Masonic Notes And Queries.

MASONIC NOTES AND QUERIES .

EEEEMASONEY . At page 123 of " Notes and Queries , " for January 29 th , 1870 , I read as follows . — " ' Gower and his pupil Chaucer were both Knight Templar . Freemasons . " _ I challenge that statement , and consider it purelimaginary . Knihts Templar were often forced

y g to become burgesses of a city or burgh in order to have liberty to trade ; hut they did not therefore also join tbe Masonic Craft , so as to learn to be able to work as masons . Again , in the Magazine for June 25 th , 1 S 64 , page , 507 , I read , "We can show you some startling passages , which are either pure

Freemasonry or pure nonsense . They occur in a work written and printed in 1492 . " Yevy good : quote them by all means ; we are quite eager to undergo this startling sensation . At present , we can only speculate as to the sort of effect that will be produced . If the effect be both pleasing and powerful , it is too bad to make

a Masonic celestial mystery of it . However , Avhether nonsense or not , we are at present rather shy of believing they make any reference to our S peculative Freemasonry , whatever they may have to Operative Masonry , although there may be accidentally ideas common to both . — " W . P . BBCIIAN .

LESSING , WIELAND , GOETHE . I congratulate a Brother upon his possession of of the twenty-one volumes of the Freemason ' s Magazine , but I cannot conscientiousl y congratulate him upon having , as yet , made much use of them . If he had but turned over the leaves , he would not still be ignorant that Lessing , Wieland , and Goethe were

Freemasons . —CHAELES PUETON COOPEE . MASONS OP ENGLAND AND THEIE WOEKS . In the Magav . ine for August IGlh , 23 rd , and SOth , also September Gth , 1 SG 2 , will be found a long and very interesting article upon the above subject by Mr . Wyatt Papworth . Although not agreeing with his definition of Free-mason , yet his paper is hi ghly worthy of careful perusal . —W . P . B .

THE GEEilAN T 1 IE 0 EY . See the Jotting thus entitled , p . 107 of the present volume . Many years ago I was told that sufficient and reasonabl y correct information respecting the German Theory might be got from Masonic periodicals . I La \ e here recorded my experience that this is not the

case . The only articles affording intelli gible information respecting the German Theory that I have any recollection to have seen in Masonic periodicals , are two articles in the present series of the Freemason ' s Magazine—the one , Masonic History , vol . vii .. 421 theotherlteview oi Brother Findel '

, p ; . , s book , voJ . xiv ., p . 134 . Considering all circumstances , and especially the small support which the Freemason ' s ' Magazine receives irom the Craft—small in comparison with whafcitoughtto he—it would be unjust to complain il ' inore that is elucidatory of the German Theory has not yet appeared . —A PAST PEOVINCIAL

trEAND MASTEB . TIIE 1744 D ' ASSIGNT . This , in my opinion is an evident get-up by Bro . Hughan to distinguish himself . The iact of a similar passage appearing in a lruch later work by Dermott is a pi col of the forgery . —LEO SECONDUS .

Masonic Notes And Queries.

SOLOMON S TEMPLE AND EOYAL AECH MASONS . At page 218 I read as follows , viz .: — " As to the perfect model of architecture , the temple of Solomon . " Now , I consider that idea to be a mistake , for the temple of Solomon could no more compare with the Parthenon as a " perfect model of architecture" than the ideas and worship connected with the latter could compare with those of the former . Give honour where it is due . — " W . P . B .

OBDEE 03 ? THE TEMPLE AND EOSY OEOSS . My time will not allow of my extracting the necessary matter for your readers on the hearing of the Templar Order upon the Masonic institution , or , still less , that of the Bosicrucians ; and I must therefore decline replying to the unfraternal attacks upon my own

particular opinions , especially as the minds of my detractors seem illogically warped by theirevidentleaning to views of the bitter opponents of anything beyond Craft Masonry . As , therefore , I question their partiality , I would merely point out that even early last century there seems to have been opposing rites , and

that high grade tradition informs us that in the 17 thcentury both theTemplarsandEosicruciansadopted the media of CraftMasonry to continue their ceremoniesand opinions , and admittingthis , as shown by the "Ancient Grand Lodges , used the Masonic general assemblies for that purpose , and that the mere admission of

ignorance by any particular brother is neither a proof of Ms wisdom nor of the falsity of these traditions ; and the more especially as , to my derived knowledge ,, many of the hi gh grades refused to take minutes of proceedings , fearing they might fall into improperbands , which would certainly have been the case ,

conpled also with the fact of the destruction of existing records from the same cause . Brethren who honestly wish for information can examine the matter for themselves by joining the higher degrees , instituting a comparison betwixt them , and perusing the various works on the Gnostics , Templars , Cabalists , and Eosicrucians . I may , however , point out the following exoteric information as bearing upon the esoteric Masonic and chivalric traditions : —

1 . Flte charier of Transmission of the French Ordredn-Temple . The signature of Phili p of Orleans in 1705 has been authenticated , and also that of James-Henry de Durefort , Due de Duras , 1681 , by the late-Dr . Morison . Now the tradition of English Templary points to the Scottish Order . Dr . M ., however , though certain of the correctness of the signature of

the Due de Duras , declines to pledge himself to an authentic history beyond 1705 , Avhich is the date assigned by members of the Order for the forgery of the charter ; hut it has also been pointed out to me , that though James Henry de Durefort had been created Duke in 16 S 0 , yet he did not pay his fees and

take out his patent until 1 GS 6 . In fact , everything points to 1705 , and this charter specially anathematises the Scottish Templars with their brethren of St . John of Jerusalem , which the French Ordre-du-Temple Avould never have gone out of its way to do , had there not been such a Scottish Orderwith claims

, superior to their own . But , further , the charter alludes to an alteration of signs and words , to distinguish themselves ; and it is scarcely likely there ivould havebeen any signsuntilai ' tertheconnectionoi ' tbeTemplars with the Masonic institution , besides Avhich , the