelyspectators of what is passing , and become , as it were , actors . Happily , those who played the chief part in founding the Masonic Boys' School were among the principal supporters of one of the two rival sections into which English Freemasonry was at the time divided . Some were for a brief period members of both sections i some migrated or were driven from one section into the other , while the majority ot them lived to witness , if they
did not help to bring about , that union of the two to which thc Craft all the world over is so greatly indebted for its present degree of prosperity . Moreover , very many of these worthy brethren were members of Grand Lodge , and enjoyed opportunities of enlisting the support and sympathy of that body , of which they were not slow to avail themselves . Consequently , though the early minute books of the Charity are wanting , wc find much
relating to it in those of thc Atholl and United Grand Lodges , and it is principally by the aid of these frequent references that we have been enabled to a certain extent to make good what was wanting—a connected official history of our Boys' School . But these have not been our only sources of information . VVe have learnt much from unofficial and even
from non-Masonic publications , and if our story is not as complete in all its parts as we could have wished , it is nevertheless far more complete than wc ever expected it would be . Fortune has certainly favoured us in the prosecution of our task , but we must leave it to our readers to judge if we have made the most of her kind assistance . The School was founded in the summer of 1798 , and the circumstances attending its foundation are described in the " Ahiman Re ^ cn "—that is ,