-
Articles/Ads
Article Masonic Notes and Queries. Page 1 of 1 Article Masonic Notes and Queries. Page 1 of 1 Article GOULD'S HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY VOL. III. Page 1 of 1 Article GOULD'S HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY VOL. III. Page 1 of 1 Article REPORTS OF MASONIC MEETINGS. Page 1 of 2 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Masonic Notes And Queries.
Masonic Notes and Queries .
33 S ] ANDERSON , ROBERTS , AND HARLEIAN 1942 . In collating carefully the three forms , the following results appear to mp to be plain , that Roberts and Anderson had seen different forms and neither appears to have seenthc actual Harleian 1942 . And for these reasons . Roberts begins : " Additional Orders and Constitutions made and agreed vpon at a General Assembly held at on the eighth
day of December , 1 G 63 . " It seems to me that Roberts is copying from a form of 1942 unknown to us . Anderson merely says : "According to a copy of the old Constitutions this Grand Master ( the Earl of St ' . Albans ) , held a General Assembly and Feast on St . John ' s Day , 27 th December , 1 CG 3 , when the following Regulations were made . " The 1 st clause is modernized both by Roberts and Anderson ,
and runs as follows : Thus Roberts has it , ^ " That no person of what Degree so ever , be accepted a Freemason , unless ho shall have a lodge of five Freemasons at the least , whereof one to be a Master , or Warden of that Limit or Division where such Lodge shall be kept , and another to be a Workman of the Trade of Freemasonry . " Anderson thus represents this clause : " That no person of what Degree soever ,
be made or accepted a Freemason unless in a regular ¦ Lodge , whereof one to be a Master or Warden in that Limit or Division , where such Lodge is kept , and another to ' be a Craftsman in the Trade of Freemasonry . " While the I larleian thus expresses itself : " Noe person of what Degree soever & vaccepted a Free Mason , unless heshall have a Lodge of Five Freemasons , at least whereof one to be a Master or
Warden of that limit or Division wherein such lodge shall be kept , and another of the Trade of Freemasonry . " B y the italics in these clauses above the reader will see where Anderson and Roberts differ from each other , and where the Harleian differs from both . In clause 2 the word hereafter is interpolated both in Roberts and Anderson . In clause 3 there is no essential variation worthy of
note , except such as arises from modernization of the verbiage . In clause 4 the main alteration is changing the ruder form " in such priority of p lace of the person shall deserve " into " as the person" ( Roberts ) , " as the Brother ( Anderson ) deserves . " In clause 5 Anderson hasinterpolatcd " Grand " before master and omitted " society , company , & c . " He has also substituted "the said society shall
think fit to appoint" for "the said company shall think fit to choose . " . Both Robertson and Anderson have interpolated the qualification of 21 years , and omitted the injunction of an obligation of secrecy . Roberts duplicates the obligation of secrecy , as if he was copying from a form . 1 am inclined to think , therefore , indeed am convinced , that they both saw another form of ig » 2 ,
and that Anderson writing in 1738 did not copy from Roberts in 1722 . It must not be forgotten that Roberts prints the " Additional Articles" after the Apprentice Charge , and not , as they are in 1942 , between the two sets of charges . Of course there is something to be said for Anderson copying from Roberts , but the variations are so peculiar that I think he saw some other copy of 1942 . The form which appears in Roberts might
have been reproduced , and I am inclined to think the omission of the name of the p lace of meeting is accounted for by Roberts or his transcriber not making the word out , whereas Anderson would copy simply the New Articles , and cither from 1942 or some other form . If he deliberatel y
interpolated " Grand , " he is much to be blamed , though I think he merely assumed that the " context" meant it . I am assuming that the Harleian 1942 , as in Hughan's "Old Charges , " is correctly printed , as I have not been able to collate Anderson and Roberts with the Harleian itself in the British Museum . MASONIC STUDENT .
330 ] EDWIN , & c . Is it quite certain that "Winsoucr" in the Antiquity MS . means Windsor ? In the Lansdownc undoubtedly "Windsor" is found ; but beyond great similarity of sound , I am not aware of any other proof of " Winsoucr " being '" Windsor . " It so , it would be from the Norman-French . If it be so , it would prove that the transcriber of the Antiquity copied Irom an older MS . than the Lansdownc . It is curious to note that all the following MSS .
assert is , that Edwin was made a Mason , no locality named , viz ., Dowland , York , Sloane 3 S 4 S , Lodge of Hope , Alnwick , Papworth , but all , including Antiquity and Lansdownc , assert that Edwin held an assembly at York . In Harleian 1942 Edwin is clearl y missed out b y fault of the copyist , but it equally mentions York as the place of assembly . Any idea that the MSS . say Edwin was made a Mason at York is clearly a mistake . ' ANTIQUITY .
34 ° ] BRO . GOULD'S HISTORY . —THE HARLEIAN MS . 1942 . This discussion is getting most interesting . On the one hand we have Bro . Gould and Bro . Hughan ( who candidly admits his conversion—a difficult matter for most of us ) ; on the other " Masonic Student . " To a great extent I side with the latter , so we now have a nice little " partic carree . "
It must be confessed that Bro . Gould ' s system of dealing with the respective values of these MSS . is the onl y correct one ; where their evidence differs , that of the MS . which comes from the proper keeping must be preferred . We must , however , be careful not to apply this reasoning too indiscriminately , and I venture to think that Bro . Gould has in this case done so by overlooking a point of much
importance , to which I shall refer later on . In this particular instance I think we may lay down this broad rule : If the MS . dates before 1717 it must have some value or other ( we will not now stop to enquire how much ); if after 1717 it may be dismissed as unworthy of a thought . Bro . Gould rejects the " New Articles " from any share of his consideration , and yet he subscribes with very perceptible reluctance to their assumed date of 1 C 70 . It would almost
appear as if he privately believed them to be post-1717 , but was diflident of dissenting from the whole body of experts . If such be really his view , we can understand both his reasoning and his reticence ; butas his words stand they are justly open to attack in admitting the date of the MS ., but denying its importance . Reading this MS . in print , and comparing it with our scant knowledge of seventeenth century Freemasonry and with all the other MSS ., my first impulse would be to strongly side with
Masonic Notes And Queries.
Gould and say it was valueless , because evidently postrevival . But when I am met by the fact that each and every expert declares the MS . to be seventeenth century , I am not only forced to admit the weight of their authority , much as Bro . Gould does , i . e ., reluctantly , but I am also compelled to go further—recant my preconceived opinion of it , and acknowledge its value . I thus arrive at this apparent impasse—that , judged by the canons regulating
the admissibility of evidence , it is out of court because it comes from inferior custody , and is contradicted by every other similar document without exception ; whereas , judged by its almost indisputable date , it must be allowed to testify , no matter whence it comes , or however contradictory may be its purport . Now , I think that these opposing views may be reconciled if we assume that the Harleian 1942 refers to only , one district or countryside in particular , and
the other MSS . to other and different districts , possibly comprising amongst them the whole of the rest of the country . This is the previously mentioned point which I imagine Iiro . Gould has overlooked . No . 1942 does not contradict the other MSS ., it merely supplements them ; in all . else it stands in substantial agreement with all others of its class . If innovations were made in any one district there is no reason to expect their reproduction in others , and if not
reproduced the new customs would not be mentioned in documents originating in other parts of the country . The old articles were common to the whole country , because they had had the benefit of centuries in which they could gradually dissemir . ate themselves ; the new articles , even if they met with acquiescence where known , could not have travelled far in the time which elapsed after their drawing up until the revival . The only machinery ( as they were
not printed ) which could have caused their quick infiltration throughout the Craft would have been the meeting of a general assembly for the whole kingdom ; and surely no Masonic student believes in this fable . . _ The general assemblies mentioned in all the Constitutions evidently refer to the yearly general meeting of the particular lodge for whose use the MS . was drawn up ( thus conforming to the usages of all other guilds ) , not to a Grand Lodge of all
England . We thus arrive at the conclusion that the authority , the weight of the evidence of the Harleian 1943 , is of a low order—as Bro . Gould puts it and quite rightly so—of the 5 th class , but although this be so , its importance is great , because its evidence is unique . It may be compared to Queen's evidence—to be looked upon with suspicion , out to be accepted if not incompatible with more immaculate testimony . Its importance to us lies
herein—it shows that at some time or other in the seventeenth century , at some place or other , there existed amongst Freemasons a tendency to leave the beaten track ; to refine , organise , and regulate the older usages : but the absence of corroboration in more recent MSS . also proves that this tendency had not openl y shown itself in other districts . That it , however , existed in London is to be gathered from the fact that from what we
know of the earliest Grand Lodge laws they closely imitated these new rules—from which wc may conclude that the events in London of 171 G-17 were only the expression of a prevailing but immature sentiment which had defined itself long previously in the Harleian MS . 1942 . And is this not more consonant with human nature than to suppose that the four old lodges in 171 G were suddenly seized with an inspiration and incontinently acted upon it : It will be observed that 1 do not argue for the definite date of 1 GG 3 . This may be right or not : we obtain
it solely on the authority of the Robert M . S ., and its absolute correctness is immaterial . The grand fact remains , that unless the Harleian 1942 be a very clever eighteenth century forgery , we have here the palpable evidence of Masonic ferment and evolution ; the premonitory symtoms of . thc' 1717 climax . Having disagreed with Bro . Gould at some length on this subject it is but fair to state that on the other disputed point , Sir C . Wren , 1 side entirely with him as against Bros . " Masonic Student " and Whytehead . G . WM . SPETH .
Gould's History Of Freemasonry Vol. Iii.
GOULD'S HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY VOL . III .
FIFTH NOTICE . BY MASONIC STUDENT . Before I go on , I must allude to one little and unintcntioned error of mine . Bro . Gould , it seems , did not propose to substitute " York " for " Windsor , " or * ' vice vcrsA , but only that Windsor , as in Lansdownc , and if so intended in
Antiquity , must be accepted or rejected . I have no hesitation in rejecting the word as an error of the copyist ! The seventeenth century rolls are none of them so far very early in the century . There are no less than eleven of these rolls , and the earliest is apparently that of York , 1633 , No . 3 as it is termed . Wood ' s parchment MS . is undoubtedly 1610 , though several remarks apply to it as
regards its being either a copy of a printed work , or prepared for publication . The Sloane MS . of 1 G 4 G is also comparatively early . A roll on parchment would , " a priori , " be earlier than one on paper , but it is not an infallible criterion , as the Harris MS . shews . It has been said you oan separate these legends into one or more groups . One writer , I think , contends for a
northern and a southern group . But this division is , J apprehend , very doubtful and purely artificial , if notimaginary ; at least it requires much more thought before it can be accepted . The variations mostly arise , I am inclined to think , from the carelessness or haste of transcribers , a fact exemplified , I venture to conceive , clearly in Harleian 2054 ; and we must be very careful against allowing a
tempting idea of uniformity and the like , the perpetual accompaniment of acute criticism , to induce us to sacrifice historical truth and archaeological accuracy at the shrine of a favourite theory , or the ingenious and original but fatal accommodation which too often becomes a snare to commentators on MSS . and the like . The question of the 1942 Harleian is a most important one , and requires the gravest consideration . It is most
undoubtedly a seventeenth century MS ., and we may fairly assume clearly Caroline , ( Restoration ); is written throughout by one hand ; and , though of its early history so far nothing is known , or who possessed it before it fell into Lord Oxford ' s- collection , it yet appears , from various circumstances and consideration , to be a most important " factor , " perhaps I may say Me most important "factor , " in respect of eighteenth century Freemasonry in England . The objections thus far made to it arise , as it seems to me , from confound-
Gould's History Of Freemasonry Vol. Iii.
ing two essentially different things , —external and internal evidence . By external evidence I mean what we grasp with our sight , what we may obtain from its external form and the like ; by internal , what may be educed by a careful consideration of the wording of the text itself , what it itself declares , witnesses , and which may be compared and collated with other contemporary forms . As I said before , its paper has a water-mark about 1663-64 , though it may
be a little earlier or a little later . Its handwriting is , I repeat , ¦ Caroline , and apparently before James II ., which would bring it perhaps decidedly , at any rate , between 16 G 0 and 1670 , It is among the Harleian MSS ., and there , so far , our knowledge of it ends . It is not supposed by any expert to be latter than the seventeenth century , though there might be a margin allowed of from 10 to 20 years ; but by no human possibility can it be an eighteenth century
MS . If Bro . 'Gould ' s argument avails anything as destructive of its position , sequence , value , and importance as a Guild legend , it would appear to logically end in an eighteenth century production . Indeed , so curiously and clearly does it seem to fit in with Anderson ' s statements in 173 S , that I shall never be surprised if some ingenious writer , fortified by Bro . Gould ' s allegation of " historical falsification " in respect of Anderson , eventuall y propounds the theory that it is altogether Andersonian in aire and idea .
• we have had many " mare ' s nests" in Masonic history ; this will be the grandest of all . The main objection , as I have said before , arises from internal evidence , e . g ., from the use of the word " certificate , " and what is termed the "laterbearing of the regulations . " But there is nothing in them , as I see them and read them , incompatible with a seventeenth centurv use . Ashmole
received a " lodge summons" in 1 S 62 , and why not a lodge " certificate . ' . ' Why should not certificates have been issued ? It is quite clear that up to a late period the lodges only gave the First Degree . In 1721 it was still the law of the English Grand Lodge , and we therefore push the custom back many years . It is true that in 1723 nothing is said of a certificate , neither is anything said of a summons . But as the Master had the power of " congregating the
members of his lodge into a chapter at pleasure upon any emergency or occurrence , as well as to appoint the time and place of their usual forming , " we must assume that there was a form of summons just as we may assume that there was also a form of certificate . In 1725 "Fellows and Masters " were allowed to be made in private lodges " at discretion , " and in the New Regulations ' , published by Anderson the word " summons" is used
more than once . Lists of the members of private lodges are to be inserted in the Grand Lodge books , by order in 1723 , but the word "certificate" does not yet appear . Indeed , 1 believe the word is . first known formally in our Grand Lodge minutes in 1755 , where a Grand Lodge certificate is ordered , evidently arising out of the " Antient Schism , " but the terms of- the resolution seem clearly to point to the fact of certificates being issued by private
lodges , as the words are as follows ; " That every certiliato granted to a brother of his being a Mason shall for the future be sealed with the seal of Masonry , and signed by the Grand Secretary . " These words convey clearly to us that private lod ge certificates were issued normally , butthat it was decided to issue Grand Lodge certificates in future . But if we arc therefore to reject I larleian New Regulations because they deal with " certificates , " & c , wc must bring them down
to 1755 , which , as old liuclid would say , " is absurd . " We must then take 1942 Harleian as a seventeenth century MS ., and there is nothing in it I venture to contend which militates with the so far known history of Freemasonry in England . There is , indeed , nothing to tell us when these "New Articles" were passed , or b y whom . They may be much older than 1 GG 3 , as I am inclined fo think , for as the transcriber of i 6 f > 3 copied
from some other form , that other form may represent a much older transaction . It is on the other hand possible that the New Articles were new matter then , and one explanation maybe that as Speculative Masons had been gradually admitted , ( for I do not hold that Ashmole in 1 G 4 G was the only or earliest English Speculative Mas 6 n ) , at some one assembly such regulations had been passed . Curiously enough . the date of the paper mark confirms
Roberts and Anderson as to the date of 1 GG 3 , since there is ho "a priori " reason why they should not be correct , and there is no reasonable motiyc why they should fix either in 1723 or 1738 on that particular year . Any supposition that Anderson altered Roberts ' s date for some particular purpose of his own is , I venture to think , utterl y inadmissible critically . Until therefore further evidence is produced , I for one have no intention of giving up our Traditional History of
the seventeenth century and pre-1717 . When we have fully mastered the seventeenth century history , wc can then more clearly lay down its history than we can do at present , and I venture to urge upon many fellow students ' of mine still to leave the matter "sub judice , " and to ' await fuller light and more decisive facts than any we at present possess . I may conclude this portion of my review with remarkingthat the handwriting of 1942 Harleian is a very marked one , and that it is quite possible wc may yet discover the actual transcriber of the MS .
Reports Of Masonic Meetings.
REPORTS OF MASONIC MEETINGS .
( Craft Jlasonrg , PRINCE LEOPOLD LODGE ( No . 1445 ) . — The regular meeting of this lodge was held on the istinst ., at the Three Nuns Tavern , Aldgate , E . C , when there were present Bros . William McDonald , W . M . ; Win . II . Myers , P . M . ; S . Lewis , I . P . M . ; J . A . Robson , S . W . ; F . Kimbelt , J . W . ; II . Winkley , Sec . ; II . Seymour Clarke , S . D . ; J . Chamberlain , J . D . ; G . C . Young , Org . ; C . Bailey , H . Gabriel , J . Hales , J . Tyson , E . J . Haviland , D . King ,
A . Bryant , I ' . J . West , W . loombs , II . h . Dominy , J . W . Wilkinson , E . Coates , F . C . Barnes , J . J . Marsh , Tyler ; and the following visitors : C . Robson , 9 60 ; G . F . Holden , 130 G ; J . Twinn , and others . The lodge , which was draped in deep mourning , was opened at the early hour of 4 . 30 in the afternoon , . which was necessitated by the amount of work upon thesummons , consisting of four initiations and four raisings . After the confirmation of the minutes , and when the lodge was opened
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Masonic Notes And Queries.
Masonic Notes and Queries .
33 S ] ANDERSON , ROBERTS , AND HARLEIAN 1942 . In collating carefully the three forms , the following results appear to mp to be plain , that Roberts and Anderson had seen different forms and neither appears to have seenthc actual Harleian 1942 . And for these reasons . Roberts begins : " Additional Orders and Constitutions made and agreed vpon at a General Assembly held at on the eighth
day of December , 1 G 63 . " It seems to me that Roberts is copying from a form of 1942 unknown to us . Anderson merely says : "According to a copy of the old Constitutions this Grand Master ( the Earl of St ' . Albans ) , held a General Assembly and Feast on St . John ' s Day , 27 th December , 1 CG 3 , when the following Regulations were made . " The 1 st clause is modernized both by Roberts and Anderson ,
and runs as follows : Thus Roberts has it , ^ " That no person of what Degree so ever , be accepted a Freemason , unless ho shall have a lodge of five Freemasons at the least , whereof one to be a Master , or Warden of that Limit or Division where such Lodge shall be kept , and another to be a Workman of the Trade of Freemasonry . " Anderson thus represents this clause : " That no person of what Degree soever ,
be made or accepted a Freemason unless in a regular ¦ Lodge , whereof one to be a Master or Warden in that Limit or Division , where such Lodge is kept , and another to ' be a Craftsman in the Trade of Freemasonry . " While the I larleian thus expresses itself : " Noe person of what Degree soever & vaccepted a Free Mason , unless heshall have a Lodge of Five Freemasons , at least whereof one to be a Master or
Warden of that limit or Division wherein such lodge shall be kept , and another of the Trade of Freemasonry . " B y the italics in these clauses above the reader will see where Anderson and Roberts differ from each other , and where the Harleian differs from both . In clause 2 the word hereafter is interpolated both in Roberts and Anderson . In clause 3 there is no essential variation worthy of
note , except such as arises from modernization of the verbiage . In clause 4 the main alteration is changing the ruder form " in such priority of p lace of the person shall deserve " into " as the person" ( Roberts ) , " as the Brother ( Anderson ) deserves . " In clause 5 Anderson hasinterpolatcd " Grand " before master and omitted " society , company , & c . " He has also substituted "the said society shall
think fit to appoint" for "the said company shall think fit to choose . " . Both Robertson and Anderson have interpolated the qualification of 21 years , and omitted the injunction of an obligation of secrecy . Roberts duplicates the obligation of secrecy , as if he was copying from a form . 1 am inclined to think , therefore , indeed am convinced , that they both saw another form of ig » 2 ,
and that Anderson writing in 1738 did not copy from Roberts in 1722 . It must not be forgotten that Roberts prints the " Additional Articles" after the Apprentice Charge , and not , as they are in 1942 , between the two sets of charges . Of course there is something to be said for Anderson copying from Roberts , but the variations are so peculiar that I think he saw some other copy of 1942 . The form which appears in Roberts might
have been reproduced , and I am inclined to think the omission of the name of the p lace of meeting is accounted for by Roberts or his transcriber not making the word out , whereas Anderson would copy simply the New Articles , and cither from 1942 or some other form . If he deliberatel y
interpolated " Grand , " he is much to be blamed , though I think he merely assumed that the " context" meant it . I am assuming that the Harleian 1942 , as in Hughan's "Old Charges , " is correctly printed , as I have not been able to collate Anderson and Roberts with the Harleian itself in the British Museum . MASONIC STUDENT .
330 ] EDWIN , & c . Is it quite certain that "Winsoucr" in the Antiquity MS . means Windsor ? In the Lansdownc undoubtedly "Windsor" is found ; but beyond great similarity of sound , I am not aware of any other proof of " Winsoucr " being '" Windsor . " It so , it would be from the Norman-French . If it be so , it would prove that the transcriber of the Antiquity copied Irom an older MS . than the Lansdownc . It is curious to note that all the following MSS .
assert is , that Edwin was made a Mason , no locality named , viz ., Dowland , York , Sloane 3 S 4 S , Lodge of Hope , Alnwick , Papworth , but all , including Antiquity and Lansdownc , assert that Edwin held an assembly at York . In Harleian 1942 Edwin is clearl y missed out b y fault of the copyist , but it equally mentions York as the place of assembly . Any idea that the MSS . say Edwin was made a Mason at York is clearly a mistake . ' ANTIQUITY .
34 ° ] BRO . GOULD'S HISTORY . —THE HARLEIAN MS . 1942 . This discussion is getting most interesting . On the one hand we have Bro . Gould and Bro . Hughan ( who candidly admits his conversion—a difficult matter for most of us ) ; on the other " Masonic Student . " To a great extent I side with the latter , so we now have a nice little " partic carree . "
It must be confessed that Bro . Gould ' s system of dealing with the respective values of these MSS . is the onl y correct one ; where their evidence differs , that of the MS . which comes from the proper keeping must be preferred . We must , however , be careful not to apply this reasoning too indiscriminately , and I venture to think that Bro . Gould has in this case done so by overlooking a point of much
importance , to which I shall refer later on . In this particular instance I think we may lay down this broad rule : If the MS . dates before 1717 it must have some value or other ( we will not now stop to enquire how much ); if after 1717 it may be dismissed as unworthy of a thought . Bro . Gould rejects the " New Articles " from any share of his consideration , and yet he subscribes with very perceptible reluctance to their assumed date of 1 C 70 . It would almost
appear as if he privately believed them to be post-1717 , but was diflident of dissenting from the whole body of experts . If such be really his view , we can understand both his reasoning and his reticence ; butas his words stand they are justly open to attack in admitting the date of the MS ., but denying its importance . Reading this MS . in print , and comparing it with our scant knowledge of seventeenth century Freemasonry and with all the other MSS ., my first impulse would be to strongly side with
Masonic Notes And Queries.
Gould and say it was valueless , because evidently postrevival . But when I am met by the fact that each and every expert declares the MS . to be seventeenth century , I am not only forced to admit the weight of their authority , much as Bro . Gould does , i . e ., reluctantly , but I am also compelled to go further—recant my preconceived opinion of it , and acknowledge its value . I thus arrive at this apparent impasse—that , judged by the canons regulating
the admissibility of evidence , it is out of court because it comes from inferior custody , and is contradicted by every other similar document without exception ; whereas , judged by its almost indisputable date , it must be allowed to testify , no matter whence it comes , or however contradictory may be its purport . Now , I think that these opposing views may be reconciled if we assume that the Harleian 1942 refers to only , one district or countryside in particular , and
the other MSS . to other and different districts , possibly comprising amongst them the whole of the rest of the country . This is the previously mentioned point which I imagine Iiro . Gould has overlooked . No . 1942 does not contradict the other MSS ., it merely supplements them ; in all . else it stands in substantial agreement with all others of its class . If innovations were made in any one district there is no reason to expect their reproduction in others , and if not
reproduced the new customs would not be mentioned in documents originating in other parts of the country . The old articles were common to the whole country , because they had had the benefit of centuries in which they could gradually dissemir . ate themselves ; the new articles , even if they met with acquiescence where known , could not have travelled far in the time which elapsed after their drawing up until the revival . The only machinery ( as they were
not printed ) which could have caused their quick infiltration throughout the Craft would have been the meeting of a general assembly for the whole kingdom ; and surely no Masonic student believes in this fable . . _ The general assemblies mentioned in all the Constitutions evidently refer to the yearly general meeting of the particular lodge for whose use the MS . was drawn up ( thus conforming to the usages of all other guilds ) , not to a Grand Lodge of all
England . We thus arrive at the conclusion that the authority , the weight of the evidence of the Harleian 1943 , is of a low order—as Bro . Gould puts it and quite rightly so—of the 5 th class , but although this be so , its importance is great , because its evidence is unique . It may be compared to Queen's evidence—to be looked upon with suspicion , out to be accepted if not incompatible with more immaculate testimony . Its importance to us lies
herein—it shows that at some time or other in the seventeenth century , at some place or other , there existed amongst Freemasons a tendency to leave the beaten track ; to refine , organise , and regulate the older usages : but the absence of corroboration in more recent MSS . also proves that this tendency had not openl y shown itself in other districts . That it , however , existed in London is to be gathered from the fact that from what we
know of the earliest Grand Lodge laws they closely imitated these new rules—from which wc may conclude that the events in London of 171 G-17 were only the expression of a prevailing but immature sentiment which had defined itself long previously in the Harleian MS . 1942 . And is this not more consonant with human nature than to suppose that the four old lodges in 171 G were suddenly seized with an inspiration and incontinently acted upon it : It will be observed that 1 do not argue for the definite date of 1 GG 3 . This may be right or not : we obtain
it solely on the authority of the Robert M . S ., and its absolute correctness is immaterial . The grand fact remains , that unless the Harleian 1942 be a very clever eighteenth century forgery , we have here the palpable evidence of Masonic ferment and evolution ; the premonitory symtoms of . thc' 1717 climax . Having disagreed with Bro . Gould at some length on this subject it is but fair to state that on the other disputed point , Sir C . Wren , 1 side entirely with him as against Bros . " Masonic Student " and Whytehead . G . WM . SPETH .
Gould's History Of Freemasonry Vol. Iii.
GOULD'S HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY VOL . III .
FIFTH NOTICE . BY MASONIC STUDENT . Before I go on , I must allude to one little and unintcntioned error of mine . Bro . Gould , it seems , did not propose to substitute " York " for " Windsor , " or * ' vice vcrsA , but only that Windsor , as in Lansdownc , and if so intended in
Antiquity , must be accepted or rejected . I have no hesitation in rejecting the word as an error of the copyist ! The seventeenth century rolls are none of them so far very early in the century . There are no less than eleven of these rolls , and the earliest is apparently that of York , 1633 , No . 3 as it is termed . Wood ' s parchment MS . is undoubtedly 1610 , though several remarks apply to it as
regards its being either a copy of a printed work , or prepared for publication . The Sloane MS . of 1 G 4 G is also comparatively early . A roll on parchment would , " a priori , " be earlier than one on paper , but it is not an infallible criterion , as the Harris MS . shews . It has been said you oan separate these legends into one or more groups . One writer , I think , contends for a
northern and a southern group . But this division is , J apprehend , very doubtful and purely artificial , if notimaginary ; at least it requires much more thought before it can be accepted . The variations mostly arise , I am inclined to think , from the carelessness or haste of transcribers , a fact exemplified , I venture to conceive , clearly in Harleian 2054 ; and we must be very careful against allowing a
tempting idea of uniformity and the like , the perpetual accompaniment of acute criticism , to induce us to sacrifice historical truth and archaeological accuracy at the shrine of a favourite theory , or the ingenious and original but fatal accommodation which too often becomes a snare to commentators on MSS . and the like . The question of the 1942 Harleian is a most important one , and requires the gravest consideration . It is most
undoubtedly a seventeenth century MS ., and we may fairly assume clearly Caroline , ( Restoration ); is written throughout by one hand ; and , though of its early history so far nothing is known , or who possessed it before it fell into Lord Oxford ' s- collection , it yet appears , from various circumstances and consideration , to be a most important " factor , " perhaps I may say Me most important "factor , " in respect of eighteenth century Freemasonry in England . The objections thus far made to it arise , as it seems to me , from confound-
Gould's History Of Freemasonry Vol. Iii.
ing two essentially different things , —external and internal evidence . By external evidence I mean what we grasp with our sight , what we may obtain from its external form and the like ; by internal , what may be educed by a careful consideration of the wording of the text itself , what it itself declares , witnesses , and which may be compared and collated with other contemporary forms . As I said before , its paper has a water-mark about 1663-64 , though it may
be a little earlier or a little later . Its handwriting is , I repeat , ¦ Caroline , and apparently before James II ., which would bring it perhaps decidedly , at any rate , between 16 G 0 and 1670 , It is among the Harleian MSS ., and there , so far , our knowledge of it ends . It is not supposed by any expert to be latter than the seventeenth century , though there might be a margin allowed of from 10 to 20 years ; but by no human possibility can it be an eighteenth century
MS . If Bro . 'Gould ' s argument avails anything as destructive of its position , sequence , value , and importance as a Guild legend , it would appear to logically end in an eighteenth century production . Indeed , so curiously and clearly does it seem to fit in with Anderson ' s statements in 173 S , that I shall never be surprised if some ingenious writer , fortified by Bro . Gould ' s allegation of " historical falsification " in respect of Anderson , eventuall y propounds the theory that it is altogether Andersonian in aire and idea .
• we have had many " mare ' s nests" in Masonic history ; this will be the grandest of all . The main objection , as I have said before , arises from internal evidence , e . g ., from the use of the word " certificate , " and what is termed the "laterbearing of the regulations . " But there is nothing in them , as I see them and read them , incompatible with a seventeenth centurv use . Ashmole
received a " lodge summons" in 1 S 62 , and why not a lodge " certificate . ' . ' Why should not certificates have been issued ? It is quite clear that up to a late period the lodges only gave the First Degree . In 1721 it was still the law of the English Grand Lodge , and we therefore push the custom back many years . It is true that in 1723 nothing is said of a certificate , neither is anything said of a summons . But as the Master had the power of " congregating the
members of his lodge into a chapter at pleasure upon any emergency or occurrence , as well as to appoint the time and place of their usual forming , " we must assume that there was a form of summons just as we may assume that there was also a form of certificate . In 1725 "Fellows and Masters " were allowed to be made in private lodges " at discretion , " and in the New Regulations ' , published by Anderson the word " summons" is used
more than once . Lists of the members of private lodges are to be inserted in the Grand Lodge books , by order in 1723 , but the word "certificate" does not yet appear . Indeed , 1 believe the word is . first known formally in our Grand Lodge minutes in 1755 , where a Grand Lodge certificate is ordered , evidently arising out of the " Antient Schism , " but the terms of- the resolution seem clearly to point to the fact of certificates being issued by private
lodges , as the words are as follows ; " That every certiliato granted to a brother of his being a Mason shall for the future be sealed with the seal of Masonry , and signed by the Grand Secretary . " These words convey clearly to us that private lod ge certificates were issued normally , butthat it was decided to issue Grand Lodge certificates in future . But if we arc therefore to reject I larleian New Regulations because they deal with " certificates , " & c , wc must bring them down
to 1755 , which , as old liuclid would say , " is absurd . " We must then take 1942 Harleian as a seventeenth century MS ., and there is nothing in it I venture to contend which militates with the so far known history of Freemasonry in England . There is , indeed , nothing to tell us when these "New Articles" were passed , or b y whom . They may be much older than 1 GG 3 , as I am inclined fo think , for as the transcriber of i 6 f > 3 copied
from some other form , that other form may represent a much older transaction . It is on the other hand possible that the New Articles were new matter then , and one explanation maybe that as Speculative Masons had been gradually admitted , ( for I do not hold that Ashmole in 1 G 4 G was the only or earliest English Speculative Mas 6 n ) , at some one assembly such regulations had been passed . Curiously enough . the date of the paper mark confirms
Roberts and Anderson as to the date of 1 GG 3 , since there is ho "a priori " reason why they should not be correct , and there is no reasonable motiyc why they should fix either in 1723 or 1738 on that particular year . Any supposition that Anderson altered Roberts ' s date for some particular purpose of his own is , I venture to think , utterl y inadmissible critically . Until therefore further evidence is produced , I for one have no intention of giving up our Traditional History of
the seventeenth century and pre-1717 . When we have fully mastered the seventeenth century history , wc can then more clearly lay down its history than we can do at present , and I venture to urge upon many fellow students ' of mine still to leave the matter "sub judice , " and to ' await fuller light and more decisive facts than any we at present possess . I may conclude this portion of my review with remarkingthat the handwriting of 1942 Harleian is a very marked one , and that it is quite possible wc may yet discover the actual transcriber of the MS .
Reports Of Masonic Meetings.
REPORTS OF MASONIC MEETINGS .
( Craft Jlasonrg , PRINCE LEOPOLD LODGE ( No . 1445 ) . — The regular meeting of this lodge was held on the istinst ., at the Three Nuns Tavern , Aldgate , E . C , when there were present Bros . William McDonald , W . M . ; Win . II . Myers , P . M . ; S . Lewis , I . P . M . ; J . A . Robson , S . W . ; F . Kimbelt , J . W . ; II . Winkley , Sec . ; II . Seymour Clarke , S . D . ; J . Chamberlain , J . D . ; G . C . Young , Org . ; C . Bailey , H . Gabriel , J . Hales , J . Tyson , E . J . Haviland , D . King ,
A . Bryant , I ' . J . West , W . loombs , II . h . Dominy , J . W . Wilkinson , E . Coates , F . C . Barnes , J . J . Marsh , Tyler ; and the following visitors : C . Robson , 9 60 ; G . F . Holden , 130 G ; J . Twinn , and others . The lodge , which was draped in deep mourning , was opened at the early hour of 4 . 30 in the afternoon , . which was necessitated by the amount of work upon thesummons , consisting of four initiations and four raisings . After the confirmation of the minutes , and when the lodge was opened