A Journal for the Masonic Student

Published Monthly by the National Masonic Research Society


Vol. 13 No. 3 – March 1927



Bro. A. J. B. Milborne, Canada

AMONG the many theories of the origin of Freemasonry, is that which advances the hypothesis that: it was the outgrowth of the plan of Francis Bacon to accomplish a regeneration of mankind by the introduction of a state of civilization similar to that depicted in his The New Atlantis published in 1627.

This theory was advanced by Christopher Frederick Nicolai, a learned German savant, in a work published in 1782–3 entitled, An Essay on the Accusations Made Against the Order of Knights Templar and Their Mystery; With an Appendix on the Origin of the Fraternity of Freemasons. It has never obtained any acceptance at the hands of Masonic students and critics, for the recognized existence, after subjection to every literary and critical test, of The Old Charges for two hundred years prior to the publication of Francis Bacon's romance is sufficient evidence to refute it.

Nevertheless, bearing in mind the fact that many distinguished men of letters and science founded the Royal Society a few years after the death of Bacon with the object of disseminating scientific and philosophical truths on the basis of his suggestions and the further fact that members of the Royal Society were prominent in the revival of the Craft which culminated in the formation of the Grand Lodge in 1717, the consideration of The New Atlantis from a Masonic standpoint is not to be neglected.


The New Atlantis is a narrative which deals with the fabled island of Bensalem in the Pacific Ocean and the culture and customs of its inhabitants. Its main feature, Solomon's House, is the embodiment of Bacon's life-long dream of finding some method or system by means of which scientific knowledge could be accumulated and used for the amelioration of mankind, for he writes "among all the benefits that could be conferred upon mankind, I find none so great as the discovery of new arts, endowments and commodities."

The setting of the tale was suggested by Plato's myth of Atlantis, contained in the Timaeus, and the writer has also drawn on the Critias which contains a description of the origin and splendid civilization of this fabled country. The New Atlantis gives us very little information about the constitution of the country, its laws or the structure of its society, for Bacon laid down his pen when he had dealt with the many wonders of Solomon's House, not because the chief interest of the story was then exhausted, but, as Rawley writes in the Preface to the Latin version, "because he had many other matters which deserved to take precedence of them" (i.e., The New Atlantis and another unfinished work — the Dialogue Concerning an Holy War ). The form of government may be taken, however, as being an ideal commonwealth though differing from the communistic conception of Plato. Here, then, we find an analogy with the Masonic Lodge which symbolically represents the universe and an ideal government based on the brotherhood of man, with the recognition of distinctions "necessary to preserve subordination."


The romance opens with a description of the plight in which the company of a ship finds itself. The ship had sailed some months previously from Peru for China and Japan, and after five months of favorable winds had been driven off its course by adverse ones. The food supplies had become exhausted and sickness had broken out, when the voyagers come in sight of land. They approach it and enter a harbor, and are about to make a landing, when the inhabitants make signs to them not to do so. In the reception of the voyagers we find a ready compliance with the duty of rendering to our fellows those kind offices which justice or mercy require, for while the Bensalemites forbid them to land, they tell them to write down their wants and they would "haue that, which belongeth to mercy."

The narrative goes on to relate the written answer given to the Bensalemites and that, three hours later "a Person (as it seemed) of place" approached them in a boat and desired that some of the visitors meet him upon the water, which was done, and the subsequent interrogation "Are yee Christians?" and the humble confidence which it inspired bears a close analogy to our reception of a candidate. After giving an oath "by the Meritts of the Saviour" that they were not pirates and had not shed blood, lawfully or unlawfully "within fourtie daies past" they were informed that on the following day they would be brought to the "Strangers' House" which was an institution akin to our modern Quarantine Station, though not so irksome for the only limitation placed upon the newcomers was to remain within doors for three days, after which they might visit the city, though they were not to go more than a mile and a half from the city walls without special leave.

On the expiration of the three days the voyagers were visited by a Christian Priest, who informed them that he was the Governor of the Strangers' House, and offered them his services "both as Strangers, and chiefly as Christians." He told them that the state had given them permission to remain for six weeks, but that an extension might be obtained, if desired, and that if they wished to trade they would be fairly dealt with.


The next day the Governor of the Strangers' House came to them and explains that by reason of their isolated position, the laws of secrecy by which they were bound, and their rare admission of strangers, the Bensalemites were well acquainted with the greater part of the habitable world, but were themselves unknown, and goes on to say, "Therefore because he that knoweth least, is fittest to aske Questions, it is more Reason, for the Entertainment of the time, that yee aske mee Questions, then I aske you." They then inquire who was the Apostle of the Nation, and how it was converted to the Christian faith, and the Governor, in reply, relates the reception of a "small Arke, or Chest of Cedar" containing "all the Canonicall Bookes of the Old and New Testament" and a letter written by Saint Bartholomew in which he states that he had been warned by an Angel to commit the Ark to the sea. This is probably based on the tradition recorded by Eusebius, "the Father of Church History," that Saint Bartholomew had left a copy of St. Matthew's Gospel with the Indians.

The following day the Governor answers further questions as to how the Bensalemites were so well informed of the world's affairs while the world remained in ignorance of their existence, but he reserves some particulars "which it is not lawfull for mee to reueale." He tells of the great amount of navigation of the earlier days, the intercourse of the various nations and then of the destruction of the Great Atlantis. Proceeding, the Governor relates the difficulties of "the poore Remnant of Humane Seed" which survived the inundation, the history of King "Salamona" and the code of laws which he put into force.

"Doubting Novelties"

King "Salamona" prescribed certain "Interdicts and Prohibitions" one of which concerns the admission of strangers. Those who laid the foundation of the Masonic Order have also given us certain regulations regarding the admission of strangers, and, "doubting novelties" have prohibited any change in our established usages and customs which has received universal recognition as a primary landmark of the order.


The raison d'être of the romance — the order or society of Solomon's House — is next outlined. The Governor refers to it as "The Noblest Foundation ... that ever was upon the Earth" dedicated to the study of the works and creatures of God — ("the hidden mysteries of nature and science" ) — and named by King Solomon "finding himselfe to Symbolize" after the King of the Hebrews. The method of obtaining information of the outer world by the sending of Missions of three of the fellows or brethren recalls to our mind the despatch of the trusty fellowcrafts by King Solomon, divided into three lodges, upon a certain mournful quest. The brethren of Solomon's House are termed "Merchants of Light," which has its parallel in the expression "Sons of Light" as applied to Freemasons.

The voyagers now lived quite happily, and the narrator tells us that they went abroad seeing what was to be seen in the city and places adjacent "within our Tedder." "Tedder" is the middle English form of the word "tether" and we find a similitude in the Masonic cable-tow.

The Feast of the Family, granted to any man who lived to see thirty descendants alive together "and all above 3 yeares old" is then minutely described. In the description of the room in which the feast is celebrated we find a symbolic emblem similar to one with which Master Masons are familiar in the decoration of the "state" of canopy over the chair in which the Tirsan as "the father of the family" is termed is seated. The concluding part of the ceremony attending the feast is the presentation to any of the Tirsan's sons of "eminent Merritt and Vertue" of a jewel "made in the figure of an Eare of Wheat" a symbol which we preserve in the Fellowcraft degree to remind us of those temporal blessings of life, support and nourishment which we receive from the Giver of all Good.

The rest of the book is taken up with a description of the customs of the country and concludes with a full recital of the many wonders of Solomon's House, a remarkable forecast of the inventive genius of man.

It is generally conceded that one of Bacon's principal achievements was the impetus given through this work to thought in England, which resulted in the formation of the Royal Society not many years after his death. Glanville said that Solomon's House was a prophetic scheme of the organization that has done so much for the advancement of science, and Boyle, one of its earliest and most famous members, spoke of an "invisible college" in his letters, which probably referred to the beginnings of the Society before its formal constitution in 1660. The attempt has been made to definitely connect Bacon with the Speculative reorganization of Freemasonry; the fact that some of the founders of the Royal Society were Masons is certainly a curious coincidence, but whether we can ever go further than this is doubtful.

* * *


Bro. R. V. Harris, Associate Editor, Nova Scotia

One of the most interesting of all the Regiments of the British Army, from a Masonic viewpoint, is the 17th Leicestershire Regiment.

This regiment was raised in the year 1688 and saw its first active service under William III in the Flanders Campaign, where it suffered heavy losses at Landen and the siege of Namur. In 1701 it served with Marlborough in the Low Countries, taking part in his earlier campaigns, including Huy, Liege and Venloo, after which it was sent to Portugal where it participated in the battle of Almanza, in which it was nearly destroyed.

In 1710 it was in Scotland and from 1713-14 in Ireland. In 1715 it formed part of the forces sent to quell the rebellion in Scotland and it was stationed at Perth.

From 1723-48 it served in the garrison at Minorca in the Mediterranean, a detachment being sent in 1727 to aid in the defence of Gibraltar. In 1748 the Regiment was transferred to Ireland. On June 24, 1748, the Masons in the Regiment were granted a Charter by the Grand Lodge of Ireland as No. 136, without any distinctive name. No returns seem to have been made to the Grand Lodge, probably owing to their being continually on active service outside Ireland.

On the outbreak of the Seven Years' War the Regiment embarked (May 5, 1757) for Nova Scotia and formed part of the expedition of the Earl of Loudon against Louisburg. After the abandonment of that enterprise the Regiment wintered in Nova Scotia, and was quartered at Annapolis Royal. While there, one Pardon Sanders, an artificer in the Ordnance, who had resided at Annapolis since 1750, became a member of the lodge. On the departure of the Regiment to take part in the siege of Louisburg in 1758, the lodge granted a certificate or dimit to Sanders in the following terms [1]:

"Out of the Darkness Shineth Light and the Darkness comprehended it not."

By the Worshipful Master and Wardens of a Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons, No. 136.

We do hereby certify that the Bearer our Brother Pardon Sanders, was by us lawfully admitted into the said Lodge and did there serve as an entered apprentice and afterwards as a Fellow Craft and as he behaved himself in these proper stations we gave unto him the sublime degree of a Master Mason, he served as a member and as a true and honest brother and Senior Deacon of our Lodge. We recommend him to all regular Lodges of our most Ancient and Honorable Fraternity.

Given under our hands at Annapolis Royal, April 30th, Anno Domini, 1758, and in the year of Masonry, 5758. Joseph Westover Master. Secretary James Rutherford. Wm. Witcome Miles Prentis [2] Wardens.

At Louisburg the Regiment was composed of 660 men and was under the command of Brig. Gen. John Forbes. At Louisburg in the fourteen British regiments engaged, there were ten Masonic Lodges and after the siege another was warranted, in the 28th Regiment, by the Grand Lodge at Boston. Among both the Americans and English forces were numerous Masons, several of very great distinction, such as Col. Richard Gridley, Capt. David Wooster, of the Americans, Alex. Lord Rollo, Gen. Charles Lawrence (Master of the First Lodge at Halifax), Admiral Lord Colville, Col. Simon Fraser of the 78th Foot, Adam Williamson (afterwards Sir Adam, Governor and P. G. M. of Jamaica), Col. Alex. Murray, and others. For its services on this occasion the Regiment bears upon its colors the name "Louisburg."

After the capture of Louisburg the 17th was sent by way of Boston to winter quarters at Philadelphia, where the members of the lodge fraternized with the Masons of that place.

In the spring the Regiment took part in the Crown Point Expedition, and later in the advance on Montreal, being present when that place capitulated in September, 1760. Under Lord Rollo the Regiment proceeded to New York and Staten Island, and from there in October to Barbadoes, participating in the capture of Martinique and later of Havana 1762. In 1763 the Regiment was sent back to North America for frontier service at Detroit and in the Lakes region.

On returning to England in September, 1767, the Regiment applied for a warrant from the Grand Lodge of Scotland, the old warrant having been lost through the "Hazardous enterprises in which they had been engaged." The lodge was designated Unity Lodge in the 17th Regiment, and the Grand Lodge minutes of Nov. 22, 1771, record that it was "to be gratis." The Grand Lodge minutes of Feb. 3 and May 18, 1772, note the attendance of Bro. Hanson of Lodge 168. While this appears to be the number by which the lodge was known in the Grand Lodge minutes in the Warrant itself the lodge's number was given as No. 169.

This old Warrant is now in possession of Union Lodge, No. 5, at Middletown, Delaware, and because of its interest is quoted in full:

To All and Sundry To whose Knowledge these presents shall Come Greeting In God Everlasting. Whereas upon Petition to the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons for the Kingdom of Scotland By Brother John Slater, Alexander Aberdour, John Hill, Thomas Hanson, and James Scrimgeor all of the Seventeenth Regiment of Foot, presently in Edinburgh as the Setting Forth That for a Considerable time there was Held a Regular Lodge in the said Regiment under the Authority of the Grand Lodge of Ireland That through the many hazardous Enterprises in which they had been Engaged in the Service of their King and Country, they had not only Lost their Charter, but their whole Records and Jewels, and being willing Still to Associate together for the True End of Masonry in a Regular Lodge Constituted by the Grand Lodge of Scotland, They Proposed the said Thomas Hanson for Master; John Slater and John Hill for Wardens, James Scrimgeor for Treasurer and Alexander Aberdour [3] for Secretary And Praying it might please the Grand Lodge to Grant them a Charter of Constitution and Erection in the usual form Which Petition Having been Considered by the Grand Lodge, And Ample Recommendation having been given of the Petition by Lieutenant Richard Aylmer, [4] Adjutant in the said Seventeenth Regiment They authorized the underwritten Patent of Constitution and Erection to be Expede in the Petitioners favours. Know ye therefore That the Most Worshipful The Grand Master of Scotland, and the Grand Lodge aforesaid Have Constituted Erected and Appointed And hereby Constitute Erect and Appoint the Worshipful Brethren above named and their Successors, in all time Coming to be a True and Regular Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons by the Stile and Title of Unity Lodge, in the Seventeenth Regiment of Foot, And Appoint and Ordain all Regular Lodges under the Constitution of the Grand Lodge of Scotland, to Hold, Own and Respect them as Such Giving Granting and Committing to them and their Successors full Power and Authority to Meet, Assemble and Conveen as a Regular Lodge, And to Admit and Receive Apprentices, Pass Fellow Crafts, and Raise Master Masons upon Payment of such Composition for the Support of their Lodge as they shall see Convenient, And to Elect and Chuse Masters, Wardens and other officers Annually or other ways as they shall have Occasion Recommending to the Brethren aforesaid and their Successors to Reverence and Obey their Superiors in all things Lawfull and honest, as becomes the Honour and Harmony of Masonry The said Brethren by Accepting of this present Charter, Becoming faithfully Bound and Engaged not to Desert their said Lodge so Constituted nor upon any pretext whatsoever to make any Separate or Schismatical Meetings, without Consent of their Master and Wardens for the time. Nor to Collect Money or other Funds Separate from the Common Stock of their Lodge to the prejudice of the Poor thereof. They and their Successors in all time coming being also Obliged to Obey and Pay all due regard to the Acts, Statutes and Regulations of the Grand Lodge already made, or hereafter to be made, for the Utility, Welfare and Prosperity of Masonry in General, And to Pay and Perform whatever is Stipulated or Demanded of them for the Support of the Dignity of the Grand Lodge. And to Record in their Books, which they are hereby Appointed to keep this Present Charter of Constitution and Erection with their own Regulations and bye-Laws and their whole Procedure from time to time as they shall Occur, to the end the same may be the more easily Seen, and Observed by their Brethren, Subject always to the rules of the Grand Lodge, And also the Brethren aforesaid and their Successors are hereby Required punctually to Attend the whole General Meetings, and Quarterly Communications of the Grand Lodge by their Representatives being the Master and the Wardens for the time or by Lawful Proxies in their Names Provided Such Proxies be Master Masons or Fellow Crafts of some Established Lodge, holding of the Grand Lodge To the End they may Act and Vote in the Grand Lodge, and be duly Certiorated of the Proceedings thereof Declaring their Precedency in the Grand Lodge to Commence from the date hereof And to the End these presents may be the more effectually kept and Preserved, the same are hereby appointed to be Recorded in the Books of the Grand Lodge Given at the Grand Lodge Held in the City of Edinburgh upon the Twelfth day of November In the year of Our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy-One, And of Light Five Thousand Seven hundred and Seventy-four years By The Most Worshipfull His Excellency Lieutenant General, James Adolphus Oughton, Grand Master of Scotland, The Right Worshipfull Sir William Erskine Deputy Grand Master, The Right Worshipfull And Honourable Collonel Napier Substitute Grand Master pro tempore, The Right Worshipfull Doctor James Lind and William Baillie Esquire Grand Wardens, James Hunter Esquire Grand Treasurer, And the Seal of the Grand Lodge is Appended hereunto.

In Presence of Alexander McDougall Esquire Grand Secretary and David Bolt Grand Clerk ALEX. McDOUGALL, G. Secty. JAS. ADOLS. OUGHTON, G.M. DAVID BOLT. G. Clerk. Wm. NAPIER, S.G. Mr. P. T. JAMES LIND, S.G.W. WILL. BAILLIE, J.G.W. Composition Gratis Porder. A. McD., G.S.

Number One hundred & Sixty-nine. Recorded in the Books of the Grand Lodge of Scotland by David Bolt G. Clerk.

There is no record of the members of the Lodge Unity 168 (or 169) in the books of the Grand Lodge in Scotland. In 1771 the Regiment was in Scotland, transferring in the latter year to Ireland where it remained until the fall of 1775.

On the outbreak of the American Revolution the Regiment was ordered to America, four companies arriving at Boston in November, 1775; the remaining six companies after a stormy voyage, not arriving until Jan. 1, 1776. Not being able to effect a landing because of unusually severe weather conditions, the latter proceeded to Halifax, Nova Scotia, arriving Jan. 11, 1776. Here this portion of the Regiment remained until June, a detachment being sent to Fort Cumberland. The Boston portion embarked for Halifax, March 17, 1776. In the beginning of June, the 17th embarked along with the troops Gen. Lord Howe had brought from Boston on its evacuation, and sailed for New York arriving at Sandy Hook June 10, landing at Staten Island, proceeding to Long Island, where they took part in the battle of Aug. 27, 1776, in which the Americans were led by Generals Israel Putnam, Lord Stirling and Sullivan, all Freemasons, and in which more than twenty military lodges were represented in the various British units.

The occupation of New York by the British forces in Sept. 15 followed an event which obliged St. John's Lodge to vacate the city. The 17th also took part in the engagement at White Plains, Oct. 28, and the reduction of Fort Washington Nov. 16. On Jan. 3, 1777, the British forces, which included the 17th, suffered disastrous defeat at Princeton.

In this engagement, Bro. William Leslie, [5] Captain of the 17th Regiment of Foot, and Extra Major of Brigade, was mortally wounded. There is an interesting tradition connected with his death and burial. When, after the battle, Gen. Washington was riding over the field, he perceived some British soldiers supporting a wounded officer, and upon inquiring his name and rank, was answered, Captain Leslie. Dr. Benjamin Rush, who formed a part of the Commander's Staff, asked whether he was "a son of the Earl of Leven" being answered in the affirmative, he asked to have him placed under his care. He, however, died the same evening, and was buried with martial and Masonic honors by his American brethren in the graveyard at Pluckamin, where a monument marks his resting place. Two days after the battle, Washington sent his aide. Col. Fitzgerald, into the British camp, with a flag of truce, advising the British of the death of Capt. Leslie and of the honors with which he was interred.

It has been stated that in the same Battle of Princeton the Delaware troops captured the Warrant No. 169 of the brethren of the 17th Regiment. [6] But the authority for this statement is not given.

In the Archives of the Grand Lodge of Nova Scotia has recently been discovered a letter in which it is stated

... that in the year 1777 a ship loaded with the Baggage the Regiment (on her Passage from New York to Philadelphia) in which was our Lodge Box which contained our Warrant, Jewels, Fund and every Other Necessary Apparatus belonging to Our Lodge, was Captured by the Enemy. [This letter is quoted in full below.]

Whatever the reason for the loss of the Warrant, it eventually passed into the hands of the brethren of Lodge No. 5 at Cantwell's Bridge, Delaware, now Union Lodge No. 5, Middletown, Delaware.

The 17th Regiment of Foot also took part in the expedition to Pennsylvania, and in the battle on the Brandywine, Sept. 11, where they led the attack on the American position, and in the following October saved the day for the British at the battle of Germantown, after which they were quartered in Philadelphia during the British occupation, from Sept. 27, 1777, to June 18, 1778.

When the British took possession of the city there were three active Masonic Lodges, viz., Lodges 2, 3 and 4. No meetings were held of Lodge No. 2 while Philadelphia was in the hands of the British, for the reason that its jewels, regalia, books and papers were stolen or hidden on the arrival of the British. These jewels, etc., were afterwards recovered by Capt. Wm. Cunningham, the Provost Marshal of Gen. Howe's Army during the occupation, and lodged by him with Lodge No. 3 for safe keeping. In the records of Lodges 2 and 3 we find the attendance recorded of several of the members of the lodge in the 17th Regiment, including Daniel Webb, George Cockburn, and others.

During this time the warrant of the Provincial Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, which had not met for over three years, [7] was in the possession of Lodge No. 3. The Grand Master and his Deputy had both left the city. It would seem from recently discovered evidence that the brethren of the 17th Foot made application to the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, then working under the authority of a Warrant from the Grand Lodge of England (Ancients) dated 1764, and at a meeting evidently presided over by one of the Grand Wardens and attended by representatives of all the military lodges (to the number of nineteen) then in Philadelphia, the petitioners were granted a new Warrant, "Unity, No. 18," on the Provincial Registry. A copy of this Warrant was deposited in the Archives of the Grand Lodge of Nova Scotia on Aug. 27, 1784, but has been mislaid.

On June 18, 1778, the British occupation of the city terminated and the Regiment marched with the army through the Jerseys on its return to New York.

During 1779 the 17th was at New York with a detachment of the Regiment quartered at Stoney Creek, a fortified post on the Hudson River. On the night of July 15, 16, the fort was suddenly attacked by a superior force of Americans under General Wayne, to which, after stubborn and gallant resistance, the survivors were obliged to surrender as prisoners of war. Along with their baggage the lodge Warrant and regalia fell into the hands of the American General, Samuel H. Parsons, who actuated by the genuine principles of Masonry, returned them to the British Commander at New York, with the following letter:

West Jersey Highlands, July 23, 1779.

Brethren: When the ambition of monarchs or jarring interest of contending States, call forth their subjects to war, as Masons we are disarmed of that resentment which stimulates to undistinguished desolation; and however our political sentiments may impel us in the public dispute, we are still Brethren, and (our professional duty apart) ought to promote the happiness and advance the weal of each other. Accept therefore, at the hands of a Brother, the Constitution of the Lodge Unity, No. 18, to be held in the 17th British Regiment which your late misfortunes have put in my power to restore to you.

I am your Brother and obedient servant SAMUEL H. PARSONS. Addressed to Master and Wardens of Lodge Unity No. 18, upon the Registry of England. (sic)

The Regiment was imprisoned in Philadelphia gaol until Christmas Day 1780, when it was exchanged and placed under the order of Col. Watson of the Foot Guards, and stationed in Virginia. Early in 1781 they joined the army under Lord Cornwallis in the south and gained a victory over the Americans at Guilford Court House; thence they were sent to Yorktown, where, on Oct. 17, 1781, the Regiment again became prisoners of war, along with the other forces of Lord Cornwallis, but on being again exchanged were stationed in Virginia and later at New York, where it remained until the withdrawal of the British from that place in November, 1783, then sent to Nova Scotia.


  1. This certificate follows generally the earliest known form of lodge certificate, dated 1754, found in the Treasurer's book of St. John's Masonic Lodge, No. 134, Lurgan County, Armagh, which still meets under its original warrant dated May 20, 1743. The only actual certificate of earlier date is that issued "From the Lodge House in Lodge Alley, Philadelphia, No. 2, the 6th of September, 1756" to James Harding. (See Old Masonic Lodges of Pennsylvania by Julius Sachse, 1892, page 59.) Also the History of the Grand Lodge of Ireland, by Lepper and Crossle, Vol. i, page 233-4.
  2. Sergt. Miles Prentis accompanied the Regiment to Louisburg, Quebec and Montreal, where he evidently obtained his discharge. His name appears in a St. John's Day advertisement, June 24 1764; his address being "The Sun," in St. John's Street, and in 1775 he became the proprietor of the famous "Freemason's Tavern," Quebec, the rendezvous of the bonne societe in that city. He identified himself with the Merchant's Lodge. In March, 1770, we find him and others applying to the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts for a warrant, he being present; the application was denied. In 1776 he was W. M. of St. Patrick's Lodge, Quebec. See Robertson i, page 167, I mass. 228-30 Graham pages 42, 45 and 47.
  3. Alexander Aberdour, Secretary, he was at Ticonderoga in 1760 and received his discharge at Boston, 1775.
  4. Lieutenant Richard Aylmer, Adjutant of the 17th Regiment who gave "ample recommendation" to the petition of the Brethren, was surgeon's mate in the Regiment in 1756, promoted ensign 1759; Lieutenant 1762; Adjutant 1768; Captain-Lieutenant 1772, 2nd Captain 1772. Served at Louisburg 1758 Crown Point and Montreal 1759-60 Martinique, 1762.
  5. Capt. Hon. Wm. Leslie, Ensign 42nd (Royal Highland Black Watch) Regiment 1770; Lieutenant 17th Foot 1773; Captain 1776.
  6. Old Masonic Lodges of Philadelphia, Vol. i, pages 363, 368. The statement is as follows:

    When the regiment was captured, during the attack at Stony Point, July 16, 1779, among their baggage was found the warrant and regalia of the Lodge; when this was brought to the notice of Gen. Samuel H. Parsons, an American Commander, and member of American Union Lodge, in the Continental army, he at once sent the warrant back to the British Regiment with the following fraternal letter:

    "West Jersey Highlands, July 23, 1779.

    "Brethren: — When the ambition of monarchs or jarring interest of contending States, call forth their subjects to war as Masons we are disarmed of that resentment which stimulates to undistinguished desolation, and however our political sentiments may impel us in the public dispute, we are still Brethren, and (our professional duty apart) ought to promote the happiness and advance the weal of each other. Accept therefore, at the hands of a Brother, the Constitution of the Lodge Unity No. 18, to be held in the 17th British Regiment which your late misfortunes have put in my power to restore to you.

    "I am your Brother and obedient servant "Samuel H. Parsons.

    Unfortunately Sachse gives no indication where this letter is to be found.
  7. Op. cit. page 137.

* * *


Dr. H. Bartelmess

This article originally appeared in "The American Freemason's Magazine" for April, 1860, nearly seventy years ago. This periodical has long been extinct, and is not at all easily accessible. The account here given is much more minutely detailed than those found in the standard histories, though in the main it is in accord with them.

That Frederick was very much interested in the Craft is obvious, or he would not have taken such risks as he did in joining. It is quite possible that the risk added to the attraction. Also that during his reign Masonry had a favored and protected position in Prussia is quite certain. Whether Frederick, however, retained an active interest in the Institution after his accession to the throne seems to be still an open and somewhat vexed question. Frederick the Great, then Prince Royal of Prussia, first resolved upon becoming a Freemason while in Holland, where he had accompanied his father, the king, who had gone there, after having reviewed some troops at Wesel, to pay a visit to the prince of Orange and to the princess, his niece.

One day at dinner, in the castle of Eoo, in Geldern, the conversation turned on Freemasonry, and the king declaimed with much vehemence against the Order. Count Albert Wolfgang, of Schaumburg-Lippe, defended the Society, with which he openly avowed himself connected, with such frankness and eloquence, that the prince-royal felt disposed to request him, after dinner, to procure his admission into an Order which counted such candid and upright men among its members.

The Count of Lippe, having been initiated in England, and therefore not well conversant with the state of Freemasonry in Germany, applied to the Baron of Albedyll, in Hanover, to whom he wrote, in a letter of the 19th of July, 1738, from Stadthagen, the following lines:

I have been commissioned by a high person, who does not wish to be known at present, to cause a certain individual to be admitted as Freemason at Brunswick, which has been decreed upon as the place of rendezvous, during the fair of this summer.

You are the only brother of the Order whom I know. As for me, though I have been declared a Master, I am not sufficiently instructed to undertake to preside in a lodge, supposing that we should be able to bring together the required number of members. I entreat you most earnestly to communicate to me what you will be able to accomplish in this respect. You can easily guess that it is a person of high rank and respectability who has applied to me, from the fact of my troubling you, and so urgent is the request, that I desire an answer that can be shown, in case you cannot comply with our wishes and come to Brunswick.

To this place I would go myself provided you will come and point out there the sufficient number of Masons and a Master competent to preside at the initiation.

Signed, V. Schaumburg-Lippe.

The brother, von Albedyll, was a member of the lodge of Hamburg, which, of English origin, existed from the 6th of December, 1737, and afterwards, 1740, took the name of Absalon. To this lodge he directed from Hamburg, the 22nd of July, 1738, the following letter:

Highly esteemed and beloved Brethren:

To your wise consultation I submit the subject of the enclosed extract of a letter which the reigning Count of Schaumburg-Lippe, a highly respectable member of our Society and an old Master, wrote to me:

The birth of the illustrious candidate, though he be yet unknown to us, requires of us, my brethren, to do all that we can do to make the reception as solemn as possible, and worthy of the person about to do us such an honor.

It will be your business now to find out whether some officers of the lodge are disposed to go to Brunswick, in order to arrange the ceremony, to choose a Master to preside at the reception, and to make all the arrangements which will be necessary to make the proceedings as solemn and legal as our old statutes require.

I expect your resolutions by return of post, to communicate them to the Count of Lippe, and I do not doubt you will select a Master well instructed and entirely conversant with the work of reception.

As in this case the honor of the whole union and brotherhood is at stake, your wisdom will doubtless find means to satisfy the request of the illustrious candidate.

With zeal and unalterable attachment, etc.

Signed, F. C. Albedyll.

The extract above given of the letter of the Count of Lippe was adjoined to this letter.

The lodge of Hamburg assembled on the 29th of July, 1738, the Most Worshipful Master, Bro. v. Oberg, presiding, and resolved, after careful deliberation, if the unknown candidate be a reigning prince, to send a deputation to Brunswick. Bro. v. Oberg was elected president of this delegation, and appointed the other officers: First Warden Bro. Loewen, Second Warden Bro. Stuven, and Secretary Bro. Bielfeld.

The lodge immediately answered the Bro. v. Albedyll, thanked him in the most obliging terms for the zeal displayed by him to promote the honor and growth of the Order, and added besides:

This affair of course engaged in the meeting of yesterday the attention of the whole brotherhood. It was sufficient for everyone that it was you who proposed to initiate the illustrious candidate at Brunswick by some brethren of our lodge. All members were anxious to give in their adherence. The Most Reverend Master, Bro. Oberg; the brethren, Loewen, Stuven and Bielfeld, will be ready to leave for Brunswick as soon as the lodge shall have the honor to know the illustrious candidate, whom we all already now revere. We do not doubt in the least that the rank and qualities of the high unknown will correspond with the idea which we have formed of him; we beg even to recommend our lodge to the protection of the illustrious candidate, etc.

You know what Masonic discretion is, and therefore will not fear that we might divulge the honored name of a man who is about to honor our society by joining it. Be so kind as to ask the Count of Lippe about it. He will, with the permission of the illustrious candidate, let us know it, supposing no change of resolution having taken place. The importance of the matter in question, and the presence of the Count of Lippe as well as yours, oblige us to do all in our power to make this high reception as worthy as possible. You know, Most Reverend Brother, what number of brethren the ceremony requires; the Count of Lippe, yourself, the Bros. Oberg, Stuven and Bielfeld will form the lodge, the splendor of which will be the brighter if you would take advantage of the fair at Brunswick to find some more brother Masons who might be worthy of attending such an illustrious reception. Baron v. Oberg, whom we revere as our Most Worshipful Grand Master at Hamburg, is in every respect competent to preside at the reception, and the Wardens whom we will bring along will not fail to perform their duties, etc.

The wish of the lodge to learn the name of the proposed must have been, although indirectly, complied with very soon, as appears from a letter of Bielfeld to Oberg, in which he says:

You deal with me, not as a brother, but indeed as a father Freemason. I shall participate in the great honor to initiate the Prince Royal of Prussia. I am aware of the whole value of the favor, and am ready to accompany you to Brunswick.

On the 10th of August, the above-named brethren, with the exception of Bro. v. Stein, who had an attack of fever, left Hamburg for Brunswick. The valet of the Bro. v. Oberg, named Rabon, accompanied them as servant-brother. A large box contained the necessary implements and tools.

The baggage caused the brethren some embarrassment at the gate of Brunswick, for an exciseman prepared himself to search it. "But," says Bielfeld, "we were merely a little frightened, for, in consideration of a ducat which I slipped into the officer's hand, he declared us gentlemen of quality and incapable of fraud."

The company put up at the Kron's Hotel, which had the sign and name of the Castle of Salzdahlum. This caused the pretty widely-spread rumor that Frederick II had been initiated as Freemason in the former ducal castle of this name, one mile from Brunswick. But this is not the case; the house, which then was a hotel, but is no longer a public house, is situated in Brunswick itself, in the "Breitestrasse," and has at present the insurance number of 722.

The counts von der Lippe and von Kielmansegge, as well as the Baron of Albedyll, arrived almost at the same time as the Hamburgers, and the brethren met the same evening — 11th of August.

On the following morning, the thunder of cannon from the ramparts announced the arrival of the King of Prussia and his suite in the city, then exceedingly lively on account of the fair.

The brethren had agreed that none of them should appear at the court except the Count von der Lippe, who had been instructed to appoint with the prince the place and time of the reception. Bielfeld says:

His Royal Highness appointed the night of the 14th of August and desired the reception to take place in our quarters. They were indeed spacious, and in every respect suitable. There was only one thing to be found fault with, namely, the neighborhood of Mr. v. W., who had a room next to our entry, separated only by deal boards, so that he had a good chance to hear and to divulge much. This idea made us feel uneasy; but as the brethren from Hanover knew Mr. v. W's happy talent of drowning his sorrows in the cup, we attacked him on this weak point. After dinner, we paid him, one after another, a visit, and took our turns alternately to fight him glass in hand. Towards evening he was in such a condition that, even sleeping in a hattery, he would not have been awakened. So the thyrsus of Bacchus has done us as great a service as the finger of Harpocrates had hardly been able to do us.

The 14th was devoted entirely to the arrangement of the lodge and to preparations for the reception. Immediately after midnight the prince-royal appeared, accompanied by the Count of the Empire, von Wartensleben, captain in the king's giant regiment of Potsdam, whom the prince recommended as a candidate to be initiated directly after himself.

As for himself, he asked not to omit any of the usual severe trials, nor to show him any favor, but to consider him as a mere private person. In short, he was received according to the usual forms, and we admired his intrepidity. his deportment, and the grace which accompanied him even in the most critical moments.

I made a short speech, and after two receptions we passed over to an instruction. The prince seemed to be delighted with everything, and showed as much intelligence as dexterity.

All who were present were delighted with the individuality of the new illustrious brother — his beauty, the richness of his mind and soul, and his tender regard for the presiding Master, Bro. v. Oherg.

At four o'clock in the morning they had got through with everything, and parted, mutually pleased.

Although it was kept strictly secret that the prince-royal had become a Freemason, he found means to familiarize himself with the Craft. The following year, in the month of March, the Colonel Count Truchses of Waldburg, for political purposes, was sent to the Danish court. He had joined the brotherhood in France, where he had accompanied the King Stanislaus of Poland, and was commissioned by the Prince Royal to invite, when passing through Hamburg, the brethren Oberg and Bielfeld to visit the king in his ordinary residence, Rheinsberg.

Of all who had been present at his initiation in Brunswick, these two brethren, one in his function as president, the other as orator, had most attracted his attention.

For fear of raising the suspicion of the king, they were asked to repair first to Berlin, and to make there their appearance as ordinary travelers. They did so, and when in Berlin immediately sent word to the Count Truchses who, having expected them, called on, and in the afternoon received them, in his lodgings.

It is remarkable that the same property which then belonged to the Truchses, and was his usual residence, is now and has been for many years, the property and meeting place of the National Grand Lodge of the Three Globes and the lodges working under its charter.

King Frederick William I had presented the count with this property, which formerly had belonged to the fortification of Berlin. The count had built there a dwelling house and laid out a pleasant garden. Here the two brethren, whose high duty it had become to shed first the light of the Order in the Prussian states, called on him. Both, but especially the sympathizing, amiable Bro. Bielfeld, felt quite charmed when they first saw the pleasant residence of Bro. Count Truchses.

The Prince Royal having informed them from Rheinsberg that he wished, for good reasons, they might first go to Potsdam, they, provided with good recommendations, went there, were introduced to many persons, especially officers of the army, looked at all things worth seeing, and only then repaired to Rheinsberg, apparently nothing but ordinary travelers, curious to see also this place.

They were received most cordially by the Prince Royal and stayed until November, 1739, enjoying his hospitality. Bielfeld was even induced to promise to enter the Prussian service. While the brethren from Hamburg stayed in Rheinsberg, there was a great zeal and industry in works of the Craft, Bro. Oberg presiding at the receptions and promotions.

Everything was done with the utmost secrecy, but in 1740, immediately after his accession to the throne, Frederick publicly declared he was a Freemason. Already, on the 2nd of June, the fourth day of his reign, the king penned a few lines to his friend, Count Algarotti, who belonged to the Order, requesting him to come to Berlin. Keyserling, the young king's most intimate friend, added a postscript, in which he said:

The King has declared himself a Freemason, and so do I, following my hero's example. Acknowledge me, therefore, as a Master Mason.

Shortly after Prince William of Prussia and others were initiated at Charlottenburg in a lodge presided over by the King.

* * *


Bro. Erik McKinley Eriksson, Iowa


IN no state did the anti-Masons make a more determined effort to destroy Masonry than in Massachusetts. Though they seriously crippled the Institution they failed to accomplish their purpose, in spite of the fact that they numbered as one of their chief leaders John Quincy Adams, ex-President of the United States.

Prior to, and even for a short time after, the Morgan affair, numerous accessions to the Masonic ranks were reported. At the Grand Lodge meeting of Dec. 27, 1825, it was reported that there were 3,727 members in the lodges in the jurisdiction. During the year ending Sept. 1, 1825, there had been initiated a total of 874 persons. Seven charters for new lodges had been granted during the year. The fact that, on June 17, 1825, the Grand Lodge, assisted by General Lafayette, who was then touring America, had laid the cornerstone of the Bunker Hill monument, had greatly enhanced the prestige of the Fraternity. In 1826 a net gain of 583 members was reported and five more lodges were chartered.

In 1827 the reports were not so flattering. Only one charter was granted, while eight lodges had made no returns, as compared with two lodges which had been reported in arrears in 1825 and seven so reported in 1826. Though political anti-Masonry had not yet touched the state, the excitement stirred up in New York was evidently already producing effect in Massachusetts. At each succeeding regular communication, held in Boston, the attendance declined until in 1835 the lowest point was reached, with only seven lodges represented.


Despite the increasing fury of the anti-Masonic storm during the period, the Grand Lodge proceeded with plans for the erection of a Masonic Temple at Boston. On Oct. 14, 1830, a Masonic procession was formed at Faneuil Hall and moved to the site of the new building where the cornerstone was laid, after which an address was delivered by Grand Master Joseph Jenkins. It was estimated that between 2,000 and 2,500 Masons were present, including twenty-two clergymen and seven Revolutionary officers. The building was completed and was formally dedicated by the Grand Lodge on May 30, 1832. The address on the occasion was delivered by Rev. Bernard Whitman. It was described by "The Masonic Mirror," of Boston, "as one of the most ingenious and powerful arguments in defence of Masonry, ever pronounced."

One of the most interesting events produced by the anti-Masonic attacks was the publication of the famous "Declaration to the Public," issued in December, 1831, by the Masons of Boston and vicinity. At the time of its first publication it contained about 1,200 signatures. Later this number was increased to over 1,400. The "Declaration" was a brief document devoted to a denial of the charges against the Fraternity and to a statement of Masonic principles. The following passage is especially worthy of quotation:

The obligations of the Institution require of its members a strict obedience to the laws of God and of man. So far from being bound by any engagements inconsistent with the happiness and prosperity of the Nation, every citizen, who becomes a Mason, is doubly bound to be true to his God, to his country and to his Fellow-Men.

The authorship of the "Declaration" has been attributed to Charles W. Moore, who rendered yeoman service to the Fraternity during the excitement as editor of what was probably the most influential Masonic periodical in the United States, "The Masonic Mirror," and as Grand Secretary beginning in 1834.

Another matter of importance illustrating the effects of anti-Masonry in Massachusetts was the surrender by the Grand Lodge in 1833 of its civil charter, or "Act of Incorporation," which had been granted by the legislature June 16, 1817. This action was taken because of the persistence of the anti-Masons in the state legislature in endeavoring to secure the passage of laws interfering in the internal affairs of the Fraternity. A committee to consider the matter was appointed by the Grand Lodge on Dec. 12, 1833. On Dec. 27 it reported a "Memorial to the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives in General Court Assembled," which report was unanimously adopted by the Grand Lodge. The memorial reviewed the history of the Grand Lodge and ascribed as the reason for surrendering the charter the continued hostility of the legislature. The memorial made it very clear that the Grand Lodge was merely giving up its "corporate powers," such as the power to hold real estate, but that it "relinquished none of its Masonic attributes or prerogatives."

That there might be no misunderstanding of this action the Grand Lodge passed a supplementary resolution declaring that

the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts exists only as a voluntary association having and possessing all and the same rights, powers, privileges and immunities, under its ancient charter, in relation to Freemasonry, which said Grand Lodge had and possessed before the aforesaid act of incorporation was granted.

The chief result of the surrender of the civil charter was to force the Grand Lodge to relinquish possession of the new Masonic Temple. For a time it was in the possession of a private individual, but in 1835 a plan was devised whereby the building was repurchased and placed in the hands of a Board of Trustees, who were to hold and improve it for the benefit of the Grand Lodge.

From that time on the condition of Masonry in Massachusetts began to improve. This is well illustrated by the fact that on Jan. 16, 1837, a public installation of the Grand officers was held, with the members of the Grand Encampment of Massachusetts and Rhode Island and of the Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons of Massachusetts as invited guests. A procession was held and a gala occasion was made of the installation. Between 1,200 and 1,500 ladies and gentlemen attended the affair. It was not until 1845 that the first restorations of defunct lodges took place, but thereafter Masonry's recovery in Massachusetts proceeded more rapidly.


It is interesting to note that, in 1825, there were about three-fourths as many Masons in Rhode Island as in the State of Massachusetts. The 3,000 (approximately) Masons of Rhode Island, however, were included in only seventeen lodges, while the 3,727 members in the neighboring state were divided among 101 lodges. In 1826 two additional lodges were chartered in Rhode Island, raising the total to nineteen. It is apparent that one lodge (No. 14) had become defunct, so the number of active lodges at the time the Morgan affair occurred was only eighteen. Anti-Masonry made its appearance in the state in 1829, and soon gave tangible evidence of its presence. In 1831 the anti-Masons secured a legislative investigation of Masonry which resulted in nothing. But in 1832 they succeeded in securing the passage of a law forbidding extra-judicial oaths. Meanwhile, on June 13, 1831, the Grand Lodge issued an address to the people of the state. The address admitted the right of their opponents to memorialize the legislature and it granted the right of that body to investigate. Yet it claimed the privilege for the Masons to appeal to the people in self-defense. It also denied the various charges made against the Fraternity.

Later, on Aug. 7, 1832, replying to a recommendation of the General Assembly, that the Masonic organization should be discontinued, the Grand Lodge declared that the duty of Masons was plain, and that was to adhere to the Institution. On March 11, 1833, at a quarterly communication, the Grand Lodge unanimously adopted, in substance, the Massachusetts "Declaration" of 1831. This they circulated in pamphlet form under the title, Declaration of the Free-Masons of Rhode Island. The names of 634 Rhode Island Masons were signed to it.


The anti-Masons in the state legislature were evidently determined to do all in their power to secure laws unfavorable to Masonry. In January, 1834, the legislature repealed the civil charters of six of the lodges. At the same time all incorporated Masonic bodies in the state were required to make annual returns to the General Assembly of their proceedings with a list of all their members. Rather than submit, the Grand Lodge, when it met on March 17, 1834, voted to surrender its civil charter and recommended that the remaining lodges do likewise. At the session on June 24, 1834, this action was explained and it was made clear that the Masonic charter had not been given up, and that there was no intention of so doing. It was also pointed out that no local lodge had surrendered its Masonic charter since the excitement had begun.

During the whole period of the excitement the Grand Lodge met regularly and preserved its organization in spite of the strong attacks against it. At the close of the period of the anti-Masonic excitement it still had the same lodges on the list as when the trouble began, but the membership had decreased to about 950 in 1840. It is evident that some of the lodges were dead by that time and were kept on the list only because no action had been taken to eliminate them. But on Dec. 28, 1840, a movement was begun which culminated on Sept. 25, 1843, in the forfeiture of the charters of eight lodges. Two of these were restored on March 25, 1844, and one more on June 24, 1844. The process of recovery, thus begun, proceeded so slowly that, by 1856, the Fraternity had not yet attained the strength that it had had in 1826.


In no state where the political anti-Masons exhibited strength, did the Masons afford a stronger resistance to their enemies than in Connecticut. As in other states, Masonry was developing rapidly in this state before the anti-Masons developed strength. In 1825 there were sixty-five lodges in Connecticut, while by the time of the annual communication at New Haven, on May 14 and 15, 1828, there were 75 lodges listed. In 1828 the same number of lodges were represented as in 1825 though there were ten more on the list, which is evidence that anti-Masonry was making itself felt. Further evidence of this is afforded by the fact that only one new lodge was chartered in 1828.

By the time the Grand Lodge met at Hartford for its annual session, May 13, 1829, Freemasonry in the jurisdiction was bending under the full fury of the anti-Masonic storm. Though sixty-two lodges were represented, the Grand Secretary reported "a large and increasing delinquency in the returns from subordinate lodges, on account of the prevailing excitement and panic which was now existing on the subject of Masonry." On his suggestion it was ordered that the "meagre returns" should not be published until further notice.

The next year saw fourteen fewer lodges represented at the Grand Lodge meeting than in 1829. A report on delinquent lodges was presented by the Grand Secretary, but the matter of inflicting penalties was postponed, pending correspondence with these lodges by the Grand Secretary. The "appeal" of the Vermont Masons was presented and a resolution was adopted tendering sympathy to the Masons in the state bordering on the north. Before adjourning, the Connecticut Masons resolved to hold firm, "confiding in God and the rectitude of our intentions, for consolation under the trials to which we may be exposed."


The year 1831 marked the lowest point of Masonic decline in Connecticut during the excitement. The Early Records containing the proceedings of the annual communication at Hartford, May 11, 1831, do not list the number of lodges represented, but merely state that a quorum was present. The Grand officers refused to be candidates for re-election so a new set had to be elected, which was the only business transacted. By 1832 the situation was much improved, for forty-four lodges were represented. At the annual communication, May 9, 1832, at New Haven, there was adopted, in substance, the Massachusetts "Declaration." This was signed by about 1,400 Connecticut Masons, after which it was published in the various newspapers and in the proceedings.

In 1833 it was voted to remit "all fines and penalties now due for delinquencies," and the publication of returns was resumed. That Masonry in the state was well on the road to prosperity is indicated by the fact that, out of the thirty-five lodges which made returns, there had been initiations in eight. In the returns of each subsequent year "work" was reported by various lodges. During the period of the excitement a few lodges surrendered their charters. It was not until 1838 that the Grand Lodge took severe measures against those which had been delinquent for a long time. Fourteen such lodges were declared to have forfeited their charters. By 1839 there had been a net loss of twenty lodges since 1828, for only fifty-five remained on the list. The elimination of the dead timber had not yet been completed, for in 1840 the charters of seven more lodges were revoked. However, four other lodges had removed the causes of their delinquency and so saved their charters. In 1841 the charters of three lodges were restored, but at the same time four other charters were revoked. Thereafter enough lodges were restored or newly chartered to make the institution stronger in Connecticut in 1856 than it had been three decades before.


There is little to be said concerning the effects of anti-Masonry in New Jersey. Political anti-Masonry did not develop enough strength in the state to cause any serious difficulties, but the general excitement had the effect of greatly decreasing the attendance at the Grand Lodge sessions. Between 1825 and 1828, inclusive, eight new lodges were created. As early as 1827 two charters were surrendered, but it is difficult to see how this could be attributed at that date to anti-Masonry. The surrender of one charter in 1829 and one in 1830 were all the additional losses reported during the anti-Masonic period.

The low mark in Grand Lodge attendance was in 1832 and in 1834, in each of which years only four lodges were represented. It is interesting to note that in 1832 a new lodge was chartered. In 1839 there were still forty-one lodges on the list, but most of them were inactive. No action in regard to these was definitely taken, however, until 1842. At the annual communication, Nov. 9, 1841, the Grand Secretary submitted a report showing that out of fifty-eight lodges which had been chartered during the history of the Grand Lodge, only eight were actively at work. Seven had been stricken off the list, nine had surrendered their warrants, while thirty-three had ceased to work but still retained their warrants. With the consent of the Grand Lodge two lodges had united to form one. (1)

It was recommended that the dead lodges be eliminated and those remaining be renumbered. This recommendation was acted on at the meeting of the Grand Lodge at Trenton on Nov. 8, 1842. The thirtythree non-functioning lodges were stricken from the list, but two were immediately restored. These, with the eight previously active, were renumbered from 1 to 10. Thereafter, the Grand Lodge of New Jersey may be said to have been on the up-grade. By 1856 it had attained a strength greater than it had had thirty years before.


Little information is available regarding the effects of anti-Masonry on the Masonic Fraternity in Delaware. Up to and including 1825 only fifteen lodges had been chartered in the state, and of these three were already extinct. In 1826 and 1827 there were three additional charters granted, but to partially offset this gain, one charter was forfeited in 1827. In the years 1825, 1826 and 1827, all the existent lodges were represented at the annual communications held at Wilmington — a unique record not equalled by any other jurisdiction except the District of Columbia. But in 1829 the attendance fell to nine lodges, indicating that the anti-Masonic excitement was having effect. The best commentary on the effects of the excitement thereafter is afforded by the fact that no Grand Lodge proceedings were published from 1830 to 1844, inclusive. By 1856 it is apparent that Masonry in Delaware was stronger than it had been before the Morgan affair, at least insofar as the number of lodges on the list was concerned.


In view of the bitterness with which the anti-Masons in Pennsylvania, led by Thaddeus Stevens and Joseph Ritner, assailed the Masonic Fraternity, it is surprising that the Institution did not suffer a greater decline than it actually did. As was true of New York, so in the case of Pennsylvania it is edifying to take stock of Masonry in the state before the anti-Masonic excitement began in order to form a correct estimate of what happened during the excitement.

It is interesting to note that, in 1825, the warrants of three lodges were "vacated for delinquency," ten other lodges were suspended, while twenty-six were declared "not at this time entitled to a representation in the Grand Lodge." A total of $17,240.08 was reported as owed by the subordinate lodges to the Grand Lodge on Dec. 27, 1824. The unhealthy condition then existing in Pennsylvania Masonry is further shown by the fact that, in 1825, there were reported sixty eight expulsions, ninety-eight suspensions, thirty-five rejections and eighteen reinstatements. Meanwhile six new warrants were reported as issued during the year. Though there were 103 lodges on the list, the highest number represented during the year was thirty seven, at the Quarterly Communication, Dec. 5, 1825. Similar figures might be given for 1826.


By the latter part of 1827 and early 1828, anti-Masonry had spread from New York and had made itself felt in the northern part of the state and in a few other places where prejudice against Masonry had been manifested earlier. That the state as a whole had not yet been affected is shown by the fact on May 3, 1828, the Grand Lodge laid the foundation stone of Washington Lock, No. 1, of the Pennsylvania Canal at Pittsburgh. It is noteworthy that the Grand Lodge attendance was not seriously affected by anti-Masonry until 1836. The political control of the state, for three years beginning in 1835, by the anti-Masonic-Whig coalition, featured by Stevens' fruitless legislative persecution of the Masons, was bound to have some effect. Yet, as the chart shows, the Grand Lodge representation did not decline greatly.

It was during this most critical period of Masonry's existence in Pennsylvania that the first drastic action was taken towards delinquent lodges. Previously, attempts had been made, but with little success, to improve the internal conditions in the jurisdiction. To ease the burden of debt with which the Grand Lodge was weighted down, action was taken in 1835 to sell the Masonic Hall in Philadelphia to "Franklin Institute" and buy a smaller hall. Instead of improving matters, the Grand Lodge affairs were merely further complicated by this move, for, in 1841, it was necessary to take back the original hall from "Franklin Institute" which had failed to pay for it. In 1836 the Grand Secretary was instructed to cancel the debts of subordinate lodges to the Grand Lodge to the end of 1834 on condition that they make returns and pay dues for 1835. This evidently failed to secure the desired results for, on Feb. 6, 1837, the Grand Lodge declared the warrants of fifty-five delinquent lodges "vacated." Nine other lodges were given additional time to remove their delinquency.


While, apparently, Masonry in Pennsylvania was at a low ebb from 1836 to 1839, inclusive, the proceedings for those years reveal some surprising facts. For example, in the 24 lodges in the city and county of Philadelphia there were reported seventy-one initiations and thirty admissions. These gains, however, were offset by 102 who "ceased" their Masonic membership. The total number of members in these lodges was 705. In the lodges outside of Philadelphia County, numbering twenty-one "legal" lodges (including two restored in 1837), there were fifty-eight initiations and thirty-one admissions during 1837, which together exceeded by twenty-two the number who ceased their membership. The total number of Masons in these lodges was given as 346, making the total lodge membership in the state 1051 at the time. In 1838 there were reported 151 initiations in the lodges of the city and county of Philadelphia and eighty-seven initiations in the other lodges. On Sept. 2, 1839, the Grand Secretary reported that three lodges had resumed their labors. Although the highest representation at any Grand Lodge meeting in 1839 was lower than in any previous year, there can be no question but that the Masonic Fraternity in Pennsylvania was on the up-grade. By 1856 it was far stronger than it had ever been and was expanding rapidly.


In considering the condition of Freemasonry in Ohio it becomes increasingly difficult to determine just what effects anti-Masonry had on the Fraternity. The decline in attendance, as shown by the chart, cannot all be attributed to anti-Masonry, for the proceedings give some indication that, at least in the early thirties, cholera was a factor in making some lodges dormant.

Up to 1831, anti-Masonry evidently had had but little effect on the Fraternity in the state as a whole. Each year from 1826 to 1829 new lodges had been chartered, including eight in 1826, four in 1827, six in 1828, and two in 1829. In 1830 it is recorded in the proceedings that one dispensation was granted, but a list accompanying the proceedings for the year names seven lodges as being under dispensation. In 1831 two additional charters were granted.

Then followed a few years of varying fortunes — a few lodges being reported as surrendering their charters, others being reported as resuming labor. In 1837 the Grand Lodge met at Lancaster instead of at Columbus, and this change marked the beginning of a return to prosperity. At this annual communication, held in June instead of in January, as formerly, two new charters and one dispensation were granted. The next year two more charters and one dispensation were granted, while four lodges resumed work. One lodge was reported as surrendering its charter. At this 1838 communication it was decided to forfeit, at the next annual communication, the charters of those lodges which had not been represented for three years. In 1839, this action does not seem to have taken place, for eighty-four lodges remained on the list. It was reported that only thirty-eight lodges were working and that forty-six had "ceased." At the 1839 communication three additional charters were granted and plans were made for the construction of a Grand Lodge building at Lancaster. Thereafter new charters and revivals of dormant lodges were reported in large numbers, with the result that, by 1856, the Grand Lodge of Ohio was numerically four times as strong as it had been in 1825.


During the period of the anti-Masonic excitement, the number of lodges in Indiana decreased considerably. Yet, an examination of the proceedings shows that the whole decline cannot be attributed to anti-Masonry. In 1829, the charters of four lodges were "arrested" because of long standing delinquency, antedating the "excitement." From 1825 to 1831 the number of lodges was increased by the granting of thirteen new charters. By the latter date the anti-Masonic excitement was making itself felt. The Grand Secretary, in 1831, reported that there were only ten lodges which were not delinquent either because of non-payment of dues or on account of non-representation at the 1830 communication.

In 1832 there was a marked decrease in the Grand Lodge representation. As a result it was decided to divide the Grand Jurisdiction into five districts with a district agent in each to visit the lodges in order to stimulate them to greater interest and activity. The next year the plan was modified and seven "Visiting Districts" were created. At this 1833 communication one dormant lodge was revived. In 1833, as previously in 1830, it was necessary, because of insufficient representation, to adjourn the Grand Lodge from October to December. The adoption of a new constitution in 1833 changed the quorum requirement so that future adjournments would not be necessary because of small representation of lodges.


The 1834 communication witnessed the disposal of a proposition to surrender the charter of the Grand Lodge. At this meeting one dispensation and one charter were granted. All delinquent lodges were cited to appear at the next annual communication to show cause why they should not be stricken from the roll of the Grand Lodge. This had the effect of doubling the attendance in 1835. At this meeting one lodge was revived and one new lodge was chartered. Four delinquent lodges were ordered stricken from the list.

No more lodges were revived or chartered until 1838. In that year one was chartered, and likewise one in 1839. By 1842 Freemasonry in Indiana may be safely said to have been on the up-grade. That year two lodges were chartered and there were five under dispensation. Nine reported that they had initiated members during the year. An era of prosperity was under way that was to result in the Grand Lodge of Indiana becoming almost seven times as large in 1856 as it was in 1825.


Of the other two Grand Lodges which existed in the North before the Morgan affair, little needs to be said. It was not so much the strength of anti-Masonry as the weakness of the Grand Lodges themselves that caused the Grand Lodges of Illinois and Michigan to become defunct. The Grand Lodge of Illinois, organized by a convention at Vandalia in December, 1822, held its first annual communication at the same place a year later. The meagre records available concerning it show that it was never very firmly established. The fact that no communication was held in 1825 is evidence of this. Meetings in 1826 and 1827 were attended by only a few lodges, though there were fifteen "in the obedience of the Grand Lodge." A meeting was held in 1828 but no record of its proceedings is extant. Thereafter organized Freemasonry disappeared in the state, but just why is not clear. It is not reasonable to think that anti-Masonry was to blame entirely for this — in fact, there is little evidence ta show that the anti-Masons had any strength in the state. The instability of the Masonic organization coupled perhaps with fear aroused by exaggerated reports of happenings in New York, seem to offer a better explanation of why the Masons in Illinois gave up their organized existence so quickly. Had the anti-Masonry been strong in the state, it is not probable that nine lodges would have been chartered within its bound between 1835 and 1839 by the Grand Lodges of Kentucky and Missouri, thus making it possible to organize the second Grand Lodge of Illinois in 1840 which by 1856, was to have 185 lodges on the list.


The situation in Michigan is equally inexplicable. In 1826, less than two months before Morgan's disappearance, there was organized the Grand Lodge of the Territory of Michigan, with Lewis Cass as Grand Master. In 1827 it received the approval of the other Grand Lodges and appeared to be on the road to prosperity. In that year the sixth lodge in the jurisdiction was installed at Ann Arbor and a dispensation was granted for a lodge at Stony Creek. Little else can be said of this Grand Lodge except that it voted, in 1829, to suspend Masonic work. It is true that in that year the political anti-Masons were strong enough to control the election of the territorial delegate to Congress but that should not have meant that Masonry could not continue to exist. Of course the Grand Lodge was newly established, but it should not have been destroyed by the first gust of anti-Masonry. The fact that Stony Creek Lodge continued to meet regularly during the whole period following to 1840, proves that it was possible for Masonry to exist in the region. Probably no better explanation can be offered than the suggestion made by Jefferson S. Conover, the historian of Michigan Masonry, that Cass, putting politics above Masonry, used his influence to bring about the suspension of the Grand Lodge, though such a suspension could have been avoided.

During the whole decade of the thirties Masonry was kept alive in Michigan by Stony Creek Lodge. In 1841 an attempt was made to revive the Grand Lodge of Michigan. Because of irregularities in the procedure, the other Grand Lodges refused to recognize it so it was necessary to form a new Grand Lodge in 1844. This organization embarked on a prosperous career and by 1856 numbered eighty-four lodges within its jurisdiction.


It should be noted that in 1825 there were already fourteen dead lodges, whose demise could not be blamed on anti-Masonry. If it be accepted that the two lodges which surrendered in 1827 did so for reasons other than this, it becomes evident that one third of the dead lodges became so from other causes than antiMasonry.

(To Be Concluded)

* * *


Bro. A. H. Norris, Pennsylvania

The discussion on this subject in the pages of THE BUILDER has proved so far most interesting. The writer of the article in the February number, Fundamentals in Freemasonry , has, in my opinion, somewhat diverged from the main question, which as I understand it is this, "What conception of God" is required of a candidate when he makes the brief confession of faith demanded of him at his entrance into the Order? A "Lay Brother" defines as best he can his idea of God, and expresses a desire to know whether this is acceptable in the Masonic Order. M. W. Bro. Briggs says it is not acceptable because Freemasonry teaches a belief in the God of the Bible. He is not altogether fair because he does not define the God of the Bible before asserting that the God envisaged, by a "Lay Brother" is not to be accepted by the Fraternity. If then, we grant for the present, that the God of the Bible is the God of Freemasonry we are no nearer a solution than before. Bro. Briggs does not bring any evidence to support his contention except a report of a Masonic trial held in Missouri in 1888. The Grand Lodge of Missouri may be omnipotent in Missouri, but that does not help to solve the problem in Pennsylvania or New Mexico, when it is considered that the purpose of the discussion generally is to determine the question, "What is the limiting conception of God that the requirements of Anglo-Saxon Masonry imply?"

Granting for argument's sake that the God of the Bible is the God of Freemasonry, it is obvious that we must first know what the God of the Bible is before we can come to any conclusion. The position of Bro. Briggs takes it for granted that everyone knows what this Deity is and what He is supposed to be. But, the Bible taken by itself is not so clear as seems to be assumed, since, according to Bro. Briggs, the Bible is inspired by God all its statements about the Supreme Being must be accurate.

Let us consider the God that is pictured for us in the Old Testament, especially in Exodus, Deuteronomy, Joshua and Samuel. It is a tyrannical, capricious, jealous Deity that we find, continually threatening death and destruction and frequently bringing it to pass. A God who smites Miriam with leprosy to back Moses up in a family dispute, who is appeased by Phineas sticking a javelin through Zimri the son of Salu and the Midianite woman he had taken. A God who punished with death the least infraction of ritual observance, such as that of Korah Abiram and Dathan, or the men of Beth-Shemesh, of whom fifty thousand men were slain because they looked into the Ark of the Covenant when it came back from Philistia, or the death of the well-meaning Uzzah who put his hand out to steady it when the oxen drawing the cart shook it. But these, perhaps, are trifling matters to the approval, nay, more, the definite injunction to attack cities and villages and kill unsparingly men, women and children, as at Jericho, and Ai, and later the Amalekites. Or even within the nation itself as in the civil war with Benjamin, when by definite command the other tribes twice attacked and were defeated with great loss, and then at the third engagement almost destroyed the Benjamites. A few brief references such as these in no way do justice to the monotonous history of indiscriminate and bloody massacre related in the narrative parts of the earlier books of the Old Testament from Exodus to the wars of David, which Jehovah seems to highly approve; the only way to appreciate it is to read these books through.

Again, leaving out the strange appearances to Abraham and Jacob, what are we to think of the God who met Moses at the inn and tried to slay him, but who was appeased by the blood shed by his wife in circumcising their son, or the God whom Moses and Aaron and the elders saw in the mount standing, apparently, on a "paved work of a sapphire stone," or the God who showed Moses his "back parts"?

This is with no intent to appear irreverent, these things are there to be read by anyone who chooses in the inspired book. They are difficulties that have always been felt, and many have been the attempts to explain them, but none that are very satisfactory that do not allow for very wide' degrees in the amount of inspiration given to the different writers. These earlier pictures are wholly inconsistent with the later ideas of the prophets and some (not all) of the Psalms, as these again are immeasurably below the conception offered in the New Testament. Probably this latest conception is what Bro. Briggs refers to as the God of the Bible, but how does he explain or eliminate the other God who is equally of scriptural record?

In the whole argument he defeats himself, particularly when he says:

Each Freemason is left to his own interpretation of the teachings of the Bible concerning God, but when he rejects the authority of the Bible concerning God it is time for him to retire from the Order.

And again:

God is known only as he is revealed and Freemasonry finds in the Bible the revelation of God which each Freemason is left to interpret for himself.

According to the first statement the man who accepts the jealous, vengeful, threatening and domineering God first illustrated is entitled to become a Freemason and to remain one, but the man who, like our "Lay Brother," rejects this picture and attempts by philosophical reasoning to build up a conception of God, not in human form perhaps, nor with inhuman passions, but nevertheless including the attributes of the God of the Ten Commandments and of the prophets, is to be rejected and expelled. It sounds rather absurd.

As for the second assertion, if Freemasonry finds in the Bible the revelation of God, and this God is to be understood as the moral Being of the Ten Commandments, and the loving Father of the Gospels, then no Freemason is free to interpret the Bible for himself. He must accept the interpretation of the Fraternity. Sad, if true, but ridiculous because it is not true.

This is neither the time nor the place for a disquisition upon the Bible and Freemasonry, and whether or not the Masonic Fraternity is obliged to consider the Bible to be divinely inspired in the Fundamentalist sense. But there must, however, be some explanation of this relationship if we are to come to any conclusions upon the latitude to be allowed a member of the Craft in conceiving God. There is, in the whole ritual, only one place where it may be taken as implying that the Bible is considered to be inspired in the sense that God alone is speaking, and that the thought of the writer does not enter into the sacred word. It is said that "the Holy Bible is His inestimable gift to man." The sentence in itself is ambiguous, and if the attitude of the Fundamentalists in the Order is the only correct one it should be modified. If not, it may well stand as it is unless those who might be called Modernists insist like their Fundamentalist brethren that there is no view allowable but their own. I think even our "Lay Brother" would be inclined to say that the Bible was inspired by God. I cannot speak with authority on this point of course, but I judge this to be the opinion from the general tone of his article. It was not, however, inspired in the sense that every word in the Bible is the literal word of God, but in the sense that every great and important undertaking is inspired. In this sense Confucius, Buddha, Socrates, Plato were inspired, and even Aristotle, Galileo, Copernicus and hundreds of others who have opened fresh vistas to human thought and conquered new realms of knowledge. There is nothing in such a view which conflicts with the ritual phrase.

The most important argument in support of the view of a "Lay Brother" lies in nearly the concluding paragraph of his article, where he says

Since I was not asked to define in precise terms just what the God I trusted and believed in was, I can see no reason why anyone has any just cause for complaint because I happen to hold to an opinion which differs from his. I do not ask him to change his God and substitute mine in order to stay in the Fraternity. I respect the opinions of others, they are doubtless as near right as I am, and I leave them to enjoy such happiness as they may get from the contemplation of their God. I ask no more for myself.

The candidate is not asked to define his conception of God, and the Fraternity has no right to ask him to define it. Since he has not been asked for a definition of this God in whom he puts his trust what right have we as members of the Masonic Fraternity to afterwards foist upon him dogmatic assertions that such and such a thing must be believed or one cannot remain a Freemason? If he accepts the Bible as only a sublime work of philosophy, history, literature, or all three together, it makes no difference as long as he is willing that the lessons he can derive from it for himself should constitute a rule and guide to his faith.

We are distinctly told that Freemasonry is not a religion or a sect, unless it be that a belief in the One Living and True God, whatever that may mean exactly, makes it one. As long as a brother believes in something that, in a sense significant to himself, he is able honestly to call God, it makes no difference whether I or anyone else understand it in the same way or not. It is GOD to him, and that is the only thing important. I think there is need for tolerance, for less dogmatic criticism, for more appreciation of the views of others, and for more intelligent interpretation of the ritual than has hitherto been practiced. Some have understood it dogmatically and narrowly, others, and they are many, are too indifferent to try to understand or give it any meaning at all that affects themselves. Let the individual have his own understanding of God; the Supreme Architect of Freemasonry will then be a composite of the beliefs of all Freemasons and as such will be an all embracing symbolical designation. Certainly it is far better for a man to reject the view of inspiration held by the Fundamentalist and to believe in a Great and Good God, than it is for him to believe that every word, every phrase, every sentence of the Bible represents the utterance of the Almighty and thus be forced to accept that terrible God of vengeance and bloodshed which so much of the Bible presents to us.

* * *


Communicated by Bro. R. I. Clegg

Transactions have been published during 1925-1926 for the first year of the French Lodge of Research, St. Claudius, No. 21, of the National, Independent and Regular Grand Lodge of France, recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England. The Transactions are in pamphlet form, 5¼ by 8½ inches, 32 pages, with a frontispiece of Colonel N. S. H. Sitwell, the first Master. English is the native language of several of the members of the lodge and most of the contents of this pamphlet are therefore in that tongue. An account of the formation and progress of the lodge is given and there are the following readable contributions to the proceedings: "La Legende d'Hiram", in French, by Colonel Sitwell, who also submitted two others, "An Attempt to Reply to a Common Question" (What Is Freemasonry?) and "The Preparation in the First Degree," a paper in French on "Martinisme," by Brother N. Choumitsky, "The Conception of God in Freemasonry and Fatalism," by Worshipful Brother F. M. Leslie, and another address by Brother Sitwell on the "Principles and Foundations of the Order." The Transactions may be obtained for fifteen francs from the Secretary of the lodge. Brother W. J. Coombes, 10 bis, Avenue Gambetta, St. Germain-en-Laye (S.-&-O.) Paris, France. The Lodge of St. Claudius is devoted exclusively to Masonic study and was organized in 1924, the name being that of the first in order of the Four Crowned Masonic Martyrs of Rome, or the Quatuor Coronati. At the constitution of the lodge several interesting and useful gifts were made to the brethren. The volume of the sacred law was presented to the lodge by Brother the Rev. W. G. Allen, and is a copy of the Erasmus Gospels, printed at Nuremburg in 1648, and is in the original binding. A sword for the Director of Ceremonies was given by the Worshipful Master, Brother Sitwell, and is a claymore used at the Battle of Alma. The international character of this donation rendered it particularly suitable for the use of the lodge. The Ashlars were cut from a stone quarried at Jerusalem and were donated by Past Master Sharp. A medal or jewel for the lodge was designed for it by Brother W. Haywood, who also made the tracing boards from an old French pattern of 1745. The collars of the officers were the old ones of Centre des Amis Lodge, No. 1. Other lodges in Paris have vied with one another in furnishing additional articles for the service of this Lodge of Research in France.

* * *


Bro. John W. Shuman, California

It was in 1922 and '23 that my first opportunity came to know Syrian Mohammedans. During this time we had at the American University of Beirut, as students, assistants, confreres and friends, quite a number of "the Faithful," the usual name for the believers and followers of the Prophet Muhammed. The name Islam, which the latter used for his new faith, means submission (to the will of God implied) and "Moslem" is from the same root, meaning the one who submits. Incidentally the Moslem call Christians and Jews "unbelievers"; the rest of the world being "idolaters"; the distinction being that while it is admitted that the former worship true God, only in a heretical way, the latter follow after false gods.

In sunny Syria religion is a very vital issue. Really it has about the same meaning as politics in Europe and America. This Bible Land, where many Americans send old clothes and good money to aid the numerous Western Christian missionary institutions, has a large number of Ishmaelities in it. About two-thirds of its fez-and-baggy-pantaloon wearers believe that "There is but one God, and Muhammed is his Prophet!" This phrase is shouted every morning and evening from the numerous minarets throughout the Orient to call the Faithful to prayer.

The Koran is their Bible. Do not attempt to read that book as I did — in one continuous reading — it is entirely too heavy. As a result I do not remember very much of it. It says, however, that the Moslems believe in, honor and revere Jesus Christ, the Son of Mary, as one of their "Eighty Prophets." It is said also that they do not believe that so great a one was put to death by men, but that he escaped and another was substituted for him upon the Cross (most likely Simon of Cyrene who helped carry the cross along the Way of Sorrow), nevertheless they heartily curse the Jews for even trying to put Christ to death.

The children are taught daily at school from the Koran by the Sheykh, who is the teacher. In the market places the shopkeepers can be seen and heard reading from The Book in a chanting sing-song manner. Those who can recite whole pages every day believe that Allah will specially bless them. Saint Paul was pretty hard on women; Muhammed was equally if not more severe on them. No wonder this is a man's world — when both the Christian and Mohammedan religions make woman subject to her lord and master, man!

Moslem ladies still wear the veil. Those in Constantinople wear thinner ones than those in Syria, and so do the pretty ones! These don't put down the black mask so quickly when passing a strange man, even in Damascus. Women are pretty much alike the world over in some respects.

Many of our Moslem women hospital patients were over-modest according to our American customs. Some insisted on putting the hospital-bed-gown right on over their street clothes and then climbing into bed. A physical examination was sometimes almost an operation, necessitating the untying, unbuttoning, unhooking and unpinning by the nurses to get the patient's clothes off. Kindness usually won, although occasionally a patient refused to go to bed on account of this undressing. It does not pay to be too hard on folks, for if the individual's peace of mind is destroyed he or she is uncomfortable and unhappy, and not in a condition to benefit by treatment.

Syrian customs belong to another part of the world to ours. If they are changed by our missionaries and so called Occidental influences, that country will be robbed of much which now makes it attractive to the stranger visiting it, and quite comfortable to the natives who have to live there.

Spirituous drink and pig meat are forbidden to pass the lips of the "Believers." But the truth is that the Moslem is only a human being after all, and not at all perfect any more than ourselves. Jews have been known to call pork "fish" when they wanted to eat it; and Mohammedans will sometimes take alcohol as "medicine." Like the Christian, the Moslem is liable to err. Arak is the national spirituous drink of the country of the Vine and Fig, and it carries a terrific wallop! Cigarettes, the narghileh , coffee and sweetmeats are indulged in by both sexes.

The young Moslem is remaining true to "the Faith" in spite of Christian college and university training. To all outward appearances they are still Mohammedans. The modern educated Moslem, although seemingly convinced that Mohammedanism is not as great or satisfying a religion as Christianity, will remain true to the Mosque until the end of their days. We should appreciate just what it means in Mohammedan communities and countries for the "Believer" to change his religion. First, this Faithful one becomes Faithless and crushes his parents, especially his mother, with a deep sense of disgrace. She would much rather see him "a dead Moslem than a living Christian." We Westerners have little conception of the love and reverence that an Oriental has for his parents, especially his mother.

Second, it makes him break with his tribe. This break means more than the average Christian imagines. To the tribe his position is secure if he stays true, even though he is the offspring of a polygamous marriage. He may be poor (it is an unfortunate thing to be) but the poor one's place in the tribe is assured. The servant, shepherd, hammaul, scribe, judge or sheykh all have their niche in the group. If one is sick he will get attention. If he dies he will get a funeral. If he is loyal to the Ishmaelites, the Ishmaelites will be loyal to him.

But when he becomes disloyal to the Din (Religion) his tribe shuns him. He becomes an outcast — boycott and ostracism being used against him. If he goes out in the world of Gentiles he feels the finger of scorn pointed at him because he was a Moslem, perhaps a polygamous child. At best he is doubtful of just how the Christian will receive him, unless he comes to the Land of the Brave and the Free — there is a Mosque in Detroit. We in this country know how society receives an ex-criminal. He is invited to "move along," and he usually does move — back to his former associates. It is only the rare one, if he be lucky, who stays straight.

It takes a vast amount of courage to face the consequences of renouncing one's religion, especially if that religion be Mohammedanism. The convert pays a heavy price. Should we judge him too harshly for not paying it? The question quite naturally follows: should Christians strive to sell him a religion which costs so much? We should remember that many of our forefathers underwent tortures, lingering and fatal, because they would not change their religion; and we praise, honor and revere them, and have made saints out of many of them.

We personally had so much in common with our Moslem friends that we had no time to fight about our few religious differences. It didn't frighten us much to have an American missionary, who had been born in Syria, say of one of our Moslem friends, "Don't forget this fact, that if a religious uprising between Moslems and Christians were to take place today Doctor So-and-So would try to kill you!" I replied, "All is fair in love and war." This American friend had his throat cut a year ago by his Armenian servant — a Christian!

Our next door neighbors in Beirut were Moslems. Their children and ours enjoyed playing together in our spacious garden. Madame was sat down on by one or two of the stiff conservative old-time missionaries, who said, "Don't let your children play with these pagan natives, they will contaminate yours." Not much "brotherly love" in that remark; the thing Christianity strives to teach mankind.

The peaceful rest of a tired traveler in an Ishmaelite Bedouin Sheykh's home and his hospitality is, I assure you, not surpassed elsewhere.

It is said that a Christian Medical Missionary who had lived and practiced medicine in Syria for many years died. (He is one of the three men who translated the English Bible into Arabic). When his "will was read" it was discovered that he had appointed a Moslem Cadi (Judge) as administrator of his worldly goods. Surely there were plenty of his fellow missionaries to have chosen from; but none evidently compared, in his opinion, with this Cadi. This judge's son is a graduate of the Medical Department of the A.U.B., and is the Moslem friend referred to in the above paragraph. He is a credit to his sire. A missionary recently wrote me, "The Moslems of L— are more honest in their dealings with us than the Christians!"

This land of Syria is a land of great faith, from Abraham unto the present time. However the people do not have to exert much faith in reference to the feeding of Elijah by the ravens. They say that raven was the name of a nomad tribe that lived near the Jordan and carried cakes and water to Elijah, the prophet, when he was in hiding. I had thought, like many others, that he was served by the large black birds by that name, which are so numerous there; the kind that Poe "quoth" about.

Many think "the locusts and wild honey" diet of John the Baptist contained the flying (orthopterous) insects, which still come in swarms in some years, as in Pharoh's and Moses' time. But we learned the locust is a long pod with two or three beans in it which grows on a tree! From this bean-pod the natives make a syrup called "dibs," which our kiddies enjoyed eating on their bread.

All women have much in common. However, our Western women as a rule do not prefer a fourth of a husband, as did one intelligent Moslem woman, a wife of a very prominent Sheykh. She had her own children, house and servants, etc., and seemed quite happy. When asked, "Is such an arrangement (meaning being one of four wives) satisfactory?" she replied with the question, "Would you rather own the fourth of a good stallion or all of a poor one?" Strangely enough, exactly the same reply was made by a cultivated Chinese lady in answer to the inquiries of an American woman curious about intimate domestic arrangements.

Few of our Western women would care to carry burdens on their heads as do the women of Asia Minor and elsewhere in the East, or to trudge along in the dust of the ass her lordly master rides upon. These women, however, are not of the upper class. Our United states women prefer to have men look at their faces and not through a black veil unless they have scarred and wrinkled features. Our own women prefer to think and act for themselves so that they will keep fit for fifty, sixty or more years, instead of growing old and fat at forty, and giving place to a "favorite Fatima."

Oriental women love jewelry, use dyes, stains, paint and powder as makeup. They and their men use lots of loud perfume, as registered by our Occidental sense of smell. The stick for daubing black grease (kohl, or powder of antimony) along the margin of the eyelids is used very much. It is falsely thought that this will keep away eye diseases, especially chronic follicular conjunctivitis (trachoma) which is so common in Asia.

One woman in our women's medical ward gave every sign and symptom of lead poisoning as a cause for her sickness. Positive proof of its source was lacking until a lock of her hair was tested in a test tube with the proper chemical re-agent, which showed the presence of lead. Her hair dye had lead in it, which had poisoned her!

The Ramadan is the time of the Moslem's yearly fast and lasts from new moon to new moon during their ninth month, which compares to our May. They have a different calendar from ours. This is their thirteenth century whilst it is our twentieth. It is a period similar to our Lent, set aside for fasting, almsgiving and self-denial. Most observe this rite by neither eating nor drinking from 3 a.m. to sundown. Those who are more faithful refuse to swallow their saliva during these hours. After this fast comes the feast, at which time the fatted calf or sheep is killed and lively celebrations are in order.

It is the life ambition of Allah's devout ones to visit Mecca, the capital of Hejaz in West Arabia, Muhammed's birthplace. Whilst we were in Beirut a mighty pilgrimage was on, those coming from Cairo came by boats to Beirut and went on East by automobile caravans. It is a question if the Prophet would advise his pilgrims such ease and luxury in travel. Time changes all things. No doubt but that in a few years Mecca will be made by air travel and these "Shriners" can visit their Holy of Holies yearly instead of but once in a lifetime.

* * *



Editor-in-Chief — R. J. Meekren


Louis Block, Iowa
Robert L. Clegg, Ohio
Gilbert W. Daynes, England
Ray V. Denslow, Missouri
George H. Dern, Utah
N. W. J. Haydon, Canada
R. V. Harris, Canada
C. C. Hunt, Iowa
Charles F. Irwin, Ohio
A. L. Kress, Pennsylvania
F. H. Littklefield, Missouri
Joseph E. Morcombe, California
Joseph Fort Newton, New York
Arthur C. Parker, New York
J. Hugo Tatsch, Iowa
Jesse M. Whited, California
David E. W. Williamson, Nevada

* * *


THE response to the announcement of the new course for study groups and individuals has shown that there is a real and widespread desire for more light among the members of the Craft, and a need for advice and guidance in seeking it. The typewritten copies of the Syllabus were exhausted long before the printed ones were ready, and this fact, plus the confusion of moving, has caused some unavoidable delay in dealing with applications, for which we here offer a general apology, and we hope that impatient members who are all "ready to go" will exercise the virtue of patience, and throw over our temporary shortcomings in this matter the cloak of fraternal charity. The printed copies are now ready and should be duly sent out to applicants before this appears.

* * *


THIS number of THE BUILDER has gone to press amid the confusion of moving. Fortunately the major part of the work was done while the shadow only of this catastrophic event hung over us. The moving of an office and its equipment is problem enough, but when to this is added an extensive library and an enormous mass of clippings, pamphlets and other like material it becomes very complex indeed, if there is not to be a complete cessation of work. At the moment we are in the very thick of it, and hope springs perennial in the breast because it is difficult to imagine that "the worst is yet to come," seeing how bad things are!

Seriously, the move will be very advantageous in many ways. Our old quarters were becoming very cramped and no more space was available in the building. Our new offices are not only more commodious, but also have the great advantage that we are now under the same roof as our printers, which will save much time and energy and going to and fro. To out-of-town visitors it should also be more convenient as we are now within a short walk of the Union Railway Station; and members of the Society passing through St. Louis, with an hour or two to spare, will be able to come in and call on us. Previously we were, in Biblical phrase, living under our own olive tree (there is no Fig street in St. Louis), now we are shaded by a Locust. As it was the fruit of this shrub that is supposed to have formed a large part of the diet of St. John the Baptist, we offer the suggestion to our symbolists that here is a chance for them to make out some mystical or occult connection. Lest this attempt at pleasantry seem too obscure it may be as well to add as a clue to the mystery that our present address is 1627 Locust Street.

* * *


IT would seem as if the time had at last come to really do something about the Tuberculosis situation. We have had investigations and surveys until it begins to remind us of the incident in Dickens' novel Bleak House, where a man wished to assist a destitute woman without her knowing whence came the relief, and left a considerable sum of money with a charitable organization for this purpose. When he inquired about it later he was informed that the money had been spent in investigating the case, while the woman was starving.

We believe that the majority of the Craft are ready to help, the obstacles and delays have largely arisen through official red tape. Questions of jurisprudence, precedents, jurisdiction and so on seem to bulk very largely in the eyes of some good brethren; further information is demanded, safeguards of various kinds, lest some sovereign body should be contributing money without controlling its disbursement, fears that some might receive more benefit than others. There is nothing to say against this, laws and constitutions are meant to be obeyed, precedents should be followed when possible, action should not be taken without information — but in the meantime hundreds of our brethren are dying — slowly, and in great anguish of mind. Were any one of these pitiful cases actually brought before their eyes there is not one of these objectors but would do far more individually than is asked of the Craft at large, for if every Mason in the country responded the price of just one meal would be sufficient.

The trouble is, the great difficulty to be overcome, is the lack of imagination, the power to visualize the absent case which comes at second-hand through the cold medium of words and figures. During the course of any one year there are thousands of people who are killed by some accident; it causes no stir whatever. But let a theater burn, or a train be wrecked or a ship lost at sea, and at once everyone is filled with horror and sympathy. What is the difference between a hundred or so people suffering at once in the same place, or thousands in different places at different times? There was last year a great catastrophe in Florida. Because disaster came suddenly to a great number of people at once, the country was thrilled with horror, the Masonic Fraternity among the rest. The different jurisdictions under the spur of sympathy contributed large sums for relief. Why should it have been so easy to do this at a moment's notice, and so hard to get anything done for the greater need? So far as can be seen it is merely that the lesser emergency was more spectacular, and so had greater appeal to the hearts of the brethren.

But there are significant indications that at last things are beginning to move. Everywhere influential Masons are thinking about the problem, it is beginning to be realized that something must be done. The Grand Commander has recommended to the Supreme Council of the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite that a sanatorium should be established. Most Worshipful Bro. E. R. Bryan in his address to the Grand Lodge of Texas devoted considerable time to the question. He quoted correspondence with the Executive Secretary of the Masonic Service Association. Everyone intimate with the development and progress of the Tuberculosis Campaign knows what the Masonic Service Association has done in the matter, but it will interest them to learn what the Executive Secretary had to say. He wrote to the Grand Master of Texas:

"I am tremendously interested in Tubercular Relief, and the Masonic Service Association is squarely behind the movement. Enclosed is a copy of the report made to the Association by the Executive Commission at the last annual meeting in Chicago, on the back of which is printed the report of the special committee of the Association which was unanimously and enthusiastically adopted."

Unfortunately in spite of the enthusiasm and unanimity at Chicago, and elsewhere where the problem has been discussed, no definite practical progress was made; for which reason New Mexico organized the National Masonic Tuberculosis Sanatoria Association on a most carefully devised plan to make it a truly national body. Since it has been at work a great deal has been accomplished. First and foremost the more pressing and urgent cases have received emergency relief, which though it makes no such showing as a building in brick and stone, has been nevertheless a truly Masonic structure.

But the opportunity has now come to do something more definite, more tangible. The Tuberculosis Association has the option of buying outright a Sanatarium put up as a private venture which is to be sold to pay a mortgage. The sum required is much less than it would cost now to erect equivalent buildings, and they are in excellent repair. It is almost a providential chance, and the Association is seeking to obtain the funds necessary to make the purchase. We hope, therefore, that all members of the Society will exert their influence in their own circle to the utmost to obtain support for this — and the necessary funds. Lodges or Study Clubs might do well to bring the matter up, to have papers prepared to give the facts and figures that demonstrate the need. Material enough for this has already appeared in the pages of THE BUILDER, but if more be needed Bro. R. J. Newton will gladly furnish it. This is a real opportunity for Masonic Service of the truest kind; let us not meet it with merely passive approbation — action is what is needed now.

* * *

Government arrogates to itself that it alone forms men.... Everybody knows that government never began anything. It is the whole world that thinks and governs.

— Wendell Phillips.

* * *

Governments exist to protect the rights of minorities. The loved and the rich need no protection — they have many friends and few enemies.

— Wendell Phillips.

* * *


Bulletin of the National Masonic Tuberculosis Sanatoria Association

Incorporated by Authority of the Grand Lodge of New Mexico, A.F. & A.M.

Masonic Temple, Albuquerque, N.M.


Herbert B. Holt, Grand Master, President

Richard H. Hanna, Vice-President

Jaffa Miller, Vice-President

Alpheus A. Keen, Secretary

FRANCIS E. LESTER, Executive Secretary, Las Cruces, New Mexico

JOHN W. TURNER, Treasurer

ARIZONA — Lloyd C. Henning, Holbrook.

ARKANSAS — Claude L. Hill, Grand Master, Booneville.

CONNECTICUT — Fred A. Verplanck, Past Grand Master, South Manchester.

FLORIDA — Cary B. Fish, Grand Master, Sarasota.

GEORGIA — Dr. J. P. Bowdoin, Past Grand Master.

IDAHO — Will H. Gibson, Grand Master, Boise.

KENTUCKY — G. Allison Holland, Grand Master, Lexington.

MINNESOTA — Albert F. Pray, Grand Master, Minneapolis,

MISSISSIPPI — John R. Tally, Grand Master, Hattiesburg.

MISSOURI — Wm. W. Martin, Grand Master, Doniphan.

MONTANA — Dr. W. J. Marshall, Missoula.

NEW JERSEY — Benjamin F. Havens, Junior Grand Warden, Trenton.

NEW MEXICO — Herbert B. Holt, Grand Master, Las Cruces.

NORTH CAROLINA — Dr. J. C. Braswell, Past Grand Master, Whitakers.

NORTH DAKOTA — Dr. J. S. Lamont, Dunseith.

OKLAHOMA — Gilbert B. Bristow, Past Grand Master, Roosevelt.

RHODE ISLAND — Howard Knight, Past Grand Master, Providence.

SOUTH CAROLINA — Charlton DuRant, Grand Master, Manning.

SOUTH DAKOTA — L. M. Simons, Grand Master, Bellefourche.

TENNESSEE — Andrew E. McCullagh, Grand Master, Maryville.

TEXAS — Dr. Felix P. Miller, El Paso.

UTAH — Fred M. Nye, Ogden.

VERMONT — Christie B. Crowell, Grand Master, Brattleboro.

WASHINGTON — Morton Gregory, Grand Master, Masonic Temple, Tacoma.

WISCONSIN — Fred L. Wright, Past Senior Grand Warden, Milwaukee.

WYOMING — Frank S. Knittle, Grand Master, Casper.

ORDER OF THE EASTERN STAR, GENERAL GRAND CHAPTER — Mrs. Clara Henrich, Most Worthy Grand Matron, Newport, Ky.

Robert J. Newton, Editor, Publicity Director N.M.T.S.A. Las Cruces, New Mexico.

The Working Plan

At the meeting of the Board of Governors of the National Masonic Tuberculosis Sanatoria Association, held in Chicago Nov. 19, 1926, a resolution was adopted instructing the Association's officers to "begin the work of relief and hospitalization at the earliest possible moment." The Board authorized an appeal for the necessary funds for "immediate emergency relief end hospitalization."

The first moneys received in response to this appeal for aid and assistance for sick Freemasons and members of their families, will be expended for their relief in homes and to pay for their care and treatment in existing hospitals. In some cases the entire support of the patient and of the family may have to be assumed. In others it will mean only partial support. In some instances the cooperation of Masonic lodges and other Masonic bodies to which tuberculous Masons belong will be secured, to pay all or part of the cost of care. On the other band, we shall solicit cooperation in the administration of relief by Masonic lodges and Masonic bodies and Masonic Boards of Relief in the cities and towns where the patients reside. Similar cooperation by tuberculosis societies, charity societies and from health and hospital authorities will also be solicited. Such assistance will reduce to the minimum the overhead expense of handling these cases.

In addition to the physical examination of the patient to ascertain his condition and his needs, for medical and hospital care, every member of the patient's family, and especially 'the children, living in the home of the consumptive, must be examined by a competent physician to ascertain if they are tuberculous or in danger of contracting the disease. In many cases hospital care, if given in time, may prevent the consumptive's wife and children developing into active cases.

In many cases, either the patient, or his children, will have to be removed from the home for the protection of the children. In such cases it is usually to the best interest of both patient and the family to remove the patient to the hospital even though there be no hope of saving his life.

The advice and assistance of experienced tuberculosis and charity workers, and organizations, and of medical specialists in the treatment of tuberculosis, will be available to the Sanatoria Association and will be secured in handling this work of relief and hospitalization.


The Board of Governors also instructed the officers to continue the educational and publicity campaign:

"To disseminate among the Freemasons of America, and their families, and others, scientific knowledge and useful information as to the causes and methods of treatment for the prevention, relief and cure of tuberculosis; and as to the purposes and objects of this corporation."

Tuberculosis educational work is carried on by means of news items and special articles in the Masonic and daily press; by the distribution of literature; by lectures in "open meetings" of Masonic bodies, which lectures are usually illustrated by stereopticon and moving pictures; by visiting nurses and by other methods which will be developed. The cooperation of tuberculosis workers and organizations will be available and will be secured in all of this work.

The National Tuberculosis Association, and its affiliated state and local societies, give much credit for the great decrease in the mortality and morbidity from tuberculosis during the last twenty years, to the great national, popular educational campaign which has been conducted by these organizations and by public health authorities.


The Board of Governors of the Sanatoria Association also directed the officers to "have prepared, as soon as possible, definite data for the construction of a Masonic Tuberculosis Sanatorium to be erected by this Association, the same to be submitted to the governing Board at a later meeting."

This information is now being secured for this purpose. From information given us by the National Tuberculosis Association and others who have studied the subject, it appears that the cost of tuberculosis hospital construction varies from $2,500 to $5,000 a bed. This latter figure applies in the handling of the more advanced cases, who are in need of the character of treatment given in general medical and surgical hospitals. The housing of the ambulant and semi-ambulant cases is not so expensive. In the inspection of recently built tuberculosis sanatoria by the officers of the Association, several have been found which are considered good examples of the type of institution which the Association should provide for Freemasons, and which have cost not to exceed $2,500 a bed.

In the planning of a public tuberculosis sanatorium it is customary to design the institution so that it may be enlarged at a later date. This should be done in the planning of the first Masonic Tuberculosis Sanatorium. The necessary funds for the construction of a hospital of 100 to 150 beds can be secured in less time than for a larger institution. The work of salvage can therefore be started in a shorter period of time if a sanatorium of that size is determined upon. A hospital of 100 to 150 beds would cost from $250,000 to $375,000.

In the planning of such an institution there should be a main building, in which men patients will be cared for, and which may also contain the business and medical offices, dining rooms and kitchen, club and social rooms, library, etc. At a later date separate buildings may be provided for these departments of the institution's activities. The heating plant may also be installed in or adjacent to the main building, until such time as larger quarters are required.

The main building may also house women and children patients, medical officers, nurses and employees, until separate buildings can be provided for their needs and use.

The first, or men's building, should provide for the care of at least 100 patients. The building for care of women and children, which will be built later, should provide for at least 50 patients.

All buildings should be of fireproof construction. Patient's rooms should be equipped with baths, or connecting baths, and with sleeping porches. The building should contain the latest modern facilities that are found in the highest type of private pay hospitals for care of the tuberculous, but no extravagance should enter into the details of construction. The grounds of the Masonic Sanatorium should be beautifully landscaped and made attractive to both patients and visitors. A playground for the children should also be provided.


A Masonic Sanatorium cannot discriminate in the admission of patients. Some public and private hospitals refuse admission to the advanced and hopeless cases because of the unfortunate effect their presence has upon the more hopeful and possibly curable cases. Masonic obligations will compel us to accept and care for Masons in the advanced and hopeless stage of the disease. Their removal from homes is also necessary for the protection of their families, especially the children of tender years. However, it is unfair to the first and second stage cases, for whom there is every hope for "arrest" of their disease, to have them in close contact with the men and women who are near to death. As soon as possible, therefore, an infirmary, a separate hospital building, must be provided to permit the segregation of the advanced cases from the ambulant and semi-ambulant patients.


Provision must also be made for the care of tuberculous children. Many of the little ones who are afflicted with bone tuberculosis are also suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis. It has been found difficult, on that account, to secure admission to Shrine and other hospitals for children with tuberculous spines, or with hip or joint disease. The officials of Shrine Hospitals very properly take the position that they must operate these institutions on the principle of the greatest good to the greatest number. A child with a tuberculous spine, or with a tuberculous hip or knee joint, requires months and even years of care. His occupancy of a bed in a Shrine Hospital during that time will prevent a number of other crippled children, whose deformities may easily be corrected in a very short time by medical and surgical treatment, from securing such treatment. It is, there fore, unfair to them to admit the tuberculous child. But these children must be cared for and the number of hospitals for their care and treatment is all too few in America. Inasmuch as their condition is due, very often, to close association with a tuberculous father or mother, and as the Masonic Fraternity has failed in the past to protect them by hospitalization of their sick parents, it would seem to be the Fraternity's duty to provide for their care in Masonic Tuberculosis Sanatoria, as is the duty of the Fraternity to care for their sick fathers and mothers. These children will have to be cared for in the main building until the women's and children's building is constructed. After that building is in operation, if their numbers justify it, a separate children's building should be built.

In making the ground plan, and in planning the buildings of the First National Masonic Tuberculosis Sanatorium, all of the foregoing must be taken into consideration and provision made for the enlargement of the institution adequately to provide for the care and treatment of all cases, and for a sufficient number of hospital buildings and beds for their care. It is not expected, and it may not be necessary in the beginning of this work, to build an institution of great size, but provision must be made for its development to meet the demands which will be made upon it within the next few years, and until such time as the need will require the construction of another Masonic Sanatorium.

The expert advice and assistance of the National Tuberculosis Association will be secured in the planning of this Sanatorium.

No site has been selected for the location of the First National Masonic Tuberculosis Sanatorium. Doubtless many cities will offer sites, and some cities will offer a cash bonus, to secure the location of this hospital. Such offers must not be allowed to influence the selection of a location, but it must be determined solely from the standpoint of the best interests of the patients to be cared for in the institution. The advice and assistance of the National Tuberculosis Association will also be secured in this important matter.

If it is possible to find a "going" institution, an existing Sanatorium of adequate size, and capable of enlargement as outlined above, and properly located, such an institution may be purchased in order to enable the Association "to begin the work of relief and hospitalization at the earliest possible moment."


The construction of the First National Masonic Tuberculosis Sanatorium may be financed by "selling" various units, or parts of the institution, buildings, service rooms, patients' wards, bed rooms and sleeping porches to Masonic bodies, and to organizations affiliated with Freemasonry, or whose membership is based upon Freemasonry, and to individual Freemasons and members of Masonic families.

Such organizations, or individuals, may "buy" buildings, service units, wards, beds, rooms and sleeping porches by paying the proportionate part of the cost of their construction. Such organizations, or individuals, may also pay for the furnishing or equipment of same.

Suitable tablets, or signs, will be placed upon all buildings and rooms in acknowledgment of the contribution which paid for their construction, naming the donor, or donors of such buildings, service units, wards, rooms, sleeping porches and beds, or they may be named as memorials for some departed loved one, either a member of the Masonic body making the contribution, or of some member of a Masonic family. Contributions will also be accepted for memorials of non-Masons.

Following is a list of Sanatorium Buildings, service rooms or units, patients' wards, bed rooms and sleeping porches, with an estimate of their proportionate part of the total cost of construction:


The first buildings required, named in the order in which they should be constructed:

Main Building (or Men's Building) $250,000
Women's and Children's Building 125,000
Nurses' Building 25,000

Service Rooms, Main Building

Sanatorium offices, business and medical $5,000
Kitchen, pantries, et. 7,500
Dining rooms 7,500
Social and club rooms 7,500
Library and reading rooms 5,000
Reception hall 7,500
X-ray room 5,000
Frigidaire and cold storage 5,000

The Sanatorium offices, business and medical; the X-ray room, the social and club rooms, the library and reading rooms could be combined in an Administration Building. The kitchen, pantries, storage rooms, frigidaire and cold storage and dining rooms could be combined in a Subsistence Building. There are many advantages in having these departments of the institution's activities divorced from the building in which the patients are housed.

Patients' Wards and Rooms

Two wards, Main Building, each $ 15,000
Four wards, Main Building, each 10,000
Four wards, Women's and Children's Building, each 10,000
Patients' rooms, Men's Building, each 1,500
Patients' rooms, Women's and Children's Building, each 1,250
Sleeping Porches, Men's Building, each 750
Sleeping Porches, Women's and Children's Building, each 500
Patients' Beds, each >260

$2,500 will pay for a patient's room, sleeping porch and bed in the Men's Building; $2,000 will pay for room, sleeping porch and bed in the Women's and Children's Building.

Furniture and Equipment

X-ray room equipment $5,000
Kitchen equipment 2,500
Frigidaire plant 2,500
Library 2,500
Medical and business offices 2,000
Club and social rooms 1,500
Dining room 1,500
Reception hall 1,000
Furniture for bedrooms, each 150

Suitable tablets, or signs, will be placed in each room acknowledging the gift and naming the contributor.


It will require at least one year of time to secure the necessary funds and to construct the first buildings. There will be no expense of operation of the hospital during that period. In the meantime sick Masons and members of their families must be cared for in existing institutions.

While the average cost of operating a tuberculosis sanatorium is given as $1,000 per annum, in order to assure the best of care and treatment at $1,200 a year, or $100 per month is a safer estimate for the first year of operation. This amount will also secure treatment for our patients in private institutions while the sanatorium is building. Contributions of $25, $50 and $100 and more are asked to pay expenses of hospital care for one or more weeks or months of hospital treatment.

Contributions of any amount, no matter how small, will be welcome, and will help to "carry on" this work of salvaging sick men, women and children.


An average contribution of at least fifteen cents ($.15) per member from all Masonic bodies, and from all organizations affiliated with Freemasonry, or whose membership is based upon Freemasonry, will finance the construction of the First National Masonic Tuberculosis Sanatorium, and the work of the Sanatoria Association.

Because some bodies may not respond to the appeal, at least during this year, it is hoped that many will contribute more than the average of fifteen cents per capita.

An appeal is made to all such organizations to contribute, or pledge a contribution, in an amount sufficient to pay the proportionate cost of some unit of the Tuberculosis Sanatorium, and to do so at once.

An appeal is also made to individual Freemasons, and to members of Masonic families, to make contributions for the same purpose. The construction of this first tuberculosis hospital presents a great opportunity to perpetuate the memory of some loved one.

In the event that the total sum of contributions made by Masonic bodies average fifteen cents per capita of the total number of American Freemasons, 3,2;50,000, a grand total of $487,500 would be available for Masonic tuberculosis relief.

This sum could be expended as follows:

Construction of a 100-bed Sanatorium $250,000
Operation of Sanatorium for one year 100,000
Home relief and hospitalization in existing sanatoria 100,000
Educational work for prevention — Administration 37,500

After the great hurricane which devastated only a small part of the State of Florida, an appeal was made for contributions of ten cents per capita for Masonic relief work. This appeal met with generous response from the Fraternity.

Few, if any, Masonic lives were lost in the hurricane. Few, if any, died as a result of it. Many Masonic families were made homeless and received the aid and comfort of the Craft.

The Florida disaster cannot compare with the loss of Masonic lives and destruction of Masonic homes caused by tuberculosis. Death is a welcome relief to the average victim of tuberculosis, worn out by a year or more of suffering, mental, as well as physical, for he knows that his continued presence in the home endangers the lives of his loved ones. He also knows that the money expended to prolong his life, deprives them of necessities and even food. Many families are impoverished before the patient dies. Before or after the patient's death the home, often, is broken up. Tuberculosis is, therefore, a great, continuing daily disaster, worse than fire, flood, earthquake or hurricane.

Does it require some such disaster, replete with drama, even though the loss of life is insignificant, to arouse the Masonic Fraternity to a sense of its duty? Can we not visualize the loss of human lives, the wreckage of Masonic homes, the depths of women's sorrow, the end of children's happiness, caused by tuberculosis? Can we not realize the bitterness of a dying Mason's belief that his brethren have failed him in his hour of greatest need?


Herbert B. Holt, President, Grand Master Grand Lodge, A. F. & A. M., Las Cruces, New Mexico.

Alpheus A. Keen, Secretary, Masonic Temple, Albuquerque, New Mexico (Grand Secretary, Grand Lodge, A. F. & A. M.).

Please send contributions direct to the Secretary, Alpheus A. Keen, Masonic Temple, Albuquerque, N. M.

* * *


Too much praise cannot be given to the Grand Lodge of New Mexico for inaugurating and promulgating the National Masonic Tuberculosis Sanatoria Association.

The ravages of the most dreaded known disease — the white plague — can be best combatted and mastered by the wonderful climate of southern New Mexico, Arizona and extreme southwest Texas.

This statement I base on personal knowledge and observation during twenty-seven years' constant traveling in that section as a traveling salesman.

I can bear testimony that the lives of many good men and women have been prolonged and they have been restored to their loved ones because they were fortunate enough to have the opportunity of spending a few years in that section, so graciously blessed by the Almighty with a climate that has proclaimed to the world its wonderful powers as a conqueror of the dreaded tuberculosis.

More power to this wonderful organization, the National Masonic Tuberculosis Sanatoria Association, for bringing this to, the attention of every Mason in our beloved country and God speed their work.

As an old Missouri Mason permit me to add that nothing would be more pleasing to me, and I think in so stating I voice the sentiment of thousands of Missouri Masons, than to see the Grand Lodge of Missouri erect a memorial building in connection with the National Masonic Tuberculosis Sanatorium to commemorate the life and works of that noble, self-sacrificing, whole-souled man and Mason, a former Past Grand Master and Governor of Missouri — Alexander M. Dockery.

Frank H. Wielandy,

Director Masonic Home Board, Missouri.

* * *

Mr. Victor Aaron, Past Master Fidelity Lodge, No. 120, San Francisco, Cal., writes as follows:

We have in our Fraternity 2,500,000 members. Let each Grand Lodge promulgate legislation to the effect that the dues of each member are increased $2.00 per year; the extra $2.00 to be forwarded to a central committee to be used for the building of hospitals, etc., and the maintenance of all brethren so afflicted, not only who may apply voluntarily but who may be found to be in want of proper attention and can be induced to be moved to the proper place.

* * *


Bros. A. L. Kress and R. J. Meekren

(Continued. All rights reserved)

In the Study Club for last month we discussed the working tools of the Operative Masons of the Middle Ages and in especial the probable, or at least possible methods employed in making and testing them, with a view to obtaining a clearer understanding of the use of some kind of standard or test block in the working lodges, and to explain how their nonoperative successors misunderstood and misapplied statements that to a working Mason would be perfectly clear.

Thus we have seen that in the version of the Old Catechisms that Prichard has preserved for us it is said that the "rough" ashlar was "for the Fellow Crafts to try their Jewels upon" and that the Confession said that the "Dinted" ashlar was "to adjust the square and make the gages by." Now from France we get another version, [1] published in 1744, which also connects a special stone with the working tools the Craft, though in exceedingly absurd fashion. The passage runs:

D. Quels sont les trois immobiles [bijoux]?

R. La Pierre brute pour les Apprentifs; la Pierre cubique a point pour aiguiser les outils des Compagnons; et la Planche a tracer sur laquelle les Maitres font leurs Dessins.

which may be rendered:

Q. What are the three immoveable [jewels]?

A. The rough stone for the Apprentices; the pointed cubical stones for the Companions [Fellows] to sharpen their tools; and the tracing [or drawing] board on which the Masters make their designs.

The accompanying illustration [2] is taken from a design that was reproduced in all the various reprints and editions of this work that we have examined. There were a great many, and they appeared under many different titles, though the substance remained very much the same. It is said to be a "Plan of the Lodge."

At the top, on the left, is la pierre brute, on the right the pointed cubic stone. The axe resting on it is presumably one of the tools to be sharpened! This bright idea, however, was evolved by somebody absolutely ignorant of the craft of the stone shed. Masons' tools of course are not sharpened like those of wood workers. They are tempered much harder, and the angles of the cutting edges are so obtuse that grinding would be an exceedingly slow and tedious process. The method is to heat them in a forge and draw them out on the anvil. The edge may be filed while still hot, after which the tool is heated again, hardened and retempered. It sounds somewhat complicated, but a blacksmith does it very quickly — a forge is a necessary adjunct to every stone-yard or quarry.

In this French version several changes will be noticed, which will be discussed later, at present it is to be noted that the account in this work, the origin of which is really as uncertain as that of Prichard or of the Confession, is not a translation of either, nor of any of the other known documents; yet it in many respects parallels them. We may assume that it is derived from an otherwise unknown variant tradition — much sophisticated and edited in the process. It bears manifest traces of being a very literal translation into French from an English original, and the translator seems to have been hard put to it to give any intelligible rendering of the obscure passages.

At first sight it would seem that this explanation of the use of the wrought stone as intended to sharpen tools on was merely a wild guess thrown in for the purpose of explanation, but against such a supposition is the fact that there is no attempt to explain the "brute" stone. A somewhat later version of the catechisms in much better French, it appeared in 1745, omits the clause altogether and merely says that it is assigned to the Fellowcrafts; and one may guess that perhaps the omission was due to a realization of the absurdity of the statement as it stood. This fact also tends to confirm a suspicion that it may have been a last, faint, entirely misunderstood echo of a real Operative tradition. The closer these old documents are examined the more the student comes to realize the astonishing vitality that phrases and odds and ends of tradition seem to have. They are displaced, modified, reinterpreted and misapplied, and yet in spite of all recognizably retain their identity. In any case this 1745 French account confirms the others in connecting a specially worked stone with the tools of the Craft. It is doubtless altogether too hazardous to suppose that in this idea of its being a glorified whetstone on which edge tools were rubbed to sharpen them we may have a very faint reflection of the method spoken of earlier of truing a wooden rule or straight edge by rubbing it on the surface of a squared stone. However, seeing that we are trying to explore every possibility the suggestion is thrown out for whatever it may be worth.

We have said that this account is an independent version; it agrees nevertheless with Prichard in dividing the jewels into two sets of three, and in regard to those designated "moveable" there is complete agreement as to what they are, and their order; although instead of their uses being explained we are merely told that they are carried respectively by the Master and the "First" and "Second" Wardens.


Before going further it may be as well to discuss this division and the descriptions of the two classes. Mention was made of the fact that these designations were reversed for some reason, not very apparent, by the Baltimore Convention in 1843, [3] so that the moveable became the immoveable and vice versa. The best account that we have so far been able to discover of what was done is that of Chas. W. Moore, which was reproduced in THE BUILDER for September, on page 283. One gathers from this statement that there were differences existing, and the best way to account for the decision reached is to suppose that the members of the Convention had no other light on the subject than that of unaided reason or imagination — both, in such matters, very fallacious guides. In all probability the original division of the two groups, and the names applied to them, were due to very simple and matter-of-fact reasons. The square, level and plumb, as "collar" jewels of the three officers of the lodge, were concrete objects and obviously and literally moveable in the ordinary sense of the word. The other three were originally representations drawn inside the square diagram on the floor and were equally obviously and literally immoveable. When later the floor diagram went out of use, and it became in many places customary to have real stones to represent the ashlars, the original straight forward distinction no longer in fact applied, hut it was nevertheless retained by natural conservatism, and eventually became the subject of symbolical speculations, resulting finally, so far as America is concerned, in an exchange of the epithets. Though, as we have noted, the rest of the Masonic world retains the older usage.

In regard, then, to the immoveable jewels, properly so designated, the order is, it will be observed, reversed in the French version. The "brute" or unworked stone is named first, the "tracing board" last; nevertheless there seems to be substantial agreement. The rough stone is for the apprentice, the drawing board for the master, the wrought stone for the Fellows, and it has some connection with their tools. But in spite of this general agreement there appears to have been an underlying confusion, for it would seem as if la pierre cubique à pointe was not a translation of either the "dinted" or the "square" ashlar, but rather an attempt to render "broached thurnel" into French; while we can only suppose that la pierre brute came from something equivalent to Prichard's "rough" ashlar, which, as we have tried to show, was probably a wrought stone.

In other words, it would seem that while the things themselves were correctly remembered and properly assigned to the three grades, the names of two of them had been transposed; a change that has led to much subsequent misapprehension and error. We may now ask how the original confusion arose. It is possible to suppose that the translator knew that there were two stones, one partly worked or rough, and one finished for the purposes of a standard. If his original was something corresponding to Prichard's version he might very naturally take the so-called "rough" ashlar to be the first of these two, and this, by elimination, would lead him to suppose that the broached dornal, or thurnel, was the stone squared for the purpose of serving as a standard, as Mackey much later seems to have done also; for under "Ashlar" in his Encyclopaedia he says that the place of the Perfect Ashlar "was supplied by the Broached Thurnel," which was, of course, only his interpretation of the facts as known to him. This, then, would account for the description cubique. But what was the translator to make of the term "broached"?


Now it has been pointed out, notably by Mackey, and also by others since he wrote, that in parts of England the word "broche" is still used as a term for a certain type of church steeple. In France the word is in common use with the meaning of spit, spindle, pin, skewer, knitting needle, awl and so on, any object or implement, in short, that is long, narrow and pointed. It is therefore not impossible that it might have been translated à pointe. The objection to this is that one might rather have expected the translator to have rendered it by broche, or even, perhaps, brochée, seeing that the verb brocher, though usually meaning to work with a needle as in embroidery, is used of shoeing horses (possibly because of the long, slender head of a farrier's hammer) and so might conceivably have been transferred to the use of a sharp mason's hammer or pick in working stone. The point is, it seems very curious that he should have interpreted it by a local English usage when he could have used a more literal rendering on the basis of the French language. It is therefore possible that his original did not read "broached," but that some attempt had already been made to explain it in England, or even that it was some variant operative technical term that he had before him. Had it been, for instance, "the pointed ornal," or more likely "the pointed stone," this rendering would have been almost inevitable supposing the translator did not know exactly what it meant. Because such a term would not mean to a working mason anything in the least like the interpretation a non-operative would be apt to give to it. The latter would very naturally take the epithet to refer to the shape of the stone, and would thus be led, if he supposed it to be a worked stone, to picture it in something like the form we find in the old French designs. An operative, on the other hand, would take the term to refer to the method of working, i.e., that it had been done with a "point." Prichard himself says the "broached" stone was for the apprentices "to learn to work upon," but the Confession quite unmistakably uses the technical term and says "to broach," showing that this was a method or process of working stone; and indeed the word is to be found in the New English Dictionary with this meaning given to it. As this anonymous account, the Confession, bears all through it patent evidence of being in close touch with operative usages we may feel safe in giving it the preference. Working masons could not possibly be guilty of the blunder Prichard's version makes in this place regarding the testing block. We are therefore, on the whole, inclined to think that the misconception, and the resulting transposition to correct a supposed mistake, had been made before this tradition was carried across the English Channel.

Dr. Oliver seems to have been puzzled by it, and in his Dictionary of Symbolical Masonry remarks that the Broached Thurnel

... was one of the original immoveable jewels, and was used for the E.A.P. to learn to work upon. It was subsequently called the Brute Stone or Rough Ashlar.

Mackey in his Encyclopedia undertakes to correct this, and under the same head tells us that

Dr. Oliver, most probably deceived by the use to which it was assigned, says that it [the Broached Thurnel] was subsequently called the Rough Ashlar. This is evidently incorrect, because a distinction is made in the original lecture between it and the Rough Ashlar, the former being for the Apprentice and the latter for the Fellowcraft.


By the "original lectures," or "Anderson's lectures," as he elsewhere calls them, Mackey means Prichard's Catechism, which by the way he apparently knew only in one of the many later reprints, as he gives the form "Tarsel Board" instead of "Trasel Board." This uncorrected misprint (as it undoubtedly is) has been another fertile source of confusion, and has led a number of Masonic writers into fanciful speculations. There has been another curious mistake made too, due presumably to the extreme rarity of the early editions of Prichard and the consequent difficulty in examining them. For instance, the late G. W. Speth, a good many years ago, [4] made some notes on the subject of the Broached Thurnel, in which, by the way, he mentioned that it appeared in the lectures of an obsolete degree called "Geometrical Master Mason" (as we believe it is also in the ritual of the Royal Order of Scotland) and he went on to say:

Prichard's Masonry Dissected of about 1777 (and possibly earlier, but not in 1730) gives as the three jewels "Tarsel Board, Rough Ashlar and Broached Thurnel."

The italics in the parenthesis are ours. Much later Bro. Dring, in his most important paper on The Evolution and Development of the Tracing or Lodge Board [5] makes a similar statement:

In the later editions of Masonry Dissected (such as that of 1774), i.e., after the publications of the translations of the French Rituals, the catechism is amplified thus...

and he goes on to quote the questions and answers we have already given relative to the Furniture and Jewels. He refers here to a number of works published under various titles after 1760, which were poor translations back into English of the French versions already spoken of, and he supposes that later publishers of Prichard's work improved it by borrowing from these.

Now there were four editions of Prichard put out in 1730. [6] They were all sold out very rapidly and the interval between them is to be measured in days rather than months. They are also all very scarce. The first was very carefully reproduced with all its typographical peculiarities by Enoch T. Carson, the well-known American Masonic student and bibliophile. It is evident that Bros. Speth and Dring were familiar with the contents of the original edition, either directly or through the medium of this reprint, and that they also respectively knew some later edition, Speth apparently one of 1777 and Dring a somewhat earlier one of 1774. They apparently also took it for granted that all the intervening reprints up to 1760 or 1770 were the same as the original edition. This, however, was not the case.

An examination of the text of the first edition shows a number of obvious mistakes, mostly very unimportant in themselves, yet that cumulatively give the impression that it was a very hasty production, and that very little time had been given to the proof reading. In the second edition the greater part of these were corrected, and besides this eleven questions and answers were also inserted in the first part. This inserted material includes precisely the items we are discussing. It thus appears that these two eminent authorities were misled through not having seen the second and third editions. Whether Prichard was responsible for this revision or someone else is a matter of no moment, for, after all, he is only a name to us. The important point is that this matter about the Furniture and Jewels, which Bro. Dring supposed to be borrowed from other works published after 1760, did actually appear in 1730 within a few weeks of the original publication. In the second and third editions we have the form "Trasel Board." Not having had the opportunity to compare a sufficient number of later reprints we are unable to say when the "r" and "a" were transposed, but probably much later than 1730; and the transposition is obviously a printer's error and of no significance whatever. Thus we find the first mention of moveable and immoveable jewels is actually in one of the earliest printed accounts that have come down to us.


Returning now to Mackey's attempt to set Dr. Oliver right, we see that he was himself mistaken. Inevitably so, we must say, with the information he had at hand. Nevertheless Dr. Oliver had in reality correctly stated the sequence of events, which was all he attempted to do; the "Broached Thurnel" or "roughed" stone for (or of) the Apprentices had become in French the "Brute Stone," and this subsequently reappeared in English as a "Rough Ashlar," which, however, was not really the same thing as that spoken of by Prichard under the same term. The transposition of names it was that caused all the confusion. Dr. Oliver assumes a change of names, which we have seen reason to believe to be what really happened. Mackey supposes a mistake in ascription — that the wrong objects were assigned to the two grades in the French versions, which, curiously, was also done in later versions. [See Note 1.] The whole matter is very complicated and we only hope that our attempt to elucidate it has not led to confusion being worse confounded. It is a good example, however, of the way in which errors have arsien, that later have had far-reaching results.

The original mistake, it would appear, was in Prichard, or rather the tradition he represents; of which, we as have suggested above, there have been other variants now lost, or known to us only through the French. The key to the puzzle is, we think, to be found in the Confession. This describes the standard test block as a "dinted ashalr." On account of the strongly operative character of this account, we are practically forced to the conclusion that in the terminology of Scottish working masons of the time the term "dinted" would be equivalent to "worked" or "finished." Stone is finally brought to a smooth surface by the use of a tool now known in some places as a "bush hammer" or "dressing hammer." In this the face, or more often both faces, of the head is cut into a number of grooves of triangular section, thus making a series of sharp parallel edges. It appears to be the same implement that has been called the "claw tool" by a number of English writers, on what authority we do not know. It is spoken of as first coming into general use at the beginning of the Gothic period of architecture, when it replaced the rougher work done with the "axe" or "common gavel." This last is now generally known as a stone mason's hammer. one in which the "pene," or thin end of the head, is drawn out to a sharp edge parallel with the handle. Both implements are shown in the thirteenth century window at Chartres, a drawing of which was reproduced in the December number last year on page 375. Next month we will endeavor to show how the finished test block came to be erroneously described as a "rough ashlar."



  1. This is Travenol's Catechisme des Frances Maçons, the earliest French expose extant, though there may been another somewhat earlier. It was followed in 1745 by Le Sceau Rompu (The Seal Broken) in which the order of the immoveable jewels is reversed, beginning with the Tracing Board and ending with the "Brute Stone" which is ascribed to the Apprentices, the "Pointed cubical stone" is assigned to the Companions as before, but there is no explanation of purpose in either case. A second work of Travernol under a new title repeats this two years later, but a third edition under yet another title, Le Nouveau Catechisme, changes the earlier ascription, giving the Brute Stone to the Companions to work on, and the pointed stone for the Apprentices to sharpen tools. This was published in 1749. It is obvious that the tradition was strong in spite of attempts to rationalize it.
  2. This design appeared in THE BUILDER for May, 1925, page 152, as an illustration to the article by Bro. W. W. Covey-Crump on the "Evolution of English Lodge Boards."
  3. THE BUILDER, October, 1926, page 313.
  4. A.Q.C. xii, page 205
  5. Ibid. xxix, page 257
  6. Masonic Reprints, No. 1 by John T. Thorp, page 10.

* * *


I have a letter from Captain Firebrace, formerly Prestonian Lecturer of the Grand Lodge of England and a Past Master of Antiquity Lodge. He has just written me in regard to a new volume of the records of this famous organization.

This is now the second lodge on the register of the United Grand Lodge of England and one of the four that combined to form the first Grand Lodge in 1717. It only lost its numerical pre-eminence by chance at the Union at London in 1813 of the two Grand Lodges, there being many such pairs of numbers on the two lists of lodges, the famous Lodge of Antiquity lost its premier place by the accident of drawing lots for the future positions on the roster. Bro. W. H. Rylands, notable for his able labors in Quatuor Coronati Lodge, and equally enthusiastic in the Lodge of Antiquity, No. 2, wrote Volume One of a history of the latter body. His death prevented Bro. Rylands from continuing the work which has been taken up by Bro. C. W. Firebrace, Past Master of Antiquity Lodge and formerly the Prestonian Lecturer of the Grand Lodge of England. Bro. Firebrace has completed a limited edition of the second volume which commences with the year 1777 and contains the largest part of the Masonic career of William Preston whose Illustrations of Freemasonry inspired Thomas Smith Webb and other early ritualists in the United States in the formulation of our well-known Masonic Monitors. A copy of Bro. Preston's will is in the text and this has especial significance and value to the members of the Craft. There are also many other interesting details recorded of Bro. Preston that are new to Masonic students. There is also an account of the Union of the English Grand Lodges in 1813. Other points of consequence in Masonic history are recorded. The Lodge of Antiquity offers the opportunity to the brethren of obtaining this second volume for two guineas a copy, say $10.30. Those interested may address Capt. C. W. Firebrace, St. Stephen's House, Westminster, London, S. W. 1, England.

Robert I. Clegg, Illinois.

* * *


IT is an ancient tradition that every active member of THE BUILDER Staff must pass through the ordeal of having his portrait presented to the members of the Society with some account of his life history in the Craft. It was not without difficulty that this photograph of Bro. Thiemeyer was secured, he having some absurd idea that he ought to be an exception to this wholesome rule. We also extorted the following facts concerning him: His father was a Mason before him, which naturally led him to seek initiation in due time. He joined Tuscan Lodge, No. 360, one of the principal lodges in St. Louis, in 1924, and was raised June 10 of that year. That his first preparation to be made a Mason was thorough is attested by his eager pursuit of Masonic light. He very rapidly perfected himself in the ritual and took almost from the first an active part in the instruction of candidates for the several degrees. This was not enough to satisfy him, however, and he began an earnest attempt to make himself familiar with the symbolism, history and theories of origin of the Order, and made such progress that within a very short time he came to be regarded as an authority, not only by the members of his lodge, but also by the Craft generally in St. Louis. He was active in the formation of the Study Club of Tuscan Lodge which was begun in 1925, and which has accomplished much, and promises to do a great deal more. He took under his charge the library of the lodge, and under his management it promises to become one of the best equipped in the State of Missouri.

In 1926 he joined Cabany Chapter, No. 140, of the Royal Arch. This being at present the limit of his attainment in Masonic grades.

He is an alumnus of the University of Missouri, where he specialized in chemistry and geology. But beyond this he had a wide range of interests in history and general literature. THE BUILDER, and in especial the Editor in charge, is happy to have the services of such an able coadjutor. His official title is Research Editor, but he has taken a multifarious and miscellaneous lot of duties upon himself and bids fair to leave the Editor little or nothing to do but to occupy the mythical easy chair and look as ornamental as possible.

* * *


The books reviewed in these pages can be procured through the Rook Department of the N.M.R.S. at the prices given, which always include postage. These prices are subject (as a matter of precaution) to change without notice; though occasion for this will very seldom arise. Occasionally it may happen, where books are privately printed, that there is no supply available, but some indication of this will be given in the review. The Book Department is equipped to procure any books in print on any subject, and will make inquiries for second-hand works and books out of print.

* * *

JOAN OF ARC, MAID OF FRANCE. By Albert Bigelow Paine. Published by Macmillan Co. Two volumes, cloth, table of contents, illustrated, plates and maps, index, 867 and 379 pages. Price $11.00.

ONE result of the ultra-scientific trend of modern thought has been the conception that history must be impartial, and the historian a cool and detached recorder of the great personalities and events of human story. That was not the idea of most of the great historians of the past; and a moment's reflection will show that such cold impartiality is practically impossible. No human being who has studied a period until its characters have come to life and its politics become living issues for him — and such study and such feeling of the past as vitally alive are essential for the true historian — can avoid forming likes and dislikes, loves and hatreds, or fail to take one side or the other in the great conflicts he studies and records. Burning enthusiasm for a heroic character and a noble cause give force and energy to Motley's Rise of the Dutch Republic, and it is largely because Macaulay writes as a Whig that his history makes its readers feel that they are living in the time of the "Glorious Revolution." To say, therefore, that the chief merit of Albert Bigelow Paine's Joan of Arc, Maid of France, is its partiality, is not paradoxical. Mr. Paine is whole-heartedly on the side of the pope who canonized, and against the bishop who condemned Saint Joan; and it is his enthusiastic admiration for the Maid of Orleans which has fired him to delve into the documents which record her doings and sayings, to spend what must have been delightful months following the footsteps of the Maid from Domremy to Rouen, visiting every place in which his heroine stayed or by which she may have passed, and, after exhaustive preparation, to give such a picture of the peasant-maiden who crowned a king, that his readers can hardly fail to feel that they too are living in the fifteenth century, members of the devoted band inspired by the cry, "Forward with God," to storm the English bastilles and free the beleaguered city of Orleans.

Saint Joan lends herself to this reverential and enthusiastic treatment, for she is one of the most striking examples of that rare but inspiring type of character, the soul with a mission. Her battle-cry, "Forward with God," reminds one of Cromwell's fervent, "Sir, this was none other but the hand of God" and with such personalities a cool and wary attitude is a mistake. One must believe in the mission as the gallant Jean de Metz and the hard-swearing, hard-plundering La Hire believed, or reject the missionary as an impostor with Cauchon. Mr. Paine has done wisely in following de Metz and La Hire, for it is belief that makes the world go round, and that gives force and fire to the pen.

Preoccupied with the character and fortunes of his heroine, with the desire to present us with a living portraiture of personalities and events, Mr. Paine devotes little or no direct attention to the character of her mission. But as he draws for us her double role of heroine and martyr, the inspiring leader of the relief of Orleans and the march on Reims, and the solitary figure fronting the fire of questions from the forty to sixty black-robed priests at Rouen, we appreciate the accuracy of the estimate of the Maid in a very different work — Bernard Shaw's Saint Joan. In the scene between Warwick and Cauchon (Scene IV), Joan is described as standing for Nationality and Protestantism, and the description seems amply justified as one reads Mr. Paine's book. But Joan herself was not apparently aware of the two-fold character of her attitude. The national aspect of her mission, the call to drive out the English invaders and restore France to her king and people, to unite the hostile factions and localities, to reconcile the dukes of Brittany and Burgundy to their sovereign and create a national unity, this was abundantly clear to her, and she is inspired and successful until Orleans is relieved and the crown duly placed on the brow of Charles. Her other aspect as a Protestant, the peer of Wyclif and Huss as Cauchon points out in the play, as standing for the direct relation of the individual to God and the Church Triumphant, without reference to the Church Militant, she does not seem to have grasped. She felt that she herself, lay-woman as she was, had been in direct relation with the heavenly powers, but she did not appreciate in the slightest how this fact and her refusal to submit these relations to the constituted authorities of the church made her a heretic in the eyes of the ecclesiastics of her day. In all probability she could much better understand the position of the English soldiers who clamored to have her burned as a witch than that of the priests who strove to convict and convince her of heresy. It is here that the true pathos of Joan's fate is to be found. A loving and devoted daughter of the church, assiduous to a degree in the performance of her religious duties, she was yet accused and condemned on the charge of heresy, and technically the verdict was just.

Vividly as it depicts the character of its heroine and the scenes and events of her metoric career, Mr. Paine's book suffers slightly from the defects of its qualities. Essential for the production of a feeling of life and reality in the presentation of a character of five centuries ago, enthusiastic admiration can yet be carried too far and weaken the effect at which it aims. When the author, for example, declares of her uncle, Durand Laxart, who took her to Vaucouleurs and helped to equip her, that "No king ever did so much for France," the recollection of such names as those of Philip Augustus and Henry IV makes the reader feel a lack of balance in the admiration and tend to adopt a critical attitude fatal to the full enjoyment of Mr. Paine's otherwise delightful work. Nor can hero-worship fail to be in some measure unjust. It must look upon the other side as composed mainly of fools or scoundrels. That the defeated English, with the memories of Crecy and Poictiers and Agincourt fresh in their minds; not realizing the nature of the new inspiration with which Joan had fired their adversaries; seeing war-hardened captains like Talbot defeated by a "simple village lass," and living, be it remembered in the 15th not the 20th century, should ascribe their defeats to witch-craft, was inevitable; and in view of contemporary thought they might well believe that in burning the witch they were only doing their duty to mankind and that which was "well-pleasing in the sight of the Lord." When we read in such a modern work as Margaret Murray's Witch-Cult in Western Europe, a scholarly argument in favor of the view that Joan actually was a witch (i.e., according to Miss Murray, a follower of a survival of the pre-Christian religion of Western Europe), we may feel that Warwick and Cauchon had some justification for their actions.

These defects are, perhaps, an inevitable result of the real and great merits of the book, and it is more just to the author, and certainly much more pleasant for the reader, to pass them over and dwell again on the great value and charm of the work: Its vivid portrayal of one of the most fascinating personalities in history; its restoration of a great episode of the past in such life-like fashion that the reader feels actually present at many of the scenes described, and above all the inspiration afforded by its generous and whole-souled admiration of a great and noble character.

Joan's public career was a whirlwind one of "a year — or little more," and Mr. Paine's account of it carries one along in a fittingly speedy fashion, aided by the form in which the two volumes have been published. The clear, uncrowded type favors the rapidity of reading necessary for a full appreciation of the ,(movement of the times," and the abundant and excellent illustrations assist the imaginative reconstruction of the past by the author. Amid the host of cheap, if necessary, publications of this mass-production age, it is delightful to meet so excellently published a work.

* * *

THE PILGRIMAGE OF 1926; Being the Official Journal of the Knights of St. John. By Col. E. J. King, C.M.G., F.S.A., Knight of Justice of the Order. With an introduction by Maj.-Gen. the Earl of Scarborough, G.B.E., K.C.B., F.S.A., Knight of Justice and Sub-Prior. Privately printed for the Order.

IT is rather a pity that only four hundred copies of this exceedingly interesting book were printed, for though the Knights of St. John, called at various times in their history Hospitallers, Knights of Rhodes and Knights of Malta, have no connection whatever with the Masonic degree or order of the same name as the last mentioned, there is no doubt that many Masonic Knights Templar would have been glad of an opportunity to purchase the work for the sake of the information it contains, which would have brought some extra funds to the charitable coffers of the English tongue of the ancient order. Under the circumstances it will perhaps be best to summarize as far as possible the facts more or less incidentally recorded by the author that will most interest Masons and Masonic Knights of Malta.

As is well known the order was founded in Jerusalem in or about the year 1012-3 by certain merchants of Amalfi, who purchased the site of the hospice that had been established by Charlemagne, and destroyed in 1010 by order of the then Caliph. On this site they founded a hospital for pilgrims to the Holy City, which was in charge of monks of the Benedictine Order, and which was dedicated to St. John the Baptist. The head of the hospital, known erroneously as Gerard Tune, in some way or other assisted the Crusaders when they besieged and took Jerusalem. The tales told about this are rather mythical, but the influence thus acquired he used to enlarge the hospital under the Christian regime. Land was granted by Godfrey de Bouillon and donations were received from many other quarters. In 1113 the Pope took the new order, which had now adopted the rule of the Augustinians, under his special and immediate protection. It was Raymond de Puy who seems to have added to the purely charitable functions of the order that also of defending and convoying parties of pilgrims. The members of the order were monks, and vowed to poverty especially as well as chastity and obedience. It was later than this that its aristocratic character came into evidence.

In the full flower of its organization, in the 14th century, when it held lands all over Europe as well as in the East, it was divided into Langues, or Tongues, which approximately coincided with national divisions. The Langues were divided into Provinces under Grand Commanders, these into Commanderies under Grand Priors, and these again into, smaller groups of manors under Preceptors. At the head was the Grand Master, elected from the ranks of the Knights of Justice. The latter were those qualified by birth; Knights of Grace were those who had attained the rank by special merit.

In 1291 the Mohammedans stormed Acre, the last place left to the Christians, and the Grand Master withdrew to Cyprus, and in 1306 the Knights, in confederation with Genoese pirates, descended on Rhodes and took it from the forces of the Greek Emperor, and held it thereafter for about two hundred years. In 1453 the Turks took Constantinople and about thirty years later started seriously to drive the Christians from Rhodes. After several failures, Suleiman, the Magnificent, besieged the island, and after a long defense the Knights capitulated and withdrew with the honors of war to Crete. Five years later they established themselves at Malta, this being in 1530. At this time the Reformation was well under way in Germany and the master and Knights of the bailiwick of Brandenburg accepted the reformed religion without, curious as it seems, breaking off connection with the order. In England the refusal of the Grand Prior and the Knights to accept the Supremacy of the Crown over the Church led to its practical suppression by Henry VIII. Their property was confiscated and the members of the order were scattered.

In 1565 a tremendous attack was made on Malta by the Turks, and under the leadership of LaValette, Grand Master, it was defeated. From then on the Knights maintained a virtual supremacy over the Mediterranean sea, and were the chief bulwark of Christian Europe against the constant raids and attacks of the Mohammedans. In 1798 von Hompesch surrendered to Napoleon and retired to Trieste. Many of the Knights however took refuge in Russia. In 1814 the French Knights summoned a Chapter General and elected a Permanent Commission for the government of the order, which was recognized by the Italian and Spanish Langues, by the Pope and by Louis XVIII. In 1826 this Commission suggested the restoration of the English Langue, with the idea of obtaining the assistance of England in obtaining possession of some one of the islands in the Mediterranean to be a new headquarters for the order. This was carried out and the Rev. William Peat, Chaplain to George IV, was chosen as Prior in 1831. It appears that Queen Mary of England and her husband, Phillip of Spain, had granted a charter for the revival of the English Langue which, as has been noted, was suppressed by her father, Henry VIII, but this had never been acted on, and in consequence had never been revoked. Sir William Peat was thus able to qualify himself for the post according to law by taking the oath de fideli administratione in the Court of King's Bench. In 1888 Queen Victoria granted a new charter, and a year later the Prince of Wales, afterwards Edward VII, was elected and installed Grand Prior. However, though this restoration was made by the authority of the recognized governing body of the Sovereign Order, it was afterwards repudiated, and the English Langue remains unrecognized by the other branches of the order. On what grounds, real or alleged, is not clear, but doubtless difference of religious faith is at the bottom of it, although the Lutheran Knights of Brandenburg are still recognized.

Candidates are required to show sixteen quarterings before being accepted as Knights of Justice. That is, all their great-great-grandparents, both male and female, must have been entitled to bear arms. Nowadays it is rather a stiff qualification one would imagine, and there must be a much larger proportion of Knights of Grace than in the days of the Order's Sovereign power. Still, its essentially, and we may perhaps say intensely, aristocratic character evidently remains in full force. Yet, though this will seem so strange and foreign to Americans, there can be no denying that in itself pride in family is not a bad thing, and though liable to grave abuse, is yet the nurse of many virtues. More than one of the Knights, we gather, bears today the same family name as some predecessor who joined the order centuries ago. The pride of such men in their race no one can well condemn, so long as it leads, as in this case it does, to charity and good works.

The English branch of the order evidently regards itself as a custodian of the memories of the past, but it has used these memories as an inspiration for a really great and devoted service in the present. No longer a military order, they have returned to the work of their first founder Gerard, and have done a tremendous amount of good work in the establishment of hospitals and the encouragement of Red Cross and ambulance work.

The recent pilgrimage indeed sprang out of a visit of inspection of the new Opthalmic Hospital instituted at Jerusalem. It was suggested that a ship might be chartered and that all the places connected with the history of the order might be visited. The idea met with such a ready response that the sub-Prior (who we judge is to the Grand Priory very much what the pro-Grand Master is to the United Grand Lodge of England, that is, the working executive head) decided to recommend to the Prince of Wales, who holds the office of Grand Prior, that an official pilgrimage be made. So recommended and so decided, The Chapter General approved, an Executive Committee appointed and the thing was done. Before starting the Chapter General gave to the sub-Prior, at his request, full authority to summon those members of the governing body who would be in the party to form special chapters during the pilgrimage in order to admit new members of the order, such admissions to be confirmed by the Chapter General, and also for authority to take the Processional Cross, Sword of State and the Standard of the Order. Advantage was taken of these powers granted to the sub-Prior to call special chapters at Jerusalem, where a considerable number were admitted to different grades of the order. At Rhodes another chapter was held and the Governor of the island and two more were admitted as honorary members with the sanction of the Kings of England and of Italy, respectively. This ceremony took place in the great hall of the ancient hospital of the order at Rhodes. And at Malta again yet another chapter was held and the Governor, General Congreve, V.C., and others were invested. Everywhere they went they were received and honored by the authorities, civil and ecclesiastical. At Jerusalem representatives of three churches did them honor. The old chapel of St. John, in the Muristan, was placed at their disposal by the Orthodox Patriarch for the celebration of a special Eucharist, the building now being in the possession of the Greek Church. Later there was a parade service in the English Cathedral of St. George the Martyr, at which the Patriarch was himself present, being seated in the sanctuary to the north of the altar, upon which the Standard, Cross and Sword of the order were laid during the service.

At the chapter held in Jerusalem, when the English Bishop, Dr. MacInnes, and others were invested, the Armenian Patriarch was present in person, and the Latin Patriarch by proxy.

All the various sacred places were, of course, visited, but especially those connected with the Crusades and the early history of the Knights of St. John. The Muristan, which is the ground originally held by the order, and on which stood their great hospital, is now partly in possession of the Greek Monastery land partly in that of the German Knights. This part was given to Crown Prince Frederick of Prussia by the Sultan in 1869, on account of his being then the head of the Bailiwick of Brandenburg. The German Knights have built a Lutheran Church and an Evangelical Hospice. The Opthalmic Hospital of the English order is not apparently built on any traditional site.

From Jerusalem the Pilgrims went to Acre and from thence to Cyprus, Rhodes and Malta. Unfortunately it is impossible to give in detail any account of what was done and seen. Much that is referred to can be found in histories, but much that the casual visitor can never hope to see was opened to the Pilgrims. The account is illustrated by many exceedingly interesting photographs and we must repeat again our regret that a larger edition was not printed so that the information could be made more generally available.

* * *

THE GEOGRAPHICAL LORE OF THE TIME OF THE CRUSADES. By John Kirtland. Published by the American Geographical Society. Cloth, table of contents, illustrated, bibliography, index, 150 pages.

ALTHOUGH geography seems to most (with memories in their minds of dreary lists of countries, states, cities, rivers and mountains to be learned by heart) to be a most uninteresting subject, yet it has a romance of its own, and even if this were not so, yet it has an importance not to be neglected as a background of general knowledge. What men think and know of the world they live in must have its reaction in the arrangement, the pattern of their ideas of the things nearer to them. A tribe living in an isolated archipelago of the Pacific regarded that group of islands as the whole world, and when the first European voyagers arrived they were supposed to have come from the world of the dead where the sun went every night.

In the time of the Crusades our own ancesters had very similar ideas, their world it is true, consisted of continents instead of islands, but it was surrounded by Ocean and beyond that was the verge, the drop-off into the abyss. Still to the south was the place of fire, too hot for any inhabitants but salamanders. The earthly Paradise was still placed "Eastward in Eden" while in the gray, stormy western ocean was the wonderful island of Hy Brasil, where living voyagers by good luck might come, but whose proper inhabitants were the blessed dead.

But though the natural hypothesis that the earth was flat, and disc-shaped, over which the sun rose and passed in the day time, and under which it returned to the east at night, had general acceptance, yet the theory that it was a sphere, first propounded it would seem by Pythagoras, was never entirely forgotten. Even it was believed by the earlier astronomers that the earth moved, though the more general theory was that it was the center of the universe and that various spheres bearing the planets and the stars revolved about it — a theory by the way quite sufficient to account for the known facts, and justified by results in predicting celestial events such as eclipses, conjunctions and so on. But the breakdown of the Roman Empire, and the intrusion of the barbarians of the north and west naturally lowered the general level of scientific knowledge. At the time of the Crusades, outside of a few cloistered students, probably every one took for granted the general flatness of the earth. The use of diagrammatic maps such as the common T-O maps, which consisted of a circle with two straight lines at right angles inside it, dividing the space into three parts which were labeled Europe, Africa and Asia, tended naturally to confirm this naive idea. Nevertheless, within these limits there was much more extended practical knowledge than might be supposed. In spite of lack of mariners' compass and navigating instruments of any accuracy, hardy seamen made long voyages by rule of thumb and personal knowledge of the appearance of coasts headlands and harbors. Pilgrimages were common, and the journeys made were remarkable, considering that mostly they were made on foot, and with (as we should think) most inadequate provision. Indeed it was the pilgrimages to the holy places of Palestine that caused the Crusades. They were almost as much a part of Mediaeval Christian life as the pilgrimage to Mecca is to that of Islam. And the warlike incursion of the west into the Orient was as natural as would be the preaching of a Jihad or holy war among Mohammedans, were a Christian power to seize Arabia and subject pilgrims to abuse, extortio and other ill-treatment. The Crusaders failed eventually for two reasons. One that the Christian lords of Palestine came to regard it as their own private domain, and the other that the center of interest of the Western Church was shifting from Palestine to Rome.

In the present work Dr. Wright has collected all the available information and arranged it in a most compendious form. The method employed makes it very convenient for reference, but rather detracts from its interest for continuous reading. But it is certainly a work that every student interested in the Crusades, or Mediaeval history, should have upon his shelves.

* * *

AN ESSAY ON THE KNIGHTS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM, RHODES AND MALTA. By Bro. John H. Chalmers Paper, 31 pages. Privately printed.

THIS interesting account of the Order of the real Knights of Malta contains in very brief compass the salient features of the history of the Order with some account incidentally of their fellow crusaders and rivals, the Knights Templar. Bro. Chalmers is, or was at the time of writing, the head of Melita Preceptory No. 37, of Malta, and Past Provincial Registrar and Chancellor of the Mediterranean District under the Great Priory of England and Wales. The essay was written at the instance of his friend, Bro. W.H.A. Eckhardt, who is Grand Chancellor of the Sovereign Great Priory of Canada. For members of the Templar Order, with which the Order of Masonic Knights of Malta is now (from the historical point of view, rather incongruously) connected, it should prove a very useful and handy work of reference for the salient dates and facts in the history of the two Orders. It is very well written and an extraordinary amount of material has been compressed into very little compass.

* * *



I have just read the article you have on pages 46 and 47 of the February issue of THE BUILDER, and I am very much gratified by the kindly way in which Bro. Littlefield has mentioned my name. What you have undertaken to say will undoubtedly excite a great deal of interest, and is certainly well worth the saying. We are apt to forget, in the work of initiation, that "initiation" itself really means "education," and that in the former days when candidates were fewer much more attention was given to the subject of continuing the instruction of the older members. Today there is very little time for this sort of work.

It is interesting to find that in the case of Ohio, my own Grand Lodge, we have a section, No. 82, in our Masonic Laws which reads as follows:

When convenient, the several subordinate lodges should be supplied with libraries of useful and practical books; and it is enjoined upon them, as often as it is feasible, to introduce into their meetings lectures and essays upon Masonic polity, and the various arts and sciences connected therewith.

On page 39 of the Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Ohio for 1923, Grand Master Harry S. Johnson had the following things to say in his annual address:

Bro. Robert I. Clegg makes this very prudent comment: "Section 82 of our Code was, I am confident, the result of the most careful consideration on the part of those who first made it prominent in our system of Masonic government. They unquestionably and primarily had in mind that a Masonic lodge was a school, that Masonic textbooks were essential to Masonic knowledge, and that essays and lectures at the lodge upon the Masonic system should be encouraged.

"Nothing could be more evident than that such a salutary purpose loomed large to our prudent predecessors, the Fathers of the Craft. They saw plainly that there is ever the possibility of a single item of diet palling stale upon the palate. They saw the refreshing exhilaration of variety and realized that ritual alone might lead to a satiated taste. Hence the literary urge received from them a hearty endorsement, and they gave Masonic studies the active protection and vigorous promotion of their jurisprudence."

There is a greater necessity now perhaps than at any time in our history to lay stress upon the need of heeding the provisions of this section. Our membership has grown most rapidly, having increased 90 per cent in the past ten years and 40 per cent in the past five. There is a woeful lack of knowledge as to the intentions and purposes of Masonry. If the true meaning of Masonry is instilled into the minds and hearts of these newly-obligated brethren, and the older members rejuvenated, the principles taught in Masonry will make for a higher type of manhood and the stabilizing of civilization, and our faith in the great future of Masonry will be firmly established.

There is an abundance of material that can be utilized for this purpose. The annual address of many Grand Masters contain dissertations on Masonry founded on practical experience and apart from the myths and fancies of tradition. The address of Grand Master W. B. Hubbard, delivered Oct. 23, 1851, is commended to the Masons of Ohio as most applicable to present-day conditions, and will, if its excellent precepts are followed, protect Masonry from the insidious practices and philosophies of modern time.

In the reports of the Committee on Foreign Correspondence of this Grand Lodge are to be found most interesting reviews of the opinions and comments of Masonic authorities, real treasure houses of information and many masterpieces of current Masonic literature. I recommend that all lodges be strongly urged to adopt an educational program.

— G. L. Proceedings, 1923.

Robt. I. Clegg, Illinois.

* * *


The Grand Lodge of England, "Moderns," chartered Botetourt Lodge, No. 458, in Boutetourt Town, Va., on November, 1773; the Royal Exchange Lodge, No. 236, in the Borough of Norfolk, Va., Dec. 22, 1753; Williamsburg Lodge, No. 457, Williamsburg, Va. (where the Grand Lodge of Virginia was formed in 1778), Nov. 6, 1773; York Town Lodge, No. 205, at Swan Tavern, York Town, Va., Aug. 1, 1775, and others. These lodges were given different numbers from time to time, for instance, Botetourt was numbered 365 in 1780, etc.; the Royal Exchange was numbered 173 in 1775, and several other numbers at later dates, and the other lodges above were numbered differently in succeeding years. What was the idea of changing their numbers so frequently? All of these lodges were erased from the English Register in 1813, the date of the formation of the United Grand Lodge of England, what is the significance attached to this?

Was it in 1738 or 1743 that the dissension arose in the Grand Lodge of England which resulted in the organization of the "Ancients" and the "Moderns"?

I notice that all of the lodges in Virginia were chartered by the "Modern" Grand Lodge of England, with possibly one exception. The exception was chartered by the Ancients as "Antient York Masons"; I think this was along about 1761. Did the "Antients" issue all their charters as "Antient York Masons"?

I have before me an original copy of the by-laws "of Morgantown Union Lodge, No. 93, of Ancient York Masons, constituted by the Right Worshipful Grand Lodge of Virginia, and held in Morgantown, Monongalia County, Va." This lodge is the one to which I belong and is now numbered 4, Morgantown, West Virginia. Where does that "Ancient York Masons" come from? We are not now known as "Ancient York Masons." Why "York" in the first place and why changed?

C.W.C., West Virginia.

The changes in the numbering of old lodges is a complication very vexatious to the historian. From the very first the senior Grand Lodge (called "Modern") occasionally rearranged the numbers of its constituent bodies when too many gaps appeared on its rolls, due to erasures of lodges that had ceased to exist or had had their warrants revoked or else had transferred their allegiance to another jurisdiction, as in the case of the American lodges after the Revolution.

The "Antients" followed the plan adopted by the Grand Lodges of Ireland, which was to assign the numbers of defunct lodges to new ones, so that the numerical order came to have no relation whatever to the age of the particular lodge. Often enough too a lodge with a high number, on learning that a lower one was vacant, would return their charter and petition for the older one, paying the registration and other fees in order to gain higher precedence. At the time of the union of the two Grand Lodges in England, there were two sets of numbers to be amalgamated, and a compromise solution of the problem was adopted. The two organizations cast lots as to which should take number one, and this fell to the Ancients. Thus the senior lodge on the roll of the Moderns, Antiquity, now carries the number two. Number two of the Ancients became three and number two of the Moderns, four, and so on. At the same time all the gaps in both rolls were closed up, and the last of the lodges chartered in America erased; not from any hostility but simply because they had formed their own governing bodies. In this connection we gather that at the present time there are a large number of vacant numbers in the roll of the United Grand Lodge of England, and a writer in a recent issue of the scholarly English periodical "The Record" strongly advocated another renumbering, the last time this was done being more than sixty years ago apparently.

In regard to the origin of the "Antient" Grand Lodge the statements of older authorities must be taken with great caution. The late Bros. Sadler and Chetwode-Crawley, by their researches, put the matter in an entirely new light. There was dissatisfaction and even dissension in the senior Grand Lodge as early as 1738 and even before, and though the matter is very obscure, many lodges and individuals for this or other reasons dropped out of the organization. The earliest records of the "Antients" however being July, 1751, though some kind of loose confederation of independent lodges seems to have been in existence for some time previously, two or three years possibly. Some of the members of these lodges, at least, were Irish Masons, others were "St. John's men," which seems to have meant Masons made in lodges that had persisted in independence. A few were converts (or secessionists) from the Moderns, but these were a negligible minority. The organization was thus in no proper sense of the word a schism from the senior Grand Lodge, though the two bodies were hostile in their attitude towards each other from the beginning.

In the earliest records of the "Antients" they speak of their system as Ancient and Most Ancient, and it was not for some years that they added "York" to their style. Bro. Sadler was of the opinion that this was an after-thought; and one might guess it was due to the influence of a copy of the Old Charges that Laurence Dermott got hold of, and read and expounded to his Grand Lodge in 1752. In any case the purpose of the addition was to emphasize their claim to continuity with the Masonry of the Craft Assembly at York under Prince Edwin with which the old legend of the Craft concludes. The "Antients" claimed that they retained the original customs and usages of the Craft which the "Moderns" had (so they alleged) changed both by omissions, transpositions and innovations. The Grand Lodges of Scotland and Ireland, by their action in recognizing the Antients and ignoring the Moderns, seem to have been of the opinion that this claim was just. It is, however, still somewhat uncertain what innovations, if any, the senior body had made.

Why the term "York" has been dropped in the case of Union Lodge, No. 4, is a question of the history of Masonry in Virginia. It would seem plausible to suppose that it was done for the sake of conformity with the majority. In other jurisdictions in this country, where the "Antient" heritage predominated, the reverse was the case.

The best work to refer to on this matter is Bro. Daynes' new book, The Birth and Growth of the Grand Lodge of England. If you can obtain Masonic Facts and Fictions and Masonic Reprints and Revelations, by Henry Sadler, they will be of great assistance. Unfortunately both are out of print and very scarce.

* * *


Is there any law regarding Masonic funerals, held jointly with other organizations, if so where can it be found?

I have always been under the impression that where civic and other orders were to take part at a funeral of a Mason that the Masonic Order reserved the right to come last in the funeral procession and to perform their ceremony last.

However, I notice that this rule is not being observed in this part of the country of late years.

Any light that you can give me on this subject will be highly appreciated.

W. E. Carruth, Oklahoma.

There is nothing that can properly be called a law in the sense of actual written enactment; but a series of Grand Masters' decisions could be collected on the point that you raise. And such decisions very frequently have something of the force of law.

There is no doubt that it is a general rule, and in some jurisdictions an absolute rule, that a Masonic lodge shall not take part in the funeral of a Mason unless they have the chief part in the ceremonies, and this implies that their place in the procession is the last.

The thing for a lodge to do when it is found that other arrangements are being made is simply to refuse to take any part in the proceedings as a body, unless matters are brought into conformity with our traditions.

* * *


Some time ago we wrote to you in regard to securing for our file the issues which are noted below of THE BUILDER, and you replied saying that it would not be possible for you to send us copies, as they were no longer available.

We do not wish to annoy you, but as it is our intention to preserve the file permanently, we feel that no effort should be spared to complete it. Do you think that an appeal through the columns of THE BUILDER to your readers might be successful in bringing us these numbers? Many people who subscribe for magazines and papers save their copies until for lack of space, or for other reasons, they are glad to dispose of them, particularly if they can find a depository where they will be useful and appreciated. As a result of this habit of saving publication, many old files come to the Library as gifts, both solicited and unsolicited, and it is seldom that publishers make an appeal for us to their readers without satisfactory results. Anything further you may do towards supplying us with the missing issues of THE BUILDER Will, I assure you, be highly appreciated.

E. H. Anderson, Director.

The Library needs the following: THE BUILDER, Vols. 4 to 6, all issues (1918-1920). Vol. 7, Nos. 1, 3 to 12 (January, March to December, 1921). Vol. 8, No. 2 (January, 1922). Also the American Freemason, Vol. 1, No. 1 to Vol. 8, No. 7, inclusive (all issues before June, 1917), and the National Trestleboard, Vol. 1, No. 1, to Vol. 34, No. 6 (all issues before January, 1921).

* * *


In my article in the September, 1926, number of THE BUILDER on the Rite of Strict Observance, I mentioned the Roman Catholic branch of the Knights of Malta. This seems to have surprised some of your readers and probably is not understood by most Masons. As the Pope has recently established a branch of the Knights of St. John in the United States, a little information about the present-day order may be welcomed.

When Napoleon, in 1793, destroyed the Knights as a sovereign power, they tried to continue on under Paul, Emperor of Russia. But in this they were unsuccessful and the parent body finally settled in Rome under the protection of the Pope. The Pope appointed a Lieutenant-Commander for them, but in 1879 revived the office of Grand Master. The present Grand Master is Count Gian Galeazzo de Hohenstein. In December of last year a United States group of the Knights was formed by the making of ten Knights of Malta with full power to create other Knights. Six live in New York City: Marquis Nicholas Brady, President New York Edison Co.; John D. Ryan, Chairman Anaconda Copper Co.; P. E. Crowley, President N.Y. Central R.R.; M. J. O'Brien, Lawyer; J. A. Farrell, President U.S. Steel Corporation; J. A. Fayne, investments. Two live in Chicago: Edward F. Carry, President Pullman Co., and Edward N. Hurley, manufacturer. Of the other two, Col. J. J. Phelan, a banker, lives in Boston, and John J. Raskob, Vice-President Du Pont Powder Co. and Vice-President General Motors, lives at Claymont, Del. It is reported that ex-Senator James D. Phelan, of San Francisco, who donated $1,000,000 to the earthquake relief, Thomas F. Ryan, mining and street railways, and Charles A. Whelan, President United Cigar Stores, all millionaires, together with other prominent political, social and financial leaders of the United States, are also to be elected to the Order of the Knights of Malta.

That those only considered equal to the nobility of Europe will be made Knights is certain, because there only those who are of the nobility are eligible Knights and then only if they have the requisite number of quarterings. This excludes there even the new nobility.

There are four living branches of the Knights of Malta: one in England, of which the King is Grand Master and the Prince of Wales is Grand Prior; one in Germany, of which the late Crown Prince is acting Grand Master; one in Austria, now somewhat dormant but very active during the great way, and one in Italy. The one in Rome is the continuation of the parent stem and the others are branches of it.

The Knights of Malta form one of the oldest, proudest and most distinguished knightly orders in the world. None but those of long and high descent are ever made Knights. It is by far the greatest of Roman Catholic organizations. Only Roman Catholics can join that branch whose head is at Rome or Vienna; only Protestants can join the one at Berlin, but both Protestants and Catholics can join the one at London.

The branch from the Roman Catholic stem that has just been organized in the United States with the election of ten millionaires will further the common purpose, which is to aid charities at Rome.

Burton E. Bennett