-
Articles/Ads
Article Original Correspondence. Page 1 of 2 Article Original Correspondence. Page 1 of 2 Article Original Correspondence. Page 1 of 2 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Original Correspondence.
Original Correspondence .
[ We do not iiold ourselves responsible for , or even as approving of , the opinions expressed by our correspondents , but wi wish , in a spirit of fair play to all , to permit—within certain necessary limits—free'discussiori . —Eu . J .. . ^
-MASONS ' . MARKS . To the Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sit and Brother ,
I think it ~ necessary to address you once more on the subject of Masons' Marks with reference to the letters of Bros . John Yarker junior , W . J- Hughan , and the brother signing
himself " A Masonic Student , " which appeared in the numbers of The Freemason of dates May 23 rd and 30 th , and June jth and 13 th . And with this I intend that the discussion which has been carried on in yorir columns , shall , in so far as I am concerned , be concluded . I have stated my
opinion and g iven reasons for it , that a Mason ' s Mark ought to have an odd number of points , and that a mark with an even number of points is not allowable . I have been met by the assertion of an" opposite opinion , but with no proof nor argument to shake my conviction , for f
cannot acknowledge the' authority of- the brethren , who have attempted , as they think , to set me right , as in the least degree worthy to [ be set against that of the Ritual ' which I quoted ,, and which has been in use in Scotland for . nearly 200 years , nor tan I yield to that of the Grand
Mark Lodge of England , which in abolishing the rule that' required an odd number of points , proceededl believe , on a wholly mistaken view of the facts ' concerning the marks on the stones of old buildings , and also , as I will presently proceed' to show , without rig ht to make the
change it did . Whilst the letters of Bros . Yarker and Hughan contain nothing but what is gentlemanlyand brotherly , I am sorry that , I cannot say the ' same of those which have been written by " A Masonic Student" since he began to take
part in this' discussion , and his abusiveness has seemingly reached its climax in that published on May 23 rd , { Freemason , pp . , 31 , 1 , 312 , ) in which he uses language with regard to me , such as in air my connection with the press , I have never 3 eefi'put in type before , and such as would
certainly not be permitted to appear in any ordinary newspaper . I cordially agree with Bro . Hughan that it would be well if the Editor expunged all references of an offensive ,, or personal or abusive style from the communications sent for insertion in The Fieemason . It would be
more to the credit of the brotherhood , and more pleasant , I believe , to readers in general . From hislastfletter , published on June 6 th "A , Masonic Student" seems himself to have become aware that he has gone a little too far , and he makes a kind of half apology for his intemperate expressions , which , however , is not worth much ,
for he at the same time justifies himself , by saying that he does not see the use in free and open discussion , of being " mealy-mouthed , " and that he thinks it always better to speak and to write as " Downright Dunstable . " There is no excuse , however , that Iknow of , ' for downright Billingsgate . The cause \ Vhich excited a Masonic Student ' s choler in the first instance
was , as he now tells us , no offensive language of mine , but merely the opinion which I had ventured to express . He says— "We have suffered so much from unsound dogmatic and fallacious theories , that I confess , in 1874 , to be gravely told that the double triangle is not a
Masonic Mark , and that all marks must have odd points , was too much for my patience and stomach . " If a man is to get angry , whenever an opinion is advanced that is contrary to his own , there is not likely to be much good done by any discussion in which he takes part , nor is
the cause of Masonic truth likely to be much promoted . But I pass from this disagreeable subject , and hope I shall not be betrayed into any expressions in what I have further to say , that can reasonably be deemed offensive by " A
Masonic Student" or by any other brother . He must try to keep his temper , however , and bear with me as patiently as he can , whilst 1 repeat that the Double Triangle is not a Masons' Mark , and that all Masons' Marks ought to have an odd number of points , and even when I add that
Original Correspondence.
he has mistaken the very subject of the discussion into which he so eagerly rushed : He seems to have fancied andstill to fancy that it relates to operative Masonry , whereas my statement , as made at first , had reference to ' speculative Masonry alone , and all that has been said about
Operative Masonry in course of the discussion has been merely because the subject of operative Masonry has been dragged ' into it by himself and others . "' I utterly fail to follow Bro . Yarker , junr ., in his arguments , when he says , "I can show either
'Masonic Student , ' or Bro . Hughan , a Mark ritual furnished to me by the Grand Mark Lodge of England , upon which to start the first lodge founded here under their jurisdiction , which makes the odd points' comipulsory , but to my mind this is the very strongest argument
in favour of these writers against Bro . Paton , since it shows the ritual to be a modern concoction , opposed as it is , to the facts of operative marks . " It appears to me that Bro . Yarker falls into confusion here , and that apart from his notion as to the meaning of " the facts of
operative marks , " the fact that the ritual sent to him by the Grand Mark Lodge did contain the rule that marks should have an odd number of points ought to be regarded as strongly in favour of the opinion that such is the true rule of Freemasonry . How it can be regarded as tending
to show that the ritual IS a modern concoction , I am unable to perceive ' . Might it not have occurred to Bro . Yarker , that , be it framed when it might , " the facts of operative marks , " were in all probability ' fully present to the minds of those who framed it , and that' they had taken a
different view of the meaning of these facts , and of ; the evidence afforded by them , from that which he has taken , and which was taken by the Grand . Mark Lodge of England , when , on 14 th December , iSe ^ itabrogated this rule , and allowed the * selection of marks with an even number of
points ? The original ritual of the majority of Mark Lodges iri England , was sent to the first of them that were founded , by the Supreme Grand Royal Arch Chapter of Scotland , from which they received their charters , and the regulation which it contained as to marks was no recent
concoction , biit has been included in the ritual used in Scotland , for , as I have said , nearly 200 years . And how was the Grand Mark Lodge of England entitled to abrogate this regulation ? It was itself founded by the majority of lodges , which had received their ritual with their charters , and
nothing could be more unmasonic than to make such a change in the ritual without consulting the parent body . It might have been expected that in such a matter , the Grand Mark Lodge of England should not have proceeded hastily , and without consulting the highest Masonic
authorities . ;• But it appears from Bro . Hughan ' s account of what took place , ( Freemason p . 328 ) , that the Grand Mark Lodge , a body of very recent origin , proceeded in the most summary manner , on the ground that' ? an examination of the ruins of ancient buildings , on the stones of
which the marks of the artificers were found , proved that no such regulation as that enforced under this rule existed . " That is , as 1 apprehend , the Grand Mark Lodge mistook the meaning of the evidence which these old stones afforded , and hastily swept away a regulation
which had been in force from time immemorial amongst the Freemasons of all countries . I have no wish to say anything disrespectful of the Grand Mark Lodge of England , but when its authority is appealed to in such a matter as the present , I am compelled to call to mind its
very recent origin , and that it has never been in any way recognised as yet by the Grand Lodge of England , nor by the Grand Lodge of Scotland , nor by the Supreme Grand Royal Arch Chapter of Scotland , from which last nearl y all the lodges that united to found it , had received their charters .
Let us now consider what consequences must ensue from the innovation which the Grand Mark Lodge of England has made . Masons ' Marks are of use that brethien may recognise
one another , and a change of the rule regarding them is calculated to produce confusion . As well might pass-words and signs be changed . Every Mason must have his own mark . ' and he cannot change it . The rule of having an odd
Original Correspondence.
number of points , aids a Mason in deciding whether a stranger who comes to him , asking brotherly kindness , is a true Masonic brother or not . The Mark Grand Lodge of England has done all in its power to deprive us of one mode of detecting an . impostor , which a man asked to
show his mark , and showing one with an even number of points , would properly be held to be ; unless indeed , now , an exception would have to be made in the case of one professing to have been , initiated since 186 4 , m one ° f the Mark Lodges of England . But supposing anyone so
initiated , and having adopted a mark with an even number of points , to become resident in Scotland , and to be affiliated to a Scottish Constitution Lodge , in any part of the world out of England , he would need to take a new mark with an . odd number of points , and thus have
two marks , one for England and another for Scottish Constitution . , I have no need to look again into any . Masonic work for proof that marks with an even number of points are to be found on the stones of old buildings . I ani = as perfectly aware . of
this fact as any of my opponents in the present discussion , even " A Masonic Student " himself . But I know the explanation of it too ; which is more than he seems yet to have found out .: At some future time , I may perhaps give it , but meanwhile I would only ask him , or any other
brother who thinks this subject worthy of attention , if he has ever observed a mark with an odd number of points and one with an even number appearing together on the same stone and further , if hr ever saw a mark of the latter description without [ one ' of , thej former nearly alongside of it . "
"A Masonic Student has never yet' said . i he is a Mark Mason , or what lodge he belongs to . I am still , inclined to doubt if lie is a Mark Mason at all . With this , however , ' F have nothing to do , except as bearing on his capacity for forming an opinion oh the subject on which he
has written . so confidentl y , and with so much passion . I cannot help saying that I am somewhat amused by the way in which Bro . Hughan and he certify for one another . I doubt ; however , if this will give much additional value to the opinion of either . To the authority
of both I prefer that of the late Bro . Dr . Olivet ; to whom " A Masonic Student" expresses surprise that 1 have referred' in this discussion . But I know no author whose opinions on Masonic questions are entitled to greater respect , dnd his opinion that Masons' Marks ought to have ' an
odd number of points , is clearly enough expressed in his works . I have heard him also express it in conversation , having had the ' "happiness of being acquainted with him , and having enjoyed many a long conversation with him on Masonic subjects . ' ' .
\ A single sentence in reply to Bro . 'Kelly Although a number of irregularities' may have crept into some of the Mark Lodges ' in England , such as adopting a bell for a Masons' mark ; 'this is no rule to set aside an established law and custom . Many Freemasons have tried to
iritroduce their coat of arms for their mark , but it has been refused to be allowed by many Mark Lodges in Great Britain . ' - ' And how , for the present , I take leave of the subject of Masons' Marks . I am , yours fraternally , CHALMERS I . PATON . s f r .
To the Editor oj the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — ; I have read Bro . Kell y ' s clear and instructive letter with very great pleasure . It is very seldom that we have the opportunity of perusing so thoroughl y satisfactory a statement
as regards a point of controversy . I am inclined to think that the question is settled for the present , as our good Bro . Paton must see that the consensus of nearly all our Masonic writers is against his peculiar views . I don ' t myself profess to realize what more can be said pro or
con , but it is satisfactory to have arrived at this agreement , that whatever partial of temporary law there may have been of Speculative' Mark Masonry , there is no such law affecting operative marks as Bro . Paton proposed to lay down .
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Original Correspondence.
Original Correspondence .
[ We do not iiold ourselves responsible for , or even as approving of , the opinions expressed by our correspondents , but wi wish , in a spirit of fair play to all , to permit—within certain necessary limits—free'discussiori . —Eu . J .. . ^
-MASONS ' . MARKS . To the Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sit and Brother ,
I think it ~ necessary to address you once more on the subject of Masons' Marks with reference to the letters of Bros . John Yarker junior , W . J- Hughan , and the brother signing
himself " A Masonic Student , " which appeared in the numbers of The Freemason of dates May 23 rd and 30 th , and June jth and 13 th . And with this I intend that the discussion which has been carried on in yorir columns , shall , in so far as I am concerned , be concluded . I have stated my
opinion and g iven reasons for it , that a Mason ' s Mark ought to have an odd number of points , and that a mark with an even number of points is not allowable . I have been met by the assertion of an" opposite opinion , but with no proof nor argument to shake my conviction , for f
cannot acknowledge the' authority of- the brethren , who have attempted , as they think , to set me right , as in the least degree worthy to [ be set against that of the Ritual ' which I quoted ,, and which has been in use in Scotland for . nearly 200 years , nor tan I yield to that of the Grand
Mark Lodge of England , which in abolishing the rule that' required an odd number of points , proceededl believe , on a wholly mistaken view of the facts ' concerning the marks on the stones of old buildings , and also , as I will presently proceed' to show , without rig ht to make the
change it did . Whilst the letters of Bros . Yarker and Hughan contain nothing but what is gentlemanlyand brotherly , I am sorry that , I cannot say the ' same of those which have been written by " A Masonic Student" since he began to take
part in this' discussion , and his abusiveness has seemingly reached its climax in that published on May 23 rd , { Freemason , pp . , 31 , 1 , 312 , ) in which he uses language with regard to me , such as in air my connection with the press , I have never 3 eefi'put in type before , and such as would
certainly not be permitted to appear in any ordinary newspaper . I cordially agree with Bro . Hughan that it would be well if the Editor expunged all references of an offensive ,, or personal or abusive style from the communications sent for insertion in The Fieemason . It would be
more to the credit of the brotherhood , and more pleasant , I believe , to readers in general . From hislastfletter , published on June 6 th "A , Masonic Student" seems himself to have become aware that he has gone a little too far , and he makes a kind of half apology for his intemperate expressions , which , however , is not worth much ,
for he at the same time justifies himself , by saying that he does not see the use in free and open discussion , of being " mealy-mouthed , " and that he thinks it always better to speak and to write as " Downright Dunstable . " There is no excuse , however , that Iknow of , ' for downright Billingsgate . The cause \ Vhich excited a Masonic Student ' s choler in the first instance
was , as he now tells us , no offensive language of mine , but merely the opinion which I had ventured to express . He says— "We have suffered so much from unsound dogmatic and fallacious theories , that I confess , in 1874 , to be gravely told that the double triangle is not a
Masonic Mark , and that all marks must have odd points , was too much for my patience and stomach . " If a man is to get angry , whenever an opinion is advanced that is contrary to his own , there is not likely to be much good done by any discussion in which he takes part , nor is
the cause of Masonic truth likely to be much promoted . But I pass from this disagreeable subject , and hope I shall not be betrayed into any expressions in what I have further to say , that can reasonably be deemed offensive by " A
Masonic Student" or by any other brother . He must try to keep his temper , however , and bear with me as patiently as he can , whilst 1 repeat that the Double Triangle is not a Masons' Mark , and that all Masons' Marks ought to have an odd number of points , and even when I add that
Original Correspondence.
he has mistaken the very subject of the discussion into which he so eagerly rushed : He seems to have fancied andstill to fancy that it relates to operative Masonry , whereas my statement , as made at first , had reference to ' speculative Masonry alone , and all that has been said about
Operative Masonry in course of the discussion has been merely because the subject of operative Masonry has been dragged ' into it by himself and others . "' I utterly fail to follow Bro . Yarker , junr ., in his arguments , when he says , "I can show either
'Masonic Student , ' or Bro . Hughan , a Mark ritual furnished to me by the Grand Mark Lodge of England , upon which to start the first lodge founded here under their jurisdiction , which makes the odd points' comipulsory , but to my mind this is the very strongest argument
in favour of these writers against Bro . Paton , since it shows the ritual to be a modern concoction , opposed as it is , to the facts of operative marks . " It appears to me that Bro . Yarker falls into confusion here , and that apart from his notion as to the meaning of " the facts of
operative marks , " the fact that the ritual sent to him by the Grand Mark Lodge did contain the rule that marks should have an odd number of points ought to be regarded as strongly in favour of the opinion that such is the true rule of Freemasonry . How it can be regarded as tending
to show that the ritual IS a modern concoction , I am unable to perceive ' . Might it not have occurred to Bro . Yarker , that , be it framed when it might , " the facts of operative marks , " were in all probability ' fully present to the minds of those who framed it , and that' they had taken a
different view of the meaning of these facts , and of ; the evidence afforded by them , from that which he has taken , and which was taken by the Grand . Mark Lodge of England , when , on 14 th December , iSe ^ itabrogated this rule , and allowed the * selection of marks with an even number of
points ? The original ritual of the majority of Mark Lodges iri England , was sent to the first of them that were founded , by the Supreme Grand Royal Arch Chapter of Scotland , from which they received their charters , and the regulation which it contained as to marks was no recent
concoction , biit has been included in the ritual used in Scotland , for , as I have said , nearly 200 years . And how was the Grand Mark Lodge of England entitled to abrogate this regulation ? It was itself founded by the majority of lodges , which had received their ritual with their charters , and
nothing could be more unmasonic than to make such a change in the ritual without consulting the parent body . It might have been expected that in such a matter , the Grand Mark Lodge of England should not have proceeded hastily , and without consulting the highest Masonic
authorities . ;• But it appears from Bro . Hughan ' s account of what took place , ( Freemason p . 328 ) , that the Grand Mark Lodge , a body of very recent origin , proceeded in the most summary manner , on the ground that' ? an examination of the ruins of ancient buildings , on the stones of
which the marks of the artificers were found , proved that no such regulation as that enforced under this rule existed . " That is , as 1 apprehend , the Grand Mark Lodge mistook the meaning of the evidence which these old stones afforded , and hastily swept away a regulation
which had been in force from time immemorial amongst the Freemasons of all countries . I have no wish to say anything disrespectful of the Grand Mark Lodge of England , but when its authority is appealed to in such a matter as the present , I am compelled to call to mind its
very recent origin , and that it has never been in any way recognised as yet by the Grand Lodge of England , nor by the Grand Lodge of Scotland , nor by the Supreme Grand Royal Arch Chapter of Scotland , from which last nearl y all the lodges that united to found it , had received their charters .
Let us now consider what consequences must ensue from the innovation which the Grand Mark Lodge of England has made . Masons ' Marks are of use that brethien may recognise
one another , and a change of the rule regarding them is calculated to produce confusion . As well might pass-words and signs be changed . Every Mason must have his own mark . ' and he cannot change it . The rule of having an odd
Original Correspondence.
number of points , aids a Mason in deciding whether a stranger who comes to him , asking brotherly kindness , is a true Masonic brother or not . The Mark Grand Lodge of England has done all in its power to deprive us of one mode of detecting an . impostor , which a man asked to
show his mark , and showing one with an even number of points , would properly be held to be ; unless indeed , now , an exception would have to be made in the case of one professing to have been , initiated since 186 4 , m one ° f the Mark Lodges of England . But supposing anyone so
initiated , and having adopted a mark with an even number of points , to become resident in Scotland , and to be affiliated to a Scottish Constitution Lodge , in any part of the world out of England , he would need to take a new mark with an . odd number of points , and thus have
two marks , one for England and another for Scottish Constitution . , I have no need to look again into any . Masonic work for proof that marks with an even number of points are to be found on the stones of old buildings . I ani = as perfectly aware . of
this fact as any of my opponents in the present discussion , even " A Masonic Student " himself . But I know the explanation of it too ; which is more than he seems yet to have found out .: At some future time , I may perhaps give it , but meanwhile I would only ask him , or any other
brother who thinks this subject worthy of attention , if he has ever observed a mark with an odd number of points and one with an even number appearing together on the same stone and further , if hr ever saw a mark of the latter description without [ one ' of , thej former nearly alongside of it . "
"A Masonic Student has never yet' said . i he is a Mark Mason , or what lodge he belongs to . I am still , inclined to doubt if lie is a Mark Mason at all . With this , however , ' F have nothing to do , except as bearing on his capacity for forming an opinion oh the subject on which he
has written . so confidentl y , and with so much passion . I cannot help saying that I am somewhat amused by the way in which Bro . Hughan and he certify for one another . I doubt ; however , if this will give much additional value to the opinion of either . To the authority
of both I prefer that of the late Bro . Dr . Olivet ; to whom " A Masonic Student" expresses surprise that 1 have referred' in this discussion . But I know no author whose opinions on Masonic questions are entitled to greater respect , dnd his opinion that Masons' Marks ought to have ' an
odd number of points , is clearly enough expressed in his works . I have heard him also express it in conversation , having had the ' "happiness of being acquainted with him , and having enjoyed many a long conversation with him on Masonic subjects . ' ' .
\ A single sentence in reply to Bro . 'Kelly Although a number of irregularities' may have crept into some of the Mark Lodges ' in England , such as adopting a bell for a Masons' mark ; 'this is no rule to set aside an established law and custom . Many Freemasons have tried to
iritroduce their coat of arms for their mark , but it has been refused to be allowed by many Mark Lodges in Great Britain . ' - ' And how , for the present , I take leave of the subject of Masons' Marks . I am , yours fraternally , CHALMERS I . PATON . s f r .
To the Editor oj the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — ; I have read Bro . Kell y ' s clear and instructive letter with very great pleasure . It is very seldom that we have the opportunity of perusing so thoroughl y satisfactory a statement
as regards a point of controversy . I am inclined to think that the question is settled for the present , as our good Bro . Paton must see that the consensus of nearly all our Masonic writers is against his peculiar views . I don ' t myself profess to realize what more can be said pro or
con , but it is satisfactory to have arrived at this agreement , that whatever partial of temporary law there may have been of Speculative' Mark Masonry , there is no such law affecting operative marks as Bro . Paton proposed to lay down .