The Builder Magazine 

August 1923 - Volume IX - Number 8 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 

FRONTISPIECE - LIONEL VIBERT 

ANDERSON'S CONSTITUTIONS OF 1723 - By Bro. Lionel Vibert, P. M., England 

IS FREEMASONRY A RELIGION ?.- By Bro. H. L. Haywood 

CAMP ROOSEVELT: A BOY BUILDER - By Bro. F. L. T., Illinois 

SOME NOTES ON THE MEANING OF THE WORD "FREEMASON" - By Bro. H. 
L. Haywood 

THE STORY OF PHILIPPINE MASONRY - By Bro. G.J. Mariano, Philippine 
Islands 

THE GREEN DRAGON TAVERN, OR FREEMASONS' ARMS - By Bro. Charles 
W. Moore, Massachusetts 


THE LIBRARY 

A German Masonic Bibliography 

Concerning Theophrastus Bombastus Von Hohenheim 

A Burbanked Browning 


THE QUESTION BOX 

The Builder's Attitude Toward Occultism, Etc. 

The Meaning of the Word "Mystery" 



Concerning the Mark Master Degree 
An Easy Way to Get Masonic Books 


CORRESPONDENCE 
The Mathematics of the Bible 
Information Wanted 


YE EDITOR'S CORNER 


— o — 

VOLUME IX - NUMBER 8 

TWO DOLLARS FIFTY CENTS THE YEAR 
TWENTY-FIVE CENTS THE COPY 

THE BUILDER - August 1923 

Anderson's Constitutions of 1723 

By Bro. LIONEL VIBERT, Past Master Quator Coronati Lodge No. 2076, England 



Bro. Lionel Vibert, of Marline, Lansdowne, Bath, England, is author of Freemasonry 
Before the Existence of Grand Lodges and The Story of the Craft and is editor of 
Miscellanea Latomoram. He has contributed papers to the Ars Quatuor 
Coronatorum, notably one on "The French Compagnonnage," a critical and 
exhaustive treatise that is bound to replace Gould's famous chapter among the sources 
available to the rank and file of students of that important theme. After having 
devoted his attention for several years to pre-Grand Lodge Masonry, Bro. Vibert is 
now specializing on the Grand Lodge era the records of which are still so confused or 
incomplete that, in spite of the great amount of work accomplished by scholars in the 
past, a work "great as the Twelve Labours of Hercules" remains yet to be done. The 
paper below is one of the author's first published studies of the Grand Lodge era. To 
us American Masons, who live under forty-nine Grand Jurisdictions and to whom 
Masonic jurisprudence is an almost necessary preoccupation, any new light on that 
formative and critical period, and especially on Dr. Anderson whose Constitutions is 
the groundwork of our laws, is not only interesting but useful. 


THE GRAND LODGE THAT WAS brought into existence in 1717 did not find it 
necessary to possess a Constitution of its own for some years. Exactly what went on 
between 1717 and 1721 we do not know; almost our only authority being the account 
given by Anderson in 1738 which is unreliable in many particulars. Indeed it cannot 
be stated with certainty whether there were any more than the original Four Old 
Lodges until 1721; it would appear from the Lists and other records we possess that 
the first lodge to join them did not do so till July of that year; the statements as to the 
number of new lodges in each year given by Anderson are not capable of 
verification. It was also in the year 1721 that the Duke of Montagu was made Grand 
Master on 24th June, having probably joined the Craft just previously. The effect of 
his becoming Grand Master, a fact advertised in the dally press of the period, was that 
the Craft leapt into popularity, its numbers increased, and new lodges were rapidly 
constituted. Even now it was not anticipated that the Grand Lodge would extend the 
scope of its activities beyond London and Westminster, but Grand Master Payne, 
possibly anticipating the stimulus that would be provided by the accession to the 
Craft of the Duke, had got ready a set of General Regulations, and these were read 
over on the occasion of his installation. Unfortunately we do not possess the original 
text of them but have only the version as revised and expanded by Anderson. But we 
can understand that in a very short time it would be found necessary for these 
regulations to be printed and published to the Craft. Their publication was 
undertaken by Anderson, who took the opportunity to write a history of the Craft as 
an introduction, and to prepare a set of Charges; his intention clearly being to give the 
new body a work which would in every respect replace the Old Manuscript 



Constitutions. The work consists of a dedication written by Desaguliers and 
addressed to Montagu as late Grand Master; a Historical introduction; a set of six 
Charges; Payne's Regulations revised; the manner of constituting a new lodge; and 
songs for the Master, Wardens, Fellow Craft and Entered Apprentice, of which the 
last is well known in this country (England) and is still sung today in many lodges. 
There is also an elaborate frontispiece. The work was published by J. Senex and J. 
Hooke, on 28th February, 1722-3, that is to say 1722 according to the official or civil 
reckoning, but 1723 by the so-called New Style, the popular way of reckoning. (It did 
not become the official style till the reform of the calender in 1752.) The title page 
bears the date 1723 simply. 


Dr. Anderson was bom in Aberdeen, and was a Master of Arts of the Marischal 
College in that city. He was in London in 1710 and was minister of a Presbyterian 
Chapel in Swallow Street, Piccaldilly, till 1734. He was also chaplain to the Earl of 
Buchan, and as the Earl was a representative peer for Scotland from 1714-1734, it 
was probably during these years that he maintained a London establishment. We do 
not know that the Earl was a Mason, although his sons were. When Anderson was 
initiated we do not know either; but it may have been in the Aberdeen Lodge. There 
is a remarkable similarity between his entry in the Constitutions of his name as 
"Master of a Lodge and Author of this Book," and in entry in the Aberdeen Mark 
Book, of "James Anderson, Glazier and Mason and Writer of this Book." This was in 
1670 and this James Anderson is no doubt another person. It just happens most 
unfortunately that the minutes for the precise period during which we might expect to 
find our author are missing. In any case he was familiar with the Scottish 
terminology which he no doubt had some share in introducing into English 
Freemasonry. 


Nor can it be stated with confidence when he joined the Craft in London. He was 
Master of a lodge in 1722, a lodge not as yet identified, but there is no record of his 
having had anything to do with Grand Lodge prior to the Grand Mastership of the 
Duke of Montagu. He was not even present at the Duke's installation; at all events 
Stukeley does not name him as being there. He himself, in his version of the minutes, 
introduces his own name for the first time at the next meeting. 


HOW HE CAME TO WRITE THE WORK 



His own account of the work, as given in 1738, is that he was ordered to digest the 
Old Gothic Constitutions in a new and better method by Montagu on 29th September, 
1721, that on 27th December, Montagu appointed fourteen learned brothers to 
examine the MS., and that after they had approved it was ordered to be printed on 
25th March, 1722. He goes on to say that it was produced in print for the approval of 
Grand Lodge on 17th January, 1722-3, when Grand Master Wharton's manner of 
constituting a lodge was added. In the book itself are printed a formal Approbation 
by Grand Lodge and the Masters and Wardens of twenty lodges (with the exception 
of two Masters), which is undated, and also a copy of a resolution of the Quarterly 
Communication of 17th January, 1722-3, directing the publication and recommending 
it to the Craft. 


With regard to the committee of fourteen learned brethren and the three occasions on 
which the book is alleged to have been considered in Grand Lodge, the Approbation 
itself states that the author first submitted his text for the perusal of the late and 
present Deputy Grand Master's and of other learned brethren and also the Masters of 
lodges, and then delivered it to Grand Master Montagu, who by the advice of several 
brethren ordered the same to be handsomely printed, This is not quite the same thing. 


And it is to be noted that in 1735 Anderson appeared before Grand Lodge to protest 
against the doings of one Smith who had pirated the Constitutions which were his 
sole property. His account of this incident in the 1738 edition suppresses this 
interesting circumstance. Further it is very clear from the Grand Lodge minutes that 
the appearance of the book caused a good deal of dissension in Grand Lodge itself, 
and it brought the Craft into ridicule from outside; in particular Anderson's re-writing 
of Payne's Regulations was taken exception to. Anderson himself did not appear 
again in Grand Lodge for nearly eight years. 


The true state of the case appears to be that Anderson undertook to write the work as 
a private venture of his own and that this was sanctioned, since it was desirable that 
the Regulations at least published, without any very careful examination of his text, 
or of so much of it as was ready, and that when it was published it was discovered, 



but too late, that he had taken what were felt by many to be unwarrantable liberties 
not only with the traditional Charges but also with Payne's Regulations. 


THE BOOK IS ANALYZED 


In using the term Constitutions he was following the phraseology of several of the 
versions of the Old Charges, and in fact the word occurs (in Latin) in the Regius, 
though Anderson never saw that. It was apparently traditional in the Craft. The 
contents of the work itself indicate that the various portions were put together at 
different dates and Anderson tells us it was not all in print during Montagu's term of 
office. 


Taking the Approbation first, this is signed by officers of twenty lodges; the Master 
and both Wardens have all signed in all but two. In those, numbers eight and ten, the 
place for the Master's signature is blank. Mr. Mathew Birkhead is shown as Master 
of number five; and he died on the 30th December, 1722. Accordingly the 
Approbation must be of an earlier date and of the twenty lodges we know that number 
nineteen was constituted on 25th November, 1722, and number twenty if, as is 
probable, it is of later date, will have been constituted possibly on the same day but 
more probably a few days later. Thus we can date the Approbation within narrow 
limits. In his 1738 edition Anderson gives a series of the numbers of lodges on the 
roll of Grand Lodge at different dates which cannot be checked from any independent 
source, and he suggests that on 25th March, 1722, there were already at least twenty- 
four lodges in existence because he asserts that representatives of twenty- four paid 
their homage to the Grand Master on that date; and that those of twenty-five did so on 
17th January, 1722-3. Because of Anderson's assertion as to twenty-four lodges some 
writers have speculated as to the lodges the officers of which omitted to sign or which 
were ignored by the author. But the truth probably is that these lodges - if they 
existed at all - were simply not represented at the meeting. 


The Approbation is signed by Wharton as Grand Master, Desaguliers as Deputy, and 
Timson and Hawkins as Grand Wardens. According to the story as told by Anderson 
in 1738 Wharton got himself elected Grand Master irregularly on 24th June, 1722, 



when he appointed these brethren as his Wardens but omitted to appoint a Deputy. 

On 17th January, 1722-3, the Duke of Montagu, "to heal the breach," had Wharton 
proclaimed Grand Master and he then appointed Desaguliers as his Deputy and 
Timson and Anderson, (not Hawkins,) Wardens and Anderson adds that his 
appointment was made for Hawkins demitted as always out of town. If this story 
could be accepted the Approbation was signed by three officers who were never in 
office simultaneously, since when Desaguliers came in Hawkins had already 
demitted. This by itself would throw no small doubt on Anderson's later narrative, 
but in fact we know that his whole story as to Wharton is a tissue of fabrication. The 
daily papers of the period prove that the Duke of Wharton was in fact installed on 
25th June, and he then appointed Desaguliers as his Deput and Timson and Hawkins 
as his Wardens. It is unfortunate that Anderson overlooked that his very date, 24th 
June, was impossible as it was a Sunday, a day expressly prohibited by Payne's 
Regulations for meetings of Grand Lodge. There are indications of some 
disagreement; apparently some brethren wished Montagu to continue, but in fact 
Wharton went in the regular course; the list of Grand Lodge officers in the minute 
book of Grand Lodge shows him as Grand Master in 1722. And that Hawkins 
demitted is merely Anderson's allegation. In this same list he appears as Grand 
Warden, but Anderson himself has written the words (which he is careful to 
reproduce in 1738): "Who demitted and James Anderson A.M. was chosen in his 
place;" vide the photographic reproduction of the entry at page 196 of Quatuor, 
Coronatorum Antigrapha Vol. X; while in the very first recorded minute of Grand 
Lodge, that of 24th June, 1723, the entry as to Grand Wardens originally stood: 

Joshua Timson and the Reverend Mr. James Anderson who officiated for Mr. 

William Hawkins. But these last six words have been carefully erased, vide the photo 
reproduction at page 48 Quatuor Corontorum Antigrapha VOL X, which brings them 
to light again. Hawkins then was still the Grand Warden in June 1723, and on that 
occasion Anderson officiated for him at the January meeting. The explanation of the 
whole business appears to be that Anderson in 1738 was not anxious to emphasize his 
associated with Wharton, who after his term of office as Grand Master proved a 
renegade and Jacobite and an enemy to the Craft. He had died in Spain in 1731. For 
the Book of Constitutions of 1738 there is a new Approbation altogether. 


But we have not yet done with this Approbation for the further question arises, At 
what meeting of Grand Lodge was it drawn up? The license to publish refers to a 
meeting of 17th January, 1722-23, and that there was such a meeting is implied by the 
reference to this document in the official minutes of June, when the accuracy of this 
part of it is not impugned. But this Approbation was as we have seen drawn up 
between the end of November and the end of December, 1722, and between these 



limits an earlier date, is more probable than a later. No such meeting is mentioned by 
Anderson himself in 1738. But the explanation of this no doubt is that he now has his 
tale of the proclamation of Wharton at that meeting on 17th January, and any 
references to a meeting of a month or so earlier presided over by that nobleman would 
stultify the narrative. It is probable that a meeting was in fact held, and that its 
occurrence was suppressed by Anderson when he came to publish his narrative of the 
doings of Grand Lodge fifteen years later. The alternative would be that the whole 
document was unauthorized, but so impudent an imposture could never have escaped 
contemporary criticism. Truly the ways of the deceiver are hard. 


THE FRONTISPIECE IS DESCRIBED 


The Frontispiece to the Constitutions of 1723, which was used over again without 
alteration in 1738, represents a classical arcade in the foreground of which stand two 
noble personages, each attended by three others of whom one of those on the 
spectator's left carries cloaks and pairs of gloves. The principal personages can 
hardly be intended for any others than Montagu and Wharton; and Montagu is 
wearing the robes of the Garter, and is handing his successor a roll of the 
Constitutions, not a book. This may be intended for Anderson's as yet unprinted 
manuscript, or, more likely it indicates that a version of the Old Constitutions was 
regarded at the time as part of the Grand Master's equipment, which would be a 
survival of Operative practice. Behind each Grand Master stand their officers, Beal, 
Villeneau, and Morris on one side, and on the other Desaguliers, Timson, and 
Hawkins, Desaguliers as a clergyman and the other two in ordinary dress, and 
evidently an attempt has been made in each case to give actual portraits. It is 
unnecessary to suppose, as we would have to if we accepted Anderson's story, that 
this plate was designed, drawn, and printed in the short interval between 17th January 
and 28th February. It might obviously have been prepared at any time after June 25, 
1722. By it Anderson is once more contradicted, because here is Hawkins - or at all 
events someone in ordinary clothes - as Grand Warden, and not the Reverend James 
Anderson, as should be the case if Wharton was not Grand Master till January and 
then replaced the absent Hawkins by the Doctor. The only other plate in the book is 
an elaborate illustration of the arms of the Duke of Montagu which stands at the head 
of the first page of the dedication. 



We can date the historical portion of the work from the circumstance that it ends with 
the words: "our present worthy Grand Master, the most noble Prince John, Duke of 
Montagu." We can be fairly certain that Anderson's emendations of Payne's 
Regulations were in part made after the incidents of Wharton's election because they 
contain elaborate provisions for the possible continuance of the Grand Master and the 
nomination or election of his successor and in the charges again, there is a reference 
to the Regulations hereunto annexed. But beyond this internal evidence, (and that of 
the Approbation and sanction to publish already referred to), the only guide we have 
to the dates of printing the various sections of the work is the manner in which the 
printers' catch words occur. The absence of a catch word is not proof that the sections 
were printed at different times because it might be omitted if, e. g., it would spoil the 
appearance of a tail-piece; but the occurrence of a catch word is a very strong 
indication that the sections it links were printed together. Now in the Constitution of 
1723 they occur as follows: from the dedication to the history, none; from the history 
to the Charges, catch word; from the Charges to a Postscript 'put in here to fill a page', 
catch word; from this to the Regulations, none; from the Regulations to the method of 
constituting a New Lodge, catch word; from this to the Approbation, none; from the 
Approbation to the final section, the songs, none; and none from here to the license to 
publish on the last page. 


Accordingly we may now date the several portions of the work with some degree of 
certainty. The times are as follows: 


The plate; at any time after June 25th, 1722. 

The dedication, id., but probably written immediately before publication. 

The historical portion; prior to 25th June, 1722. 

The charges printed with the preceding section, but drafted conjointly with the 
Regulations. 

The postscript; the same. 

The General Regulations, after Wharton's installation 

The method of constituting a new Lodge; printed with the preceding section. 



The Approbation; between 25th November and end of December, 1722. 


The songs and sanction to publish; after January 17th, 1722-3, and probably at the last 
moment. 


Of these sections the plate and Approbation have already been dealt with. The 
dedication calls for no special notice; it is an extravagant eulogy of the accuracy and 
diligence of the author. The songs are of little interest except the familiar 
Apprentice's Song, and this is now described as by our late Brother Matthew 
Birkhead. 


THE HISTORICAL PORTION 


This requires a somewhat extended notice. The legendary history, as it is perhaps not 
necessary to remind my readers, brought Masonry or Geometry from the children of 
Lamech to Solomon; then jumped to France and Charles Martel; and then by St. 
Alban, Athelstan and Edwin, this worthy Craft was established in England. In the 
Spencer family of MSS. an attempt has been made to fill in the obvious gaps in this 
narrative by introducing the second and third temples, those of Zerubbabel and 
Herod, and Auviragus king of Britain as a link with Rome, France and Charles Martel 
being dropped, while a series of monarchs has also been introduced between St. 
Alban's paynim king and Atheistan. Anderson's design was wholly different. He was 
obsessed by the idea of the perfection of the Roman architecture, what he called the 
Augustan Style, and he took the attitude that the then recent introduction of 
Renaissance architecture into England as a return to a model from which Gothic had 
been merely a barbarous lapse. He traces the Art from Cain who built a city, and who 
was instructed in Geometry by Adam. Here he is no doubt merely bettering his 
originals which were content with the sons of Lamech. The assertion shows a total 
want of any sense of humour, but then so do all his contributions to history. But it is 
worth while pointing out that it suggests more than this; it suggests that he had an 
entire lack of acquaintance with the polite literature of the period. No well-read 
person of the day would be unacquainted with the writings of Abraham Cowley, the 
poet and essayist of the Restoration, and the opening sentence of his Essay of 
Agriculture is: "The three first men in the world were a gardener, a ploughman and a 
grazier; and if any man object that the second of these was a murderer, I desire he 



would consider that as soon as he was so he quitted our profession, and turned 
builder." It is difficult to imagine that Anderson would have claimed Cain as the first 
Mason if he had been familiar with this passage. 


From this point he develops the history in his own fashion, but he incorporates freely 
and with an entire disregard for textual accuracy any passages in the Old Charges that 
suit him and he has actually used the Cooke Text, as also some text closely allied to 
the William Watson. We know the Cooke was available to him; we learn from 
Stukeley that it had been produced in Grand Lodge on 24 June, 1721. Anderson, in 
1738, omits all reference to this incident, but asserts that in 1718 Payne desired the 
brethren to bring to Grand Lodge any old writings and records, and that several copies 
of the Gothic Constitutions (as he calls them) were produced and collated. He also 
alleges that in 1720 several valuable manuscripts concerning the Craft were too 
hastily burnt by some scrupulous brethren. The former of these statements we should 
receive with caution; for the very reason that the 1723 Constitutions show no traces of 
such texts; the latter may be true and the manuscripts may have been rituals, or they 
may have been versions of the Old Charges, but there was nothing secret about those. 
The antiquary Plot had already printed long extracts from them. 


Returning to the narrative we are told that Noah and his sons were Masons, which is a 
statement for which Anderson found no warrant in his originals; but he seems to have 
had a peculiar fondness for Noah. In 1738 he speaks of Masons as true Noachidae, 
alleging this to have been their first name according to some old traditions, and it is 
interesting to observe that the Irish Constitutions of 1858 preserve this fragment of 
scholarship and assert as a fact that Noachidae was the first name of Masons. 
Anderson also speaks of the three great articles of Noah, which are not however 
further elucidated, but it is probable that the reference is to the familiar triad of 
Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth. He omits Abraham and introduces Euclid in his 
proper chronological sequence, so that he has corrected the old histories to that 
extent; but after Solomon and the second Temple he goes to Greece, Sicily and Rome, 
where was perfected the glorious Augustan Style. He introduces Charles Martel - as 
King of France! - as helping England to recover the true art after the Saxon invasion, 
but ignores Athelstan and Edwin. 



He however introduces most of the monarchs after the Conquest and makes a very 
special reference to Scotland and the Stuarts. In the concluding passage he used the 
phrase "the whole body resembles a well built Arch" and it has been suggested, not 
very convincingly perhaps, that this is an allusion to the Royal Arch Degree. 


There is an elaborate account of Zerubbabel's temple which may have some such 
significance, and the Tabernacle of Moses, Aholiab and Bezaleel is also mentioned at 
some length, Moses indeed being a Grand Master. He also inserts for no apparent 
reason a long note on the words Hiram Abiff, and in this case the suggestion that 
there is a motive for his doing so connected with ritual is of more cogency. It is an 
obvious suggestion that the name was of importance to the Craft at this date, that is to 
say early in 1722, and that the correctness of treating Abiff as a surname instead of as 
equivalent to his "father" was a matter the Craft were taking an interest in. 


THE SIX CHARGES 


The Charges, of which there are six, are alleged to be extracted from ancient records 
of lodges beyond Sea, and of those in England, Scotland and Ireland. In the 
Approbation the assertion is that he has examined several copies from Italy and 
Scotland and sundry parts of England. Were it not that he now omits Ireland 
altogether we might nave been disposed to attach some importance to the former 
statement. As yet no Irish version of the Old Charges has come to light but it is 
barely possible that there were records of Irish Freemasonry at the time which have 
since passed out of sight, a Freemasonry no doubt derived originally from England. 
But the discrepancy is fatal; we must conclude that the worthy doctor never saw any 
Irish record. And we can safely dismiss his lodges in Italy or beyond Sea as equally 
mythical. 


Of the six Charges themselves the first caused trouble immediately on its appearance. 
It replaced the old invocation of the Trinity and whatever else there may have been of 
statements of religious and Christian belief in the practice of the lodges by a vague 
statement that we are only to be obliged to that religion in which all men agree. 
Complete religious tolerance has in fact become the rule of our Craft, but the Grand 



Lodge of 1723 was not ready for so sudden a change and it caused much ill feeling 
and possibly many secessions. It was the basis of a series of attacks on the new 
Grand Lodge. 


CONSTITUTING A NEW LODGE 


The manner of constituting a New Lodge is noteworthy for its reference to the 
"Charges of a Master," and the question, familiar to us today: Do you submit to these 
charges as Masters have done in all ages? It does not appear that these are the six 
ancient Charges of a previous section; they were something quite distinct. But not 
until 1777 are any Charges of the Master known to have been printed. It is also 
worthy of notice that the officers to be appointed Wardens of the new lodge are 
Fellow Crafts. There is also a reference to the Charges to the Wardens which are to 
be given by a Grand Warden. This section appeared in the Constitutions of the 
United Grand Lodge as late as 1873. 


Anderson in 1738 alleges that he was directed to add this section to the work at the 
meeting of January 17 and he then speaks of it as the ancient manner of constituting a 
lodge. This is also the title of the corresponding section in the 1738 Constitutions, 
which is only this enlarged. But its title in 1723 is: Here follows the Manner of 
constituting a NEW LODGE, as practised by His Grace the Duke of Wharton, the 
present Right Worshipful Grand Master, according to the ancient Usages of Masons. 
We once more see Anderson suppressing references to the Duke of Wharton where he 
can in 1738, and yet obliged to assert that the section was added after January 17th in 
order to be consistent in his story. It is not in the least likely that this is what was 
done. It was to all appearance printed at one and the same time with the Regulations, 
which he himself tells us were in print on 17th January, and since Wharton 
constituted four lodges if not more in 1722 he will not have waited six months to 
settle his method. We may be pretty certain that this section was in print before the 
Approbation to which it is not linked by a catch- word. 


THE REGULATIONS 



The Regulations, as I have already mentioned, have come down to us only as 
rewritten by Anderson. The official minutes of Grand Lodge throw considerable light 
on the matter. The first of all relates to the appointment of the Secretary, and the very 
next one is as follows: 


The Order of the 17th January 1722-3 printed at the end of the Constitutions page 91 
for the publishing the said Constitutions as read purporting, that they had been before 
approved in Manuscript by the Grand Lodge and were then (viz) 17th January 
aforesaid produced in print and approved by the Society. 


Then the Question was moved, that the said General Regulations be confirmed, so far 
as they are consistent with the Ancient Rules of Masonry. The previous question was 
moved and put, whether the words "so far as they are consistent with the Ancient 
Rules of Masonry" be part of the Question. Resolved in the affirmative, But the main 
Question was not put. 


And the Question was moved that it is not in the Power of any person, or Body of 
men, to make any alteration, or Innovation in the Body of Masonry without the 
consent first obtained of the Annual Grand Lodge. And the Question being put 
accordingly Resolved in the Affirmative. 


We would record these proceedings today in somewhat different form, perhaps as 
follows: 


It was proposed (and seconded) that the said General Regulations be confirmed so far 
as they are consistent with the Ancient Rules of Masonry. An amendment to omit the 
words "so far ... Masonry" was negatived. But in place of the original proposition the 
following resolution was adopted by a majority: That it is not, etc. 



The effect of this is that it indicates pretty clearly that there was a strong feeling in 
Grand Lodge that Anderson's version of the Regulations had never been confirmed; 
that there was a difference of opinion as to now confirming them, even partially; and 
that in fact this was not done, but a resolution was adopted instead condemning 
alterations made without the consent of Grand Lodge at its annual meeting first 
obtained. I should perhaps say that the word "purporting" does not here have the 
meaning we would today attach to it; it has no sense of misrepresentation. Anderson 
was present at this meeting, but naturally not a word of all this appears in the account 
he gives of it in 1738. 


Regulation XIII, or one sentence in it rather, "Apprentices must be admitted Masters 
and Fellow Craft only here, (i.e. in Grand Lodge) unless by a Dispensation," was at 
one time the battle ground of the Two Degree versus Three Degree schools; but it is 
generally admitted now, I believe, that only two degrees are referred to, namely the 
admission and the Master's Part. 


The order of the words is significant. In the Regulation they read "Masters and 
Fellow Craft." In the resolution of 27 November, 1725 by which the rule was 
annulled, the wording is "Master" in the official minutes, which is a strong indication 
that the original Regulation only referred to one degree. In 1738 Anderson 
deliberately alters what is set out as the original wording and makes it read "Fellow 
Crafts and Masters," while in the new Regulation printed alongside of it the alteration 
of 27 November, 1725, is quoted as "Masters and Fellows" both being inaccurate; and 
he even gives the date wrongly. 


The second Regulation enacts that the Master of a particular lodge has the right of 
congregating the members of his lodge into a chapter upon any emergency as well as 
to appoint the time and place of their usual forming. But it would be quite unsafe to 
assume that this is another reference to the Royal Arch; it appears to deal with what 
we would now call an emergent meeting. 



Payne's, or rather Anderson's, Regulations were the foundation on which the law of 
the Craft was based, it being developed by a continual process of emendation and 
addition, and their phraseology can still be traced in our English Constitutions today. 


SUBSEQUENT ALTERATIONS 


In America Franklin reprinted this work in 1734 apparently verbatim. In 1738 
Anderson brought out a second addition which was intended to replace the earlier one 
altogether, but it was a slovenly performance and the Regulations were printed in so 
confused a manner, being all mixed up with notes and amendments (many 
inaccurately stated), that it was difficult to make head or tail of them and to ascertain 
what was the law of the Craft. He also re-wrote the history entirely and greatly 
expanded it, introducing so many absurdities that Gould has suggested that he was 
deliberately fooling the Grand Lodge, or in the alternative that he was himself in his 
dotage. He died very shortly after. But this same ridiculous history has done duty in 
all seriousness till comparatively recent years, being brought up to date by Preston 
and others who were apparently quite unconscious of its true value. Unfortunately 
that portion of the history which professed to give an account of the proceedings of 
Grand Lodge and for which the official minutes were at Anderson's disposal is full of 
what one must consider wilful inaccuracies and misstatements. 


In the next edition of the Constitutions, 1754, the Regulations were rewritten by 
Entick, but the history was preserved. Entick also reverted to the Charges as drawn 
up in 1723 into which, especially the first, Anderson had introduced various 
modifications in 1738, and those Charges are the basis of the Ancient Charges to be 
found today in the Constitutions of the United Grand Lodge of England, the only 
differences, except as regards the first Charge, not amounting to more than verbal 
modifications. 


OUR DEBT TO ANDERSON 



While as students we are bound to receive any statement that Anderson makes with 
the utmost caution unless it can be tested from other sources, we must not be too 
ready to abuse the worthy Doctor on that account. Our standards of historical and 
literary accuracy are higher than those of 1723, and his object was to glorify Montagu 
and the Craft and the new style of architecture introduced by Inigo Jones and others 
of his school; and this he did wholeheartedly, and if in the process he twisted a text or 
two or supplied suitable events to fill gaps in his narrative for which mere history as 
such had failed to record facts, no one at the time would think any the worse of him 
for that. It was a far more serious matter that he was instrumental in removing from 
the literature of the Craft all definite religious allusions; but as we now see, the Craft 
in fact owes its universality today to its wide undenominational ism and in this respect 
he builded better than he knew. The Constitutions of 1723 remains one of our most 
important texts and only awaits publication in full facsimile with suitable notes and 
introduction at the hands of some Society with the requisite funds. 


— o — 


Is Freemasonry a Religion? 


ByBro. H.L. HAYWOOD 


"Do you believe that Freemasonry is a religion? If it is, can a Mason belong 
consistently to his lodge and to a church? If it is not, why does it have so much in its 
Ritual about the Bible, and why do some of the organized churches oppose it as 
though it were a dangerous rival?" 


The seasons themselves do not recur with more certain regularity, than comes this 
inquiry to Ye Editor's desk, nor is there any one subject that receives more universal 
discussion in the Masonic press. And neither, one may continue, is there any other 
inquiry that remains so unsatisfactorily answered, if one may judge from the reactions 
of the rank and file of Masons. There is a difference of opinion on the subject as 
universal as it appears to be lasting, and it may well be that Freemasonry will go on 



until the last candidate is raised in the last lodge without the question ever having 
received a plain and final answer. 


The reason for this lies very close at hand. Religion itself is the subject about which 
men differ the most, both in theory and practice, and this confusion in the general 
mind inevitably makes its way into every discussion of the relation of Freemasonry to 
religion. Until men at large become agreed as to what religion is, or what it should 
be, or how it is to be used and practised, we must expect a wide difference of opinion 
as to what may be the religion or lack of religion of our Craft. 


If by a religion a man has in mind an organized church, with its official priesthood, its 
authorized doctrines, and its sacraments, then Freemasonry is not a religion, for it has 
none of these things; but if religion is made to mean any form of teaching concerning 
the soul and its adventure through this life, and concerning God, then it may well be 
that Freemasonry is a religion, because it most plainly has something to say about 
these matters. But if, further, the word religion is not to be given either one of these 
definitions, but is made to stand for something special to an individual's view, then 
that individual must make up his mind about Freemasonry to suit his own theories. 


According to the view of the present writer Freemasonry may be described as 
religious but not as a religion. The religiousness which lies in it is not something that 
is to be set apart as a thing by itself to function as the rival of some organized church 
but is to be interpreted as that groundwork of faith which lies at the root of all the 
creeds together. Just as a man must be a human being before he can become a citizen 
of the United States, so must a man have certain religious principles in his soul before 
he can become a Mason; and just as a citizen of the United States is free to live in any 
state in the Union, or even to live abroad, so may a Mason unite himself with any 
church he pleases. The religion that is in Freemasonry is not something that can be 
made the rival of any religion but rather is what lies at the bottom of all religion 
whatever (except of the savage variety) so that one finds Masons consistently 
belonging to the Greek Orthodox Church, or to a Mohammedan communion, or an 
Episcopalian church, or a Methodist, or to Christian Science, or what not. The 
teachings of the Craft are not such as can come into conflict with the doctrines 
peculiar to any one of these faiths but are such as all their communicants share in 
common. When the framers of the good old paragraph in Anderson's Constitutions 



said that the religion of Freemasonry is that in which all good men agree, they 
probably came as close to a final statement of the subject as we shall ever have. 


— o — 


Camp Roosevelt: A Boy Builder 


By Bro. F. L. T., Illinois 


Here is a beautiful account of how a Mason, Bro. F.L. Beals, Major, U.S.A., of 
Chicago, 111., learned to apply his Masonry in a practical and constructive way. Like a 
true builder he has his eye to the future. He has taken to heart the great admonition 
left by George Meredith: 


"Keep the young generations in hail; 
Bequeath to them no tumbled house." 


TRUE fratemalism means sharing alike one's joys and woes, means "feeling" for our 
brother man. Not in the detached sense which enables one man to say, "Oh, I'm 
sorry," when he hears of the misfortune of a neighbor, and then goes on his way to his 
party or dance, forgetting all about the misery in the heart of the man next door, but 
that genuine sorrow which makes him give of himself, which makes a man go out of 
his way to help his neighbor, which makes him dig in and help - that is the true 
fratemalism of man and man. The man who, when his brother advances in business, 
when high honors are bestowed upon him, can rejoice with him and let no mean 
thoughts of jealousy or envy fill his mind, has the tmly fraternal spirit. But, while we 
speak of it on all sides, while we use the word, do we use the meaning of the word - 
do we act? 



Fraternalism, then, is but another name for "good citizenship," - that term which has 
sprung up in recent years, and clamors more and more loudly to be heard, until now it 
is on the lips of every public-spirited man and woman, and every educator. The need 
for good citizenship is apparent. It is one of the crying needs of the day, in line with 
modern advancement and progress. But, educators contend, good citizenship cannot 
be a part of the man who has been untrained in good citizenship, any more than can a 
man who has never learned the French language speak it. It must be included in the 
training of the boy and girl, so that when they are grown to young manhood and 
young womanhood, they know whereof they speak when the subject comes up. 


And so, while they deliberate about it, while they make plans for making "citizenship 
training" a part of the school program, the Chicago Board of Education, more 
progressive, has evolved a system of its own for introducing the subject in a manner 
which the past four years' trial has proven to be highly successful. To revise the 
regular school program, to change it about and cut it so as to include this big subject, 
would undoubtedly work havoc on the present system of education. And so in order 
not to endanger the existing plan, and. also, in order to utilize to better advantage the 
summer vacation months which so often afford opportunity for boys to learn 
obnoxious habits, the system of citizenship building evolved by the Chicago public 
school system is tried out during the summer vacation months. 


On the shores of Silver Lake, Indiana, near LaPorte, sixty- five miles from Chicago on 
the New York Central Lines, is the site of what was once a private boarding school 
for boys. Here numerous buildings of log and frame construction afford splendid 
facilities for work, recreation and joyful out-door living for the hundreds of boys from 
all parts of the country who gather here each summer to derive the benefits of their 
stay at Camp Roosevelt, for so the camp is named. The War Department of the U. S. 
Government, eager to aid in this movement, lends complete camping equipment, and 
assigns officers and non-commissioned officers for purposes of instruction. The 
American Red Cross, the Y.M.C.A., and the Chicago Dental Society send their 
representatives and maintain their units at the camp. Here, under expert guidance in 
the great outdoors, boys from ten to eighteen years of age grow bronzed, robust, 
pleasing to the eye and agreeable to deal with - strong boys are made out of weak 
ones, democratic boys out of juvenile snobs, and studious, attentive boys of harum 
scarum scatterbrains. 



To best promote such a program, the camp is divided into three sections: the summer 
schools division, which includes seventh and eighth grade and complete high school 
subjects, and whose credits are recognized on the same basis as those of other 
Chicago summer school credits; the R.O.T.C. or military division, which is primarily 
physical drill and setting-up exercises for the older lads, from 14 and up; and the 
Junior Camp, for the younger lads. Each program, while distinct, blends in 
harmoniously with the other, and Very afternoon program of athletics and recreation 
combines the three divisions. The evening entertainments are provided by the "Y." 
and afford a maximum of clean, wholesome fun for all in camp. 


The "man on the job," the Commanding Officer, is Major F. L. Beals, U. S. A., 
Supervisor of Physical Education in the Chicago public high schools, who founded 
the Camp Roosevelt Idea. Major Beals is a man who has devoted the best years of his 
life to studying and working with boys. He has started hundreds of boys on the road 
to successful manhood. To his forethought, his unselfish devotion to the development 
of Camp Roosevelt, is due the measure of success which it has attained. Major Beals 
has surrounded himself with a large group of experts in boy training, who have aided 
and assisted him untiringly. 


A committee of influential Chicago business and professional men, under the 
Chairmanship of Mr. Angus S. Hibbard, have formed the Camp Roosevelt 
Association, for the purpose of securing contributions each year to carry on the 
camping program. Thus Camp Roosevelt is maintained as a public institution, not a 
profit making enterprise, but with its financial soundness assured. Boys from all parts 
of the country who attend the camp are required to pay but a fraction of the usual cost 
for attendance at camps which include only a small part of the program so extensively 
carried on at Camp Roosevelt. 


For this reason, the introduction of this, the first public "citizenship builder" in the 
country, may well be accounted a success, and its plan could with profit be emulated 
by public school systems throughout the country. Those of our readers who are 
looking ahead to the future of their growing sons would do well to study thoroughly 



the Camp Roosevelt Plan, and, if possible, give to their boys the opportunity of a 
period of training under such splendid supervision. 


— o — 


Some Notes on the Meaning of the Word "Freemason" 


By Bro. H. L. HAYWOOD 


THE ORIGIN OF THE WORD "MASON" has supplied amateur etymologists with 
endless opportunity for pursuing their favourite pastime of word catching, and with 
what results one may learn in the article on the question published in Mackey's 
Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, Volume II, page 471, where the most ingenious 
accounts are recorded of how the word came into existence, and what it meant when 
it did come into existence. Some of these are as fanciful as a piece of embroidery, 
and about as substantial. 


Dr. Murray's New English Dictionary, which is published by the English Philological 
Society, the court of last appeal on the etymology of English words, sets us all a good 
example by refusing to commit itself to any derivation. "The ulterior etymology is 
obscure," it says, "possibly the word is from the root of Latin 'maceria' (a wall)." The 
same authority gives the every day modern use of the word "mason" as follows: "A 
builder and worker in stone; a workman who dresses and lays stone in building." A 
quotation I given of the date of 1205. It is doubtful if in this country, and at the 
present time, very many persons think of a mason as a "builder in stone": most of 
them think of him as one who cuts stone to shape and who fits it into place with 
mortar, or who does the same thing with brick: the idea of a mason being a builder 
has about gone out of the popular mind. The owner or architect is spoken of as the 
"builder." 



But there was a time, it would appear from what meager records we possess, when a 
"mason" was all this and very much more beside; he was (or might be) one who could 
design a structure, superintend its erection, organize the workmen and manage them 
in their labours, and also carve, engrave, etc., etc. In short, he was a "builder," the 
very best possible definition of the word "mason," from our own point of view. "Of 
the term 'architect,'" says Gould in his Concise History (Revised) page 71, "there was 
apparently no use (in the Middle Ages) and it seems to have been only introduced 
into English books about the end of the reign of Queen Elizabeth." 


"Builder" must be understood here in its most literal sense. In the Middle Ages these 
men were doubtless organized into a fraternity, and had their secrets, their initiations, 
and their symbology, but all that was more or less secondary, and the principal thing 
was that churches, cathedrals, and similar structures should be erected. All the 
symbolical, speculative, spiritualizing uses of the term came later: "'Mason' may be 
German or Latin," writes Lionel Vibert in his Freemasonry Before the Existence of 
Grand Lodge, page 12, "but the ulterior etymology is obscure. At all events, when we 
first find it, it is purely and simply a trade name, and has no esoteric meaning of a 
brother or son of anything, or of anyone." 


If an obscurity may be said to hang about the meaning of the word "mason" what 
shall we say of the cloud-banks that conceal the origins of the word freemason" ! Of 
this term Gould writes, in his Essays on Freemasonry, page 180: "The earliest use of 
the English word 'freemason' (at present known to us) is associated with the freedom 
of a London Company (1376), and it is from a similar, (or in part identical) class of 
persons, and not from the persons who worked free stone, that I imagine the existing 
term freemason to have been inherited." Findel, in his famous Geschichte der 
Freimaurerei, gives the word as used in 1212. Steinbrenner, in his origin, and Early 
History of Masonry, page 110, says the word occurs for the first time in a statute 
passed in 1350, which was in the twenty-fifth year of the reign of Edward I. Leader 
Scott (see her Cathedral Builders) applies the term to the Magistri Comacini, but I 
haven't noted where she makes them ever use the word itself. It is not safe to make 
any definite assertions, as writers sometimes mistakingly do, about the earliest uses of 
the word: for one thing, because at any time somebody may discover a new 
manuscript or record; for another, because, as one follows back the stream of 
etymological change toward the sources of the language, he can't tell whether or not 
certain long dead words may or may not have meant "freemason," and there is no 
telling when new light may be thrown on the matter. Also, it is wise to be very 



careful about the "authorities" one makes use of; a number of Masonic writers have 
made assertions about the word born of nothing but a profound ignorance of 
philology. 


About the meaning, or meanings, which may be more or less justly attached to this 
word there has been a vast deal of controversy and discussion. It is difficult to find 
more than two or three writers to agree at any one time. I shall give a list, in arbitrary 
order, of some five or six of the interpretations which have proved more or less 
satisfactory. 


A LIST OF MEANINGS IS GIVEN 


1. The Freemason was a superior kind of Mason. 


"When we first meet with the word," writes Vibert in his Freemasonry Before the 
Existence of Grand Lodges, page 13, "it clearly means a superior workman: and he 
draws higher pay." On page 12 of the same work Vibert quotes Speth as follows: 
"There is abundant evidence that in the course of time the Freemasons came to be 
looked upon as a special class of men endowed with superior skill, executing a well- 
defined class of work, and that this class of work became known as Freemasonry." I 
don't know of any of the first-class writers who have accepted this as a satisfactory 
account of the matter. The possible exception would be Conder, the author of The 
Hole Craft and Fellowship of Masonry, one of the source-books of very much modern 
Masonic literature, and a work that gives a complete history of the Masons' Company 
of London. To this work he added a brief chapter to show that the Masons came to be 
called "free" because the most skilled among them worked without plans: they were 
so adept in their art that they could dispense with mechanical aids, a "free-hand" artist 
does not need a set of tools as the ordinary draughtsman does. 


2. Freemasons were Masons who had been made "free" in the ordinary medieval 
sense of that word. 



There was little liberty in the Middle Ages the individual or for corporations: most of 
them were bound in some fashion or other to a lord or master, or a community, or to 
the church; those who were relieved from such obligations were "free." Stieglitz's 
History of Architecture is authority for the statement that the Byzantine builders of 
about the seventh century formed themselves into guilds and that on account of 
having received from the popes bulls giving them the privileges of living according to 
their own laws and ordinances they were called "free." Of the Magistri Comacini, 
Leader Scott writes: "They were Freemasons because they were builders of a 
privileged class absolved from; taxes and servitude, and free to travel about in times 
of feudal bondage." For this view Gould believes there is no evidence: "In Germany, 
as in England, a tradition prevailed from early times that the Masons were granted 
very exceptional privileges by the Popes; but whether in either instance it rested on 
any foundation of fact, must be left undecided." This is from page 36 of the 1903 
edition of his Concise History. 


3. A worker in "free stone." 


Free stone was stone that had been brought from the quarry and made ready for the 
skilled workman: according to the theory here given Freemasons came to be thus 
called because they were skilled workmen who worked in free stone, in 
contradistinction to the "rough masons," (in Scotland they were called "cowans") who 
worked in the quarry. The statute of Edward I mentioned above, seems to bear out 
this definition. It was once in almost universal acceptance. Dr Begemann, one of the 
most erudite of all Masonic scholars, seems, unless I mistake his meaning, to accept 
this interpretation. Another learned scholar, Chetwode Crawley, says that, "The 
word 'Free' which we first meet with, [was] employed to designate worker in 
freestone." He adds, however, that the term gradually assumes the significance of 
"free of the guild." These references are to the fifteenth century. 


4. Free in the sense of being free OF the guild. 



A workman still under his indentures was not to go and come as he pleased: he was 
compelled to and work under the closest restrictions, and do what was laid before 
him, and when, and where he was told. After becoming a master, however, he 
became free of the guild in the sense that he enjoyed in it all its privileges. This 
definition accords well with the fact that among other groups of workmen were those 
called "free"; in a fifteenth century document certain tailors in Exeter are spoken of as 
"free tailors"; in a reference of 1666, carpenters are similarly designated; and there 
are many other records to the same effect in the histories of other guilds. Also, this 
definition fits in with the original meaning of the word "cowan." A member of the 
guild had to be made free by formal action of the company; he who refused to 
recognize the authority of the guild, and who set himself up to work as he chose, was 
called a cowan, and bitter was the feeling of the regular Mason toward such a "scab." 


THE EMANCIPATED WORKMAN CALLED "FREE" 


5. The New English Dictionary seems to lend its authority to the theory that "free" in 
freemason came into use to describe those workmen who were emancipated and 
given liberty to go and come as they pleased, anywhere and at any time. When 
skilled workmen were scarce, and there was not a man in the town who could do a 
certain bit of work, it was necessary to import one from an adjacent city. In the 
course of time more and more skilled workmen were thus passed about until at last 
the custom arose of giving such men their "freedom" that they might work wherever 
opportunity offered. This ingenious theory has plausibility in its favour but no facts, 
and it is a singular thing that all our Masonic scholars, after years of research, have 
never given countenance to such a notion: it goes to prove what Gould was always 
asserting, that speculation on things Masonic by men outside the craft are almost 
always worthless, be they scholars or not. Here is the definition as given in the 
Dictionary: "Perhaps the best hypothesis is that the term refers to the medieval 
practice of emancipating skilled artisans in order that they might be able to travel and 
render their services wherever any great building was in process of construction." 


6. Perhaps the most brilliant hypothesis of all is that presented by William Speth in 
his now famous essay which was printed in Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, Volume X, 
page 10. He contends that in medieval England there were two kinds of masons' 
guilds - stationary and travelling. The former were circumscribed by the limits of the 



city in which they were incorporated; they could do any kind of architectural work 
inside those bounds, but none outside. They were not free to go about, as a true trade 
union in our day would be free to do. But alongside these were guilds of masons who 
made a speciality of cathedral and similar building: owing to the difficulties of such 
work, to the special skill and experience demanded by it, these guilds differed in very 
many ways from the ordinary town guilds: their members were more expert, they had 
traditions and customs of their own, and they were free to move about from town to 
town as building needs might require. It was owing to the last named circumstance, 
so Speth asserts, that they were called "free," and he argues that modern Freemasonry 
descends from these itinerant guilds rather than from the better known and more 
numerous stationary, or town guilds. Speth offered this as "a tentative inquiry" and to 
date it remains as such, but many incline toward it and believe that it perhaps comes 
nearer than most hypotheses to solving the mystery. The reader who may care to go 
mole thoroughly into the matter may be referred to Gould's careful examination 
published in his Collected Essays on Freemasonry, page 171. The conclusion to 
which he arrived is clearly indicated by the last sentence of his essay: "To those of my 
fellow students, therefore, who are interested in the problem of 'Free' and 'Freemason,' 
let me conclude by saying - in the words of the Genius to the Hermit of Bassora - 'If 
you wish for the solution, be patient, and wait.'" 


MACKEY'S ARTICLE IS GIVEN 


To those who have not access to Mackey's Encyclopedia it may be a service to reprint 
the article on the word "Mason" as contained on page 471, Volume II:- 


"The search for the etymology or derivation of the word Mason has given rise to 
numerous theories, some of them ingenious, but many of them very absurd. Thus, a 
writer in the European Magazine for February, 1792, who signs his name as 'George 
Drake,' lieutenant of marines, attempts to trace the Masons to the Druids, and derives 
Mason from 'May's on,' 'May's' being in reference to May-day, the great festival of the 
Druids, and 'on' meaning men, as in the French 'on dit,' for 'Homme dit.' According to 
this, 'May's on' therefore means the 'Men of May.' This idea is not original with 



Drake, since the same derivation was urged in 1766 by Cleland, in his essay on 'The 
Way to Things in Words, and on The Real Secret of Freemasons: 


"Hutchinson, in his search for a derivation, seems to have been perplexed with the 
variety of roots that presented themselves, and, being inclined to believe that the 
name of Mason 'has its derivation from a language in which it implies some strong 
indication or distinction of the nature of the society, and that it has no relation to 
architects,' looks for the root in the Greek tongue. Thus he thinks that Mason may 
come from 'Mao Soon,' 'I seek salvation,' or from 'Mystes,' 'an omotoate'; and that 
Masonry is only a corruption of 'Mesouraneo,' 'I am in the midst of heaven'; or from 
'Mazourouth,' a constellation mentioned by Job, or from 'Mysterion,' 'a mystery.' 


"Lessing says, in his Ernst and Falk, that 'Masa' in the Anglo-Saxon, signifies a table, 
and that Masonry, consequently, is a 'society of the table.' 


"Nicolai thinks he finds the root in the Low Latin word of the Middle Ages 
'Massonya,' or 'Masonia,' which signifies an exclusive society or club, such as that of 
the round table. 


"Coming down to later times, we find Bro. C.W. Moore, in his Boston Magazine, of 
May, 1844, deriving Mason from 'Lithotomos,' 'a Stone-cutter.' But although fully 
aware of the elasticity of etymological rules, it surpasses our ingenuity to get Mason 
etymologically out of Lithotomos. 


"Bro. Giles F. Yates sought for the derivation of Mason in the Greek word 'Mazones,' 
a festival of Dionysus, and he thought that this was another proof of the lineal descent 
of the Masonic order from the Dionysiae Artificers. 


"The late William S. Rockwell, who was accustomed to find all his Masonry in the 
Egyptian mysteries, and who was a thorough student of the Egyptian hieroglyphic 



system, derives the word Mason from a combination of the two phonetic signs, the 
one being MAI and signifying 'to love', and the other being SON, which means 'a 
brother.' Hence, he says, 'this combination, MAISON, expresses exactly in sound our 
word MASON, and signifies literally loving brother, that is, philadelphus, brother of 
an association, and thus corresponds also in sense: 


"But all of these fanciful etymologies, which would have terrified Bopp, Grimm, or 
Muller, or any other student of linguistic relations, forcibly remind us of the French 
epigrammatist, who admitted that alphina came from equas, but that, in so coming, it 
had very considerably changed its route. 


"What, then, is the true derivation of the word Mason? Let us see what the 
orthoepists, who had no Masonic theories, have said upon the subject. 


"Webster, seeing that in Spanish 'Masa' means 'mortar,' is inclined to derive Mason, 
as denoting one that works in mortar from the root of "mass,' which of course gave 
birth to the Spanish word. 


"In Low or Medieval Latin, Mason was 'machio' or 'macio,' and this Du Cangee 
derives from the Latin maceria,' 'a long wall.' Others find a derivation in 'machines,' 
because the builders stood upon machines to raise their walls. But Richardson takes a 
commonsense view of the subject. He says, It appears to be obviously the same word 
as maison, a house or mansion, applied to the person who builds, instead of the thing 
built. The French 'Maisoner' is to build houses; 'Masonrier,' to build of stone. The 
word Mason is applied by usage to a builder in stone, and Masonry to work in stone.' 


"Carpenter gives 'Massom,' used in 1225, for a building of stone and 'Massonus,' used 
in 1304 for a Mason; and the Benedictine editors of Du Cange define 'Massoneria' 'a 
building, the French Maconnene, and Massonerius,' as 'Latomus' or a Mason, both 
words in manuscripts of 1385. 



"As a practical question, we are compelled to reject all those fanciful derivations 
which connect the Masons etymologically and historically with the Greeks, the 
Egyptians, or the Druids, and to take to word Mason in its ordinary signification of a 
worker in stone, and thus indicate the origin of the order from a society or association 
of practical and operative builders. We need no better root than the Medieval Latin 
'Macconer,' to build, or 'Maconetus,' 'a builder.'" 


BROWN GIVES A VERY FANCIFUL DEFINITION 


To all this may be added a paragraph from Stellar Theology, by Robert Brown: 
"Masonic tradition is but one of the numerous ancient allegories of the yearly passage 
of the personified sun among the twelve constellations of the zodiac, being founded 
on a system of astronomical symbols and emblems, employed to teach the great truths 
of omnipotent God and immortality." The writer goes on to explain that the names of 
the Masonic degrees and officers all refer to the sun or moon. 


William Tyler Olcott offers the following in his Sun Lore of All Ages, an interesting 
but uncritical book, where, on page 304, we may read: "The word 'Masonry is said to 
be derived from a Greek word which signifies 'I am in the midst of heaven,' alluding 
to the sun. Others derive it from the ancient Egyptian 'Phre,' the sun, and 'Mas,' a 
child, Phre-mas, i.e., children of the sun, or sons of light. From this we get our word 
'Freemason.'" 


The excellent Cyclopedia of Fraternities, compiled and edited by Albert C. Stevens, 
prefers to define the term by means of a description, a wise method. Freemasonry, so 
we read, "is a secret fraternity, founded upon man's religious aspirations, which, by 
forms, ceremonies, and elaborate symbolism, seeks to create a universal brotherhood, 
to relieve suffering, cultivate the virtues, and join in the endless search for truth." 
(Page 17.) 


It is manifest that we can never agree on a definition of "freemason" until we have 
agreed on some theory as to the origin of the Craft, and it is this fact that attaches so 



much importance to the word itself, and lifts the search for an adequate definition 
above levels of a mere learned pedantry. In the article on Freemasonry which appears 
in the opening pages of the Cyclopedia quoted above we find this paragraph: 


"Among various theories as to the origin of modem Freemasonry, the following have 
had many advocates: (1) That which carries it back through the medieval stone 
masons to the Ancient Mysteries, or to King Solomon's Temple; (2) not satisfied with 
the foregoing, that which traces it to Noah, to Enoch, and to Adam; (3) the theory that 
the cradle of Freemasonry is to be found in the Roman Colleges or Artificers of the 
earlier centuries of the Christian era; (4) that it was brought into Europe by the 
returning Cmsaders; (5) that it was an emanation from the Templars after the 
suppression of the Order in 1312; (6) that it formed a virtual continuation of the 
Rosicmcians; (7) that it grew out of the secret society creations of the partisans of the 
Stuarts in their efforts to regain the throne of England; (8) that it was derived from the 
Essenes, and (9) from the Culdees." 


Alas and alack! when the doctors so disagree what are we poor laymen to do! 
Speaking for myself I may say that I am not a partisan of any one of these theories 
because I do not believe that we now know, and I am in doubt if we can ever know, 
the real facts about the origin of "freemasonry": know them, that is, with such 
certainty and definiteness as will enable us to be sure of a definition of the word. As 
things now stand I am more inclined towards Speth's theory than any other, but I feel 
that it is very possible that some two or three of the theories (among those that I have 
numbered) may be true at the same time. 


— o — 


The Story of Philippine Masonry 


By Bro. G.J. MARIANO, Philippine Islands 



The following story, for all its directness and simplicity, moves before a background 
of dramatic struggle, of suffering, and passion. Our Filipino brethren were always 
confronted by two great difficulties in their endeavors to establish Masonry in the 
earlier days; the opposition of the authorities, and their unfamiliarity with a Craft that 
had its inception in, and derived its form from, English speaking people. One is 
grateful to Bro. Mariano for so straight-forward a narrative. 


CONSIDERING THAT the Filipinos were under the Spanish rule for more than 
three hundred years and knowing that Spain was once and is still one of the most 
Catholic nations and the strongest supporter of the Inquisition during its life, the most 
natural and logical presumption would be that Freemasonry, in the Philippines could 
not flourish very well. However, this is not the case. In spite of the difficulties and 
sufferings encountered by Filipino masons in spreading, the light of truth, these self- 
sacrificing pioneers went ahead with the strongest determination towards the road of 
progress, slowly and secretly at first, then openly and vigorously afterwards. 


Among the Spanish liberals who were sent to these Islands were Admiral Malcampo 
and, later, Admiral Mendez-Nunez, who showed their valour in fighting and stopping 
the Moro piracy; they were the organizers of the first lodge in the Philippines, 
established in Cavite in 1856 and called the "Primera Luz Filipino," under the 
jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Portugal. This lodge, however, was composed of 
Spaniards only. Later on, the foreigners in the Islands other than Spaniards organized 
another lodge to which Filipinos were admitted. The Spanish Masons soon 
discovered this and organized another lodge under the jurisdiction of the Grande 
Oriente de Espanol to which Filipinos were admitted in order to win their confidence 
and help. This may be called the Spanish participation in Freemasonry in the 
Philippines. 


In foreign countries leading Filipinos, among whom were Dr. Jose Rizal, Marcelo H. 
del Pilar, Graciano Lopez Jaena, Antonio Luna, Mariano Ponce, Dominador, Juan 
Luna and others, were initiated in the Order. 



The first lodge which was composed wholly of Filipinos was organized in Madrid 
and called "Solidaridad Lodge No. 53" under the jurisdiction of the Grande Oriente 
Espanol. To Dr. Rizal and del Pilar belong the honor of conceiving the idea of 
organizing Philippine Freemasonry. Through the efforts of del Pilar the necessary 
authority was secured from the then Grand Master, Dr. Miguel Morayta, of the 
Grande Oriente Espanol, to organize lodges in the Philippines. Antonio Luna and 
Pedron Serrano were designated to come to the Philippines to organize Philippine 
Freemasonry. However, Antonio Luna was unable to come to the Philippines with 
Pedron Serrano. 


THE FIRST FILIPINO LODGE IS ORGANIZED 


It was in January 16, 1891, that the first Filipino Lodge was organized in the 
Philippines and was called Nilad Lodge No. 144, under the jurisdiction of the Grande 
Oriente Espanol, but it was not constituted until March 12, 1892. Soon after the 
constitution of the Nilad Lodge No. 144 applicants poured to her doors incessantly 
and the initiates in the Order were rapidly increasing in numbers. It was deemed 
advisable to take the necessary precautions in order that its existence might not be 
discovered by the enemies of the Craft, namely, the Roman Catholic Church 
supported by the Spanish Government. The State and the Church were united and 
went hand in hand in running the affairs of the Islands. The Church was considered 
as the safest foundation of the Spanish Government in the Islands. 


The growth of the Craft was rapidly spreading to the four corners of the Philippines. 
The soil was, then, fertile but circumstances were against the open organization and 
labour in behalf of the ideals and principles of the Craft, much less its rapid growth. 
It must be remembered that to be a Mason in those days in the Philippines meant to 
be a traitor to his country, bad Christian, heretic, and was punished with deportation 
to the distant parts of the Islands or the facing of a firing squad. Tom from those 
nearest and dearest to him, such was his punishment for daring to aspire to see the 
light, to perform the duties he owed God, his country, his neighbour and himself, in 
accordance with the dictates of his own conscience! To be caught at a meeting 
clandestinely held meant a term of imprisonment, physical or mental torture, and in 
endeavors to extort from him, by force or otherwise, the most excellent tenets of 
Freemasonry, brotherly love, relief and tmth. 



AGUINALDO IS MADE A MASON 


During the most trying and bloody last seven years of Spanish rule in the Islands, 
when Freemasonry was very active, its discovery caused nearly all its members to be 
executed or deported and very few escaped the wild methods of Spanish repression of 
the then breeding Philippine Revolution. The lodges were all temporarily shattered 
and the members persecuted like outlaws. At this critical period of the Philippine 
history the Filipino patriots and heroes of the Philippine Revolution, viz., Andras 
Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Emilio Aguinaldo, Apolinario Mabini, General Vicente 
Lukban, one of the two last generals to surrender to the Americans, and others, were 
initiated in the mysteries of the Craft. 


With the transfer of sovereignty circumstances also changed and a new era opened in 
Philippine Freemasonry, because its work has been made open and protected, where 
before it was kept hidden and was persecuted. 


Brother Ambrosio Flores and others, soon after the downfall of the Spanish rule, 
immediately started the movement of reorganizing the lodges shattered by the 
destructive blows of tyranny. The first lodge to be organized was the Modestia 
Fodge No. 1 19; it was followed by the Dalisay Fodge No. 117; Sinukuan Fodge to. 
272; Nilad Fodge No. 114; Walana Fodge No. 158; and Fusong Fodge No. 185. 
These lodges were under the jurisdiction of the Grande Oriente Espanol 


The Gran Fogia Regional was organized and installed on September 14, 1907, as the 
local supreme Masonic body over the lodges installed under the jurisdiction of the 
Grande Oriente Espanol until February 13, 1917, when she automatically ceased to 
exist as the twenty-seven lodges under her went to the Union of Freemasonry in the 
Philippines. 



The first American lodge in the Islands began its work on August 21, 1898, and was 
authorized by a letter of dispensation issued by Brother Robert M. Carother, Grand 
Master of the Grand Lodge of North Dakota. However, this military lodge existed 
only for a year because on the following year when the North Dakota Regiment of 
Volunteers left the Islands for the United States the lodge with its letter of 
dispensation was taken by them. The Manila Lodge No. 1 (formerly No. 342) is the 
first American permanent lodge in the Islands and was organized in November 14, 
1901, in the house of Brother H. E. Stafford, who later on became the first Grand 
Master of the Grand Lodge of the Philippine Islands. 


GRAND LODGE OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS IS ESTABLISHED 


Eleven years afterwards December 18-19, 1912) the Grand Lodge of the Philippine 
Islands was duly and properly established. The Grand Lodge of the Philippine 
Islands was composed then by the Manila Lodge No. 342, Cavite Lodge No. 350 and 
Corregidor Lodge No. 386, under the Jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of California. 


At the establishment of the Grand Lodge of the Philippine Islands two grand Masonic 
Bodies were then established: the Gran Logia Regional de Filipinas, under the Grande 
Oriente Espanol, made up by the Filipino lodges, with supreme authority over its 
subordinate lodges; and the other was the Grand Lodge of the Philippine Islands, 
made up by the three first American lodges, also with supreme authority over the 
above mentioned American lodges. Each Grand Lodge worked for its own progress 
and prosperity in spite of the existence of the other in the same territory. 


Undoubtedly the Gran Logia Regional de Filipinas truly represented Philippine 
Freemasonry as it was composed wholly by Filipino lodges, was older in the 
Philippines and its origin may be traced back to the glorious days of Rizal and del 
Pilar in their fights in Spain for liberal reforms; and to the days of Bonifacio, Jacinto, 
Aguinaldo, Mabini, Luna, and the heroes and martyr victims of Spanish tyranny, in 
their fights for the freedom of Filipinos. But the only thing lacking her and which she 
was working very hard for when the Grand Lodge of the Philippine Islands was 



constituted, was sovereign, supreme and exclusive territorial Jurisdiction in the 
Philippine Islands. 


Lodges under the jurisdiction of other Supreme Councils were organized and installed 
in the Philippines but they all disappeared by Joining the Gran Logia Regional, except 
the La Perla de Oriente Lodge No. 1034, S.C., which is still working. 


PHILIPPINE MASONRY IS UNIFIED 


The greatest Masonic event during the American administration was the 
UNIFICATION OF FREEMASONRY IN THE PHILIPPINES on February 14, 1917. 


This memorial event was reported by Brother Charles S. Lobingier, Deputy of the 
Supreme Council, to the Sovereign Grand Commander and the Supreme Council, in 
part as follows: "Within the past year a divided house has been joined together. 

Where there was diversity there is now unity; where there was weakness there is 
potential strength. In short, it is my privilege, to announce the unification of our rite 
in the Philippines. Not that there has ever been dissension among the bodies of our 
obedience here, but, as you will note from previous reports of mine, Scottish Rite 
bodies, acknowledging allegiance to other Supreme Councils, have continued to exist 
there alongside our own. The reasons for this were mainly historical and call for brief 
review. In the Philippines, Masonry considerably antedates American occupation. 

As long ago as 1856 the Spanish Admiral Malcampo, later Governor-General, 
organized a lodge at Cavite, under the Grand Oriente of Portugal." 


Brother Teodoro M. Kalaw, the last Grand Master of the Gran Regional Lodge, at the 
inauguration of the Salomon Temple, Manila, ten days after the unification, in the 
course of his address commented on the event in this wise: "It is well to say it here 
that we, the Freemasons of the Old Grande Oriente Espanol, did not go to the union 
without titles nor name. We brought to it our heroic and historic past. We had our 
own glories, our own traditions, and a beautiful and magnificent history full of 
heroism and blood. That is the richness we brought .... We went to the union for this 



sole consideration, only and exclusively, because we do not wish to see Freemasonry 
divided in the Philippines .... We went decidedly to the union to save the most 
principle: the UNITY OF FREEMASONRY.” 


At the present writing there are seventy-seven chartered Lodges and one under 
dispensation in the Philippine Islands under the jurisdiction of the Grand lodge of the 
Philippine Islands, F. & A. M. and several are on the way of formation. These lodges 
are located all over the Islands. In the farthest north province of Cagayan there is 
located the Mabini Lodge No. 39 named in honour of Brother Apolinario Mabini 
Filipino patriot and brain of the Philippine Revolution in the farthest south province 
of Davac, there is located the Sarangani Lodge No. 50 named after a mountain in the 
Island of Mindanao; in the east there is located in the Province of Leyte the 
Makabugwas Lodge No. 47, named after the morning star or "makabug- was" in 
Visayan dialect. 


It can be safely affirmed, without fear of contradiction, that any brethren can go to 
any province in the Islands and surely meet other brethren. At present there are 
approximately six thousand Master Masons in the Islands. 


MASONRY FLOURISHES IN MANILA 


There are two concrete and one semi-permanent Masonic buildings in Manila, viz., 
the Masonic Temple, located in the Escolta, the business center in the Philippines; the 
Plaridel Temple named after the symbolic name of Brother Marcelo H. del Pilar, is 
located at Calle San Marcelino; and the Salomon Temple located at Calle Bilbao, 
Tondo, its main door facing the Manila Bay, one of the biggest and finest in the 
Orient and part of its foundations is being kissed by the rolling waves of the Manila 
Bay where the Spanish fleet, representing the sceptre and power of Spanish 
oppression, was destroyed by the American fleet under Admiral Dewey, representing 
democracy and the good-will of America by helping the Filipinos to establish their 
own free and independent government. In Cebu, the second largest city in the 
Philippines, there is another concrete Masonic building. Most of the Philippine 
Lodges own magnificent buildings. 



The first book published about Freemasonry in the Philippines was printed in 1920 
and written by Brother Teodoro M. Kalaw and this is the first attempt that real 
Freemasonry was brought to light and exposed to the Filipino public. I said real 
because the Freemasonry known to the majority of the people was the Freemasonry 
described and made known to the people by the friars to suit their purposes. The 
mere initiation to the mysteries of the Order involved the greatest personal sacrifice 
and therefore it was very risky to expose, explain and fight openly for the highest 
ideals and principles of the Craft. It meant as if between fire and powder, or having 
and the other out. All possible and imaginable means were exerted by the enemies of 
the Craft to discover the members in order to deport or to destroy the lodges, and by 
these tyrannical means the enemies of the Craft believed themselves to have 
succeeded in eradicating from its roots, at least in the Philippine Island, the triple and 
imperishable rights of men - Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality: Liberty to do right 
within the bounds of the law under which the rights of the individual and minority is 
protected as well as those of the majority; Fraternity, in the sober sense which regards 
that men are children of a common Father; and Equality in the eyes of the law, in 
political rights and in the rights of conscience. 


There are three Masonic publications now in the Philippines, viz., "Hojas Sueltas," a 
monthly publication; and the "Far Eastern Freemason," a monthly publication; and 
the "Acacia," published fortnightly, Besides these, there are many bulletins issued by 
the various lodges. 


FILIPINO MASONS ACTIVE PATRIOTS 


In the fights of the Filipinos for their liberties the Filipino Freemasons have taken a 
leading and active part. 


Dr. Jose Rizal, called the father of the Philippines, attorney Marcelo H. del Pilar, 33 
degree, the founder and the first leader of Philippine Freemasonry, Graciano Lopez 
Jaena, patriot and founder of the "La Solidaridad," a fortnightly publication, were the 
leaders of the Filipino people in their fights for liberal reforms during the Spanish 



rule. Andres Bonifacio, the Father of the Katipunan, Emilio Jacinto, the brain of the 
Katipunan; Emilio Aguinaldo, 32 degree, President of the erstwhile Philippine 
Republic, Apolinario Mabini, the brain of the Philippine Revolution; Antonio Luna, 
Commander-in-Chief of the army of the Philippine Republic, were the leaders in the 
fight for freedom against Spain and afterwards against America. During the present 
but peaceful fight for the final redemption of the Islands there stands, conspicuous, 
Hon. Manuel L. Quezon, 32 degree, Past Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of the 
Philippine Islands, President of the Senate, and Ex-resident Filipino Commissioner in 
Washington and the Filipino who has done more than any of his countrymen for the 
passage in the American Congress of the Jones Law, the preamble of which in part, is 
as follows: 


"WHEREAS it is, as it has always been, the purpose of the people of the United 
States to withdraw their sovereignty over the Philippine Islands and to recognize their 
independence as soon as a stable government can be established therein, etc. 


Hon. Rafael Palma, 32 degree, Past Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of the 
Philippine Islands, Senator and Ex- Secretary of the Interior; Hon. Teodoro M. 
Kalaw, 32 degree, Ex-Grand Master of the Regional Grand Lodge, Past Master of the 
Nilad Lodge No. 12 and Secretary of the Interior; Hon. Isauro Gabaldon, 32 degree, 
Filipino Resident Commissioner; Hon. Teodoro P,. Yangoo, 32 degree, Ex-resident 
Commissioner; Hon. Manuel Eamshaw, 32 degree, Ex-resident Commissioner, and 
many other leading Filipinos, have played an active part in Philippine affairs. 


o — 


“Masonry requires of Masons fraternal confidence, sympathy and love. Masons are 
taught to confide in each other. And in this world, where there is so much cold 
suspicion and jealously and distrust, is it not cheering to feel that there are faithful 
hearts into which we can pour our sorrows and griefs and wrongs, and be assured that 
they will be met by no sneering repulse, by no frigid exhortation to take care of 
yourself, and to manage your own affairs better; but rather by a warm brotherly 



sympathy, that is at once interested fro you, ready to soothe and counsel and aid.” 
Burroughs. 


— o — 


The Green Dragon Tavern, or Freemasons' Arms 


By Bro. CHARLES W. MOORE, Massachusetts 


What the Goose and Gridiron Tavern is in the ancient annals of London Freemasonry 
The Green Dragon Tavern is to the memories of the Free-mason, of Boston and New 
England. In it and about it revolved many of the most exciting activities of the 
Boston Revolutionary times, not the least of which were the patriotic caucuses and 
plottings of the brethren who in those days held their lodge in that historic building. 
But there is no need here to expatiate upon that subject: the whole story is told at 
length and in colourful detail in the article printed below, which is an extract 
beginning on page 155 of "The Lodge of St. Andrew, and the Massachusetts Grand 
Lodge," printed in Boston, 1870, "by vote of the Lodge of St. Andrew." 


FREEMASONS' ARMS 


NOTED LANDMARKS, which call to mind associations with the early history of a 
nation, always possess a peculiar interest to all lovers of their country, and the story 
belonging to them is awakening, as well as instructive. Among the famous places of 
Boston, in past days, was a widely known and celebrated building called The Green 
Dragon Tavern, situated on the border of a mill pond, in what is now Union street, 
and near the comer of Hanover street; "in its day," it was the best hostelry, of the 
town. The celebrity of the "Green Dragon" however, is not now due to any 
remembered excellence of hospitable entertainment, but for the social and political 
public and private gatherings of the people, - with other interesting local incident, - 



for three fourths of a century, antecedent to the American Revolution; and above all, 
for the stirring, patriotic, no less than timely consequential measures determined 
under its roof by the historic men of 76, who brought to pass that memorable Epoch. 
It was indeed the cradle of "Rebellion"; the chosen asylum, where the Revolutionary 
master spirits, -who organized successful resistance to British aggression on the 
liberties of the colonies, - took grave counsel together. 


To the Masonic Fraternity of Massachusetts, the old "Green Dragon," - which, a 
century ago, began to be called also "Freemasons' Arms," - presents associations of 
especial significance. It was here within its walls, that the Freemasonry of this 
commonwealth was preserved in Grand Fodge jurisdiction, bright and vigorous; 
where its charities, its hospitalities, and its good tidings were kept up between the 
years 1775 and 1792, a period which witnessed the disruption, by reason of the war 
for Independence, of important branches of the Order in Massachusetts. Still further, 
this was the scene of Warren's most intimate political and Masonic associations, with 
the patriots and Masons of his time. 


To the members of the Fodge of St. Andrew, this estate, - their own magnificent 
possession for more than a hundred years, - is endeared by ties which run over a still 
longer period. 


No picture of the Green Dragon Tavern of any description, is known to be in 
existence save the on now presented in this "Memorial." This was engraved recently 
for the Fodge of St. Andrew, from a model which the Hon. N.B. Shurtleff prepared 
some years since, with his usual accurate and thorough knowledge of ancient noted 
Boston houses. From this model in wood, with much painstaking on the part of the 
"Fodge," in the way of exhibiting it for criticism to old inhabitants who were familiar 
with the look and details of this ancient structure - which was removed forty-two 
years ago, - the present picture has been made. It is believed to be a faithful 
representation and it may also be affirmed that it is unanimously recognized as such 
by every one who is competent to judge. 


FROM THE RECORDS OF THE FODGE 



At a Quarterly Communication, March 24, 1864 the Worshipful Master, Edward 
Steams, called the attention of the Lodge to the fact that the Green Dragon Tavern 
was purchased by this Lodge, March 31, 1764, and that Thursday next, the 3 1st 
instant, would complete a period of one hundred years from the date of the deed of 
that estate. Whereupon, on motion of Brother Wellington, it was 


Voted, That a committee of five be appointed, with full power to make arrangements 
for celebrating the Centennial Anniversary of the purchase of the Green Dragon 
Tavern. 


The following brethren were appointed: A. A. Wellington, Charles W. Moore, J.R. 
Bradford, Samuel P. Oliver, and Isaac Cary. 


On motion of Brother Palmer, it was 


Voted, That the above committee be increased to eight, that being the number of the 
original committee appointed January 12, 1764, "to purchase a house for the benefit 
of the Lodge of St. Andrew." 


The Worshipful Master, Brother Wm. L. Davis, Senior Warden, and Brother John P. 
Ober, were thereupon added to the committee. 


THE LOLLOWING IS THE LODGE RECORD OF THE CELEBRATION 


A special meeting of the Lodge of St. Andrew was held in the new building on the 
"Green Dragon" estate, Union street, on Thursday evening, March 31, 1864, at 6 1/2 



o'clock, for the purpose of celebrating the Centennial Anniversary of the purchase of 
the Green Dragon Tavern. 


An apartment in the building was suitably decorated for the festival, and a bountiful 
dinner provided. 


The Worshipful Master presided, and in a dignified, appropriate address, invoked the 
attention of the brethren to the ceremonies of the evening, and to the remarks of 
members whom he should call upon to speak upon the pleasant Masonic memories 
suggested by the spot whereon the Lodge was then assembled, and to the historical 
incidents connected with the "ancient Inn." After a proper allusion to the 
distinguished men who had held Masonic intercourse together in times past in the hall 
of the "Green Dragon," the Worshipful Master called up M.W.Brother Wm. Parkman: 


Who stated that on the 12th day of January, 1764, the Lodge resolved by vote to 
purchase a house; accordingly Thomas Milliken, Samuel Barrett, Edward Foster, 
Caleb Hopkins, Moses Deshon, William Haskins, Joseph Webb, and John Jenkins 
were chosen a committee for that purpose. On the succeeding 3 1st of March, 
Catherine Kerr, by her deed of that date, conveyed in fee the premises known as the 
Green Dragon Tavern, unto the above named committee. The estate was managed by 
committees of the Lodge until 1832, when the estate was conveyed to Brothers 
Benjamin Smith, Henry Purkett, Zephaniah Sampson, David Parker, Thomas W. 
Phillips, John Suter, and Ezekiel Bates, to be held by them as trustees for the use and 
benefit of the Lodge of St. Andrew. In January 1 852, Brothers Smith, Purkett, and 
Suter being deceased, a new board of trustees, consisting of Brothers David Parker, E. 
Bates, T. W. Phillips, Z. Sampson, J.P. Ober, Thomas Resteaux, and Wm. Parkman 
were chosen, to whom the premises were conveyed for the use and benefit of the 
Lodge. Brother David Parker was chosen chairman, Brother T. W. Phillips, treasurer, 
and Brother Wm. Parkman, secretary. In 1855 Brother Parker having removed from 
the city, resigned as chairman, and Brother John P. Ober was elected to fill the 
vacancy. In 1859 Brother Phillips died, and Brother Restieaux was elected treasurer. 


The Most Worshipful Winslow Lewis then addressed the lodge, and said that: 



By the dispensation of the Supreme Grand "Master, a severe domestic affliction has 
deprived us all of the presence of Brother Charles W. Moore, from whom we should 
have received the fullest information of those memorials of the past, which are so 
hallowed to the memories of every member of the Lodge of St. Andrew, who are now 
assembled to commemorate, on this spot, the associations connected with a locality 
dear to every Masonic heart, to every patriot's breast! But, Worshipful Master, our 
Brother Moore, though absent, and stricken by bereavement, was not willing to let 
this Centennial occasion pass by, without communicating such interesting facts 
relating to the Green Dragon Tavern as he had from time to time preserved. And I 
therefore shall, with your permission sir, read a communication on this subject, which 
my Brother Moore has handed me, to be presented to the Lodge at this festival. 


REMINISCENCES OF THE GREEN DRAGON TAVERN 


With perhaps the single exception of Faneuil Hall, there was no public building in 
Boston at the close of the last century, which had acquired a more extensive notoriety 
or filled a larger place in the local history of the town, than the old "Green Dragon 
Tavern." I need not trouble you with any particular description of it, for that will be 
given by one who is pre-eminently distinguished for his extensive and accurate 
knowledge of all the interesting historical localities of the city. 


We have no record or other authentic evidence of the fact, but there can be little doubt 
that St. Andrew's Lodge, which was, in its incipiency, composed largely of North-End 
men, originated and was informally organized in the "Long Room," so-called, in the 
northerly end of this Tavern, in the year 1752. It is nevertheless proper to say, that 
this inference is predicated on the known fact, that it was in this Hall that in 1756 it 
was re-organized and commenced work under a Charter from the Grand Lodge of 
Scotland, - a circumstance that would not have probably occurred, had not the Hall 
been previously occupied by it, and was then in a condition suited to its purposes. 

And this hypothesis is strengthened by the additional fact, that it continued to hold its 
regular monthly meetings here until the year 1818, when it was removed to the 
Exchange Coffee House. 



It was in this "Long Room," also, where so much of our Revolutionary history was 
made, that the Massachusetts Grand Lodge - an offshoot of St. Andrew's Lodge - with 
Joseph Warren for its Grand Master, was organized on the 27th of December, 1769, 
and continued to hold its meetings until its union with the St. John's Grand lodge in 
1792. 


In 1697 the tavern was kept by John Cary, and was at that early day, and perhaps 
earlier, known as the Green Dragon Tavern. 


In 1764 the property was purchased by St. Andrew's Lodge, when it took the name of 
"Freemasons' Arms," - the new proprietors having placed a large Square and Compass 
on the front of the building. It however soon after dropped this title, and was more 
popularly known as "Masons' Hall"; by which name it continued to be masonically 
designated until the removal of the Lodge, when it resumed its ancient title of "Green 
Dragon Tavern." 


On the 24th of June, 1772, the festival of St. John the Baptist, was celebrated by the 
Massachusetts Grand Lodge, by a public procession, formed at Concert Hall, the 
brethren marching in full regalia to Christ Church in Salem street, where "a very 
suitable and pertinent discourse was preached by the Rev. Samuel Fayerweather, of 
Narragansett"; after which they returned to Masons' Hall, and "dined together in the 
Garden, under a long Tent erected for that purpose; and the remainder of the day was 
dedicated to mirth and social festivity." 


The garden here spoken of, was in the rear of the house, and extended northerly to the 
water, covering the ground now occupied by Mr. Riddle as a salesroom. Our late 
Brother Sampson has said to me that he was accustomed in his boyhood days, to fish 
for flounders at the lower end of this garden; which, in early times, extended to what 
was then known as the "Mill Pond." -a large basin of salt water, cut off from Charles 
river by dykes, and used for mill and other purposes. It was here that in the winter- 
time the "North-End Boys" and the "West Enders" used to fight their mimic, and not 
always bloodless, sectional battles, until, after the occurrence of several serious 



mishaps, they were interfered with and their sports forbidden by the Selectmen of the 
town. It is hardly necessary to say that the area formerly occupied by this pond is 
now an extensive business section of the city. 


There were present at the above celebration, M.W. Joseph Warren, Grand Master; R. 
W. Joseph Webb, D.G.M.; Paul Revere, S.G.W., pro tern.; Thomas Crafts, J.G.W. pro 
tern.; Samuel Barrett, G. Treasurer; Wm. Palfrey, G. Secretary; and the Masters, 
Wardens, and brethren of St. Andrew's Tyrian, Massachusetts, and St. Peter's Lodges, 
together with a sufficient number of visitors to make a company of ninety-seven 
brethren, which at that early day was a very large and full attendance. 


Public Masonic Processions were at this time of rare occurrence. One of the earliest 
of which we have any record, took place on St. John's Day, Dec. 27, 1749, and was 
the occasion of unusual curiosity and interest in the community. It called forth from a 
learned wit a short poem, in which the circumstance is treated with much satirical 
humour and ridicule. The author of this poem was Joseph Green, a merchant of town, 
and undoubtedly an Anti-Mason, though it would be difficult to tell from what 
motive, unless it was that he had failed to obtain admission into "the Lodge." But 
whatever the motive may have been, the poem is so well done and so keen in its 
satire, that I do not hesitate to quote a few passages for your amusement. The 
marching of the Procession is thus described: 


"See! Buck before the apron'd throng, 
Marches with sword and book along; 
The stately ram, with courage bold, 

So stalks before the fleecy fold, 

And so the gander, on the brink 
Of river, leads his geese to drink." 



The keeper of the Royal Exchange Tavern, where Masonic meetings were at one time 
held, is taken notice of in this wise: 


"Where's honest Luke? that cook from London; 
Lor without Luke the Lodge is undone. 

'Twas he who oft dispell'd their sadness, 

And filled the Brethren's heart with gladness 
Luke in return is made a Brother, 

As good and true as any other, 

And still, though broke with age and wine, 
Preserves the token and the sign." 

In another place Luke comes in with less credit 

"The high, the low, the great and small, 

James Perkins short, and Aston tall; 

Johnson as bulky as a house, 

And Wethered smaller than a louse. 

We all agree, both wet and dry, 

Prom drunken Luke to sober I." 



The poet designates Lewis Turner as "Pump Turner," probably from his occupation. 
Dr. Thomas Aston figures as "Aston tall." Francis Johonnet is called "laughing 
Frank," and is thus nicely introduced: 


"But still I see a numerous train: 

Shall they, alas! unsung remain? 

Sage Hallowell, of public soul, 

And laughing Frank, friend to the bowl; 
Meek Rea, half smother'd in the crowd, 
And Rowe, who sings at church so loud." 


Aston was an apothecary and grocer; Hallow here referred to, was probably Captain 
Benjamin Hallowell an active and influential Mason; John Rea was a ship-chandler, 
and kept in Butler's Row; John Rowe afterwards Grand Master, was a distinguished 
merchant and importer, and lived in Essex street, and the owner of Rowe's pasture, 
through which Rowe street now runs; Buck, probably means Buckley member of the 
First Lodge, as were also Henry Whethered and Henry Johnson. 


Our brethren, in these early days of the Institution in the colonies, were more 
particular in the observance of the winter and summer festivals of the Order (Dec. 

27th and June 24th) than their successors have been. These celebrations, however 
were not always public. On the contrary, 1 believe that of the 24th of June, 1772, was 
an exceptional case in the history of the Massachusetts Grand Lodge; and, 
consequently, in that of our own Lodge; for the two bodies, on all occasions, moved 
as a unit, and held their festivals together at the Green Dragon. I will not occupy your 
time by referring to them in the order in which they took place, but that of 1773, 
being the last with which General Warren's name is connected as being present, I 
deem it worthy of special notice in this connection; and this cannot be done more 
satisfactory than in the words of the record. The annual communication of the Grand 
Lodge was held this year, on the 3d of December, and after the ordinary business had 
been disposed of, the record says: 



"The Most Worshipful Grand Master (Warren) then desired the opinion of the Grand 
Officers present, with respect to Celebrating the Feast of St. John the Evangelist, 27th 
Instant. 


"Motioned and Seconded, The Feast be Celebrated the 27th Instant, at Masons' Hall 
(at the Green Dragon). 


"Voted, The Stewards of the Grand Lodge of St. Andrew's, and the Massachusetts 
Lodges, agree for and provide the dinner, and that three Brethren be desired to joyn 
the Stewards. 


"Voted, Brothers Bruce, Proctor [and] Love. 


"Voted, The Festival be advertised in the Public Prints." 


I accordingly find in the "Boston Evening Post," of December 20, 1773, the following 
advertisement: 


"THE Brethren of the Honourable Society of Free and Accepted MASONS, are 
hereby notified, That the Most Worshipful JOSEPH WARREN, Esq., Grand Master 
of the Continent of America; intends to Celebrate the Feast of St. JOHN the 
Evangelist, on Monday the 27th of December Inst, at Free Masons' Hall (at the Green 
Dragon), Boston, where the Brethren are requested to attend the Festival. 


By Order of the Most Worshipful Grand Master. Wm. Hoskiss, G. Sec'y. 



"N.B. Tickets may be had of Mess. Nathaniel Coffin, junr., William Mollineaux, 
junr., and Mr. Daniel Bell. 


"The Table will be furnished at Two o'clock." 


This "Feast" was held in the Long Room of the Green Dragon on the 27th, and the 
record names as being present, "M.W. Joseph Warren, Esq., Grand Master; Hon. Wm. 
Brattle, Esq.; Rev. Dr. Samuel Mather; Worshipful Joseph Webb, Esq.; and thirty- 
eight others including the Grand Officers." 


There had formerly been some degree of coldness between the two Grand Lodges in 
the Province; as was natural enough in view of the causes which led to the 
organization of the younger body. It is therefore the more gratifying to find on the 
record such unmistakable evidence of the fraternal feeling existing between them at 
this time, as the following: 


"The Most Worshipful Grand Master was pleased to direct three Brethren, viz: Jona. 
Williams, Elisha Thatcher, and H. Hatell, to wait upon The Most Worshipful John 
Rowe, Esq., Gd. Master, the Grand Officers and Brethren at Their Feast, at Col. 
Ingersoll (Bunch of Graves Tavern), to acquaint them, the Healths would be drank at 
half after 4 o'clock. The committee returned for answer, that Grand Master Rowe and 
the Brethren concerned would return the Compliment at that period." 


I give the following summary of the "Reckoning on this occasion as a matter of 
curious reminiscence: 


50 dinners a 3 s 


7. 10 0 



13 dbtle. Bowles Punch 


1. 14 8 


12 Bottles Port a 3 s 1. 16 0 

17 do. Medaira, a 4 s 3. 8 0 

Advertising — 8 0 


14. 16 8 


Collected-40 Tickets a 6 s 12. 0 0 
After Collection 2. 16 0 


14. 16 8 


"Punch" was a favourite Beverage in the days which we are speaking, and very large 
"double Punch Bowles" were a fashionable, if not a necessary appendage to the 
dinner table on all public occasions; nor we they dispensed with until a much later 
date. 


Our late Brother John J. Loring was initiated in Masonry at the Green Dragon, and 
used to describe with quiet humour, the appearance of Brother Eben'r Oliver, - one of 
the old-school North-End mechanics, and the Closet Steward of the Lodge, - while in 
the discharge of what the brethren then doubtless held be one of the most important of 
his official function. He was a large portly man, and without exaggeration, might 
exclaim with Falstaff, 


"I am in the waist two yards about." He was "fat, Sleek-headed, and such as 

sleep o'nights "In fair, round belly, with good capon lined." 



But withal a most excellent, amiable, and faithful brother. 


The Lodge having reached a convenient resting place in its "work," the brethren were 
called from labour to refreshment, - and refreshments in those days was what the 
word in its common acceptation implies. At this interesting period of the proceedings, 
Brother Oliver never failed promptly to present himself at the door, in his best, "bib 
and tucker," bearing a huge Punch Bowl! - one half resting on his correspondingly 
huge abdominal protuberance, the other supported his brawny arms. Thus prepared 
for the encounter, the brethren being seated "in order," with their glass in hand, - he, 
with dignified solemnity, and fully impressed with the magnitude of the business 
before him slowly commenced his tour of duty, - paying his respects first to the 
Master in the "East," and then passing regularly around the hall, until the members 
were all supplied, or in the technical language of the day, "all charged," and waiting 
the order of the Master. He then slowly retired, with the benedictions of his brethren, 
and a consciousness of having faithfully performed his share in the "work" of the 
evening! 


Such a scene would not commend itself to favour at the present time; but it was one 
of a class common, only in the Lodges, but with modifications, in the social, civil, 
literary and religious societies of that early day, when .... The funeral baked meats 


Did coldly furnish forth the marriage tables." 


It was in the "Long Room" of the Green Dragon that on the 28th of August, 1769, the 
present St. Andrew's Chapter was organized as a Royal Arch Lodge, under the 
authority of the Charter of St. Andrew's Lodge. This degree was anciently given in 
Masters' Lodges; which arrangement was subsequently changed, and it was conferred 
in Royal Arch Lodges, attached to and working under the authority of the Charters of 
Craft lodges. The present Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of Ireland still retain a 
nearly analogous provision in the following words: "Every Warrant to hold Councils 
or Encampments, shall be granted to some warranted or acknowledged Lodge to 
which a Royal Arch Chapter is attached; and shall not only bear the same number, 



but shall be held in the same place in which the Lodge and Chapter usually hold their 
meetings." 


General Warren was a member of this Lodge, and being present in 1770, the year 
after its organization, the record says he "gave his opinion in favour of holding 
(continuing) the Royal Arch Lodge until he should receive instructions from 
Scotland. If then so directed, he will grant them a Charter therefor." There is no 
evidence that such a charter was required or issued, and the Lodge continued to hold 
its meetings at the same place, and under its original authority, until the 25th of 
November, 1790, at which date we find in the records the following vote: 


Voted, That Brother Matthew Groves be a committee to return the thanks of this 
Lodge to St. Andrew's Lodge for their politeness in granting us the use of their 
Charter. 


General Warren, as before stated, was a member of the Royal Arch Lodge, as were 
also Col. Joseph Webb, Col. Paul Revere, and other prominent members of St. 
Andrew's Lodge. Indeed, of the twenty-one members who composed the Royal Arch 
Lodge in 1769, fourteen of them were members of St. Andrew's Lodge. In 1794 this 
Lodge assumed the name of a "Royal Arch Chapter," and in 1798 it united with King 
Cyrus Chapter of Newburyport, and at Masons' Hall, in the "Green Dragon Tavern," 
organized the Grand Royal Arch Chapter of Massachusetts. 


On the 17th of May, 1770, the petitioners for "the Massachusetts Lodge," which was 
a scion of St. Andrew's Lodge, met at "Masons' Arms," in the "Green Dragon 
Tavern," and organized that body. It held its second meeting at the same place on the 
following 4th of June, and was then removed to "Concert Hall." And on the 10th of 
November, 1795, Columbian Lodge also held a meeting at the "Green Dragon." 
These were the only occasions when the "Long Room" was ever occupied by any 
other private Masonic Lodge than our own. Columbian Lodge was at this date 
located at Concert Hall, and its occupancy of the room on the occasion referred to, 
was probably a matter of accommodation to the proprietors of that establishment, 
which was then the popular resort for dancing parties and other social purposes. 



But it is perhaps to the political associations which cluster around its name, that the 
Green Dragon Tavern is more particularly indebted for its historic celebrity. It was 
here that many of the most important and eventful of the political transactions 
preceding the Revolution were, if not positively inaugurated, discussed, matured and 
put into execution. That this was so, is undoubtedly in some measure to be accounted 
for by the fact, that the Hall in the building was the only room in the Northern section 
of the town, excepting Deblois's Hall, on the corner of Queen and Hanover streets, 
which at that time was adapted to popular assemblies; and by the additional and 
perhaps more significant fact, that the principal leaders of the Revolution in Boston, 
were members of the Masonic Fraternity, and many of them of the Lodge which held 
its communications there, - a circumstance which would very naturally influence 
them in the selection of the place for their private consultations. It is not however, to 
be inferred from this, that they either met as Masons or used Masonry as a cover to 
their purposes; for others than Masons were associated with them. But be this as it 
may, it will not be irrelevant nor perhaps wholly uninteresting to the members of the 
lodge, to refer briefly to some of the more popular purposes to which the Hall, in the 
early days of its history, was appropriated. 


One of the largest, and perhaps one of the most efficient of the political clubs which 
sprung into existence during the troublous times of 1768, and onward, was that 
known as "The North-End Caucus." This body was composed almost exclusively of 
North-End mechanics, - distinguished for their daring and activity, - and held its 
meetings in the Hall of the "Green Dragon Tavern." Warren who, Frothingham says, 
was idolized by the North-Enders," was an influential member of it, as were Revere 
and others of his personal friends. 


The Hall was also used as a central and safe place for the meetings of private 
committees and rallying clubs, with which Warren, as chairman of the "Committee 
of Safety," was in frequent consultation, and directed their movements. Barry, in his 
History of Massachusetts, says: "The town (Boston) was full of clubs and caucuses, 
which were used with effect to secure unity of action; and the hardy mechanics who 
had done so much to promote the industrial prosperity of the metropolis, and who 
now acted as patrols, were the steady supporters of the patriot cause. In vain were the 
artifices of loyalists employed to seduce them to compliance with the wishes of his 
excellency; and when their services were required at the barracks, 'all the carpenters 



of the town and country' left off work; and British gold was powerless to tempt them, 
though 'hundreds were ruined, and thousands were half starved,' nay, they went 
further, and obstructed the works of the governor. His supplies of straw were set on 
fire; his boats conveying bricks were sunk; and his wagons laden with timbers were 
overturned." 


The character and services of these important Clubs are well illustrated by our 
Brother Paul Revere, in his narrative of the events of 1775, when he says, about thirty 
persons, chiefly North-End mechanics, had agreed to watch the movements of the 
British soldiers and the Tories, in anticipation of their descent on Concord. These 
patriots met at the Green Dragon Tavern. "We were so careful," he says, "that our 
meetings should be kept secret, that every time we met, every person swore upon the 
Bible that they (he) would not discover any of our transactions, but to Messrs. 
Hancock, Drs. Warren and Church, and one or two more leaders. They took turns to 
watch the soldiers, two by two, by patrolling the streets all night." 


In reference to this club, Elliott, in his history of New England, has the following: 
"Among the most active of the Sons of Liberty was Paul Revere. In the Fall and 
Winter of 1774-5, some of the best Boston mechanics formed themselves into a club, 
to watch the doings of the British soldiers. They were 'High Sons of Liberty,' and 
men of action, who met at the Green Dragon Tavern; and every man swore on the 
Bible that nothing should be revealed except to Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Dr. 
Warren, and Dr. Church" (the latter a traitor). Revere was a leading man in this club, 
and was sent by Warren on the night of the 18th of April to notify Hancock and 
Adams of the movement of the British troops on Lexington and Concord, at the 
former of which places these two patriots were concealed. 


Another of these Clubs which held their meetings at the Green Dragon Tavern, was 
the "Caucus-Pro Bono Publico," of which Warren was the leading spirit, and in 
which, says Elliott, "the plans of the Sons of Liberty were matured." 


It is to be regretted that no authentic record of the names of the persons who 
composed the Boston Tea Party in 1774, has come down to us. "But," says 



Frothingham, "as Warren was presented to the Privy Council as one of the prominent 
actors in these proceedings, and was held up by his political opponents at home, as 
one of the Mohawks," and as "he was not one to shrink from any post of duty, it is not 
more improbable that he was one of the band who threw the tea overboard, than that 
his friend John Hancock (captain of the Cadets) should have been one of the guard to 
protect the actors." 


The tradition of the Lodge is, that all the preliminary measures in this affair were 
matured at the Green Dragon, and that the execution of them was committed mainly 
to the members of the North-End Caucus, - that stalwart and fearless band of North- 
End mechanics, whose directing genius was Warren, - having the cooperation of the 
more daring of the "Sons of Liberty." That Warren was present as a leader in the 
affair, does not admit of any serious doubt; nor is there any question that his personal 
friends Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Joseph Webb, Paul Revere, Thomas Melville, 
Adam Collson, Henry Purkett (who used modestly to say he was present only as a 
spectator, and in disobedience to the orders of his Master, who was actively present), 
and other patriots of the day, were cognizant of it, - and some of whom at least are 
known to have participated in its final consummation. It was the first act in the great 
drama, the conclusion of which was the independence of the country. 


The "Master" referred to above, with whom our late Brother Purkett served his 
apprenticeship, was Samuel Peck, a cooper by trade, and one of the leading and 
influential members of the "North-End Caucus." He was also an active member of St. 
Andrew's Lodge, - a connection which strengthens the tradition of the Lodge, that the 
table for the famous Tea Party was first spread in its "Long Room." Among the 
members of the Lodge, who are known to have taken an active part in the affair, were 
Adam Collson, Thomas Chase, Samuel Gore, Daniel Ingollson, Samuel Peck, Edward 
Proctor, Henry Purkitt, and Thomas Urann. 


I have looked in vain for a copy of an old revolutionary song said to have been 
written and sung as a "rallying song" by the "tea party" at the Green Dragon. The 
following fragment, though probably not in all respects an exact transcript of the 
original, will indicate its general character: 



Rally, Mohawks! - bring out your axes! 
And tell King George we'll pay no taxes 
On his Foreign tea! 

His threats are vain - and vain to think 
To force our girls and wives to drink 
His Vile Bohea! 

Then rally boys, and hasten on 
To meet our Chiefs at the Green Dragon. 
Our Warren's there, and bold Revere, 

With hands to do and words to cheer 
For Liberty and Laws! 

Our country's "Braves" and firm defenders, 
Shall neer be left by true North-Enders, 
Fighting Freedom's cause! 

Then rally boys, and hasten on 
To meet our Chiefs at the Green Dragon. 


I regret not being able to give the balance of this song, but perhaps some curious 
antiquary may hereafter discover it, if it ever appeared in print. I am inclined to think, 
however, that it was a doggerel made for the occasion, and passed away when it 
ceased to be of use, or appropriate. The two stanzas I have reproduced, are given as 
nearly as my memory serves, as they were often recited more than a third of a century 
ago, by the late Brother Benjamin Gleason, who, bom near the time, was curious in 
gathering up interesting reminiscences of the revolutionary period of our history. 



In January 1788, a meeting of the mechanics and artisans of Boston was held at the 
Green Dragon Tavern, and there passed a series of resolutions urging the importance 
of adopting the Federal Constitution, then pending before a Convention of delegates 
from different parts of the State. Hon. Daniel Webster, in a speech delivered by him 
at Andover, in the autumn of 1843, referring to this meeting and these resolutions, 
holds the following language: "There was a particular set of resolutions, founded on 
this very idea of favouring home productions, full of energy and decision, passed by 
the mechanics of Boston. And where did the mechanics of Boston meet to pass 
them? Full of the influence of these feelings, they congregated at the Head-Quarters 
of the Revolution. I see, waving among the banners before me, that of the old Green 
Dragon. It was there, in Union street, that John Gray, Paul Revere," - both members 
of the Lodge,- "and others of their class, met for consultation. There, with 
earnestness and enthusiasm, they passed their resolutions. A committee carried them 
to the Boston delegation in the Convention," then in session. Paul Revere, whom Mr. 
Webster in a previous address, delivered on another occasion, says, was, "a man of 
sense and character, and of high public spirit, whom the mechanics of Boston ought 
never to forget," was chairman of this committee. He placed them in the hands of 
Samuel Adams. "How many mechanics," said Mr. Adams, "Were at the Green 
Dragon when these resolutions were passed?" "More, sir," was the reply, "than the 
Green Dragon could hold." "And where were the rest, Mr. Revere?" "In the streets, 
sir." "And how many were in the streets?" "More, sir, than there are stars in the sky." 


The late Hon. Edward Everett, in an address on the Battle of Lexington, delivered at 
Lexington on the 19th of April, 1835, speaking of the patriot Samuel Adams, says: 


"He was among the earliest and ablest writers on the patriotic side. He caught the 
plain, downright style of the Commonwealth in Great Britain. More than most of his 
associates, he understood the efficacy of personal intercourse with the people. It was 
Samuel Adams, more than any other individual, who brought the question home to 
their bosoms and firesides, not by profound disquisitions and elaborate reports, - 
though these in their place were not spared, - but in the caucuses, the club rooms, at 
the Green Dragon, in the ship-yards, in actual conference, man to man and heart to 
heart." 



The Old South Church was, in these stirring times, called by the patriots, the 
Sanctuary of Freedom; while, on the other hand, the Green Dragon Tavern was 
denounced by the Tories as a Nest of Traitors! The distinction in these appellations is 
more obvious than the difference! The enemies of the tyrannical and oppressive 
measures of the government, were all either patriots or traitors, according to the 
standard by which they were tried. 


I give these anecdotes as striking and forcible illustrations of the popular character of 
the Green Dragon, and of the important part which the mechanics of the North-End 
played in public affairs, at that day. It is not however, to be inferred that the 
mechanics residing in other sections of the town were inactive. That the former 
appear more prominently than other of their class, is probably owing to the 
circumstance that the North-End was then the business part of the town, and where 
most of the mechanical trades were carried on. 


It man I think, be safely assumed, that from the year 1767, when the Townshend 
Revenue Acts were passed, imposing a Tax on Tea, creating a Board of Customs, and 
legalizing Writs of Assistance, to the close of the War of Independence, there was not 
a other public house in the whole country, and assuredly not in Massachusetts, where 
so much of the "secret history" of the Revolutionary period was made, as at the old 
Green Dragon Tavern; and it is to be deeply regretted that the subject was not 
attended to when that history could have been intelligently and reliably written. It is 
now too late. The patriotic men who alone could have furnished the material have 
passed away, - and they have taken their "secret" with them. 


When Mr. Webster, who was perhaps better read in the early local history and events 
of the Revolutionary period than any other public man of his time, described the 
Green Dragon Tavern as the "Head-Quarters of the Revolution," he wrote the title 
page, and opened a volume, which, if written as he alone could have written it, would 
have been an addition to the early political annals of the Commonwealth of 
surpassing interest and importance. 


— o — 



CORRECTION 


In the article on "An Early Masonic Document of South Carolina," by Samuel 
Oppenheim, in our July number, our attension has been called by the author to a 
misreading in our printing of some of the names in the facsimile petition and in 
giving the names of the signers on behalf of the various lodges. The name in the 
petition printed as E. W. Weyman should, according to Mackey's History of 
Freemasonry In South Carolina, be Cav: Weyman, and that printed as G. McArthur, 
Jr. Grand Warden should be Geo. Aertsen, Junr. Grand Warden. In the list of lodge 
signers, Sam Campbell, of Lodge No. 4, should read Law. Campbell; Lodge No. 5, 
Alex. Roff should be Alex. Ross; Lodge No. 8, T. Reid should be S. Reid; Lodge No. 
10, E. W. Weyman again should be Cav: Weyman; Lodge No. 11, Samuel Pilbury 
should be Samuel Pilsbury; Lodge No. 16, Touber Borten should be Jabez Borten; 
Lodge No. 17, J. N. Mitchell should be Jno. Mitchell. 


In the account of the signers the reference to E. W. Weyman, Lodge No. 10 should be 
Cav: Weyman; and the reference to Simon Magwood should read: Simon Magwood, 
of Lodge No. 14, was Grand Master in 1802. In 1828 he wrote to the Grand Lodge 
asking to be excused from further attendance because of age, saying he had attended 
meetings for forty years. He then presented his apron to the Grand Lodge, of which he 
was thereupon made an honorary member. 


— o — 


"The first thought of a Mason should be, as his duty is, to trust in God. This thought 
leads the true Mason to desire His aid and guidance. From this comes Faith: and then 
follows Hope, inciting to action. Trust and Hope inspire confidence in government 
and respect for law.” H.G. Reynolds. 


— o — 



THE LIBRARY 


A GERMAN MASONIC BIBLIOGRAPHY 


BIBLIOGRAPHIE DER FREIMAURERISCHEN LITERATUR; by August 
Wolfstieg. Published 191 1-13 by the Verein Deutscher Freimaurer, Germany. Vol. I, 
1990 pp.; Vol. II, 1041 pp.; Vol. Ill (Register), 536 pp. Octavo, paper covers, weight 
twelve pounds. Anastatic reprint, Leipzig, 1923. Price $18.00, carriage extra. 
Obtainable through the National Masonic Research Society, Cedar Rapids, Iowa. 


OF MAKING MANY BOOKS THERE IS NO END; and much study is a weariness 
to the flesh." The preacher who thus admonished his readers may not have been a 
member of our ancient and Honorable Fraternity - 1 seriously doubt it - yet his words 
are decidedly applicable to the voluminous literature of the Craft. One little suspects 
how many books have been written about Freemasonry until he turns the pages of the 
three large volumes of Wolfstieg's masterpiece named above. His name is familiar to 
Masonic students conversant with the German language, for he ranks among the 
foremost Continental Masons of the present day; but for all his other writings his 
fame will be preserved to Masonic posterity through this stupendous bibliography of 
Craft literature. 


The earliest Masonic bibliography known is the four page list included in the 
Almanach des FrancMacons for 1757. Other compilations were made in later years, 
of which Deutsche Buecherkunde der Freimaurerei by Karl Christoph Stiller, 
published in 1830, was by far the most pretentious. It described 1052 Masonic 
publications. 


Brother Stiller, however, was not the first European of his period to consider the 
publication of an extensive Masonic bibliography. His efforts were preceded by those 
of Friedrich Mossdorf (1757-1843) and Johann Christian Gaedicke (1763- ?) who had 



each compiled lists, but which were never published in book form. Mossdorf, 
however, did publish (1826) his Handbuch der Mysterien and Geheime 
Verbindungen, which was part of the proposed bibliography, but unfortunately, never 
printed. 


The German Masonic literature of the first half of the last century clearly indicates an 
active interest in the Fraternity. Only sixteen years elapsed after the publication of 
Stiller's bibliography when the foremost volume of its kind for that century appeared, 
the Bibliographic der Freimaurerei, by Dr. Georg Klosz, published in Frankfort in 
1844. Klosz compiled a list of over 5400 titles, and added greatly to the value of his 
book by means of explanatory notes. This volume completely overshadowed all 
previous bibliographies, which are of value now only as curiosities of Masonic 
literature. 


The next noteworthy contribution to Masonic lbibliography was the supplement to 
Klosz’ s book, compiled by Reinhold Taute, Maurerische Buecherkunde: Ein 
Wegweiser durch die Literatur der Freimaurerei, published in 1886. Early books not 
known to Klosz were added, and the list is especially complete in hooks published 
between 1844 and 1885. It has copious notes, and is an improvement on Klosz 
inasmuch as a more detailed classification of subjects is made. 


The phenomenal growth of the Masonic Fraternity in the years following 1886 made 
it very advisable to prepare a new bibliography of Masonic books. As early as 1903 
the Verein Deutscher Freimaurer considered the subject, and after careful 
deliberation, a special committee was appointed to devise ways and means of 
undertaking the colossal task. Prof. Dr. August Wolfstieg was appointed chairman of 
the committee which was finally authorized to carry cut the assignment, an 
appropriation of approximately $6500 was made, and under Wolfstieg's leadership, 
five ladies, experienced in library work, spent ten months in visiting Continental 
libraries and gathering necessary data. The classification of material was begun in 
October 1910, and in the following year the first volume of Wolfstieg's Bibliographic 
der Freimaurerischen Literatur appeared. Volume II was published in 1912, and the 
Register (index) followed in 1913. 



It is essential to examine the books carefully in order to fully appreciate the value. 
They are not specifically designed for reading or study - for such close application to 
the volumes is indeed "a weariness to the flesh." Yet to the critical student of 
Masonry, and to librarians especially, the work is a positive necessity. 


The 43,000 titles which the first two volumes contain are divided into two large 
classifications - general and historical. The first of these is subdivided into nineteen 
general heads, of which the following are a few: bibliography, catalogs, journals, 
pocket-companions, collections and serial works, anthologies and songs, addresses 
and sermons, encyclopadias, essays, etc. One hundred and eighty-seven pages, 
comprising 3771 items, are devoted to this first division. 


The second division treats of Masonic history under fifty- four heads. The first nine 
include books and articles on introduction to Masonic history, secret societies and 
their history, the history of Freemasonry in general, early history, the mysteries and 
building art of ancient times, medieval period, the Renaissance and the Reformation, 
the classical period, and the general history of Freemasonry after the establishment of 
the Grand Lodge of England. Thirty- four heads treat of Masonic history in various 
parts of the world by geographical classification. The remaining divisions itemize 
books on military lodges, biographies, catalogues of Masonic antiquities, coins, 
medals, seals, heraldry, hieroglyphics, topography and chronology. 


The original plan was to include only German publications, but after the work was 
begun, it was wisely decided not to entirely omit foreign language publications. A list 
of library catalogs consulted clearly indicates, with the exception of one American, 
three English, two French and three Dutch lists, that very little attention was given to 
anything but German indexes. It is to be regretted that the many existing English and 
American catalogs were not consulted, among them those of the Iowa Masonic 
Library, Cedar Rapids, Iowa; the Supreme council, A. & A. S. R., Washington, D. C.; 
Library of Enoch T. Carson, valuable because of comprehensive and illuminating 
notes; the Masonic Library of General Samuel C. Lawrence, now in the possession of 
the Grand Lodges of Massachusetts; Library of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania; 
and others which might be mentioned. These could have been obtained without 
difficulty. 



Yet it is possible that the absence of many English and American publications in this 
bibliography par excellence may stimulate an energetic American Masonic 
association or an individual brother to prepare a bibliography of Masonic books and 
noteworthy magazine articles which have appeared in the English language. Such an 
enterprise would, of necessity, be a labor of love; but to any one familiar with the 
literature of the Craft, the assignment would not be a difficult task. I confess that I 
should like to undertake it myself. J. H. Tatsch. 


* * * 


CONCERNING THEOPHRASTUS BOMBASTUS VON HOHENHEIM, 
OTHERWISE CALLED PARACELSUS 


PARACELSUS; HIS PERSONALITY AND INFLUENCE AS PHYSICIAN, 
CHEMIST AND REFORMER, by John Maxson Stillman, Professor of Chemistry 
Emeritus, Stanford University, Published by The Open Court Publishing Co., 
Chicago. Order from National Masonic Research Society, Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Cloth, 
184 pages, bibliography, illustrated. Price $2.10. 


After the Barbarians had smashed up Roman civilization there ensued a period of 
restlessness during which tribes and nations ran about like grasshoppers in a field; 
governments came and went like smoke; and the chief business of man was to rant 
about over the earth making war. In the course of time this vast and bloody confusion 
settled down, and the Barbarians themselves learned how to behave as civilized 
people: cities were built; highways were laid; morals were adopted; and the tribes 
came under the steady influence of civil law. Slowly there uprose upon this 
foundation a system of thought which culminated after several centuries in what we 
call Scholasticism. This Great System (it may be so called) rested ("rested" is an 
accurate word here, because the system had a rigidity about it like crystals) upon two 
vast dogmas: the ultimate authority of the Pope in morals and religion; and the 
authority of Aristotle in science. Men did not begin by asking, What are the facts ? 
but, What say the authorities? The naturalist said. What did Pliny write? The 



physicain was more anxious to learn the text of Galen, or Avicenna, than to know the 
patient's temperature. If the dicta of the authorities did not coincide with facts, so 
much the worse for facts! Such was the spirit of the time. 


To our eyes this Great System was a house of cloud hanging suspended in the heaven, 
having in it no substance of fact, and under it no solid foundation: but to the men of 
the time it was anything but cloud like, for it was built solidly into the human scheme 
of things; the force of armies was behind it; laws upheld it; superstition confirmed it; 
and there were countless vested interests to protect it. The individual who set himself 
up in opposition dashed his head against a wall of brass. 


The break-up of the Great System was one of the most exciting periods in all of 
human history; at any rate, the story of it is exciting to read, for it was a season of 
alarms and excursions, a huge confusion, a tremendous anarchy. A world broke into 
pieces, and time was divided into before and after. Nature, reason, and the logic of 
facts made war upon authority, and great was the battle, like some dim struggle in the 
night between Gog and Magog. The principal leaders in the warfare were almost all 
tragic figures, who went about with blood running down their faces, striving mightily. 
Few of them stand out of the scene with any distinctness, for they labored in smoke 
and dust and darkness, and what glimpses we can get of them are like vivid pictures 
seen in lightning flashes. Luther, Erasmus, Leonardo, Copernicus, Columbus, 
Rabelais, Machiavelli, Vesalius, Lorenzo, and the phoenix-like Savonarola, these and 
their companions in the struggle, where is there a one about whom we have clear and 
adequate knowledge ? They are one and all children of storm, and the objects of 
endless debate and controversy. 


There is a sense in which the most typical of all these protagonists is Theophrastus 
Bombastus von Mohenheim, better known by his own invented cognomen of 
Paracelsus, which name itself is a symbol of the are. for it was chosen for 
controversial purposes. This Swiss-German, bom two years before Columbus arrived 
on these western shores, was a kind of monstrosity, half giant and half dwarf, with 
medieval superstition rampant in one hemisphere of his brain, and modem thought 
bursting in the other. He fought, bled and suffered, made war on the Pope and on 
Luther, set up one school of medicine and overthrew another, engaged in countless 
controversies, and spent years mshing over Europe in search of knowledge like a man 



in a fever. His whole career is a kind of tortured hieroglyph of his period, which every 
man should be familiar with. 


What a strange life he led! His grandfather was a Grand Master of the Teutonic 
Order. His father was a physician, and his mother a nurse, so that he came by his 
predilection for medicine quite naturally. Early in his life he turned away in disgust 
from the quaint and useless "knowledge" then taught in the "schools" and started out 
to learn about things at first hand. Instead of wearing his eyes out on the old 
manuscripts he sought knowledge where it can alone be found, in nature, in facts, 
through direct observation of things as they are. While his chums were learning by 
rote the impossible theories of Pliny and Galen, he went into the mines and there 
learned chemistry and physics, insofar as that was then possible. For a time he served 
as town physician of Basel but soon the wise old owls scented his heresies and drove 
him out. For years he travelled about experimenting, discovering, everywhere prying 
for facts. He died in 1541 in poor circumstances. 


Paracelsus's most immediate achievement was to ally medicine with chemistry, a 
thing which, though it is a commonplace with us, appeared to be a wild innovation to 
his contemporaries. But his greatest and most enduring achievement was that he 
helped so mightily to knock the foundations from under the old authoritativeness of 
the schools in order to persuade physicians and scientists to go direct to nature for 
their knowledge. To learn by observation and experiment, that was his battle cry, and 
with it he made his impression on his age, and helped to bring in the modem world. 


H. F. H. 


* * * 


A BURBANKED BROWNING 



BROWNING, HOW TO KNOW HIM, by William Lyon Phelps; published by the 
Bobbs-Merrill Company, at $1.25. 


This is a happy day for those scribblers who like to write "How to" books - "How to" 
plant your own garden; "How to" take care of your own automobile; "How to" learn 
French in twenty lessons; and all that, ad infinitum. Most of these books are 
wearisome to the flesh, the mind, and the spirit, as is everything that lacks originality, 
verve, imagination, and that puts you in the attitude of a school boy conning his a b 
c's. The present volume is one of a series of "How to" books, namely, "How to Know 
Authors"; and the series is edited by Will D. Howe; and published by Bobbs-Merrill 
who know "how to" run a publishing business at Indianapolis, which is a city where 
James Whitcomb Riley once lived. 


I undertook to read this series by way of the How to Know Dante, by Alfred M. 
Brooks; and, with all sincere apologies to Mr. Brooks, found the volume as dull as a 
time table. It was the kind of a book that a machine might write. But with Robert 
Browning, How to Know Him I had better luck, as one might expect in a volume 
done by so sprightly and clever a litterateur as William Lyon Phelps, who is, for those 
that care to know it, Lampson Professor of English Literature at Yale University. No 
better description of the book could be written than that furnished us by the author 
himself in his wee bit of a Preface: 


"In this volume I have attempted to give an account of Browning's life and an 
estimation of his character: to set forth, with sufficient illustration from his poems, his 
theory of poetry, his aim and method: to make clear some of the leading ideas of his 
work: to show his fondness for paradox: to exhibit the nature and basis of his 
optimism. I have given in complete form over fifty o fliis peoms, each one preceded 
by my interpretation of its meaning and significance." 


These promises are one and all carried out to a "T", and with flash, too, and not at all 
like things done by most professors of literature when they try their own hands at the 
craft. 



Browning is terra incognita to many, especially to men, who ask for poetry that is not 
only simple and sensuous, as Milton ordained that it should be, but also rapid, and 
dramatic, as Brother Rudyard Kipling showed them how it could be made. Browning 
is not simple, he is not rapid, and he is not to be understood save by a certain amount 
of work, which is a thing that men disdain to devote to poetry, as a usual thing. This 
is a shame, and to these same men a great loss, for Browning is pre-eminently a man's 
poet, and was a real man in his own proper person, and has something worth while for 
men, far more worth while than the sentimental tin panning that many more easy and 
popular rhymesters give a man in return for his time. 


In Professor Phelps' volume Browning is no longer a prickly cactus, full of 
metaphysical subtleties calling for the interpretative functionings of a Browning 
Society, but is a singer thoroughly Burbanked, thoroughly introduced, made 
acquainted, and easily understood. 


No more need be said about the book than this, for, being on a non-Masonic theme, it 
is not properly a fit subject for the Library Department of a strictly Masonic journal; 
but I shall quote a rather extensive page from Professor Phelps' book, and that for a 
sly reason of my own, which a Mason may understand. This quotation has to do with 
the poem known as "The Soliloquy of the Spanish Cloister." Read it with care - and 
with amusement: 


"'The Soliloquy of the Spanish Cloister' differs from most of the Dramatic 
Monologues in not being addressed to a listener; but the difference is more apparent 
than real; for the other person is in plain view all the time, and the Soliloquy would 
have no point were it not for the peaceful activities of Friar Lawrence. This poem, 
while it deals ostensibly with the lives of only two monks, gives us a glimpse into the 
whole monastic system. When a number of men retired into a monastery and shut out 
the world forever, certain sins and ambitions were annihilated, while others were 
enormously magnified. All outside interests vanished; but sin remained, for it 
circulates in the human heart as naturally as blood in the body. The cloister was 
simply a little world, with the nobleness and meanness of human nature exceedingly 
conspicuous. When the men were once enclosed in the cloister walls, they knew that 
they must live in that circumscribed spot till the separation of death. Naturally 
therefore political ambitions, affections, envies, jealousies, would be writ large; 



human nature would display itself in a manner most interesting to a student, if only he 
could live there in a detached way. This is just what Browning tries to do; he tries to 
live imaginatively with the monks, and to practice his profession as the Chronicler of 
Life. 


"The only way to realize what the monastic life really meant would be to image a 
small modern college situated in the country, and the passage of a decree that not a 
single student should leave the college grounds until his body was committed to the 
tomb. The outside interests of the world would quickly grow dim and eventually 
vanish; and everything would be concentrated within the community. I suppose that 
the passions of friendship, hatred, and jealousy would be prodigiously magnified. 
There must have been friendships among the monks of the middle ages compared to 
which our boasted college friendships are thin and pale; and there must have been 
frightful hatreds and jealousies. In all communities there are certain persons that get 
on the nerves of certain others; the only way to avoid this acute suffering is to avoid 
meeting the person who causes it. But imagine a cloister where dwells a man you 
simply can not endure: every word he says, every motion he makes, every single 
mannerism of walk and speech is intolerable. Now you must live with this man until 
one of you dies: you must sit opposite to him at meals, you cannot escape constant 
contact. Your only resource is profane soliloquies: but if you have a sufficiently ugly 
disposition, you can revenge yourself upon him in a thousand secret ways. 


"Friar Lawrence unconsciously and innocently fans the flames of hatred in our 
speaker's heart, simply because he does not dream of the effect he produces. Every 
time he talks at table about the weather, the cork crop, Latin names, and other 
trivialities, the man sitting opposite to him would like to dash his plate in his face: 
every time Friar Lawrence potters around among his roses, the other looking down 
from his window, with a face distorted with hate, would like to kill him with a glance. 
Poor Lawrence drives our soliloquist mad with his deliberate table manners, with his 
deliberate method of speech, with his care about his own goblet and spoon. And all 
the time Lawrence believes this enemy loves him! 


"From another point of view, this poem resembles 'My Last Duchess' in that it is a 
revelation of the speaker's heart. We know nothing about Friar Lawrence except what 
his deadly enemy tells us; but it is quite clear that Lawrence is a dear old man, 



innocent as a child; while the speaker, simply in giving his testimony against him, 
reveals a heart jealous, malicious, lustful; he is like a thoroughly bad boy at school, 
with a pornographic book carefully concealed. Just at the moment when his rage and 
hatred reach a climax, the vesper bell sounds, and the speaker, who is an intensely 
strict formalist and ritualist, presents to us an amusing spectacle; for out of the same 
mouth proceed blessing and cursing." 


* * * 


SOLILOQUY OF THE SPANISH CLOISTER 


1842 


I 


Gr-r-r - therego, my heart's abhorrence! 
Water your damned flower-pots, do! 

If hate killed men, Brother Lawrence, 
God's blood, would not mine kill you! 
What? your myrtle-bush wants trimming? 
Oh that rose has prior claims - 
Needs its leaden vase filled brimming? 
Hell dry you up its flames! 



II 


At the meal we sit together: 

Salve tibi! I must hear 

Wise talk of the kind of weather, 

Sort of season, time of year: 

Not a plenteous cork-crop: scarcely 
Dare we hope oak-galls, I doubt: 

What's the Latin name for "parseley"? 
What's the Greek name for Swine's Snout? 

Ill 


Whew! We'll have our platter burnished, 
Laid with care on our own shelf! 

With a fire-new spoon we're furnished, 
And a goblet for ourself, 

Rinsed like something sacrificial 
Ere 'tis fit to touch our chaps - 
Marked with L. for our initial! 


(He-he! There his lily snaps!) 



IV 


Saint, forsooth! While brown Dolores 
Squats outside the Convent bank 
With Sanchicha, telling stories, 

Steeping tresses in the tank, 

Blue-black, lustrous, thick like horsehairs, 
Can't I see his dead eye glow, 

Bright as 'twere a Barbary corsair's? 

(That is, if he'd let it show!) 

V 

When he finishes reflection, 

Kn ife and fork he never lays 
Cross-wise, to my recollection, 

As do I, in Jesu's praise. 

I the Trinity illustrate, 

Drinking watered orange-pulp - 
In three sips the Arian frustrate; 

While he drains his at one gulp. 



VI 


Oh, those melons? If he's able 
We're to have a feast! so nice! 

One goes to the Abbot's table, 

All of us get each a slice. 

How go on your flowers ? None double 
Not one fruit- sort can you spy? 

Strange! - And I, too, at such trouble, 
Keep them close-nipped on the sly! 

VII 


There's a great text in Galatians, 
Once you trip on it, entails 
Twenty-nine distinct damnations, 
One sure, if another fails: 

If I trip him just a-dying, 

Sure of heaven as sure can be, 

Spin him round and send him flying 
Off to hell, a Manichee? 



VIII 


Or, my scrofulous French novel, 
On grey paper with blunt type! 
Simply glance at it, you grovel 
Hand and foot in Belial's gripe: 
If I double down its pages 
At the woeful sixteenth print, 
When he gathers his greengages, 
Ope a sieve and slip it in's? 

IX 


Or, there's Satan! - one might venture 
Pledge one's soul to him, yet leave 
Such a flaw in the indenture 
As he'd miss till, past retrieve, 
Blasted lay that rose-acacia 
We’re so proud of! Hy, Zy, Hine. . .. 
‘St, there’s Vespers! Plena gratia 
Ave, Virgo! Gr-r-r-you swine! 



O 


THE QUESTION BOX 


THE BUILDER'S ATTITUDE TOWARD OCCULTISM, ETC 


I have been a steady reader of THE BUILDER since its second year, and never fail to 
go through it every month, every page. It often seems to me that THE BUILDER is 
opposed to occultism. It doesn't publish many articles from that angle. Don't you 
believe that there is occultism in Masonry, in view of Albert Pike's Morals and 
Dogma, and other such official books? I should like to know what you think about 
this subject. M.T.B., California. 


THE BUILDER has never been opposed to occultism; on the contrary, it has 
published a number of articles from that point of view; like-wise from the point of 
view of mysticism, which has many points of contact with it. Ye Editor himself is not 
an occultist, but that is neither here nor there, because THE BUILDER does not exist 
to promulgate the views of any individual. We are quite happy to publish studies of 
the occult interpretation of Masonry providing (please note the providing) they are 
otherwise up to par, a thing that doesn't often happen, because, for some reason or 
other, such contributions are very often impossible in form or sadly lacking in 
scholarship. This is in no sense set down here as a reflection on occultism itself but 
as a report of the facts, so far as we are concerned. Some of the most effective 
interpretations of Masonry thus far granted to us Masons have been from the occult 
point of view, as witness Wilmshurst's The Meaning of Masonry, which is a wise and 
beautiful book, published not long since. Pike's Morals and Dogma may possibly be 
a case in point, but there are many to disagree with you on that, because they 
conceive Pike's position to be grounded in metaphysics rather than in occultism, and 
that is a distinction with a difference, very much of a difference. 


Be all that as it may, the great difficulty in discussing this subject springs from the 
inability of various writers to agree on what occultism really means. Some time ago 



Ye Editor wrote to a number of representative Masonic occultists to ask them to 
explain to him, freely and in confidence, what they might understand occultism to 
mean. One brother, representing the extreme position at one end of the scale, frankly 
identified it with astrology, alchemy, magic and all such interests; from the opposite 
end of the scale another brother defined it as belief in any reality - such as the soul, 
God, or a future life - not susceptible of tangible proof; and between the two were six 
or seven others to offer other explanations almost equally diverse. So long as there is 
so little agreement among those who use the word it is going to be difficult for any of 
the others of us to know whether we are occultists or not. 


It appears that the word originally derived from the Latin occultus, which was 
compounded from ob, meaning "over," or "before," and calere, meaning "to hide," or 
"to conceal." The word "hell," which formerly had the meaning of "a hidden place," 
has sometimes been similarly traced, but on that there is no agreement among 
etymologists. The Century Dictionary defines occult as, (1) "Not apparent upon mere 
inspection, nor deducible from what is so apparent, but discoverable only by 
experimentation; opposed to manifest. (2) Mysterious, transcendental; beyond the 
bounds of natural knowledge." Philosophers of the Middle Ages, who were first 
responsible for the general use of the term, meant by it any science based on observed 
proof, or experimentation, and had in mind that such sciences bring to the surface 
qualities that had hitherto remained concealed. Since that time the work has turned a 
complete somersault and now stands not for the things that are revealed but for the 
things that are concealed, or at any rate are concealed to all except to a select few. 


In view of the general inability to agree on the precise meaning of occultism, at any 
rate in Masonry, it seems wise not to be in haste to tag any given book or essay as 
occult, and thus to praise or to condemn it, but to adjudge it on its own merits, and 
leave it to men to label it whatever they choose. 


* * * 


THE MEANING OF THE WORD "MYSTERY" 



Can you tell me what is the meaning of the word "mystery" ? In reading THE 
BUILDER I get confused about it. I see it used with regard to the Ancient 
"Mysteries," and then in the work Masonry itself is spoken of as a "Mystery." 


L. G. P„ Florida. 


There has been a deal of controversy among scholars as to the accurate meaning of 
"Mystery" when used of the so-called "Ancient Mysteries": for this reason I shall let 
an expert speak in the person of Miss Jane Harrison. On page 153 of her great work, 
Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, (it is a book worth going twenty miles 
to read) she says: 


"Purification, it is clear, was an essential feature of the mysteries, and this brings us to 
the consideration of the meaning of the word 'mystery.' The usual derivation of the 
word is from 'muo,' I close the apertures whether of eyes or mouth. The 'mystes,' it is 
supposed, is the person vowed to secrecy who has not seen and will not speak of the 
things revealed. As such he is distinguished from the 'epoptes' who has seen, but 
equally may not speak; the two words indicate successive grades of initiation. It will 
later be seen [that is, in her book] that in the Orphic Mysteries [of which she makes 
Avery profound and detailed examination] the word 'mystes' is applied, without any 
reference to seeing or not seeing, to a person who has fulfilled the rite of eating the 
raw flesh of a bull. It will be seen that in Crete, which is probably the home of the 
mysteries, the mysteries were open to all, they were not mysterious. The derivation of 
mystery from 'moo,' though possible, is not satisfactory. I would suggest another and 
a simple origin. 


"The ancients themselves were not quite comfortable about the connection with 'muo.' 
They knew and felt that 'mystery,' secrecy, was not the main gist of 'a mystery': the 
essence of it all was purification in order that you might eat and handle certain 'sacra' 
[that is, roughly speaking, sacred things: tokens]. There was no revelation, no secret 
to be kept, only a mysterious 'taboo' to be prepared for and finally overcome, it might 
be a 'taboo' on eating first-fruits, it might be a taboo on handling magical 'sacra.' In 
the Thesmophoria [an ancient rite practiced by women] the women fast before they 



touch the 'sacra'; in the Eleusinian mysteries you sacrifice a pig before you offer and 
partake of the first-fruits. The gist of it all is purification. Clement [one of the first of 
the great Fathers of early Christianity] says significantly, 'Not unreasonably among 
the Greeks in their mysteries do ceremonies of purification hold the initial place, as 
with barbarians the bath.' Merely as an insulting conjecture Clement in his 
irresponsible abusive fashion throws out what I believe to be the real origin of the 
word 'mystery.' 'I think,' he says, 'that these orgies and mysteries of yours may be 
derived, the one from the wrath of Demeter against Zeus, the other from the pollution 
relating to Dionysus.' Of course Clement is formally quite incorrect, but he hits on 
what seems a possible origin of the word 'mystery,' that it is the doing of what relates 
to a 'muses,' a pollution, it is primarily a rite of purification. I,ydus makes the same 
suggestion. 'Mysteries,' he says, 'are from the separating away of a pollution ('muses') 
as equivalent to Sanctification.'" (Page 153.) 


Miss Harrison's interpretation appears to be re-inforced and, in a way illuminated, in 
the early books of Plato's Republic. This masterpiece of the Athenian philosopher 
should be carefully studied by those who seek to learn something about the Ancient 
Mysteries; it records for us what impression they made on keen and clear minded men 
living at the time. 


The word "mystery" was used in the sense as above described long into the Middle 
Ages, and indeed, with certain modifications, is still used, as by Masons when 
referring to their own rites which, whether the word mean either "secrecy" or 
"purification," are in truth a mystery. 


But there is quite a different use of the word which, strangely enough, has come into 
the current of Masonic phraseology, and therefore has been the cause of much 
confusion. When the Normans conquered England they brought with them their word 
'metier,' which is the root of words meaning "to minister, to work for, to help, to 
assist," etc. Oftentimes workmen, in the early fourteenth century, were called 
"ministers." The stork which such a man did was his "ministry." Through long usage 
by quite illiterate and very ignorant men this word gradually became corrupted (see A 
New English Dictionary on this) into "mystery." 



Accordingly, the old Craft Guilds were often called "mysteries," that is, "ministries." 
Freemasonry also in that sense; it is a craft, a cleft of workmen, doing a certain skilled 
labor. 


Still a third use has had influence on Masonic phraseology. In the Middle Ages plays 
were given not in theatres but on movable vans or wagons, each scene on a wagon; 
these moved in a "procession" from one street comer to another; and these plays were 
always produced by the "mysteries" or guilds. Now it happens that many of these 
plays were called "mystery plays." It used to be supposed, even by such authorities as 
Skeat, that they were called "mystery" plays because they were played by the 
"mysteries"; later investigations have proved, however, that the word comes from 
quite a different source when applied to the plays. But that is too large a matter to be 
entered into here. 


As we use it "mystery" never means "that which is mysterious," but rather that which 
is concealed from the profane; or a rite of purification; or a work done by those 
especially skilled and organized therefor. 


* * * 


CONCERNING THE MARK MASTER DEGREE 


I would like very much to get some information with reference to the origin and 
history of the Mark Master Degree, and it has occurred to me that you could supply 
me with this information. Can you give me the date of the organization of the first 
Mark Masters Lodge in England and the date of the organization of the Grand Lodge 
of Mark Masters in England? In this Grand Lodge of Mark Masters still in existence? 
When was the Mark Master Degree included in the Chapter Degrees? Were the other 
three degrees in the Chapter ever conferred without the Mark Master Degree? Was 
there ever a Mark Masters Lodge in the United States? When and where were the 
Chapter Degrees first introduced into the United States and by whom? When and 
where was the General Grand Chapter organized? 



If you will do me the kindness to me this information same will be most highly 
appreciated. 


Frank O. Miller, P.G.H.P., Georgia. 


So far as I know the Mark Master Degree as distinct bodies were not organized until 
the formation of the Grand Lodge of Mark Masters in England in 1 856. Prior to that 
time the Mark Master Degree was given in a Craft lodge as an extra or side degree. 
In England the Mark Master Degree is not worked in a Royal Arch chapter but in a 
Mark Masters lodge chartered by the Grand Lodge of Mark Masters. This Grand 
lodge is still in existence. 


The Mark Master Degree has never been included in the Chapter Degrees in 
England. In the United States it was included at the time the General Grand Chapter 
was organized in 1797 or thereabouts. In Scotland this took place, about 1800 when 
the Grand Lodge of Scotland cut it off from the Craft lodges. 


Yes, there have been several Mark Lodges in the United States. Some of them 
derived authority from Craft lodges, others from chapters. The General Grand 
Chapter at one time granted warrants to hold Mark Master lodges apart from the 
chapter, but this practice was discontinued in 1856. 1 do not know when and where 
the chapter degrees were first introduced into the United States. It has been claimed 
that the Most Excellent Master Degree was invented by Webb. It is not practised 
outside of the United States. The Past Master Degree grew out of the rule that the 
Royal Arch Degree could only be conferred on Past Masters. This rule is no longer in 
force for the Royal Arch Degree in England. In Pennsylvania the Past Master Degree 
is only conferred in a Craft lodge and the applicant for the degree, if he be not an 
actual Past Master, must pay $10.00 to the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania for a 
dispensation to permit his lodge to confer the degree upon him, and he cannot petition 
a chapter for the Royal Arch Degree until his lodge has made him a Past Master, 
either by election to the office of Master or by dispensation from the Grand Lodge. 



The first record of the conferring of the Royal Arch Degree, strange as it may seem, is 
in this country although we have reason to believe that the degree was first worked in 
England. However, the first record is in the minutes of Fredericksburg Lodge No. 4, 
of Virginia, the lodge in which George Washington received his Masonic degrees. 
Under date of December 22, 1753, this degree was conferred in Fredericksburg 
Lodge. 


The General Grand Chapter of the United States was organized October 24, 1797, at 
Boston, Mass., or rather, the convention out of which it grew met at that time and 
place. This convention adjourned to meet at Hartford the following January, and at 
that time and place the General Grand Chapter was organized under the name of the 
Grand Chapter of North America. The following January the name was changed to 
the General Grand Chapter Royal Arch Masons of the Northern States of America, 
and on January 9, 1 806, the name was changed to the present title "The General 
Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons of the United States of America." 


C.C. HUNT, P.G.H.P., Iowa. 


* * * 


AN EASY WAY TO GET MASONIC BOOKS 


I live in a little village "a thousand miles from nowhere," no library, public or private, 
and not a Masonic book in sight so far as I know. Can you suggest how two or three 
brethren and myself might get hold of some Masonic books to read? 


K. M., North Dakota. 



Why not start a book club ? Get five other brethren to join with you, each to pledge 
himself to purchase one book and then to be willing to lend it to each of the others of 
the group in turn. In this way each of you can have the use of six books at the price of 
one. Count on it costing you about two dollars each. If you purchase standard works 
you can sell the six volumes at second hand for about one-half price and thus have a 
start toward another lot. One of you could act as purchasing agent and manager in 
general. Books have a way of getting misplaced or forgotten if somebody doesn't 
make himself responsible. Eternal vigilance is the price of a library. 


The Grand Lodge of North Dakota has, at Fargo, one of the best Masonic libraries in 
the country. It is not a mere collection of books, gathering dust, but is an institution 
alive in every sense of the term. The librarian in charge is Miss Clara Richards, to 
whom unstinted praise is due for her capable work in diffusing the light of Masonic 
knowledge, and for her efforts in placing literature in communities where no libraries 
exist. Write to Miss Richards, asking about the "traveling libraries" she has 
established. 


— o — 


CORRESPONDENCE 


THE MATHEMATICS OF THE BIBLE 


The following communication came to us through the kindness of Bro. N. W. J. 
Hayden, Toronto, who rightly believed it would be interesting to read in THE 


BUILDER. 



When Shakespeare, in one of his plays, makes one of his characters propound a 
problem which absolutely stagers another character and we find it amounts to no 
more than a sum in simple long division, we know at once that the play must have 
been written some time before the seventeenth century, seeing the introduction of the 
rule for long division is due to Briggs (1561-1631). The authorship of the works 
attributed to Shakespeare may be a disputed point, but this fact alone precludes our 
placing the date in the nineteenth century. Such a higher critic would be laughed out 
at court. Conversely, when Dante says: "As cloth the expert geometer appear who 
seeks to square the circle," we do not say that at once places him and his work in the 
twentieth century, for the quadrature of the circle is a problem only now given up; the 
attempts were made thousands of years B. C. 


Let us apply the same tests to the Bible after having a few salient facts firmly fixed in 
our minds: 1. The division between what a person knows and does not know in 
mathematics is very sharp. The highly gifted musician often leaves far in the rear the 
theorist with the greatest knowledge. There are no Schuberts amongst the 
mathematicians whose work ends with their knowledge. 2. Few books supply us with 
so much data as the Bible. Next, let us note the outstanding facts in the History of 
Mathematics. 1. The branches developed in order were geometry, arithmetic and 
algebra. If, however, we take the modern science of arithmetic, that subject comes 
last, a most important point to remember. 


2. Up to 60 B. C. things were at a dead level, so to speak. 


From the fall of Alexandria, A. D. 641, to the fall of Constantinople, A. D. 1453, is 
another period of almost dead level. 


The period of greatest advance lies between the foundation of the Ionian School by 
Thales, circa 600 B. C., and Hero the Elder, circa 120 B. C. During this period no two 
centuries were alike. Any mathematical allusions to actual facts would Lear the 
greatest diversity even if but two centuries intervened. 



In the light of these facts, judging the Bible by its OWI' context, where would a 
mathematician place the date of the Pentateuch, before or after the Ionian School? 


Next let us consider the state of learning. 


The first mathematical subject the world ever knew was geometry and it had its 
source in Egypt, not Babylon, nor even Greece, but the country where the Hebrews 
were oppressed for four centuries. From the Egyptians, consequently, they picked up 
their scanty knowledge of mathematics. Moreover, Joseph moved in the best society, 
knew intimately the leading mathematicians (or geometricians, rather), and married a 
priest's daughter. So did Moses. This is important, for the priests of Egypt had all the 
learning. Now for the name of another Egyptian priest, just as celebrated though it 
does not appear in the Holy Writ, Ahmes, the mathematician. People may dispute 
about the age of the Pentateuch, but no one will deny the great antiquity of the 
hieratic papyrus which forms part of the Rhind collection in the British Museum, and 
which is the work of Ahmes. Its date is given as about 2000 B. C. (Authorities, 
Eisenlor, Cantor, etc.). He and Joseph might easily have been on friendly terms. 


Lastly, it is believed by the same authorities to be a copy of a work one thousand 
years earlier. Next, as to its contents (I restrict myself to the geometrical portion): 
First, Ahmes gives us rules for finding the contents of bams, and the expression is "A 
into B into (C plus C by 2)." These were just the kind of bams into which Joseph 
gathered the corn, and probably he and Ahmes, by putting their heads together, 
managed to calculate the amount stored up. Next he tries to find the area of a circle 
whose diameter is D, and gives it as the square of D diminished by one-ninth. Notice 
he does not say eight-ninths. This is important. Thus the value at "pi" is given as 
almost 22 by 7, as in our modem books on mensuration. Lastly, he uses a little 
trigonometry for measuring the Pyramids. 


But the ordinary Egyptians only knew a few principles of mensuration, and that a 
triangle whose sides are in the ratio of 3:4:5 is right angled. These numbers, or their 
multiple, continually appear in Egyptian geometry. Now compare the Bible: 
Dimensions of the Ark: two cubits and a half, a cubit and a half, a cubit and a half, or 



the ratio 5:3:3 (Ex. 26:10); Mercy Seat, two and a half a cubit and a half, or ratio 5:3 
(height not given in verse 17); table, two, one, one and a half, or 4:2:3 (v. 23); Altar, 
5:5:3 (27:1); Court, 100:50:5, or 20:10:1 (v. 18), etc. Special instructions were given 
that Altar was to be four-square - that is, containing right angles. Was this beyond 
their skill? No, they knew how to draw a perpendicular, as would form a right angle 
long before he or any other Jew had seen the fact of any Babylonian. Turn to Ex. 

3 1 :2, where God specially called Bezaleel, whom He graciously filled "with the Spirit 
of God" - that is, endowed him with geometrical skill. Note how God never asks 
anyone to do the impossible, yet expects him to do his best. Had the work been done 
during the Babylonian period, probably conies and cycloids would have been 
employed. Had the books been written then, the authors would have used more 
advanced mathematics. 


Look at the passage of the Jordan. Why did not the Israelites at least try and find the 
width of the river? God would have told them to do so had it been possible, for He 
never lets us allow our brains to run to waste. Why was it impossible? Because the 
first one to measure the distance of an object without going up to it was Thales, 
whose discovery Euclid made use of in Book K., proposition 26. Dates for 
comparison: Joseph, B. C. 1700; Ahmes, B. C. 2000; Moses, 1400; Thales (I. 5), 640; 
Captivity, 700; Pythagoras (I. 47), 500; Ezra, 450; Plato, 429. Compare carefully 
these dates, and in the light of the geometry of the Bible as compared with that of 
Ahmes, Thales, Pythagoras or Plato see where is the most reasonable date for the 
Pentateuch. If permitted, I should like to write upon the arithmetic and algebra of the 
Bible. 


Alfred W. Hinton. 


* * * 


INFORMATION WANTED 



"I have heard of a poem called "When Pa Joined the Lodge." Can you furnish me 
with a copy or inform me where I can procure it?" H. F. M., Mississippi. 


— o — 


YE EDITOR'S CORNER 


Whew! Dog days are upon us! 


* * * 


I was ill and in bed about six weeks a little while ago, and therefore fell wofully 
behind with my correspondence. Brethren who may still be awaiting my belated reply 
are asked to continue to have patience. The many kindly letters received made me 
realize more than ever how much like a family we all are. 


* * * 


In the best Chinese poems there is a lovely sorrowfulness that comes through, even in 
translation. Witness this poem as translated by L. Cranmer-Byng (author of Odes of 
Confucius and A Lute of Jade). 


A KING OF TANG 


By Wang Po 



There looms a lordly pleasure-tower o'er yon dim shore, 
Raised by some King of Tang. 

Jade pendants at his girdle clashed, and golden bells 
Around his chariot rang. 

Strange guests through sounding halls at dawn go trailing by - 
Gray mists and mocking winds; 

And sullen brooding twilights break in rain on rain 
To lash the ragged blinds. 

The slow sun-dappled clouds lean down o'er waters blue, 
Clear mirrored one by one. 

Then drift as all the world shall drift. The very stars 
Their timeless courses run. 

How many autumn moons have steeped those palace walls! 
And paled the shattered beams! 

What is their royal builder now! A lord of dust? 

An emperor of dreams?