THE BUILDER MAGAZINE
june 1920
volume 6 - number 6
MEMORIALS TO GREAT MEN WHO
WERE MASONS
JAMES A. GARFIELD
BY BRO. GEO W. BAIRD. P. G. M.. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
A PARTICULARLY
beautiful, artistic memorial to President James A. Garfield stands at the
Maryland Avenue entrance to the Capitol grounds, in Washington City. The
memorial was modeled by Niehaus and Ward, and is a masterpiece.
Garfield successfully
combined the arts of statesmanship and war in a fashion equalled by few other
men. He had the distinction of being the only man ever elected to membership in
the House, membership in the Senate, and to the Presidency in the same year.
James Abram Garfield
was born November 19th, 1831, at Orange, Cuyahoga county, Ohio, descending from
Welsh and Huguenot ancestry. His father died when James was less than two years
of age, and his mother ran the farm and kept her boys together, so that James at
an early age became a farm hand. This early "hustling" is probably what kindled
industrious habits in the boy, who never in his life found toil to be a burden.
No honest toil was too meagre for him to attempt, in order that he might earn
for the support of his mother. Could there be a nobler purpose?
Garfield attended
school as opportunity and circumstances permitted, and his ambition was to fit
himself to be a teacher. No wiser plan ever existed in the heart of a boy, for
the very reason that a boy best masters a subject when he attempts to teach it.
There are many superficial scholars, but few superficial teachers.
As a teacher he began
in a school possessing several rowdy students, which was not unusual in his day;
but Garfield was not only a lusty youth but handy with his fists as well, and it
was only a short period of time until he had a well disciplined school.
He experienced
religion at an early age, and became a devoted member of the Campbellite branch
of the Baptist Church, continuing such for the remainder of his life.
He made his first
political speech in support of the nomination of General John C. Fremont, the
standard-bearer of what was then the Republican party, after which he attended
Williams College and began to teach ancient languages in Hiram College, which is
evidence of his progress as a scholar. He was afterwards made President of Hiram
College, which office he held in 1859 at the time he was elected to the Ohio
Senate where he soon became a quick and ready debater. In one of his speeches he
is quoted as saying:
"I regard my life as
given to my country, and I am only anxious to make as much of it as possible
before the mortgage on it is foreclosed."
In 1861 Governor
Denison offered Garfield the commission of Lieutenant Colonel, which he accepted
and joined the Forty Second Ohio Regiment, but he was soon promoted to be
Colonel of the Regiment. He made good as a Colonel and was later promoted to be
a General Offiicer. He was in the battles of the Big Sandy River, Shiloh, Little
Creek, Pittsfield, and others. In 1863 he resigned his commission in the Army
and returned to his seat in Congress. Here he was soon recognized as a powerful
speaker.
His first speech of
importance in the House was in
January 1864, when he advocated the
confiscation of certain rebel
property. His best speeches were on tariff revision and against inflation of the
currency. He was strictly a party debater, and was a leader of his party in the
House.
It had long been a
custom in the House for the older and stronger members to browbeat the younger
ones, and while Garfieid was active in this yet he was not as bad as many of his
predecessors. A story is told of the eccentric John Randolph of Roanoke. John
was not only a leader, but something of a bully. It was his custom to arrive
late, and to take off his overcoat as he strode down the aisle. One day a new
member had ventured to rise to a privilege, and just then Mr. Randolph arrived,
removing his overcoat as he advanced. The young member hesitated. "Mr. Speaker,"
said Mr. Randolph, and the Speaker recognized him. There was silence for a
moment, when Mr. Randolph said: "Mr. Speaker, the calf from Maryland has blatted
at last." But, while Mr. Garfield seemed to hold the younger members in check,
he was never as unfair as Mr. Randolph.
At the Republican
convention in Chicago, in 1880, Garfield appeared in the interest of John
Sherman for the nomination to the Presidency, and he labored faithfully. But
before long it became manifest that Garfield himself was to be the nominee of
the meeting. There followed a vigorous campaign, in which the "credit mobilier"
figured vividly. His election to the Presidency was, however, by a good majority
and was generally accepted by the whole Republic. Garfield was a hearty, affable
man, easy to approach, and was a good listener. He had the merit of never
keeping a petitioner waiting; his reply was always ready, positive and decisive,
but never offensive. His Secretary of State was James G. Blaine, who had been
Speaker of the House, and who was probably the quickest and most incisive
debater ever on that floor. Blaine knew how to make friends, in which his
personal magnetism helped to a great extent. In campaigns he was a hearty
hand-shaker and had a cheerful, encouraging word for the ward-heelers. Among
these heelers was Charles J. Guiteau, a good voter, and one who expected to be
paid for his vote.
But Mr. Blaine was
like the Irishman during election time. The day after election Pat said: "Boys,
yesterday I'd have kissed the foot of any of you - but now you can kiss mine."
So, when Guiteau came to the State Department believing Mr. Blaine would reward
him for "services rendered," he was disappointed. Whereupon he resolved to have
Mr. Blaine "removed." This he effected, but the rest of his plan failed. He
believed that if he killed President Garfield, making Mr. Arthur President, the
latter would pardon him. He waited at the railroad station, shot President
Garfield, was arrested, tried, pled insanity, and had a large number of
sympathizers who sent candy and flowers to him while in jail, but Arthur did not
pardon him. He had assassinated the President, who had never offended him, and
plunged the nation into mourning without remorse or regret, simply to satisfy
his political cravings.
President Garfield
was a member of Pentalpha Lodge, Washington Royal Arch Chapter, and Columbia
Commandery, all located in Washington, D.C.
--------o-------
WHAT THE OFFICIAL ORGAN OF THE KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS HAS TO
SAY OF THE ALLEGED K. OF C. OATH
The reappearance in certain sections of the country of the
bogus Fourth Degree oath of the Knights of Columbus has led Supreme Knight James
A. Flaherty, of Philadelphia, to issue a warning to any who take part in
circulating this alleged oath and to request the press of the United States and
Canada to aid in enlightening the public regarding the falsity of this "oath."
"The Knights of Columbus," Bro. Flaherty has stated,
"invite information from anybody regarding circulators of the alleged K. of C.
Fourth Degree oath. This bogus oath, revolting in character, has been in
circulation for many years. It is a blasphemous and evilly designed document,
calculated to stir up religious hatred and to inflame bigotry. Strangely
enough, its appearance coincides with general election years.
"The Knights of Columbus is not an oath-bound organization,
and as far as secrecy is concerned, we have more than once submitted the
internal workings of the Order, even to the details of degree work, for
examination by non-Catholics, even ministers of Protestant denominations, who
have found us to be simply a patriotic organization striving to do good wherever
and whenever we can.
"Recently this disgusting bogus oath, containing foolish
threats of massacre and carnage against those who do not agree with us in
religious matters, was circulated in Albany and Providence and in up-State parts
of New York and rural sections of other States. An attempt was made to
circulate it during the war, but the Department of Justice stopped that, the
circulator bong an alien enemy - and that fact is significant in the present
attempt to revive the 'oath.' The 'oath' is usually printed with a catch lie at
the bottom, stating that it has been taken from the Congressional Record. The
truth is that it has appeared in the Record, as evidence in an election case in
which it was successfully used against a candidate who happened to be a Knight
of Columbus. His opponent strongly disclaimed knowledge of the 'oath.'
"The Knights of Columbus believe that this 'oath' is
circulated by ignorant persons who are victims of a more or less intelligent
attempt to discredit the organization and cause religious strife, for political
or other ends. We shall prosecute those who malign us by distributing this
'oath' whenever and wherever we may find them. We have already obtained a large
number of convictions in various parts of the country.
"The press of the country can render a distinct service by
warning the public against this foolish attempt to create bigotry and
ill-feeling, especially at this time."
The real obligation taken by the K. of C. is in itself
sufficient proof of the vile absurdity of the so-called oath. It follows:
"I swear to support the Constitution of the United States.
I pledge myself, as a Catholic citizen and Knight of Columbus, to enlighten
myself fully upon my duties as a citizen and to conscientiously perform such
duties entirely in the interest of my country and regardless of all personal
consequences. I pledge myself to do all in my power to preserve the integrity
and purity of the ballot, and to promote reverence and respect for law and
order. I promise to practice my religion openly and consistently, but without
ostentation, and to so conduct myself in public affairs, and in the exercise of
public virtue as to reflect nothing but credit upon our Holy Church, to the end
that she may flourish and our country prosper to the greater honour and glory of
God." From the April, 1920, issue of "The Columbiad," the official organ of the
Knights of Columbus.
--------o--------
Kindness is wisdom. There is none in life But needs it and
may learn.
-Bailey.
NOTES ON THE EARLY HISTORY OF MASONIC RANKS
BY BRO. SIR FREDERICK POLLOCK, ENGLAND
The story of Freemasonry is now a twice-told tale, but it
is a story which seems never to grow old. THE BUILDER has more than once
published brief accounts of that history but it needs not to apologize for
giving to our readers another account, somewhat longer, written by a brother who
has devoted much thought to this important subject. We ask our readers to study
this essay with care for it will give them a bird's-eye view of a vast field of
history. Essays are very often valuable, in that they give a busy man a rapid
glimpse of a small section of a great theme; a treatise like this is of far more
value, even if it does require more patient study, for it enables him to
comprehend the story of Masonry as a whole - Editor.
I. THE NATURE OF THE INQUIRY
All brethren who have paid any attention to the early
history of the craft are aware that our present ceremonial, while it embodies
archaic features easily recognized by any one moderately acquainted with
medieval language and formulas, and such as no eighteenth century antiquary
could have interpolated, (1) is in its form and order the work of the founders
of the Grand Lodge Of England and their successors down to the union of the
rival Grand Lodges in 1813. It is certain that its framers from Anderson and
Desaguliers to Preston recast and greatly amplified their materials. We do not
know fully what those materials were; indeed Anderson, who was anything but a
critical antiquary, seems to have wilfully thrown a cloud of obscurity round his
operations; nor is credulity the worst that has to be laid to his charge.
Accordingly, so far as any direct evidence goes, it is very possible to
entertain the gravest doubts as to the authenticity not only of Anderson's
superstructure but of his foundations. These doubts have been carried by some
learned brethren to the length of maintaining that superiority of the Master to
the Fellow Craft is a pure invention or misconception void of historical warrant
in the practice of the old operative lodges. With great respect for the much
needed and excellent critical work of those brethren - it is enough to name
Gould, Hughan, Speth, Chetwode Crawley, last but not least Dr. Fort Newton, and
Dr. Hammond the accomplished librarian of the Grand Lodge of England, who are
still with us - I cannot follow them to that length, and shall try to show cause
for holding that there was an element of genuine restoration - restoration to be
distinguished from unbroken continuity, but not merely fictitious - in the
eighteenth century fabric of speculative Masonry. That Anderson and Desaguliers
did not find three degrees existing in practice at the beginning of the
eighteenth century may be taken as established: the only arguable question is
whether we shall speak of two or one. But it is another thing to deny that
there had ever been three ranks in operative Masonry; whether properly called
degrees or not, is a minor question. So far as I know the word "degree" does
not occur as a regular term in any of the earlier documents.
I shall not enter on detailed criticism of previous
opinions, which would only make a tedious and intricate discussion, but give my
own view of the evidence on the principle of trying to establish fixed points by
the use of the best available means, and not attempting to reconcile the
variations or Contradictions that occur in sources of inferior authority. This
method, I believe, gives the best chance of finding useful clues when one is
confronted with a tangle material in which the sound and the unsound seem at
first hopelessly mixed. At least it will enable me to follow the order of time
without perplexing digressions. We have to look for indications leading to
conclusions or a choice of plausible opinions on the following points. What were
the recognized ranks in medieval operative Masonry? How were they acquired or
conferred? How far were the distinctions observed in practice in the time of
transition from operative to speculative lodges? In the absence of any central
authority we must not expect, in any case, to find complete uniformity.
Medieval institutions of all kinds, it may be added, are full of exceptions and
anomalies; one quite common note of the antiquarian (or otherwise interested)
falsifier is that he makes things too neat and complete.
II. THE COMACINE MASTERS
In the course of the last twenty years attention has been
called to the importance of the Lombard association of builder-architects (not
an ordinary trade gild) known as the Comacine Masters. The recognition of their
special standing as independent of any local regulations, and their influence on
the general development of European architecture in the Middle Ages, may be
taken as proved. (2) It is not to my present purpose to touch on more or less
plausible conjectures as to their remote antecedents and possible connection
with Eastern traditions. What concerns us here is the fact that the magistri
Comacini claimed and exercised a cosmopolitan privilege very like that of the
Masters or Doctors of medieval universities, namely the right of both practising
and teaching their art anywhere. There is no authentic evidence of any express
imperial or papal grant of any such privilege, (3) but in the Middle Ages custom
and repute would for most working purposes do as well as formal title, the
notion of possession with its highly important juridical consequences being
extended to usage of all kinds. The University of Oxford had nothing else to
rely on for its authority to confer degrees; and in the craft itself we have the
"time immemorial" lodges. Now the analogy of university degrees to the ranks
established in the Comacine fellowship demands a word of special notice; (4) I
do not think it can be accidental: In the Comacine ranks we find the three
grades of novices or apprentices, operatori or craftsmen, and magistri. Brethren
will remember that at this day the F.C. is still formally exhorted to study the
liberal arts and sciences - the medieval trivium and quadrivium and the M.M. to
assist and instruct the Brethren in inferior degrees. The parallel to university
ranks is exact. We have in the medieval university system, especially in its
English form, the commencing student or undergraduate (a convenient English term
lacking a Continental equivalent) who is a member of the body but a mere learner
under constant discipline, having only inchoate rights of promotion on
satisfying the proper tests; then the bachelor of arts, (5) recognised as
proficient to a certain extent, and with a limited authority to teach, but still
learning and not released from discipline (in statu pupillari); and lastly the
master of arts or doctor, (for down to the fifteenth century these titles were
equivalent) who is not only qualified to teach but bound to teach and preside as
"regent" at disputations for a certain time. Traces of the distinction between
"regent" and "non-regent" M.A.'s survived in England till our own days. The
essence of the master's or doctor's degree was license to teach in any
recognised university; whether any or how many students would come to be taught
being a matter dependent on the master's own ability. In like manner the Master
Mason was free, in the operative period, to undertake a contract and form a
working lodge to execute it. In the fully developed university system of the
later Middle Ages, now most nearly preserved in England, the doctor's degree
belonged only to the superior faculties of theology, medicine and law. (The
Faculty of Letters is a creation of our own time, and music is on a rather
different footing). It would be fanciful to seek for any real analogy between
the faculties outside Arts and the Masonic or quasi-Masonic orders and degrees
outside ancient craft Masonry; but it seems worth remark that in the majority of
European universities there has been a dislocation and consolidation of degrees
curiously like that of which we have indications in the later operative Masonry,
the faculty of Arts having made its mastership a doctorate under the name of
Doctor of Philosophy, and the bachelor's degree having atrophied or never been
fully established. The preliminary point I am here making is that the general
idea of three ranks, namely, novice, worker still under instruction, and master
giving instruction, is no modern invention but rooted in authoritative medieval
tradition.
It is certain that Italian master-builders came to England
at the very beginning of the Middle Ages; it is a safe inference that they
brought the Comacine tradition, as there is positive architectural evidence that
they brought Comacine symbolism with them; and no one acquainted with the wide
and rapid spread of medieval institutions and forms by direct imitation (in the
universities, again, as much as anywhere, also in municipal and other customary
rules) will hesitate to believe that they found imitators. The later
importation of Italian masters and artificers towards the end of the fifteenth
century was of a different kind, and is not to the purpose here. We are now
ready to proceed to the evidence found in English documents. I may premise that
I take no notice of modern publications purporting to reproduce ancient texts or
give the substance of ancient materials, but having no authentic history, coming
from no proper custody, and lacking corroboration from more trustworthy
sources. Happening to be rather familiar with documents of that kind in the
medieval history of English law, I am clearly of opinion that even so far as
there is nothing extravagantly improbable in their contents it is unsafe to
treat them as historical proof of anything. One cannot so much as infer from
them what was current belief or tradition at the time when they were written;
for they may represent nothing but the conjecture or invention of some eccentric
writer who was wilfully manufacturing evidence in support of his peculiar
views. It is an elementary caution that any copy of a alleged original which
fails to account for that original, or even gives a false account, must be
regarded with the gravest suspicion, a suspicion not to be removed by the matter
being on the face of it consistent with genuineness, if it is so. Many
forgeries have been very plausible; and interpolations in copies or
reconstructions of perished or lost genuine documents may give much trouble, and
on the whole have given more than downright forgery. The fact that a copy comes
from proper custody (such as, to take the simplest case, the place where the
missing original or an official duplicate ought to have been) is a reason for
giving it faith and credit, but unfortunately not a conclusive reason.
III. OPERATIVE MASTER MASONS
Let us begin with a class of testimony which is undesigned,
authentic and strictly contemporary, the designation of masons in medieval
building accounts, or fabric rolls, to use a term current among antiquaries.
Mr. W. R. Lethaby's book "Westminster Abbey and the King's Craftsmen" (1906)
gives us a good selection. (6) We read of a "magister Robertus cementarius" in
1169 (p. 115). Then from the middle of the thirteenth century onwards we have a
series of King's Masons beginning with Master John of Gloucester (p. 161, etc.)
who are regularly called Master: but this was not merely an official title, for
several other masons are so called, and in 1307 Master Richard de Wytham, mason
(therefore already a master) was appointed to be Master at the King's Palace and
the Tower, that is, director of the works. Towards the end of the thirteenth
century timber was ordered "to make a lodge for Master Michael and his masons"
(p. 181). "Master" therefore certainly meant something definite. Mr. Lethaby
thinks there was some sort of gild which conferred the title, and mentions as a
known fact that "in the fifteenth century there were yearly congregations of
masters": of which more presently. The election by the masons of the City in
1315-6 of six paviors to repair the pavements (p. 186) proves that they were
then recognized as an organized body.
There is also frequent mention of Master Carpenters, but
nothing to show exactly how far their position was like that of Master Masons.
So far then we know that a master mason was a mason
qualified in some ascertained way to undertake and control building operations,
(7) and that in the City of London there was an established community of masons
in the early fourteenth century, probably much earlier. It does not seem likely
that in such a body the designation of Master rested on nothing but unofficial
reputation.
Riley's Memorials of London (1868) furnish valuable
supplementary matter. In 1356 regulations were made for the trade of masons by
"twelve of the most skilful men" equally representing the "masons hewers" and
the "light masons and setters" (p. 280); these skilful men are referred to as
"the said Masters so chosen" by the body of th trade. Among other rules "no one
shall take work in gross" - that is as a contractor- "if he be not of ability in
a proper manner to complete such work." In 1298 Master Simon de Pabingham and
Master Richard de Wetham, masons, are reconciled before the Mayor (nature of
difference not stated). As to Masters in other callings, the master farriers
apparently control their trade (A.D. 1356, p. 292), and in the Barbers' gild it
seems that the only Masters were the two elected Wardens (A.D. 1376, p. 394).
Variations in the usage of different trades are only what we should expect.
Now let us turn to the Sacrist Rolls of Ely edited from the
muniments of Ely Cathedral by Canon F.R. Chapman and dating from the late
thirteenth and the first half of the fourteenth century. (8) We meet with one
John Attegrene who is mentioned several times during five years before he is
entitled Magister Cementarius' in 1339-1840; therefore, in the learned editor's
words, "not apparently at first a master mason, but attaining that distinction
after some years": vol. i, p. 47; the words of the entry are "in stipend.
Johannis Attegrene Magistri Cementarii per ann. 1.pound 6s. 8d" (ii. 99). Canon
Chapman's inference appears not only natural but inevitable, and the supposition
that "magister" was only a customary title of office during a particular
employment is excluded by the evidence of the Westminster rolls already cited.
From the fabric rolls of York Minster published by the
Surtees Society (9) we learn that in the fourteenth century the regulations as
to hours of work were laid down in detail by the Dean and Chapter, and the
master masons and his fellows swore to observe them. The conditions on which a
new worker is received are rather strict. After a week of probation the
reception has to be "of the common assent of the master and keepers of the work,
and of the master mason." The master and keepers first named appear to be
supervisors appointed by the Dean and Chaper. If the master mason is disabled
the warden ("magister secundarius cementariorum") is too act as deputy with half
the salary." (10)
It is certain that the trade had an active government of
its own in the fourteenth century and that regular assemblies fixed or attempted
to fix wages. "The masons seem to have resisted the Statutes of Labourers more
successfully than any other craft." (11) In 1360-1 (34 E. III, c. 9) Parliament
declared all such trade regulations void as contrary to the Statute of Labourers
(25 E. III. st. 2. c. 2, A. D. 1350) and insisted on wages being paid by the day
and not otherwise according to the Statute at rates not exceeding 4d. a day for
a "mestre mason de, franche peer" (12) (freestone mason) and 3d. for others; but
the right of lords to make their own bargains with contractors is saved. In 1425
(3 Hen. VI. c. 1. often cited in the modern literature of Freemasonry) this was
reinforced by an absolute prohibition of the meetings themselves; the conveners
were to be adjudged felons, and those attending to be liable to arbitrary fine
and imprisonment. It is by no means clear that these Acts ever had much effect;
in any case the Elizabethan lawyers treated them as repealed, though not
expressly, by the legislation of their own time. All the medieval labour
statutes were repealed in the course of the nineteenth century.
So far the extraneous evidence, as we may call it. As
witness for the state of things about the end of the fourteenth century we have
the operative masonic documents collectively known as Old Charges. A list of
them is given in a most useful book to which we shall recur, Edward Conder's
"Records of the hole craft and fellowship of masons," Lond. 1894, et. p. 219.
(13) The number there given as extant is 63, but in 1915 as many as 75 were
known. (14) Most of these are seventeenth century copies of earlier originals
(one late 16th, about a dozen 18th), seemingly good copies in the main; but two,
the "Halliwell" or "Regius" and the "Cooke," both in the British Museum, exist
in actual medieval MSS, (15) and moreover appear by internal evidence to be the
earliest in original date. All these documents contain generally similar matter
though not always in the same order; the usual order is as follows: (1)
Invocation of the Trinity. (2) Definition of the liberal arts and especially
geometry. (3) Origin of geometry and architecture given in a legendary chronicle
form. The confusion of persons and times, such as Euclid being Abraham's clerk,
and Charles Martel (in some MSS. corrupted into Marshall) speaking with a man
who had been at the building of Solomon's temple, is no more than occurs in
other medieval legends. (4) Foundation of masonry and yearly assemblies by King
Athelstan." (16) (5) Charges to be delivered to masons for their instruction:
here the most considerable variations occur. There are "articles" addressed to
masters and "points" to working fellows.
Let us now see what we can find about master masons in the
Old Charges, beginning with the earliest.
The "Halliwell" or "Regius" document, the oldest of all in
substance, is unique in its form, being versified. It is written in a "Gothic"
hand of about the end of the fourteenth century; the text has been accessible in
print for more than seventy years. (17) The title is "constituciones artis
gemetrie secundum Enclydem," geometry being identified with the higher skill of
architecture (a word not yet known) as distinct from the mere journeyman's
craft; and the space given to the relation of master and apprentice - an
apprentice bound for seven years (v. 122) - is ample proof that the writer's
object was quote practical. The apprentice must be free born, for otherwise his
lord might reclaim him even in the lodge (v. 129 seq). The master is bound to
teach the Prentice (v. 241); and the precept "to him that was higher in this
degree" (18) to "teach the simplest of wit" is exalted by being ascribed to
Euclid (vv. 35-40). The prentice must keep his master's counsel's and what is
done in the lodge to himself (vv. 275-286), but there is nothing to show whether
any secrets are formally imparted to him or not; and every working mason is to
take his pay from the master "full meekly" (v. 298). (20)
Masters are the more skilful and worshipful of the craft
(vv. 31-46) and are bound to attend general congregations of which they have
notice, except for sickness or other reasonable excuse (vv. 105-118); evidently
an important duty, as it has a whole "articulus" to itself. A master must not
undertake work unless he is capable of carryings it through, as we have seen
already (v. 195). Receipt of summonses to congregations would presumably be
conclusive proof of mastership; whether there was any other form of admitting or
recognizing masters does not appear so far. Masons (including masters, it would
seem) address one another as fellows (v. 51). But at the assembly "there shall
be masters and fellows also" (v. 409). If plain English words have any meaning,
the writer regarded masters as superior to ordinary fellows, however their
condition was acquired. These assemblies were public functions at which the
Sheriff, the mayor of the city and other magnates were expected (v. 411). (21)
We cannot doubt that they were really held and did regulate the trade; otherwise
there would have been no occasion for Parliament first to annul their rules and
then to forbid them altogether.
Next we turn to the Cooke MS (22) which need not be much
later than the Regius; indeed the originals (for it is a combination of two
documents, as Speth has proved in his excellent critical commentary appended to
the Quatuor Coronatorum facsimile) (23) may have been earlier. It is written in
a book hand of the first half of the fifteenth century. (24) The contents are in
many ways peculiar. It begins with a sort of general thanks-giving instead of
an invocation, and gives consecutively two different versions of the Euclidean
legend, in the second of which the scribe mechanically copied the corrupt form "Englet"
or "Englat." The first version refers (1. 640) to the "book of our charges,"
which probably resembled if it was not identical with the charges following the
second version.
In a general way the matter is much like that of the Regius,
but there is a unique passage about the congregations said to have been
instituted in King Athelstan's time (1. 700 sqq.). These were to be annual or
triennial, and "at such congregations they that be made masters should be
examined of the articles after written, and be ransacked whether they be able
and cunning to the profit of the lords" (i. e. employers) "of whom they take
their pay for their service and for their travail," 1. 725. Evidently the
author of this passage believed that a master mason's standing was not or ought
not to be complete until he had satisfied the masters assembled in a regular
congregation that he was well acquainted with the articles, that is, the duties
of a master as delivered in the charges, and that he was competent as a
practical undertaker of building works. The former branch of the examination
may well have been on the way to become a mere ceremony at the beginning of the
fifteenth century; (25) we do not know how the latter was conducted, but perhaps
testimonials of work actually accomplished would be accepted as sufficient proof
of competence.
The later MS. recensions of constitutions and charges, read
in their natural sense, plainly confirm the witness of the Regius and the Cooke
MSS. that master and fellow were the names of distinct ranks. In an affirmative
sentence, indeed, "masters and fellows" may be thought ambiguous. But there is
nothing ambiguous about the repeated negative injunctions enumerating the
various things that "no master nor fellow" or "no master nor no fellow" may do.
(26) Not that I assert or believe that the distinction was still alive when our
present copies were written; but it must have been alive at the date of their
originals. If "no master nor no fellow" is not a decisively disjunctive phrase,
I do not know how the idea of two distinct classes is to be conveyed in the
English language.
IV. THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY PRACTICE
What can we infer from our documents as to the actual usage
of the later Middle Ages? I submit, with all due reserve and subject to
correction or new information, that it was something like this. Any qualified
fellow of the craft may take a contract if he can find an employer to intrust
him with the work, and companions to work under him. So long as the building is
in progress, be the time longer or shorter, he is "governor of the work" and
called master, but strictly master only of the lodge he has formed for that
special undertaking (there is no election of a master by the lodge in the purely
operative period, except possibly, one may guess, if the master dies or is
disabled before the work is finished). (27) In order to obtain the permanent
rank of Master he must be approved and certified in a general assembly. We have
seen that the proceedings were public, and that public officers were present who
were not members of the craft. It is therefore most improbable that any new
secrets were then and there inaparted to the approved master; indeed it is hard
to see what more he can have had to learn.
Now let us turn again to the statement in the Cooke MS.
about the examination of masters. It is not a common form; the author whose
work our scribe copied must have made it with a purpose. It looks as if he
thought the practice of examination had been unduly relaxed, and wished to
reinforce it by the mythical authority of King Athelstan, or it may be that he
objected to the methods of new unionism (to use a modern phrase) whereby the
congregations fell foul of Parliament, and intended to give his companions a
hint that it was better to stick to their ancient office of keeping up the
technical standard. Again he may have had some personal interest in the fees
paid by masters on approval and have been anxious about their falling off. Fees
were a great matter in the Middle Ages. This, however, is guesswork.
Then the Cooke MS. has yet another curious passage after
the "Points" - perhaps not in its right place, perhaps taken from a different
source - where we hear of a class of "new men." "At the first beginning" (of the
congregation) "new men that never were charged before be charged in this manner"
- namely, in short, to keep no company with thieves, to work honestly, render
true accounts in things for which they are accountable, behave as lawful men
generally, "and that they keep with all their might and (sic) all the articles
aforesaid:" Something must be wrong with the text; for the duties specified are
those of ordinary workers but the Articles dealt with those of masters. One
suspects an accidental omission; perhaps we should read "[all the points] and
all the articles aforesaid"; but the lacuna may be more considerable. We can
infer, as the MS. stands, only that at these assemblies a charge in the nature
of general exhortation and distinct from the "articles" and "points" was
delivered to masters or fellows, or both, attending for the first time, and that
every man newly qualified as fellow or master was bound to attend at the first
opportunity. Charges of this type are familiar to all Brethren in our modern
ritual. To my mind the passage (assuming it to be a correct statement of actual
practice) leaves us in doubt whether this exhortation was the preface to a
formal admission, and does not enable us either to affirm or to deny that there
was such a ceremony.
On the while it seems likely that in the first half of the
fifteenth century the craftsman who had executed one or two contracts with
success was already apt to be so well content with the reputation of a de facto
master as to be in no hurry to incur the trouble and expense of proceeding to
the official completion of his title. But that completion may have been expected
of a mason who aspired to be master of the works for a great undertaking such as
the building of a collegiate church or material additions to a cathedral or
minster. Similarly, in a rough way, the M. A. degree is kept alive in England at
this day mainly as a qualification for academic franchise or scholastic or
ecclesiastical office. The university analogy further suggests that only
formally approved master masons had an effective vote in the general
assemblies. I have not found any clear indication of the time when the
practical business of the congregations died out, or when they ceased to be even
formally convened; but I should guess that the former date cannot be put later
than about the middle of the sixteenth, or the latter than the first quarter of
the seventeenth century.
V. THE TRANSITION PERIOD
In the sixteenth century there was a general decay of the
old craft regulations, those of masonry among them; but there was also a special
reason for the standing of a master mason losing its importance. The
introduction of the word "architect," hardly in use before the sixteenth and not
common till the seventeenth century, marks the advent of a sort of men, trained
not in the old craft ways, but in the new art that had come in with the new
learning, who treated their profession as being of a higher order than the
builder's industry. When the architect who had never been a craftsman was the
real "governor of the work," and the master mason was no better than a foreman
or clerk of the works, it was no longer worth while to be an operative master
mason. The operative lodges gradually became little more than social clubs
preserving the symbolic traditions of the craft with various degrees of care and
fidelity, something like the Inns of Chancery in the legal profession when they
ceased to be active bodies working in auxiliary subordination to the Inns of
Court: and as a measure of self-preservation they reinforced themselves by
adopting or "accepting" honourary members who had nothing to do with the
operative craft. These "accepted" members were the ancestors of our modern
fraternity, and "speculative" in the sense of having studied, or being deemed to
have studied geometry and architecture without being craftsmen. (28) We may see
in the adoption of Sir Christopher Wren at the very latest stage of the
transition, if it took place, an expiring attempt on behalf of the attenuated
operative tradition to revive its credit by linking it with the new school of
architecture. But the fact is in doubt; we have here an example of perhaps the
most troublesome kind of minor historical problem, here the affirmative side
rests on weak though in itself not incredible evidence, the negative on the lack
of confirmation in the quarters where we might reasonably look for it. (29)
Aubrey's well known memorandum 1691 (30) cannot, however, be dismissed as void
of all foundation; no motive for invention appears, and if Wren was invited to
become a brother late in his life, at is not unaccountable. The simplest
explanation is that nobody thought of it sooner; or for some reason Wren may
have had difficulties about accepting, and taken a long time to decide. A more
careful diarist would have saved posterity much trouble by being at the small
pains of ascertaining that the meeting he noted as appointed for that very day,
May 18, 1691 was actually held. But Aubrey was careless. Later inaccurate gossip
is of no value as confirmation, but so far as its particulars are inconsistent
with Aubrey's contemporary note it is equally worthless as contradiction. As
Chetwode Crowley judiciously said, Aubrey's testimony remains admissible for
what it is worth. (31) It seems just possible that Wren was adopted in
expectation of active assistance, and that he failed to render it; if so there
might be a grain of truth in Anderson's otherwise very suspicious story of his
neglect. (32) But, whether we decide for or against Sir Christopher's
membership, or leave the matter as an unsolved puzzle, there is nothing in it to
help us to any general conclusion.
We have anticipated a little, but the digression is not
material. The really dark time of the transformation is the sixteenth century.
Lodges had been temporary working associations for a time varying with the
magnitude of the undertaking. They became local and permanent, with something of
a superficial likeness to craft gilds, from which they were really as different
as could be. There were, of course, real craft gilds of masons in the towns,
distinguished from other trade gilds by the customary right of intercommoning,
to borrow a legal term from another region, whereby the fellow of any one gild
was entitled to be received and to work in the jurisdiction of any other. Hence
the need of passwords and tokens for recognition. But we have no evidence that
the fixing of lodges to a local habitation was accomplished by any process of
amalgamation with gilds. That which actually happened in the singular case (so
far as we know) of London was, as we shall immediately see, not so simple. It
is easy to suppose then when a master mason of good repute had fulfilled a
contract and had reason to expect another, his companions might find it more
profitable to stay with him than to disperse in search of other work. That would
account for a lodge acquiring a continuous existence, but it would bring it no
nearer to the change of the master from the founder into an annually elected
officer. I have not met with any light on the process, nor even any attempt to
explain it. One little fact waiting to be fitted into its right place is that
operative bodies continued to deliver the old charges, or abridgments of them,
to their apprentices as late as the eighteenth century. (33)
Early in the seventeenth century we have a glimpse of the
transition from operative to speculative masonry nearly but not quite
accomplished in the "new articles" that occur in a few MSS. of the
constitutions. (34) No person is to be accepted a freemason "unless he shall
have(?) a lodge of five freemasons at least, whereof one to be a master or
warden" - where "master" is obviously the name of office only - "of that limit
or division wherein such lodge shall be kept, and another of the trade of
freemasonry." This is not altogether clear, but it seems that a lodge was not
correctly formed without at least one operative member. Now the need for such a
rule shows that in most lodges the majority had ceased to be operative. This
was certainly the case, as we now know, in the Warrington Lodge to which Elias
Ashmole was admitted in 1646; (35) indeed it is at least doubtful whether any
operative mason was present. "I was made a Free Mason" is the whole extent of
Ashmole's disclosure as to what passed, besides the date and the names of
members of the lodge attending. Many years later, in 1682, Ashmole attended a
lodge "at Mason's Hall, London" where six named persons "were admitted into the
Fellowship of Free Masons." Ashmole "was the Senior Fellow among them," and the
Master of the Masons' Company (of London) is named among "the Fellows" present.
There is no word of Ashmole having ever gone through any other ceremony than
that of Oct. 16, 1646, at Warrington, or of any one being called Master except
in virtue of his office for the time being. The natural inference is that an
"accepted" i.e. non-operative freemason was admitted as a fellow without going
even in form through the stage of an apprentice (though a cumulative ceremony is
not absolutely negatived), and that there was no speculative degree
corresponding to the old operative rank of master mason, which had become
obsolete, or confounded with that of fellow, in the course of the sixteenth
century; whether practice was uniform everywhere we cannot be quite sure, but at
all events there is no sign of different usages in London, and at Warrington.
Honourary degrees in universities are in like manner conferred without any
mention at all of the stages passed through by an ordinary candidate, and indeed
degrees are quite commonly so conferred by the governing body on office-holders
if they are not already graduates of the university.
The Masons' Hall where Ashmole attended a lodge meeting was
the hall of the Masons' Company of London, and the lodge was attached to the
company in the sense that the company accepted honourary members through (and it
seems only through) the lodge; but the company as a subsisting craft gild was
more extensive than the lodge, and the records of the lodge, unfortunately not
extant, were quite distinct from those of the company. This appears in the
extracts from the Company's accounts, beginning in 1620, published by Bro.
Conder. New members admitted to the Company and "coming on the livery upon
acceptance of Masonry" paid distinct fees to the lodge and to the Company. (36)
Apprentices taking up their freedom in the regular way of the trade after
serving their seven years under a freeman might and commonly did pay a special
fee of 3s. 4d. for "admission then to be a Master." This had nothing to do with
the lodge, for there is no corresponding item in the fees paid by the "accepted"
members. It was therefore a survival of the old operative rank, consolidated
with that of fellow - a rank still distinct from membership of any merely local
body, even that of the eminent London Company, and carrying in theory the
privilege of being free of the craft everywhere. Its working value however does
not seem to have been rated high in the year 1636, judging by the amount of 3s.
4d. as compared with the 20s. paid "by way of gratuitie to this Companie." (37)
By rights, it would seem, the 3s. 4d. should have gone to some representative of
the general assembly of masons and not into the Company's account. Evidently
there had long ceased to be any such person; I may add by the way that I cannot
believe there was a Grand Master of Freemasons (except so far as the president
of a general assembly, so long as the assemblies were held, may be regarded as
such for the occasion, as Speth suggests in his commentary on the Cooke MS.) or
any regular body acting like a Grand Lodge, before 1717. The "admission to be a
Master" still practised in the Masons' Company in 1636 appears to be the latest
officially recorded trace of the use of that name in the old operative sense.
An inventory of 1665 shows that the Company kept a list of "the names of the
accepted Masons" - that is the members of the lodge - "in a fair inclosed frame
with lock and key." (38) Nothing in the Company's books tells us what became of
that lodge. It may have died out or may have separated from the Company and
continued under some new name; Bro. Conder suggests as a pious conjecture that
the Lodge of Antiquity may have arisen from it. (39)
The formation of purely speculative lodges not having any
professed operative character appears to have begun only in the eighteenth
century, not without discontent on the part of operative lodge members. (40)
Finally we have Anderson's statement about the meeting of
four lodges which was the origin of the Grand Lodge of England. (41) "They and
some old Brothers met at the said Apple-Tree, and having put into the Chair the
oldest Master Mason (now the Master of a Lodge) they constituted themselves a
Grand Lodge pro tempore in due form," etc. The same term is applied at little
further on to the chairman of the assembly and feast held at the Goose and
Gridiron on St. John the Baptist's day, 1717, when Sayer was elected Grand
Master. It seems natural that an actual Master of a lodge should take the chair
on both occasions. Anderson's phraseology may have been intended to minimize the
fact that the only persons then recognized as master masons were those who were
or had been Masters of lodges, Installed Masters as we now call them: but it
does not appear to me that any certain inference can be drawn.
VI. THE SPECULATIVE RECONSTRUCTION
The state of things before the creation of the Grand Lodge
of England seems to have been as follows:
In the community of operative masons there had been three
grades, namely apprentice, fellow and master, resembling the undergraduate
student, bachelor and master or doctor of a university.
The rank of master mason had become less important from the
fifteenth century onwards. It was practically extinct about the middle of the
seventeenth century.
In the subsisting lodges about 1700 there was only one
rank, generally under the name of fellow, but it seems that an actual or past
Master of a lodge was entitled to some precedence.
I have endeavoured to give a connected view of these
stages, distinguishing those points which are established or made highly
probable by good witness from those which are left open by the known evidence
and give room for some latitude of conjecture. In my judgment no greater
certainty is now to be looked for save by some unexpected stroke of good
fortune.
The founders of modern freemasonry, having in their hands
copies of the "Old Charges," and perhaps other material now lost, were
acquainted with the old operative classification and proceeded to reconstruct it
in the speculative form now familiar to us.
Thus was our stately and superb edifice, for so we may
justly call it notwithstanding all confessed errors in design and faults of
execution, built up on the ruins of the medieval order. Our founders were
credulous their credulity, as too commonly happens, was not free from admixture
of something indistinguishable from pious fraud; but the blemishes affect only
details of their work. The last word must be of thankfulness for the daring
ingenuity which rescued the permanent and cosmopolitan elements of the ancient
craft symbolism and developed them with enhanced spiritual value.
(1) There is at one point an element of distinctly
northern and maritime origin; I must not be more explicit in print.
(2) See W. Ravenscroft, The Comacines, their predecessors
and their successors, London, 1910 (where other works are referred to); J. Fort
Newton's The Builders, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 1916, pp. 85-102, 113, 114.
(3) Rivoira, Le origini dell' architettura lombarda, i.
130.
(4) It has already been observed as regards medieval gilds
in general: P. J. Hartog in Encycl. Britann. 11th ed. x. 41, s.v. Examinations.
(5) The importance of this degree seems to be confined to
Paris, Oxford and Cambridge. Originally it was only the state of a candidate
for the master's or doctor's licence.
(6) Not actual extracts from the unpublished rolls, but the
scholarly character of the work is sufficient warrant.
(7) This confirms Gould's conclusions (History, i. 431)
that a M.M. was "a duly passed apprentice who was competent to take work on his
own account." The open question is what was the appointed proof of such
competence.
(8) Cambridge University Press 1907, vol. 1, notes on
transcripts, Vol. 2, transcripts: privately printed. I owe the communication of
this important work to my friend Mr. Hubert Hall of the Public Record Office.
(9) 1859, p. 181, extract in Coulton, Social Life in
Britain, from the Conquest to the Reformation, Camb. 1918, p. 489.
(10) p. 166.
(11) Coulton, op. cit. p. 481; and see Wyclif's censure of
"Freemasons and others" for their restrictive rules, ib. p. 490. " (12) Note
the division of masons as "de franche pere" or "de grosse pere." The meetings
are described as alliances and covines of masons and carpenters. In later
terminology "covin" refers to fraudulent agreement, but here it is a body of
confederates, see Oxford Dict. s. v. I have verified the French original of both
Acts in the Statutes of the Realm. (13) Cp. Stillson and Hughan's History
(Boston, New York and London, 1891) pp. 161 seq. Conder's list appears to
represent a later revision. Hughan's article on Freemasonry in the Encycl.
Britann. (1910) says "numbering about seventy."
(14) Ars iv. Coron. xxviii. 189.
(15) Complete facsimiles in Quatuor Coronatorum Antigrapha,
vols. 1, 2. Several of the later MSS. are also facsimiles in the same series.
The spelling of quotations here given is modernized.
(16) This tale, being unknown to all historians from the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle downwards, must be set down as pure fiction. I am inclined
to ascribe its origin to the antiquarian English revival under Henry I. which
produced, along with Latin versions of genuine laws, the spurious laws of Edward
the Confessor and other inventions. But there was also some antiquarian
romancing early in the fourteenth century. Mr. Coulton (Social Life in Britain,
p. 488) ingeniously suggests that "the craft chose him" (Athelstan) "as their
eponymous hero on the strength of the stan (stone) in his name."
(17) The early history of Freemasonry in England. By James
Orchard Halliwell (afterwards Halliwell-Phillips) 2nd ed. Lond. 1944. Also
extracts in Coulton, op. cit. pp. 481-489. Cp. W. Cunningham, Notes on the
Organization of the Mason's Craft in England (British Academy, 1913).
(18) I do not think any stress can be laid on the use of
this word.
(19) The words "Privite of the chamber" which follow seem
to refer to private instruction from the master.
(20) Brethren will hardly need to be reminded that a trace
of this point, from whatever documentary source actually derived, exits in our
modern ceremonies.
(21) What was the Sheriff doing there? Was this piece
composed before 1360? or was the Statute a dead letter? Or was the Sheriff's
business to see that there was no meddling with wages?
(22) The history and articles of Masonry - ed. Matthew
Cooke, Lond. 1861. Cooke's transcript requires correction in places as appears
by the facsimile, and the MS. itself has several copyist's errors. I am indebted
to my friend Mr. Hubert Hall for a fresh critical estimate of the dates.
(23) There is one amendment to be made in the verbal
interpretation. In 1. 290 "Kindly" is not "fortunately" but "by natural reason";
"law of kind" is the medieval English for "lex naturalis"
(24) So Conder, Hole craft &c. p. 29, n. "circa 1430." In
his texk at p. 48 an unlucky misprint reads 1480.
(25) So in the ancient English universities proceeding to
the M. A. from the B. A. degree has long been a matter of right on payment of
the fees; the last semblance of examination was abolished early in the
nineteenth century. (26) e.g. Clerke MS. ap. Conder, The hole craft &c. at p.
216
(27)But this was at least sometimes otherwise provided for,
see as to York Minster p. 12 above. cp. art. 141 of the current English Book of
Constitutions.
(28) See Cooke MS. 1. 623 wad Speth's comment thereon.
(29) Especially the silence of Sir Christopher's son, who
was certainly a Freemason. Preston's assertion counts for nothing, Anderson's
for rather worse than nothing. The minutes of the Lodge of St. Paul's (1723)
restore the balance but are not quite convincing. See the controversy summed up
in Calvert, The Grand Lodge of England, 1917, pp. 44-52.
(30) Facsimiled in Chetwode Crowley's "The Masonic MSS. in
the Bodleian Library," reprint from Ars IV. Coron. 1898.
(31) If it is worth anything it shows that Wren was not a
Freemason before 1691. The alternative of supposing that Aubrey misunderstood
his information or was misinformed, so that the ceremony may have really been,
an installation, would leave us with no standing-ground at all (32) Aubrey's
entry is also strictly compatible with Wren, having at the last moment refused
or failed to attend the meeting, and thus never having been adopted.
(33) Conder, op. cit. p. 142.
(34) Condor, The Hole Craft &c., p. 225.
(35) Facsimile from his diary in "The Masonic MSS. in the
Bodleian Library," many times printed, last in Newton, The Builders, p. 162, and
Calvert, The Grand Lodge of England, p. 2, also in Conder, op. citi 203-4.
(36) The Hole Craft &e. pp. 140, 171.
(37) Ib. pp. 162, 163.
(38) The Hole Craft &e. p. 179.
(39) op. Cit. p. 13.
(40) Calvert, The Grand Lodge of England, p. 17.
(41) Book of Constitutions, 2nd ed. 1738, p. 109.
Facsimiled in Quatuor Coronatorum Antigrapha, vol. 7.
-----o-------
THE MASONIC TRINITIES
BY BRO. L. B. MITCHELL. MICHIGAN
Brotherly love, the fundamental grace
By which man finds his true and rightful place;
Wc cannot know how much its meaning holds
For life with it to all that's best, unfolds.
Relief, the deed responsive to the sway
Of Love that loves in sacrificial way,
And thereby finds that life's a golden mine
With dividends that truly are sublime.
And Truth, the find of right relation to, -
Like sun and sight, - reveals unto the view
The right of things in bold finality
And then responds with its so mote it be.
* * * * * *
Friendship, the tie that gives to life its zest,
The bond by which we know each other best,
The sweetest chord in human harmony
And timed to meet its need upon the way.
Morality, the sense that qualifies
To virtues held as nature's highest prize,
The test alone that measures to the man
And which by right all compromises ban.
And brotherly love, the soulness of the Art
That gives to life its courage and its heart;
It is indeed the soul-bind of the earth,
The kindredness that gives the world its worth.
-----o------
Prosperity has this property: It puffs up narrow souls,
makes them imagine themselves high and mighty, and leads them to look down upon
the world with contempt; but a truly noble spirit appears greatest in distress;
and then becomes more bright and conspicuous. - Plutarch.
THE MYSTIC TIE
BY BRO. JOSEPH FORT NEWTON, NEW YORK
"The moral solidarity of mankind is dissolved. The danger
is imminent that the end may be a war of all against all. Sects and parties are
increasing; common estimates and ideals keep slipping away; we understand one
another less and less; even voluntary associations, that form of unity peculiar
to modern times, unite more in accomplishment than disposition, bring men
together outwardly rather than in reality."
These words, written by Rudolph Eucken in 1912, were like a
star-shell over No Man's Land, revealing the divided mind of the world, and they
had a terrible fulfilment. The War, by its principle of violence, made no
positive contribution to society, but only stirred up and brought to the surface
what already existed. For both men and nations it intensified tendencies
already active, precipitated passions held in obscure solution, and brought to a
focus forces that had long been uneasily accumulating. It neither initiated nor
changed the direction in which the world was moving, but it did quicken the
pace, and, in quickening it, revealed it. That is why a haunting uneasiness
possesses the minds of men today. Even when local disturbances subside and
isolated disputes are settled, we still doubt whether a stable tranquillity has
returned or ever will return again. For these things are only symptoms of a
profound and widespread mental ferment and moral restlessness.
The insight of Eucken goes further back and deeper down to
the real root of the matter, divining the causes and logic of it all to be
moral, spiritual, religious. For, if anything is made plain by history, it is
that the mystic tie which holds humanity together in ordered and advancing life
is moral and spiritual, and when that thread is cut anything may happen. From
the beginning of the century the spiritual disintegration of the modern world,
the breaking of the ties that bind together the fabric of civilization, had been
observed and noted by many. Faith grew dim, moral sanctions were relaxed, and
it was deemed clever and smart to talk lightly of those sanctities without which
no society has long existed. Much of our literature has been intellectually
Bolshevistic for thirty years, attacking the basis of marriage, of the home, of
the church, of the state, as if the moral laws were only conventions, if not
fictions. Verily we have our reward; we know now that when fools play with fire
they get burned.
For a time, during the stress and strain and terror of the
war, there seemed to be a reknitting of the ties that bind men and nations
together; but it was only seeming. It was the power of fear and force, not the
power of faith. How unreal, how artificial it was is shown by the rapidity with
which that amazing solidarity was demobilized, to be followed by a revival of
class rancor, sectarian ardor, and a narrow, myopic nationalism. A world which,
having sent young men to die by the thousands for magnanimous ideals, has
already half forgotten them as it cooly and briskly resumes business at the old
stand - such a world may be grieved, but it ought not to be astonished, at the
revolt of both the minds and souls of men. Not that the immediate future will
see a triumph of subversive schemes and radical ideas. If we follow an almost
universal precedent we shall pass first through a period of luxury and
extravagance, and there will he a momentary craving for the old social and
religious orders, as in the years following the Napoleonic Wars. But this is
not significant. It is merely the first reaction from the emotional strain and
nervous tension of the war. This mood will soon spend itself, and then, at
once, new forms, new forces, new demands will begin to arise which will sweep
away much that has seemed precious and permanent in our lives.
Without a spiritual renewal, without a reknitting of that
"moral solidarity," of which Eucken speaks so eloquently, - without the Mystic
Tie - we may not hope for security and real progress. The truth is that we have
been trying to build a human civilization on a materialistic foundation, and it
cannot be done. No human community can long exist on such a basis. Russia has
rendered incalculable service to humanity, by showing, with deadly consistency,
how materialism issues into anarchy and animalism. Hear now a proof of this in
the words of a spiritually-minded man who lived in the midst of it, watching the
decay and destruction of his country. Eugene Troubetzkoy, Professor of Law in
the University of Moscow, in the Hibbert Journal, for January, 1920, shows us
what happens when the tie of spiritual faith and fellowship is broken. Here are
words which he who runs may read:
"Bolshevism is first and foremost the practical denial of
the spiritual. They flatly refuse to admit the existence of any spiritual bond
between man and man. For them economic and material interests constitute the
only social nexus; they recognize no other. This is the source of their whole
conception of human society. The love of country, for example, is a lying
hypocritical pretence; for the national bond is a spiritual bond, and therefore
wholly factitious. From their point of view the only real bond between men is
the material - that is to say, the economic. Material interests divide men into
classes, and they are the only divisions to be taken account of. Hence they
recognize no Nations save the Rich and the Poor. As there is no other bond
which can unite these two Nations into one social whole, their relations must be
regulated exclusively by the zoological principle revealed in the struggle for
existence.
The materialistic conception of society is the Bolshevist
method of treating the family. Since there is no spiritual bond between the
sexes, there can be no constant relation. The rule is therefore that men and
women can change their partners as often as they wish. The authorities in
certain districts have even proclaimed the 'nationalisation' of women, that is,
the abolition of any private and exclusive right to process a wife even for a
limited period, on the ground that women are the property of all. The same
children. A powerful current of opinion is urging that children must be taken
from their parents in order that the State may give them an education on true
materialistic lines. In certain communes some hundreds of children were 'nationalised,'
that is, 'taken from their parents and placed in public institutions."
There it is, showing us what the red logic of hell means
when it works itself out in action, and what results follow when the Mystic Tie
of spiritual faith and fellowship is cut. Political anarchy, social animalism,
moral bedlam follow with mathematical certainty, and all the fine and holy
things of life are thrown into the junk heap. Man has an animal inheritance -
moods of ape and tiger mingle in him with divine dreams and thoughts that wander
through eternity - and when the Divine is denied, he reverts to the law of the
jungle, and the hard-won trophy of spiritual struggle and agony vanishes. What
happens, happens again. The Bolshevists are men of like passions as ourselves;
they simply carry out with the fatal logic of fanaticism the dogma of
materialism upon which we have been trying to base our modern civilization. If
anyone thinks that what has taken place in Russia cannot happen in America, he
knows little of history and less of human nature. The practical denial of the
Divine dehumanizes humanity, and the rest follows as night follows day.
For that reason, if it should be a part of our religion to
be patriotic, it must be a part of our patriotism to keep the light of spiritual
faith aflame on the altars built by our fathers. Down in Wales, at a time when
it seemed that revolution was inevitable, I asked a labour leader what bond held
men together. He said: "All that holds these men back is the fact that they
were trained in the Sunday-schools of these Welsh chapels years ago. That is
all that keeps the spark from blowing up." Within the last four years ten
thousand Sunday-schools have ceased to exist in America, and the end is not
yet. Facts such as these, and others of like kind, make a thoughtful man wonder
as to what the future will be. What confronts us is not specifically
indifference to religion, but indifference to pretty well everything outside the
circle of creature comfort and self-gratification. There are many exceptions,
of course, but in the main it is true that society has as yet been able to
persuade only a few of its members to be really interested in its higher
concerns. By the same token, men who do care for what is finest in our national
life must make use of every opportunity, every instrumentality, to keep alive
the faith that makes men faithful, and the vision of the moral ideal that lights
our human way toward the city of God.
There is no need to apply what has been said, least of all
to men to whom the Mystic Tie is a reality, and who are bound together by it in
a fraternity of spiritual Faith and Fellowship. In every degree of Freemasonry
we are taught - by art, by drama, by symbol - the moral basis of human society,
its spiritual interpretation, and the necessity of a fraternal righteousness
among men, without which manhood is rudimentary and intellectual culture is the
slave of greed and passion. Of Lincoln it was said, that "his practical life was
spiritual," and by as much as Masonry builds men of like faith and fibre who, in
private life and public service, keep a manhood neither bought nor sold, true of
heart and unbefogged of mind, it is helping to weave that Mystic Tie that holds
the republic together. The words of James Bryce, in "The American Commonwealth,"
ought to be written and hung up in our hearts:
"If history teaches anything, it teaches us that hitherto
civilized society has rested on religion. It was religious zeal and religious
conscience that led to the founding of the New England colonies two centuries
and a half ago. Religion and conscience have been a constantly active force in
the American Commonwealth ever since. And the more democratic republics become,
the more the masses grow conscious of their power, the more do they need to live
not only by patriotism, but by reverence and self-control, and the more
essential to their well-being are those sources from which reverence and
self-control flow."
------o------
As a citizen there is
one very important duty and that is the duty as a voter. Let us, brethren, lay
just a little bit more stress on the observance of this privilege and this duty
and a little less stress on who and what we are voting for. Oh, it is so easy to
get up excitement over an individual; it is so easy to get up a temporary
excitement over an issue, but it is hard to get up enthusiasm and excitement
over just ordinary duty. But voting is not an ordinary duty. It is the greatest
duty that we as citizens have to perform.
Masonry should
likewise enter into the everyday life of the individual if these problems are
going to be solved. Masonry is not a thing for the lodge room alone; it is not a
thing for our festive occasions alone, but it is a practical everyday philosophy
of life. A man to be a good Mason should be a good business man, should be a
good lawyer; should be a good bricklayer or a good mechanic. Into his everyday
work should go the principles that have been inculcated in his life through the
medium of his lodge. He should feel that he is endeavoring to dignify his craft
or his profession, he should endeavor at all times to show that the word of a
Mason in business or as a laborer or as a professional man is absolutely
inviolable. The fact that he is a Mason should be sufficient recommendation of
his character. And in our lodges we should lay emphasis upon that fact. We
should teach the fact not alone in the beautiful phraseology of our ritual, but
in the common ordinary language that every man can understand, and if we find in
our community Masons who are not living up to the teaching of - Masonry in their
everyday business life and affairs, then some means should be found to show them
the error of their ways.
The teaching of
Masonry is nothing more or less than old fashioned, common honesty and common
sense. Those are the things that are particularly needed in this hour of crisis.
There is no new panacea for the ills of the world. Work honestly performed, duty
faithfully done, will bring peace and happiness and contentment to our land. Let
us in our lodges give consideration to the old fashioned virtues; let us bring
them before our membership as we have never brought them before. Let us put
greater stress upon the social side of our Institution, so that we can come to
understand and know our brethren better; let us give them the inspiration of our
companionship; let us give them the helpful and strengthening influence of a
closer acquaintanceship; let us have them feel that as they go out in their
several walks of life that they have the interest and support of the brethren of
their lodges. Let us endeavor by this close, active connection and
acquaintanceship and frequent meetings together to weld ourselves into one solid
mass that will stand for righteousness and for honesty and for uprightness in
our civic as well as our private dealings; let us be bound together into one
great mass that will move forward as a solid unit for righteousness.
- Bro Charles H. Victor California.
FOR THE MONTHLY LODGE MEETING
CORRESPONDENCE CIRCLE BULLETIN NO. 39
Edited by Bro. H. L. Haywood
THE BULLETIN COURSE OF MASONIC STUDY FOR MONTHLY LODGE
MEETINGS AND STUDY CLUBS
FOUNDATION OF THE COURSE
THE Course of Study has for its foundation two sources of
Masonic information: THE BUILDER and Mackey's Encyclopedia. In another paragraph
is explained how the references to former issues of THE BUILDER and to Mackey's
Encyclopedia may be worked up as supplemental papers to exactly fit into each
installment of the Course with the papers by Brother Haywood.
MAIN OUTLINE:
The Course is divided into five principal divisions which
are in turn subdivided, as is shown below:
Division I. Ceremonial Masonry.
A. The Work of the Lodge.
B. The Lodge and the Candidate.
C. First Steps.
D. Second Steps.
E. Third Steps.
Division II. Symbolical Masonry.
A. Clothing.
B. Working Tools.
C. Furniture.
D. Architecture.
E. Geometry.
F. Signs.
G. Words.
H. Grips.
Division III. Philosophical Masonry.
A. Foundations.
B. Virtues.
C. Ethics.
D. Religious Aspect.
E. The Quest.
F. Mysticism.
G. The Secret Doctrine.
Division IV. Legislative Masonry.
A. The Grand Lodge.
1. Ancient Constitutions.
2. Codes of Law.
3. Gran |
