The Present Position Of Masonic History, No. 1.

that , I for one certainly fully accepted his theory as far as it Avent , unhesitatingly and undoubtingly . That view of his has been accepted I 'believe , by a considerable portion of later German Masonic Avriters , and has been

effectively reproduced by Bro . Steinbrenner in America . The fourth view of Masonic history , is vfhafc may be called the guild theory . That vieAV accepts the organization of the trade guilds , and of the pure Craft

assemblies , as precursors andas ancestors so to say , of the Grand Lodge of 1717 . But some of those who hold that view , go on a little further . Some content themselves with tracing hack the " guilds" through Norman ,

and Saxon times in this country to the Konian Sodalities , Avhile others AVOUM pass on through the Eoman Sodalities , and link themselves on to the old

building corporations of the world , m Greece and Egypt , Tyre and the Holy Land ; and would accept the tradition of the Masonic Legends which connects Freemasons with the building of the temple . The school of able German

Masonic Writers on Masonry who flourished in the beginning of this century , like Krause and the writers in the Altenburgh journal , and above all Lenning , though they did not repudiate this further view , seem to have been

mainly solicitious about the Eoman Sodalities . Schaubergj a writer of our own time , seems also to accept Lenning ' s theory , and that of Krause , and Clavel a French writer , and Eagon another French

writer , practically repeat these ArieAvs and adopt those theories in then- works . There are also many other writers , mostly foreign , of the early part of this century , many still anonymous , who accept the same theory ; so that

those , who like myself , have as yet seen no reason to give up this older view of our Masonic history , err if we do err in very good company . I fully admit , as all Masonic students must admit , that , to our German brethren , and especially to KIoss , all Avho

value critical enquiry , and untiring research , and scientific treatment of historical annals and ancient evidences , must ever feel a deep debt of gratitude , and I have more than once expressed AvhatI consider the Craft in its entirety

, OAves , alike to the earlier and the later school of German Masonic Avriters . There is one more ^ vieAV Avhich I must also touch upon , before I close this article , Avhich is the A'iew propounded bBro . Buchanand Avhich Ave may call

y , the 1717 theory , that , if I understand his arguments aright , separates altogether speculative from operative Masonry , the Grand Lodge of 1717 from the mediasval and earlier guilds . He deniesas I read his wordsthat

, , there is any connection between the two systems ; that , the Masonic gujkls had no mystical teaching , or none Avhich Avas not at any rate common to other trades and "mysteries , " and that the

guilds Avere merely trading and operative bodies . NOAV no one denies , that , our present speculative Freemasonry takes its present form from 1717 , but Avhat others and I contend for , is , that those Masons

from the four or six lodges Avho met in 1717 , were' the members of the old operative lodges , and that what they then handed on to us , is with some needful modification , the same system practically , as that Avliich distinguished

the operative guilds and the Grand assembly . But I find that I must stop here today , lest I should try the jjatience and Aveary the attention of my readers . I proposein a subsequent paperto

con-, , sider Avhat are our sources of Masonic historical evidence , manuscript and printed , from Avhich our writers have derived their statements and their authorities .

When I have exhausted our existing sources of historical evidence , I propose to point out Avhat is the result which may be fairly claimed as having been attained , Avhether from consentient historians or conflicting schools . A . F . A . WOODFOED .