Enciclopédia Mackey – AMETHYST ~ APHANISM

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF FREEMASONRY AND ITS KINDRED SCIENCES
by ALBERT C. MACKEY M. D.

A

AMETHYST

Hebrew ….., achlemah. The ninth stone in the breastplate of the high priest. The amethyst is a stone in hardness next to the diamond, and of a deep red and blue color resembling the breast of a dove.

AMICISTS, ORDER OF

A secret association of students, once very extensively existing among the universities of Northern Germany, first about 1793, and again in 1810. According to Lenning this organization of students was widely spread, especially popular at Jena and Halle. Thory (Aeta Latomorum 1, 292 ), says that this association was first established in the College of Clermont, at Paris. An account of it was published at Halle in 1799, by F. C. Laukhard, under the title of Der Mosellaner-oder Amicisten- 0rden nach seiner Entstehung, innern Verfassung und Verbreitung auf den deutschen Universitaten. The Order was suppressed by the imperial government.

AMIS REUNIS, LOGE DES

The Lodge of United Friends, founded at Paris in 1771, was distinguished for the talents of many of its members, among whom was Savalette de Langes, and played for many years an important part in the affairs of French Masonry. In its bosom was originated, in 1775, the Rite of Philalethes. In 1784 it convoked the first Congress of Paris, which was held in 1785, for the laudable purpose of endeavoring to disentangle Freemasonry from the almost inextricable confusion into which it had fallen by the invention of so many rites and new degrees.
The Lodge was in possession of a valuable library for the use of its members, and had an excellent cabinet of the physical and natural sciences. Upon the death of Savalette, who was the soul of the Lodge, it fell into decay, and its books, manuscripts, and cabinet were scattered, according to Clavel’s Histoire Pittoresque de la Franc-Maçonnerie (page 171).

All of its library that was valuable was transferred to the archives of the Mother Ledge of the Philosophic Scottish Rite. Barruel gives a brilliant picture of the concerts, balls, and suppers given by this Lodge in its halcyon days, to which “les Crésus de la Maçonnerie,” meaning the wealthy ones of Freemasonry (Crésus being the name of the proverbially rich king of Lydia), congregated, while a few superior members were engaged, as he says, in hatching political and revolutionary schemes, but really in plans for the elevation of Freemasonry as a philosophic institution (see Barruel, Mémoires pour servir à l’Histoire du Jacobinisme iv, 343).

AMMON

see Amun

AMMONITISH WAR

A war oi interest in connection with the Fellow Craft Degree. The Ammonites were the descendants of the younger son of Lot, and dwelt east of the river Jordan, but originally formed no part of the land of Canaan, the Israelites having been directed not to molest them for the sake of their great progenitor, the nephew of Abraham.

But in the time of Jephthah, their king having charged the Israelites with taking away a part of his territory, the Ammonites crossed the river Jordan and made war upon the Israelites. Jephthah defeated them with great slaughter, and took an immense amount of spoil. It was on account of this spoil-in which they had no share—that the Ephraimites rebelled against Jephthah, and gave him battle (see Ephraimites).

AMOR HONOR ET JUSTITIA

Love, Honor and Justice. A Latin motto of the Grand Lodge of England used prior to the union of 1813, which is to be found graven on the Masonic Token of 1794, commemorative of the election of the Prince of Wales as the Most Worshipful Grand Master, November 24, 1790.

AMPHIBALUS

See Saint A mphibalus

AMPLE FORM

When the Grand Master is present at the opening or closing of the Grand Lodge, it is said to be opened or closed “in ample form.” Any ceremony performed by the Grand Master is said to be done “in ample form” ; when performed by the Deputy, it is said to be “in due form”; and by any other temporarily presiding ofiicer, it is “in form” (see Form).

AMRU

The name given to the Phoenician carpenter, who is represented in some legends as one of the assassins, Fanor and Metusael being the other two.

AMSHASPANDS

The name given in the Zoroastrian religion of the ancient Persians, the Parsees, in the Zend-Avesta, their bible an d prayer book, to the six good genii or powerful angels who continuously wait round the throne of Ormudz, or Ormazd. Also the name of the six summer months and the six productive working properties of nature.

AMULET

See Talisman

AMUN

The Supreme God among the Egyptians. He was a concealed god, and is styled “the Celestial Lord who sheds light on hidden things.” From him all things emanated, though he created nothing. He corresponded with the Jove of the Greeks, and, consequently, with the Jehovah of the Jews. His symbol was a ram, which animal was sacred to him. On the monuments he is represented with a human face and limbs free, having two tall straight feathers on his head, issuing from a red cap ; in front of the plumes a disk is sometimes seen. His body is colored a deep blue. He is sometimes, however, represented with the head of a ram, and the Greek and Roman writers in genera1 agree in describing him as being ram-headed.

There is some confusion on this point. Kenrich says that Nouf was, in the majority of instances, the ram-headed god of the Egyptians; but he admits that Amun may have been sometimes so represented.

The student will be interested to learn that this word in the Hebrew language means builder or architect

ANACHRONISM

Some Ritual makers, especially when they have been ignorant and uneducated, have often committed anachronisms or errors as to periods of time or dates by the introduction into Masonic ceremonies of matters entirely out of time. Thus, the use of a bell to indicate the hour of the night, practiced in the Third Degree; the placing of a celestial and a terrestrial globe on the summit of the pillars of the porch, in the Second Degree; and quotations from the New Testament and references to the teachings of Christ, in the Mark Degree, are all anachronisms But, although it were to be wished that these disturbances of the order of time had been avoided, the fault is not really of much importance.

The object of the ritualist was simply to convey an idea, and this he has done in the way which he supposed would be most readily comprehended by those for whom the ritual was made.
The idea itself is old, although the mode of conveying it may be new. Thus, the bell is used to indicate a specific point of time, the globes to symbolize the universality of Freemasonry, and passages from the New Testament to teach the practice of duties whose obligations are older than Christianity.

ANAGRAM

The letters of a word or phrase so transposed as to make a different word or phrase. The manufacture of anagrams out of proper names or other words has always been a favorite exercise, sometimes to pay a compliment—as when Doctor Burney made Honor est a Nilo out of Horatio Nelson, the Latin phrase meaning Honor is from the Nile, and alluding to his victory at that river on August 1, 1798-and sometimes for purposes of secrecy, as when Robert Bacon concealed under an anagram one of the ingredients in his recipe for gunpowder, that the world might not too easily become acquainted with the composition of so dangerous a material.

The same method was adopted by the adherents of the house of Stuart when they manufactured their system of high degrees as a political engine, and thus, under an anagrammatic form, they made many words to designate their friends or, principally, their enemies of the opposite party. Most of these words it has now become impossible to restore to their original form, but several are readily decipherable.

Thus, among the assassins of the Third Degree, who symbolized, with them, the foes of the monarchy, we recognize Romvel as Cromwell, and Hoben as Bohun, Earl of Essex. It is only thus that we can ever hope to trace the origin of such words in the high degrees as Tercy, Stolkin, Morphey, etc. To look for them in any Hebrew roots would be a fruitless task. The derivation of many of them, on account of the obscurity of the persons to whom they refer, is, perhaps, forever lost; but of others the research for their meaning may be more successful.

ANANIAH

The name of a learned Egyptian, who is said to have introduced the Order of Mizraim from Egypt into Italy. Doctor Oliver (in his Landmarks, ii, page 75 ), states the tradition, but doubts its authenticity. It is in a1l probability a matter of doubt (see Mizraim, Rite of).

ANCHOR AND ARK

The anchor, as a symbol of hope, does not appear to have belonged to the ancient and classic system of symbolism. The Goddess Spes, the word meaning Hope, was among the ancients represented in the form of an erect woman, holding the skirts of her garments in her left hand, and in her right a flower-shaped cup.

This goddess was honored with several temples at Rome and her festival day was observed on August 1. As an emblem of hope, the anchor is peculiarly a Christian, and thence a Masonic, symbol. It is first found inscribed on the tombs in the catacombs of Rome, and the idea of using it is probably derived from the language of Saint Paul (Hebrews vi, 19), ”which hope we have as an anchor of the soul both sure and steadfast.”

The primitive Christians looked upon life as a stormy voyage, and glad were the voyagers when it was done, and they had arrived safe in port. Of this the anchor was a symbol, and when their brethren carved it over the tomb, it was to them an expression of confidence that he who slept beneath had reached the haven of eternal rest. This is the belief of Kip, Catacombs of Rome (page l12). The strict identity between this conclusion and the Masonic idea of the symbol will be at once observed.

“The anchor,” says Mrs. Jameson in her Sacred and Legendary Art (1, page 34), “is the Christian symbol of immovable firmness, hope, and patience; and we find it very frequently in the catacombs, and on the ancient Christian gems.”

This representation of the anchor is the peculiar attribute of Saint Clement, and is often inscribed on churches dedicated to him.

But there is a necessary connection between an anchor and a ship, and hence, the latter image has also been adopted as a symbol of the voyage of life ; but, unlike the anchor, it was not confined to Christians, but was with the heathens also a favorite emblem of the close of life. Kip thinks the idea may have been derived from them by the Christian Fathers, who gave it a more elevated meaning. The ship is in Freemasonry substituted by the ark. Mrs. Jameson says in the above work that “the Ark of Noah floating safe amid the deluge, in which all things else were overwhelmed, was an obvious symbo1 of the Church of Christ. . . .

The bark of St. Peter tossed in the storm, and by the Redeemer guided safe to land, was also considered as symbolical.”

These symbolical views have been introduced into Freemasonry, with, however, the more extended application which the universal character of the Masonic religious faith required. Hence, in the Third Degree, whose teachings all relate to life and death, “The ark and anchor are emblems of a well-grounded hope and a well-spent life. They are emblematical of that Divine ark which safely wafts us over this tempestuous sea of troubles, and that anchor which shall safely moor us in a peaceful harbor where the wicked cease from troubling and the weary shall find rest.”
Such is the language of the lecture of the Third Degree, and it gives all the information that is required on the esoteric meaning of these symbols. The history that is here added by Doctor Mackey of their probable origin will no doubt be interesting to the Masonic student.

ANCHOR, KNIGHT OF THE

See Knight of the Anchor

ANCHOR, ORDER OF KNIGHTS AND LADIES OF THE

A system of Freemasonry for both sexes wich arose in France in the year 1745. It was a schism which sprang out of the order of Felicity from Which it differed only in being somewhat more refined . Its existence was not more durable than that of its predecessor. Clavel, in his Histoire Piltoresque de la Franc-Maçonnerie (page 111), gives this information (see Felicity, 0rder of).

ANCIENT AND ACCEPTED RITE

See Scottish Rite

ANCIENT ARABIC ORDER NOBLES OF THE MYSTIC SHRINE

See Shrine

ANCIENT CRAFT MASONRY

This is the popular name given to the three symbolic degrees of Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft, and Master Mason.

The degree of Royal Arch is not generally included under this appellation; although, when considered as it really is-a complement of the Third Degree, it must of course constitute a part of Ancient Craft Freemasonry. In the Articles of Union between the two Grand Lodges of England, adopted in 1813, it is declared that “pure Ancient Masonry consists of three degrees and no more, namely: those of the Entered Apprentice, the Fellow Craft and the Master Mason, including the Supreme Order of the Holy Royal Arch.

But this article is not intended to prevent any Lodge or Chapter from holding a meeting in any of the degrees oi the Orders of Chivalry, according to the constitutions of the said Orders.”

ANCIENT FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS

The title most generally assumed by the English and American Grand Lodges (see Tilles of Grand Lodges).

ANCIENT or ANCIENT or ATHOLL FREEMASONS

In 1751 some Irish Freemasons in London established a body which they called the “Grand Lodge of England according to the Old Institutions,” and they styled themselves Ancient and the members of the regular Grand Lodge, established in 1717, Moderns. Thus Dermott, in his Ahiman Rezon, divides the Freemasons of England into two classes, as follows: “The Ancient, under the name of Free and Accepted Masons, according to the old Institutions ; the Moderns, under the name of Freemasons of England.

And though a similarity of names, yet they differ exceedingly in makings, ceremonies, knowledge, Masonic language, and installations; so much, that they always have been, and still continue to be, two distinct societies, totally independent of each other” (see the seventh edition, page xxx).

The Ancient maintained that they alone preserved the ancient tenets and practices of Freemasonry, and that the regular Lodges had altered the Landmarks and made innovations, as they undoubtedly had done about the year 1730, when Prichard’s book entitled Masonry Dissected appeared.

For a long time it was supposed that the Ancient were a schismatic body of seceders from the Premier Grand Lodge of England, but Brother Heary Sadler, in his Masonic Facts and Fictions, has proved that this view is erroneous, and that they were really Irish Freemasons who settled in London.

In the year 1756, Laurence Dermott, then Grand Secretary, and subsequently the Deputy Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of the Ancient, published a Book of Constitutions for the use of the Ancient Freemasons, under the title of Ahiman Rezon, which work went through several editions. This became the code of Masonic law for all who adhered, either in England or America, to the Grand Lodge of the Ancient, while the Grand Lodge of the Moderns, or the regular Grand Lodge of England, and its adherents, were governed by the regulations contained in Anderson’s Constitutions, the first edition of which had been published in 1723.

The dissensions between the two Grand Lodges of England lasted until the year 1813, when, as will be hereafter seen, the two Bodies became consolidated under the name and title of the United Grand Lodge of Ancient Freemasons of England. Four years afterward a similar and final reconciliation took place in America, by the union of the two Grand Lodges in South Carolina. At this day all distinction between the Ancient and Moderns has ceased, and it lives only in the memory of the Masonic student.

What were the precise differences in the rituals of the Ancient and the Moderns, it is now perhaps impossible to discover, as from their esoteric nature they were only orally communicated. But some shrewd and near approximations to their real nature may be drawn by inference from the casual expressions which have fallen from the advocates of each body in the course of their long and generally bitter controversies.

Already has it been said that the regular Grand Lodge is stated to have made certain changes in the modes of recognition, in consequence of the publication of Samuel Prichard’s spurious revelation. These changes were, as we traditionally learn, a simple transposition of certain words, by which that which had originally been the first became the second, and that which had been the second became the first. Hence Doctor Dalcho, the compiler of the original Ahiman Rezon of South Carolina, who was himself made in an Ancient Lodge, but was acquainted with both systems, says, in the edition of 1822 (page193), “The real difference in point of importance was no greater than it would be to dispute whether the glove should be placed first upon the right or on the left. ”

A similar testimony as to the character of these changes is furnished by an address to the Duke of Atholl, the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Ancient, in which it is said: “I would beg leave to ask, whether two persons standing in the Guildhall of London, the one facing the statues of Gog and Magog, and the other with his back turned on them, could, with any degree of propriety, quarrel about their stations ; as Gog must be on the right of one, and Magog on the right of the other. Such then, and far more insignificant, is the disputatious temper of the seceding Brethren, that on no better grounds than the above they choose to usurp a power and to aid in open and direct violation of the regulations they had solemnly engaged to maintain, and by every artifice possible to be devised endeavored to increase their numbers.”

It was undoubtedly to the relative situation of the pillars of the porch, and the appropriation of their names in the ritual, that these innuendoes referred. As we have them now, they were made by the change effected by the Grand Lodge of Moderns, which transposed the original order in which they existed before the change, and in which order they are still preserved by the continental Lodges of Europe. Admitted as it is that the Modems did make innovations in the ritual; and although Preston asserts that the changes were made by the regular Grand Lodge to distinguish its members from those made by the Ancient Lodges, it is evident, from the language of the address just quoted, that the innovations were the cause and not the effect of the schism.
The inferential evidence is that the changes were made in consequence of, and as a safeguard against, spurious publications, and were intended, as has already been stated, to distinguish impostors from true Freemasons, and not schismatic or irregular Brethren from those who were orthodox and regular.

But outside of and beyond this transposition of words, there was another difference existing between the Ancient and the Moderns. Dalcho, who was acquainted with both systems, says that the Ancient Freemasons were in possession of marks of recognition known only to themselves. His language on this subject is positive.

“The Ancient York Masons,” he says, “were certainly in possession of the original, universal marks, as they were known and given in the Lodges they had left, and which had descended through the Lodge of York, and that of England, down to their day. Besides these, we find they had peculiar marks of their own, which were unknown to the Body from which they had separated, and were unknown to the rest of the Masonic world. We have then, the evidence that they had two sets of marks; namely: those which they had brought with them from the original Body, and those which they had, we must suppose, themselves devised” (see page 192 of Doctor Dalcho’s Ahiman Rezon).

Dermott, in his Ahiman Rezon, confirms this statement of Dalcho, if, indeed, it needs confirmation. He says that “a modern Mason may with safety communicate all his secrets to an Ancient Mason, but that an Ancient Mason cannot, with like safety, communicate all his secrets to a Modem Mason without further ceremony.” He assigns as a reason for this, that “as a science comprehends an art (though an art cannot comprehend a science), even so Ancient Masonry contains everything valuable among the Moderns, as well as many other things that cannot be revealed without additional ceremonies.”

Now, what were these “other things” known by the Ancient, and not known by the Moderns? What were these distinctive marks, which precluded the latter from visiting the Lodges of the former? Written history is of course silent as to these esoteric matters. But tradition, confirmed by, and at the same time explaining, the hints and casual intimations of contemporary writers, leads us to the almost irresistible inference that they were to be found in the different constructions of the Third, or Master’s Degree, and the introduction into it of the Royal Arch element. For, as Doctor Oliver, in his History of the English Royal Arch ( page 21), says, ”The division of the Third Degree and the fabrication of the English Royal Arch appear, on their own showing, to have been the work of the Ancient.” Hence the Grand Secretary’ of the regular Grand Lodge, or that of the Moderns, replying to the application of an Ancient Freemason from Ireland for relief, says: “Our society (that is, the Moderns) is neither ,Arch, Royal Arch, nor Ancient, so that you have no right to partake of our charity.”

This, then, is the solution of the difficulty. The Ancient, besides preserving the regular order of the words in the First and Second Degrees, which the Moderns had transposed (a transposition which has been retained in the Lodges of Britain and America, but which has never been observed by the continental Lodges of Europe, who continue the usage of the Ancient), also finished the otherwise imperfect Third Degree with its natural complement, the Royal Arch, a complement with which the Moderns were unacquainted, or which they, if they knew it once, had lost.

The following is a list of the Grand Masters of the Grand Lodge of Ancient from its organization to its dissolution: 1753, Robert Turner; 1754-5, Edward Voughan; 1756-9, Earl of Blessington; 1760-5, Earl of Kelly; 1766-70, The Hon. Thomas Matthew; 1771-4, third Duke of Atholl; 1775-81, fourth Duke of Atholl; 1782-90, Earl of Antrim; 1791-1813, fourth Duke of Atholl; 1813, Duke of Kent, under whom the two Grand Lodges were united.

The Grand Lodge of Ancient Freemasons was, shortly after its organization, recognized by the Grand Lodges of Scotland and Ireland. Through the ability and energy of its officers, but especially Laurence Dermott, at one time its Grand Secretary, and afterward its Deputy Grand Master, and the author of its Ahiman Rezon, or Book of Constitutions, it extended its influence and authority into foreign countries and into the British Colonies of America, where it became exceedingly popular. Here it organized several Provincial Grand Lodges, as, for instance, in Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and South Carolina, where the Lodges working under this authority were generally known as Ancient York Lodges.

In consequence of this, dissensions existed, not only in the mother country, but also in America, for many years, between the Lodges which derived their warrants from the Grand Lodge of Ancient and those which derived theirs from the regular or so-called Grand Lodge of Modems. But the Duke of Kent having been elected, in 1813, the Grand Master of the Ancient, while his brother, the Duke of Sussex, was Grand Master of the Moderns, a permanent reconciliation was effected between the rival Bodies, and by mutual compromises the present United Grand Lodge of Ancient Freemasons of England was established.

Similar unions were consummated in America, the last being that of the two Grand Lodges of South Carolina, in 1817, and the distinction between the Ancient and the Modems was forever abolished, or remains only as a melancholy page in the history of Masonic controversies. From their connection with the Dukes of Atholl, the Ancient Freemasons are sometimes known as Atholl Freemasons. The word is also spelled Athol and Athole

ANCIENT OF DAYS

A title supplied, in the visions of Daniel, to Jehovah, to signify that His days are beyond reckoning. Used by Webb in the Most Excellent Master’s song.
Fulfilled is the promise
By the ANCIENT OF DAYS,
To bring forth the capstone
With shouting and praise.

ANCIENT REFORMED RITE

A Rite differing very s1ightly from the French Rite, or Rite Moderns, of which, indeed, it is said to be only a modification.

It is practiced by the Grand Lodge of Holland and the Grand Orient of Belgium. This Rite was established in 1783 as one of the results of the Congress of Wilhelmsbad.

ANCIENTS

see Ancient Freemasons

ANCIENT, THE

The Third Degree of the German Union of Twenty-two.

ANCIENT YORK FREEMASONS

One of the names of Lodges of Ancient Freemasons, which see.

ANDERSON, JAMES

The Rev. James Anderson, D.D., a well known to all Freemasons as the compiler of the celebrated Book of Constitutions.

The date and place of his birth have not yet been discovered with certainty, but the date was probably 1680, and the place, Aberdeen in Scotland, where he was educated and where he probably took the degrees of Master of Arts and Doctor of Divinity.

At some uncurtained period he migrated to London, and our first precise knowledge of him, derived from a document in the State Records, is that on February 15, 1709-10, he, as a Presbyterian minister, took over the lease of a chapel in Swallow Street, Piccadilly, from a congregation of French Protestants which desired to dispose of it because of their decreasing prosperity. During the following decade he published several sermons, and is said to have lost a considerable sum of money dabbling in the South Sea scheme.

Where and when his connection with Freemasonry commenced has not yet been discovered, but he must have been a fairly prominent member of the Craft, because, on September 29, 1721, he was ordered by the Grand Lodge, which had been established in London in 1717, to “digest the old Gothic Constitutions in a new and better method.” On the 27th of December following, his work was finished, and the Grand Lodge appointed a committee of fourteen learned Brethren to examine and report upon it.

Their report was made on the 25th of March, 1722; and, after a few amendments, Anderson’s work was formally approved, and ordered to be printed for the benefit of the Lodges, which was done in 1723.

This is now the well-known Book of Constitutions, which contains the history of Freemasonry or, more correctly, architecture, the Ancient Charges, and the General Regulations, as the same were in use in many old Lodges. In 1738 a second edition was pub1ished.

Both editions have become exceedingly rare, and copies of them bring fancy prices among the collectors of old Masonic books. Its intrinsic value is derived only from the fact that it contains the first printed copy of the Old Charges and also the General Regulations. The history of Freemasonry which precedes these, and constitutes the body of the work, is fanciful, unreliable, and pretentious to a degree that often leads to absurdity.

The Craft is greatly indebted to Anderson for his labors in reorganizing the Institution, but doubtless it would have been better if he had contented himself with giving the records of the Grand Lodge from 1717 to 1738, which are contained in his second edition, and with preserving for”us the Charges and Regulations, which, without his industry, might have been lost.

No Masonic writer would now venture to quote Anderson as authority for the history of the Order anterior to the eighteenth century. It must also be added that in the republication of the Old Charges in the edition of 1738, he made several important alterations and interpolations, which justly gave some offense to the Grand Lodge, and which render the second edition of no authority in this respect.

In the year 1723, when his first edition of the Constitutions appeared, he was Master of Lodge No. 17, and he was appointed Grand Warden, and also became Chaplain to the Earl of Buchan; in 1732 he published a voluminous work entitled Royal Genealogies, or the Genealogical Tables of Emperors, Kings and Princes, from Adam to these times; in 1733 he issued a theological pamphlet on Unity in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity ; in 1734 he removed with a part of his congregation from his chapel in Swallow Street to one in Lisle Street, Leicester Fields, in consequence of some difference with his people, the nature of which is unknown ; in 1735 he represented to Grand Lodge that a new edition of the Book of Constitutions had become necessary and he was ordered to lay his materials before the present and former Grand officers; in 1738 the new Book of Constitutions was approved of by Grand Lodge and ordered to be printed.

Anderson died on May 28, 1739, and was buried in Bunhill Fields with a Masonic funeral, which is thus reported in The Daily Post of June 2d: “Last night was inferred the corpse of Dr. Anderson, a Dissenting Teacher, in a very remarkable deep Grave. His Pall was supported by five Dissenting Teachers, and the Rev. Dr. Desaguliers: It was followed by about a Dozen of Freemasons, who encircled the Grave ; and after Dr. Earle had harangued on the Uncertainty of Life, &c., without one word of the Deceased, the Brethren, in a most solemn dismal Posture, lifted up their Hands, sighed, and struck their aprons three times in Honor of the Deceased.”
Soon after his death another of his works, entitled News from Elysium or Dialogues of the Dead, was issued, and in 1742 there appeared the first volume of a Genealogical History of the House of Yvery, also from his pen.

The preceding article, written by Brother Edward L. Hawkins, may be supplemented by the following paragraph by Brother John T. Thorp which appeared in the Ars Quatuor Coronatorum (xviii, page 9 ) :

“Of this distinguished Brother we know very little. He is believed to have been born, educated and made a Freemason in Scotland, subsequently settling in London as a Presbyterian Minister.

He is mentioned for the first time in the Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of England on September 29, 1721, when he was appointed to revise the old Gothic Constitutions-this revision was approved by the Grand Lodge of England on September 29th in 1723, in which year Anderson was Junior Grand Warden under the Duke of Wharton-he published a second edition of the Book of Constitutions in 1738 and died in 1739. This is about all that is known of him.”

Brother William J. Hughan, in his Origin of the English Rite of Freemasonry (Leicester, 1909 edition, page 31), devotes some attention to the Gild theory, as it has been called, which dates Masonic degrees in connection with Doctor Anderson farther back than what we term the Grand Lodge era. Brother Clement E. Stretton has discussed this question in his pamphlet, Tectonic Art, published at Melton Mowbray, England, 1909, and he says that “In 1710 the Rev. James Anderson was the Chaplain of the St. Paul’s Gild Masons, who at that time had their head-quarters at the Goose and Gridiron Ale House in Saint Paul’s Churchyard, and in September, 1717, the books of the Gild show that Anderson had made a very remarkable innovation in the rules which was to admit persons as members of the Masonic Gild without their serving the seven years apprenticeship.

This caused a split in the ranks.” But the books in question were not produced and as Brother Hughan advises we must patiently wait for the production of documents in support of the claims thus made.

Miscellanea Latomorum, May, 1923, records that Sir Alfred Robbins announced at the March meeting of Quatuor Coronati Lodge that he had found the following item in the London Daily Courant of May 17, 1731: “We hear from Aberdeen that the University has lately conferred a Doctor’s Degree in Divinity on Mr. James Anderson, Swallow street, a gentleman well known for his extensive learning.”

This fixes more definitely the date and place when and where he received the degree of which title he soon made use.

ANDERSON MANUSCRIPT

In the first edition of the Constitutions of the Freemasons, published by Doctor Anderson in 1723, the author quorns on pages 32-3 from “a certain record of Freemasons, written in the reign of King Edward IV.” Preston also cites it in his Illustrations (see page 182, 1788 edition), but states that it is said to have been in the possession of Elias Ashmole, but was unfortunately destroyed, with other papers on the subject of Freemasonry, at the Revolution. Anderson makes no reference to Ashmole as the owner of the manuscript, nor to the fact of its destruction.
If the statement of Preston were confirmed by other evidence, its title would properly be the Ashmole Manuscript, but as it was first mentioned by Anderson, Brother Hughan has very properly called it the Anderson Manuscript. It contains the Prince Edwin legend.

ANDERSON, JAMES

On September 29, 1721, the Mother Grand Lodge, then only four years old, left it on record that, “His Grace’s Worship [Duke of Montague, Grand Master] and the [Grand] Lodge finding Fault with all the Copies of the old Gothic Constitutions, ordered Brother James Anderson, A.M., to digest the same in a new and better Method.”

December 27, 1721, “The Duke of Montague appointed 14 learned [in Masonic ritual and customs] Brothers to examine Brother Anderson’s Manuscript, and to make report.” March 25, 1722, “The Committee of 14 reported that they had perused Brother Anderson’s Manuscript, viz., the History, Charges, Regulations, and Masters’ Song, and after some Amendments had approved of it; upon which the Lodge desired the Grand Master to order it to be printed.” Dr. Desaguliers wrote the Preface, George Payne drafted the Regulations.

On May 17, 1731, the London Daily Courant reported : “We bear from Aberdeen that the University has lately conferred a Doctor’s Degree in Divinity on Mr. James Anderson, Swallow Street, a gentleman well-known for his extensive learning.”

Ever since R. F. Gould published his History of Freemasonry his successors and colleagues have followed his lead in describing Anderson as fanciful, a romancer, and in every way an unreliable “historian.”
The time has come to rescue the name of a man who ought never to have been described in such terms; and the publication of the histories and records of some sixty of the oldest Lodges in England has supplied the means to do it. The truth about Anderson (see page 77 of this Encyclopedia) can best be set forth in a number of separate statements of fact :

  1. The word “history,” which he himself employed, and as he well knew, did not denote history as a college Professor uses it, but rather meant the legends and traditions long circulated by the old Lodges. Each of the Old Manuscripts began with such a legend; Anderson transcribed a version of it, and as he had been commanded to do.
  2. He was not the author but only the compiler of the book ; Grand Lodge ordered it, Payne revised the Regulations, the legendary part (”history”) was compiled from Old Manuscripts Desaguliers had supplied, fourteen of the old Brethren approved, and it was the Grand Lodge, not Anderson, who ordered it printed. If Gould had a quarrel with the Book it was with the Grand Lodge that he should have quarreled, not with Anderson.
  3. Nobody in Grand Lodge took the legend to be actual history. Desaguliers was one of the most learned men in England ; Payne was a scholar ; Anderson himself, ” one of the above quotations showed, was signally honored for his learning by Aberdeen, a University hard to please. Other Grand Lodge leaders, such as the Duke of Montague and Martin Clare, were also of great intelligence. None of them could have dreamed of foisting off on their friends the old legend as a treatise of veridic history.
  4. Later, Dr. Desaguliers asked Anderson “to hunt out as many old Grand Masters as he could find.” Anderson did so, and in the 1738 Edition gives a list which goes back to Adam. What did this mean? Only that these were not historical Grand Masters, but ritualistic or legendary Grand Masters. If some old Lodge, jealous of its age, had the name of a Grand Master in its legend, Noah, Euclid, or whoever, it demanded to see that name in the version of the legend being used by Grand Lodge.

When Desaguliers asked Anderson to hunt out Grand Masters he did not mean to hunt them out from history, but from among the versions of the Old Charges in use among the earliest Lodges ; and neither Desaguliers nor Anderson could have believed that in sober history and fact Noah, or Charles Martel, or Euclid had ever been Grand Masters, because they knew too much, were too intelligent. The first entry quoted above proves that Anderson was not the author of the “history” portion, but merely arranged the old MSS. legend ”in a new and better Method.” The whole Hughan-Gould body of Masonic historical writing needs radical revision on the subjects of Anderson and his Constitutions !

On page 46 of his The Lodge Aberdeen l terr, Bro. A. L. Miller states that Anderson was a member of that Lodge, which naturally was the place in which he would seek admittance to Masonry since he was a student in Marshal College in the University of Aberdeen, where he received the degree of M.A., and to which be made a personal present of his The Royal Genealogies, a book he had written, inscribed in his own hand, when the form of words in the Book of Constitutions is compared with the written records of the Lodge of Aberdeen dated 1670 it will be seen that Anderson must have had the records before him, or else had learned them by heart, because a number of terms, and arrangements of words, are the same in one as in the other. When in the Constitutions he wrote “James Anderson, A.M., the Author of this Book” be very probably used the word ”Author” in the sense of “compiler, scribe, maker” as had been its meaning in the Aberdeen records, where another and previous James Anderson (his father?) had signed the Work Book as “the Writer of this Book.”

In sum: Anderson received the best college education to be had in his period; earned two scholastic Degrees; was trained in Masonry in one of the oldest and most conservative of Lodges ; was author of three books not including the Constitutions; was on his merits called to a church in London ; while there made friends among the most eminent and substantial men, such as Desaguliers, Payne, Duke of Montague, William Preston, Straban the publisher, etc. It was impossible for a man with such a career and position and with such solid achievements, attained before be was forty, to have been the gullible, flighty, fable making man which Gould pictured him to have been.

Note. On nothing in the legendary portion of the first Book of Constitution have latter-day historians piled more ridicule than on the list of Grand Masters prior to 1717, and since Anderson was blamed for the list the ridicule was extended to him by implication. In this list are many eminent personages, kings and so on, stretching back to Adam, and including Euclid and Solomon ; it has no historicity; there were no Grand Masters before Anthony Sayer. However, there are some things to be said in its favor, and in addition to the fact, given above that they were ritualistic Grand Masters.

For one thing, the word “Grand Master” was employed loosely, and if this be accepted it was not unreasonable to incorporate in the list men known to have been Royal Supervisors of architecture. For another thing, the list, even if Anderson’s own, was seen and approved by his Committee, ”the fourteen old Brethren,” and the officers and members of the Grand Lodge. Finally, it was not as absurd as it may now seem to include kings, emperors, princes, etc., in the list because as a matter of known fact the majority of the kings and queens of England belonged to one or more gilds or City Companies. Edward III was a member of the Merchant Tailors Company ; so also was Richard II ; Queen Elizabeth was a member of a Company. Queen Victoria proclaimed herself Royal Protectress of the Fraternity of Freemasons. When Richard II was in the Tailors Company it also had in its membership ”four royal dukes, ten earls, ten barons, and five bishops.”

ANIMAL SYMBOLISM

The history of Medieval Masonry (Operative Masonry) can be written in the form of sweeping generalizations, particularly about the use and the extraordinarily rapid spread of the Gothic Style. Or it can be written in the form of histories of particular cathedrals, abbeys, priories, castles, mansions, such as St. Michele, York, Wells, King’s College, Cologne, etc. Or it can be written as an engineer would write it, in terms of machines, tools, quarrying, transportation, scaffolding, etc. Or as an economist would write it (vide Knoop & Jones), in the terms of wages, hours of labor, contracts, etc. Or in the form of treatises on the customs and organization of the Freemasons, their Lodges, their Old Charges their apprentices.

Lastly it could be written in the form of an endeavor to describe the Masons themselves. Who were they? What were they as men? What was in their minds? How did they discover a number of truths which nobody else in the Middle Ages ever saw, or could see? How did they live? Where did they find their education? A history in this last form has yet to be written, and until it is written it is as if no other history of Freemasonry had ever been written, because it was not the structure, or the money, or the Fabric Rolls, or the hours, or the wages, or the contracts which discovered and perpetuate that set of truths which is Speculative Freemasonry; it was the men themselves; and it is those men, not a set of buildings, of whom we are the descendants.

Until a number of Masonic scholars have accumulated a large body of facts to make such a history possible, a ‘Masonic student can only feel his way along by-paths, and guess out many things from traces here and there in the buildings which , like a thumb print, still bear the impress of the personality of the builders.

It is when viewed as contributing to that purpose that a study of such a comparatively unimportant detail as the sculptures, carvings, mosaics, and pictures of animals, including birds and insects (botany is too large to include here–it also is a field awaiting research) begins to take on a large significance, because in an indirect way it tells us a number of things about the Freemasons as men, it being remembered meanwhile that until a late period the Masons had a free hand in these ornamental details.

Among the carvings in the cathedrals are a zoology of actual and mythical animals, lions, foxes, goats, horses, donkeys, birds, snakes, bees, unicorns, griffins, etc., and often they are placed or fashioned with a sly but very open humor. If these are contrasted to the carvings in the Romanesque buildings which preceded Gothic, or the Classical which succeeded it, or either Byzantine or Arabic which were its contemporaries, animal figures in Gothic buildings become strikingly significant. They show that the Freemasons were independent and free, and flouted the old church censorship rules governing ornaments in religious buildings; that they looked at nature with fresh, new eyes, and observed it at first hand; that they were familiar with the old Bestiaries, the once popular tales and fables about animal heroes and villains, along with the mythology of animals; that they had many interests beyond the rigidly theological or ecclesiastical, and were not priest-ridden; and show a sense of humor seldom elsewhere in evidence in Medieval books, pictures, or tales, for their gargoyles and foxes and goats often are cartoons in stone.

See page 554 fl. in Art and the Re-formation, by G. G. Coulton. Animal Symbolism in Ecclesiastical Architecture, by E. P. Evans; Henry Holt & Co. ; 1896 ; perhaps the best introduction for American readers, and an excellent point of departure for special studies.

Symbolism of Birds and Animals in English Architecture, by Arthur H. Collins; Mach ride; New York; 1913.

ANTHROPOLOGIC SCHOOL, THE

The name given to a comparatively small number of Masonic writers and researchers who have not agreed with the largest number of Masonic scholars that Freemasonry originated in Medieval architecture and was formed and constituted and manned by builders, but believe that it bas existed throughout the world for many centuries, or even for thousands of years.

Their answer to questions about rites, ceremonies, and symbols in the Lodge is to refer to rites and symbols of more or less primitive peoples, and especially to primitive tribes such as still are found in Africa. In order to maintain this theory they have broken with the established conclusions of Masonic historians of the type that is found in Quatuor Coronati and similar Lodges of Masonic research ; they also disagree with the established authorities on anthropology of whom none has ever found any Freemasonry in primitive rites and symbols; but who would have reported such findings if there had been any because among the thousands of professional anthropologists in America and Europe a large number have been Masons.

The terms used in duly-constituted and regular Freemasonry, Operative or Speculative, do not support the anthropologic theory. But from another point of view, and having in mind that ritualism and symbolism in Freemasonry are but one instance of ritualism and symbolism in general, anthropology gives a Masonic student a larger and richer background of thought and helps him better to understand Masonry’s own rites and symbols. For that purpose there may be added to the books of Masonic anthropologists the non-Masonic works of such professional anthropologists as Lord Avebury, Rivers, Levy-Bruhl, Frazer, Goldenweiser, Boas, Mead,Webster, etc.

See Arcana of Freemasonry, by Albert Ch urch ward ; Macoy Publishing Co., New York; 1915. Signs and Symbols of Prilnordial Man, by Albert Churchward; Geo. Allen & Co., London. 1913. The Arcane Schools, by Jobn Yarker; William Tait; Belfast; 1909. Freemasonry and the Ancient Gods, by J. S. M. Ward; Simpkins, Marshall; London; 1921. Freemmonry; Its Aims and Ideals, by J. S. M Ward; Wm. Rider & sons; London; 1923.

ANDRASSY, COUNT JULIUS

Born March 8, 1823, in Hungary., and died, February. 18, 1890. Statesman and patriot, from youth active in politics and civic affairs. Contributed to Brother Louis Kossuth’s paper, Pesti Hirlap, 1846, upon public questions Served valiantly in 1848 when the Croats invaded his country. Andrassy was sent by, the revolutionary government to Constantinople to secure the neutrality of Turkey. In 1851, after his departure to London and Paris, the Austrian government hanged him in effigy for his share in the Hungarian revolt. For ten years he was exiled from Hungary.

At Paris, France, 1851, Count Andrassy was initiated into the Masonic Order when an ,,emigre” on May 2 in the Lodge Le Mont Sinai (see Transactions, Quatuor Coronati Lodge, volume iii, page iii). Brother Andrassy returned to Hungary in 1858; immediately became active in political life; in 1865 was chosen Vice-President of the Diet; in 1866 was president of the sub-committee appointed to draw up the Composition between Austria and Hungary; was appointed first constitutional Hungarian premier on February 17, 1867, and in 1871 he succeeded Count Beust as Chancellor. At the Berlin Congress in 1878, Andrassy was active for settlement a the Russian-Porte controversy, securing the support of both Great Britain and France.

ANDRE, CHRISTOPHER KARL

An active Freemason, who resided at Brunn, in Moravia, where, in 1798, he was the Director of the Evangelical Academy. He was very zealously employed, about the end of the last century, in connection with other distinguished Freemasons, in the propagation of the Order in Germany. He was the editor and author of a valuable periodical work, which was published in five numbers, octavo, from 1793 to 1796, at Gotha and Halle under the title of Der Freimaurer, oder a compendiose Bibliothek alles Wissenswurdigen ueber geheime Gesellschaften, meaning The Freemason, or a Compendious Library of everything worthy of notice in relation to Secret Societies…. Besides valuable extracts from contemporary Masonic writers, it contains several essays and treatises by the editor.

ANDREA, JOHN VALENTINE

This distinguished philosopher and amiable moralist, who has been claimed by many writers as the founder of the Rosicrucian Order, was born on the 17th of August, 1586, at the small town of Herrenberg, in the Kingdom of Wurttemberg, where his father exercised clerical junctions of a respectable rank.

After receiving an excellent education in his native province, he traveled extensively through the principal countries of Europe, and on his return home received the appointment, in 1614, of deacon in the town of Vaihingen. Four years after he was promoted to the office of superintendent at Kalw. In 1639 he was appointed court chaplain and a spiritual privy councilor, and subsequently Protestant prelate of a Adelberg, and almoner of the Duke of Wurttemberg. He died on the 27th of June, 1654, at the age of sixty-eight years.

Andrea was a man of extensive acquirements and of a most feeling heart. By his great abilities he was enabled to elevate himself beyond the narrow limits of the prejudiced age in which he lived, and his literary labors were exerted for the reformation of manners, and for the supply of the moral wants of the times. His writings, although numerous, were not voluminous, but rather brief essays full of feeling, judgment, and chaste imagination, in which great moral, political, and religious sentiments were clothed in such a language of sweetness, and yet told with such boldness of spirit, that, as Herder says, he appears, in his contentious and anathematizing century, ‘ike a rose springing up among thorns.

Thus, in his Menippus, one of the ear1iest of his works, he has, with great skill and freedom, attacked the errors of the Church and of bis contemporaries.

His Herculis Christiani Luctus, xxiv, 18 supposed by a some persons to have given indirectly, if not immediately, hints to John Bunyan for his Pilgrim’s Progress.

One of the most important of his works, however, or at least one that has attracted most attention, is his Fama Fraternitatis, published in 1615. This and the Chemische Hochzeit Christiani Rosencreuz, or Chemical Nuptials, by Christian Rosencreuz, which is also attributed to him, are the first works in which the Order of the Rosicrucians is mentioned. Arnold, in his Ketzergeschichte or History of Heresy, contends, from these works, that Andrea was the founder of the Rosicrucian Order.

Others claim a previous existence for it, and suppose that he was simply an annalist of the Order; while a third party deny that any such Order was existing at the time, or afterward, but that the whole was a mere mythical rhapsody, invented by Andrea as a convenient vehicle in which to convey his ideas of reform. But the whole of this subject is more fully discussed under the head of Rosicrucianism, which see.

ANDREW, APPRENTICE AND FELLOW CRAFT OF SAINT

The French for this is Apprenti et Compagnon de Saint André; the German being Andreas Lehrling und Geselle. The Fourth Degree of the Swedish Rite, which is almost precisely the same as the Elu Secret of the French Rite.

ANDREW, CROSS OF SAINT

See Cross, Saint Andrew’s

ANDREW, FAVORITE OF SAINT

The French is Favori de Saint André. Usually called Knight of the Purple Collar. The Ninth Degree of the Swedish Rite.

ANDREW GRADE

One of the oldest of the high Continental grades added to Craft Freemasonry, probably originated in France among Stuart partisans and thence passing into Germany and elsewhere.

ANDREW, GRAND SCOTTISH KNIGHT OF SAINT

See Knight of Saint Andrew

ANDROGYNOUS DEGREES

From …, a man, and …., a woman. Those degrees relative to Freemasonry which are conferred on both men and women. Besides the degrees of the Adoptive Rite, which are practiced in France, there are several of these degrees which are, as side degrees, conferred in America. Such are the Mason’s wife, conferred on the wives, daughters, sisters, and mothers of Master Masons, and the Knight and Heroine of Jericho, conferred on the wives and daughters of Royal Arch Masons.

About 1850 Rob Morris introduced and thereafter taught very generally through the Western States of America, a series of androgynous degrees, which he called The Eastern Star. There is another androgynous degree, sometimes conferred on the wives of Royal Arch Masons, known as the Good Samaritan.

In some parts of the United States these degrees are very popular, while in other places they are never practiced, and are strongly condemned as improper innovations. The fact is, that by their friends as well as by their enemies, these so-called degrees have been greatly misrepresented. When females are told that in receiving these degrees they are admitted into the Masonic Order, and are obtaining Masonic information under the name of Ladies’ freemasonry, they are simply deceived.

Every woman connected by ties of consanguinity, the blood relation or kinship, to a Master Mason is peculiarly entitled to Masonic assistance and protection. If she is told of this fact, and also told that by these androgynous degrees she is to be put in possession of the means of making her claims known by a sort of what may be called oral testimony, but that she is by their possession no nearer to the portals of Freemasonry than she was before, if she is honestly told this, then there is no harm, but the possibility of some good, in these forms if carefully bestowed and prudently preserved. But all attempts to make Freemasonry of them are wrong, imprudent, and calculated to produce opposition among the well-informed and cautious members of the Fraternity.

ANDROGYNOUS FREEMASONRY

That so-called Freemasonry which is dedicated to the cultivation of the androgynous degrees. The Adoptive Rite of France is Androgynous Freemasonry.

ANGEL

Angels were originally in the Jewish theology considered simply as messengers of God, as the name …., herald or angel, pronounced mal-awk, imports, and the word is thus continually, used in the early Scriptures of the Old Testament. It was only after the captivity that the Jews brought from Babylon their mystical ideas of angels as instruments of creative ministration, such as the angel of fire, of water, of earth, or of air. These doctrines they learned from the Chaldean sages, who had probably derived them from Zoroaster and the Zendavesta. In time these doctrines were borrowed by the Gnostics, and through them they have been introduced into some of the advanced degrees; such, for instance, as the Knight of the Sun, in whose ritual the angels of the four elements play an important part.

ANGELIC BROTHERS

The German for this expression is Engelsbruder. Sometimes called, after their founder, Gichtelites or Gichtelianer. A mystical sect of religious fanatics founded by one Gichtel, about the close of the seventeenth century, in the United Netherlands. After the death of their founder in 1710, they gradually became extinct, or were continued only in secret union with the Rosicrucians.

ANGELS ALPHABET

See Alphabet, Angels

ANGERONA

The name of a pagan deity worshiped among the Romans. Pliny calls her the goddess of silence, and calmness of mind. Hence her statue has sometimes been introduced among the ornaments of Masonic edifices. She is represented with her finger pressed upon her lips (see Harpocrates, for what is further to be said upon this symbol).

ANGLE

The inclination of two lines meeting in a point. Angles are of three kinds-acute, obtuse, and right angles. The right angle, or the angle of 90 degrees, is the principal one recognized in Freemasonry, because it is the form of the trying square or try-square, one of the most important working tools of the profession, and the symbol of morality.

ANGULAR TRIAD

A name given by Oliver to the three presiding officers of a Royal Arch Chapter.

ANIMAL WORSHIP

The worship of animals is a species of idolatry that was especially practiced by the ancient Egyptians. Temples were erected by this people in their honor, in which they were fed and cared for during life. To kill one of them was a crime punishable with death. After the death of these animals, they were embalmed, and interred in the catacombs. This worship was derived first from the earlier adoration of the stars, to certain constellations of which the names of animals had been given ; next, from an Egyptian tradition that the gods being pursued by Typhon, had concealed themselves under the forms of animals ; and 1astly, from the doctrine of the metempsychosis, according to which there was a continual circulation of the sculls of men and animals.

But behind the open and popular exercise of this degrading worship the priests concealed a symbolism full of philosophical conceptions.

Gliddon says, in his Otia Egyptiaea (page 94), that “Animal worship among the Egyptians was the natural and unavoidable consequence of the misconception, by the vulgar, of those emblematical figures invented by the priests to record their own philosophical conception of absurd ideas.

As the pictures and effigies suspended in early Christian churches, to commemorate a person or an event, became in time objects of worship to the vulgar, so, in Egypt, the esoteric or spiritual meaning of the emblems was lost in the gross materialism of the beholder. This esoteric and allegorical meaning was, however, preserved by the priests, and communicated in the mysteries alone to the initiated, while the uninstructed retained only the grosser conception.”

ANIMA MUNDI

Latin, meaning Soul of the World. A doctrine of the early philosophers, who conceived that an immaterial force resided in nature and was the source of all physical and sentient life, yet not intelligential.

ANNALES CHRONOLOGIQUES

The complete title is Annales Chronologiques, Litéraires et Historiques de la Maçonnerie des Pays-Bas, dater du 1″ Janvier, 1814 (French, meaning the Chronological, Literary, and Historical Annals of the Masonry of the Netherlands from the year 1814). This work, edited by Brothers Melton and De Margny, was published at Brussels, in five volumes, during the years 1823.

It consists of an immense collection of French, Dutch, Italian, and English Masonic documents translated into French. Kloss extols it highly as a work which no Masonic library should be without. Its publication was unfortunately discontinued in 1826 by the Belgian revolution.

ANNALES ORIGINIS MAGNI GALLIARUM ORIENTIS, ETC.

This history of the Grand Orient of France is, in regard to its subject, the most valuable of the works of C. A. Thory. It comprises a full account of the rise, progress, changes, and revolutions of French Freemasonry, with numerous curious and inedited documents, notices of a great number of rites, a fragment on Adoptive Freemasonry and other articles of an interesting nature. It was published at Paris, in 1812, in one volume of 471 pages, octavo (see Kloss, Bibliographic der Freimaurerei, No. 4088).

ANNIVERSARY

See Festivals

ANNO BONEFACIO

Latin, meaning In the Year of the Blessing; abbreviated A.’. B.”. This date has been used by the brethren of the Order of High Priesthood to signify the elapsed period calculated from the year of the blessing of Abraham by the High Priest Melchizedek. The date is determined by adding the year of blessing to any Christian or so-called Vulgar Era thus: 1913+1930 = 3843.

ANNO DEPOSITIONIS

Latin, meaning in the a year of the Deposit ; abbreviated A.’. Dep.’. The date used by Royal and Select Masters, which is found by adding 1000 to the Vulgar Era; thus, 1930+1000 =2930.

ANNO EGYPTIACO

Latin, meaning in the Egyptian year. The date used by the Hermetic Fraternity, and found by adding 5044 to the Vulgar Era prior to each July 20, being the number of years since the consolidation of the first Egyptian monarchy under Menes who, according to Herodotus, built Memphis, and is reported by Diodorus to have introduced the worship of the gods and the practice of sacrifices into Egypt.

ANNO HEBRAICO

Latin, meaning in the Hebrew year ; abbreviated A. ‘. H. ‘. The same as Anno Mundi; which see.

ANNO INVENTIONIS

Latin, meaning in the year of the Discovery; abbreviated A.’. I.’. or A.”. Inv.’. The date used by Royal Arch Masons. Found by adding 530 to the Vulgar Era ; thus, 1930 + 530 =2460.

ANNO LUCIS

Latin, meaning in the Year of Light; abbreviated A.’. L.’. The date used in ancient Craft Freemasonry; found by adding 4000 to the Vulgar Era ; thus, 1930+ 4000 = 5930.

ANNO MUNDI

Latin, meaning in the Year of the World. The date used in the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite; found by adding 3760 to the Vulgar Era until September. After September, add one year more ; this is because the year used a the Hebrew one, which begins in September. Thus, July, 1930+3760 = 5690, and October, 1930+3760+1= 5691.

ANNO ORDINIS

Latin, meaning in the Year of the Order; abbreviated A.’. O.’. The date used by Knights Templar; found by subtracting 1118 from the Vulgar Era; thus, 1930-1118 = 812.

ANNUAIRE

Some French Lodges publish annually a record of their most important proceedings for the past year, and a 1ist of their members. This publication is called an Annuaire, or Annual.

ANNUAL COMMUNICATION

All the Grand Lodges of the United States, except those of Massachusetts, Maryland, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island, hold only one annual meeting; thus reviving the ancient custom of a Yearly Grand Assembly.

The Grand Lodge of Massachusetts has provided far Quarterly Communications held in Boston on the second Wednesday in December, March, June and September. There has also been a Communication held annually on December 27 for the Installation of the Grand Officers and the Celebration of Saint John the Evangelist’s Day. When that Anniversary occurs on Saturday or Sunday the Communication is held on the following Tuesday.

The Grand Lodge of Maryland has had two Communications, the Semi-Annual and the Annual of the Grand Lodge every year, in May and November.

The Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia has provided for four Stated Communications in each year, one on the second Saturday in March for the exemplification of the degrees, another on the second Wednesday in May for the transaction of general, business, a third on the third Wednesday in December being the Annual Communication to receive the Grand Master’s annual address, the reports of the Grand Lecturer and Committees, and for general business, a succeeding Communication on Saint John the Evangelist’s Day, December 27, or on the day following if the date fall upon a Sunday, to receive the Grand Master’s report, to consider reports of Committees on the Annual Address of the Grand Master, and to elect and install officers. The Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania has provided for Quarterly Communications on the first Wednesdays of March, June, September, and December, and an Annual Grand Communication on Saint John the Evangelist’s Day in every year.

The Grand Lodge of Rhode Island has had two Communications in each year, namely, the Annual Communication on the tbird Monday in May and the Semi-Annual Communication on the third Monday in November.
The Grand Lodge of England holds Quarterly Communications.

At these Annual Communications it is usual to pay the representatives of the subordinate Lodges a per diem allowance, which varies in amount in the several Grand Lodges, and also their mileage or traveling expenses.

ANNUAL PROCEEDINGS

Every Grand Lodge in the United States publishes a full account of the proceedings at its Annual Communication, to which there is usually added a list of the subordinate Lodges and their members. Some of these Annual Proceedings extend to a considerable size, and they are all valuable as giving an accurate and official account of the condition of Freemasonry in each State for the past year.

They also frequently contain valuable reports of committees on questions of Masonic law. The reports of the Committees of Foreign Correspondence are especially valuable in these publications (see Committee on Foreign Correspondence).

ANNUITIES

In England, one of the modes of distributing the charities of a Lodge is to grant annuities to aged members or to the widows and orphans of those who are deceased. In 1842 the Royal Masonic Annuity for Males was established, which has since become the Royal Masonic Benevolent Institution for Aged Freemasons and Their Widows, and grants annuities to both males and females, having also an asylum at Croydon in Surrey, England, into which the annuitants are received in the order of their seniority on the list (see Asylum for Aged Freemasons).

ANOINTING

The act of consecrating any person or thing by the pouring on of oil. The ceremony of anointing was emblematical of a particular sanctification to a holy and sacred use. As such it was practiced by both the Egyptians and the Jews, and many representations are to be seen among the former of the performance of this holy Rite. Wilkinson informs us, in his Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians (iv, 280), that with the Egyptians the investiture to any sacred office was confirmed by this external sign; and that priests and kings at the time of their consecration were, after they had been attired in their full robes, anointed by the pouring of oil upon the head. The Jewish Scriptures mention several instances in which unction was administered, as in the consecration of Aaron as high priest, and of Saul and David, of Solomon and Joash, as kings. The process of anointing Aaron is fully described in Exodus (xxix, 7).

After he had been clothed in all his robes, with the miter and crown upon his head, it is said, “then shalt thou take the anointing oil and pour it upon his head, and anoint him.”

The use of oil in the service of the Churches is also worthy of note. In the ceremony of confirmation there is usually employed a chrism, an anointing fluid sometimes compounded of olive oil and a balm of balsam made from the terebinth tree of the East.

The olive oil is symbolic of strength, for it was used by the ancient athletes as an ointment to increase the bodily vigor; of light, because possible of use in lamps; of health, because practicable for food and medicine, while the balm means freedom from corruption and having the sweet savor of virtue.

The ceremony is still used in some of the high degrees of Freemasonry, and is always recognized as a symbol of sanctification, or the designation of the person so anointed to a sacred use, or to the performance of a particular function. Hence, it forms an important part of the ceremony of installation of a High Priest in the Order of High Priesthood as practiced in America. As to the form in which the anointing oil was poured, John Buxtorf, in the Lexicon Chaldaicum, Talmudicum et Rabbinicum (page 267), quotes the Rabbinical tradition that in the anointment of kings the oil was poured on the head in the form of a crown, that is, in a circle around the head ; while in the anointment of the priests it was poured in the form of the Greek letter X, that is, on ahe top of the head, in the pattern of a Saint Andrew’s cross.

Important as the anointing ceremony was to persons, we also see plainly that in Bible times the use of the consecrating oil was deemed necessary to the house of worship, to the furniture therein, and to the pillars or other memorials of man’s religious relation to God. Now as then we follow the same tendency in our Masonic consecration ceremonies of official corner stone laying, and of Temple and Lodge-room authorized dedication to Masonic usefulness.

See the Old Testament for the anointing of memorial stones (Genesis xxviii, 18, 22; xxai, 13, and xxxv, 14), and compare these references with the modern Masonic treatment of a corner stone, and for some comparison of the present day consecration of Lodge rooms with the ceremonies of old read Exodus (xxx, 23-9, and xl, 9), where we find an account of the sanctifying of the Tabernacle and its furniture “and it shall be holy.”

ANONYMOUS SOCIETY

A Society formerly existing in Germany, which consisted of seventy-two members, namely, twenty.-four Apprentices, twenty-four Fellow Crafts, and twenty-four Masters. It distributed much charity, but its real object was the cultivation of the occult sciences. Its members pretended that its Grand Master was one Tajo, and that he resided in Spain. Thory. is authority for the above statement in his Acta Latomorum (1, 294).

ANONYMOUS

is a compound of two Greek words that together mean without name.

ANSYREEH

A sect found in the mountains of Libanon, of Northern Syria. the name is also given as Nusairiyeh. Like the Druses, toward whom, however, they entertain a violent hostility, and the Assassins, they have a secret mode of recognition and a secret religion, which does not appear to be well understood by them. ”However,” says Rev. Mr. Lyde, who visited them in 1852, “there is one in which they all seem agreed, and which acts as a kind of Freemasonry in binding together the scattered members of their body, namely,, secret prayers which are taught to every male child of a certain age, and are repeated at stated times, in stated places, and accompanied with religious rites.”

The Ansyreeh arose about the same time with the Assassins, and, like them, their religion appears to be an ill-digested mixture of Judaism, Christianity, and Mohammedanism. To the Masonic scholars these secret sects of Syria present an interesting study, because of their supposed connection with the Templars during the Crusades. Brother Bernard H. Springett discusses at length the subject of secret organizations of that neighborhood in his Secret Sects of Syria and the Lebanon.

ANTEDILUVIAN FREEMASONRY

Among the traditions of Freemasonry, which, taken literally, become incredible, but which, considered allegorically, may contain a profound meaning, not the least remarkable are those which relate to the existence of a Masonic system before the Flood, the word antediluvian being from the Latin language and meaning before the deluge. Thus, Anderson (Constitutions, first edition, page 3) says: “Without regarding uncertain accounts, we may safely conclude the Old World, that lasted 1656 years, could not be ignorant of Masonry.”

Doctor Oliver has devoted the twenty-eighth lecture in his Historical Landmarks to an inquiry into “the nature and design of Freemasonry before the Flood” ; but he admits that any evidence of the existence at that time of such an Institution must be based on the identity of Freemasonry and morality. “We may safely assume,” he says, “that whatever had for its object and end an inducement to the practice of that morality which is founded on the love of God, may be identified with primitive Freemasonry.”

The truth is, that antediluvian Freemasonry is alluded to only in what are called the ineffably degrees; and that its only important tradition is that of Enoch, who is traditionally supposed to be its founder, or, at least, its Great Hierophant, or Chief Priest (see Enoch).

ANTIN, DUKE D

Elected perpetual Grand Master of the Freemasons of France, on the 24th of June, 1738. He held the office until 1743, when he died, and was succeeded by the Count of Clermont. Clavel, Histoire Pittoresque, or Picturesque History (page141) relates an instance of the fidelity and intrepidity with which, on one occasion, he guarded the avenues of the Lodge from the official intrusion of a commissary of police accompanied by a band of soldiers.

ANTIPODEANS

The French expression being Les Antipodiens. The name of the Sixtieth Degree of the seventh series of the collection of the Metropolitan Chapter of France (Acta Latomorum, 1, page 294).

ANTIQUITY, LODGE OF

The oldest Lodge in England, and one of the four which concurred in February, 1717, in the meeting at the Apple-Tree Tavern, London, in the formation of the Grand Lodge of England. At that time the Lodge of Antiquity met at the Goose and Gridiron, in Saint Paul’s Churchyard. This Lodge and three others met on Saint John the Baptist’s Day, June 24, 1717, at the Goose and Gridiron Tavern, and by a majority of hands elected Mr. Anthony Sayer Grand Master, he being the oldest Master present. Capt. Joseph Elliot, and Mr. Jacob Lamball, carpenter, were chosen as Grand Wardens.

This and the other three Lodges did not derive their Warrants from the Grand Lodge, but “acted by immemorial Constitution or by an acknowledged authority reaching back beyond memory.”

ANTIQUITY MANUSCRIPT

This celebrated manuscript is now, and has long been, in the possession of the Lodge of Antiquity, at London. It is stated in the subscription to have been written, in 1686, by, “Robert Padgett, Clearke to the Worshipful Society of the Freemasons of the city of London.” The whole manuscript was first published by W. J. Hughan in his Old Charges of British Freemasons on page 64, but a part had been previously inserted by Preston in his Illustrations (see book ii, section vi, pages 81-3, 1812 edition).

Here we have evidence of a curious tendency to alter or interpolate passages in old documents whenever it was required to confirm a preconceived theory.

Thus, Preston had intimated that there was before 1717 an Installation Ceremony for newly elected Masters of Lodges, a claim of doubtful worth. He inserts what he calls “the ancient Charges that were used on this occasion,” taken from the manuscript of the Lodge of Antiquity,. To confirm the statement, that they were used for this purpose, he comes to the conclusion of the manuscript in the following words:

“These be all the charges and covenants that ought to be read at the installment of Master, or making of a Freemason or Freemasons.” The words in italics are not to be found in the original manuscript. Brother E. Jackson Barron had an exact transcript made of this manuscript, which he carefully collated, and which was published by Brother Hughan. Brother Barron gives the following description of the document:

“The manuscript copy of the Charges of Freemasons is on a roll of parchment nine feet long by eleven inches wide, the roll being formed of four pieces of parchment glued together; and some few years ago it was partially mounted (but not very skillfully) on a backing of parchment for its better preservation.

“The Rolls are headed by an engraving of the Royal Arms, after the fashion usual in deeds of the period; the date of the engraving in this case being fixed by the initials at the top, 1. 2. R. “Under this engraving are emblazoned in separate shields the Arms of the city of London, which are too well known to require description, and the Arms of the Masons Company of London, Sable on a chevron between three castles argent, a pair of compasses of the first surrounded by appropriate mantling.

“The writing is a good specimen of the ordinary law writing of the times, interspersed with words in text. There is a margin of about an inch on the left a side, which is marked by a continuous double red ink line throughout, and there are similar double lines down both edges of the parchment. The letter U is used throughout the manuscript for V, with but two or three exceptions” (see Hughan’s Old Charges, 1872, page 14).

ANTIQUITY OF FREEMASONRY

Years ago in writing an article on this subject under the impressions made upon me by the fascinating theories of Doctor Oliver, though I never completely accepted his views, 1 was led to place the organization of Freemasonry, as it now exists, at the building of Solomon’s Temple. Many years of subsequent research have led me greatly to modify the views I had previously held.

Although I do not rank myself among those modern iconoclasts who refuse credence to every document whose authenticity, if admitted, would give to the Order a birth anterior to the beginning of the last century, I confess that I cannot find any incontrovertible evidence that would trace Freemasonry, as now a organized, beyond the Building Corporations of the Middle Ages. In this point of view I speak of it only as an architectural brotherhood, distinguished by signs, by words, and by brotherly ties which have not been essentially changed, and by symbols and legends which have only been developed and extended, while the association has undergone a transformation from an operative art to a speculative science.

But then these Building Corporations did not spring up in all their peculiar organization-different, as it was, from that of other gilds-like Autochthones, from the soil. They, too, must have had an origin and an archetype, from which they derived their peculiar Character. And I am induced, for that purpose, to look to the Roman Colleges of Artificers, which were spread over Europe by the invading forces of the empire. But these have been traced to Numa, who gave to them that mixed practical and religious character which they are known to have possessed, and in which they were imitated by the medieval architects.

We must, therefore, look at Freemasonry in two distinct points of view: First, as it is-a society of Speculative Architects engaged in the construction of spiritual temples, and in this respect a development from the Operative Architects of the tenth and succeeding centuries, who were themselves offshoots from the Traveling Freemasons of Como, who traced their origin to the Roman Colleges of Builders. In this direction, I think, the line of descent is plain, without any demand upon our credulity for assent to its credibility.

But Freemasonry must be looked at also from another standpoint. Not only does it present the appearance of a speculative science, based on an operative art, but it also very significantly exhibits itself as the symbolic expression of a religious idea. In other and plainer words, we see in it the important lesson of eternal life, taught by a legend which, whether true or false, is used in Freemasonry as a symbol and an allegory.

But whence came this legend? Was it invented in 1717 at the revival of Freemasonry in England? We have evidence of the strongest circumstantial character, derived from the Sloane manuscript No. 3,329, exhumed from the shelves of the British Museum, that this very legend was known to the Freemasons of the seventeenth century at least.

Then, did the Operative Masons of the Middle Ages have a legend also? The evidence is that they did. The Compagnons de la Tour, who were the offshoots of the old Masters’ Gilds, had a legend. We know what the legend was, and we know that its character was similar to, although not in all the details precisely the same as, the Masonic legend. It was, however, connected with the Temple of Solomon.

Again : Did the builders of the Middle Ages invent their legend, or did they obtain it from some old tradition? The question is interesting, but its solution either way would scarcely affect the Antiquity of Freemasonry. It is not the form of the legend, but its spirit and symbolic design, wish which we have to do.

This legend of the Third Degree as we now have it, and as we have had it for a certain period of two hundred and fifty years, is intended, by a symbolic representation, to teach the resurrection from death, and the Divine dogma of eternal life. All Freemasons know its character, and it is neither expedient nor necessary to dilate upon it.

But can we find such a legend elsewhere? Certainly we can. Not indeed the same legend; not the same personage as its hero; not the same details; but a legend with the same spirit and design; a legend funereal in character, celebrating death and resurrection, solemnized in lamentation and terminating in joy.

Thus, in the Egyptian Mysteries of Osiris, the image of a dead man was borne in an argha, ark or coffin, by a procession of initiates; and this enclosure in the coffin or interment of the body was called the aphanism, or disappearance, and the lamentation for him formed the first part of the Mysteries.

On the third day after .the interment, the priests and initiates carried the coffin, in which was also a golden vessel, down to the river Nile. Into the vessel they poured water from the river; and then with a cry of …………”We have found him, let us rejoice,” they declared that the dead osiris, who had descended into Hades, had returned from thence, and was restored again to life ; and the rejoicings which ensued constituted the second part of the Mysteries.

The analogy between, this and the legend of Freemasonry must be at once apparent. Now, just such a legend, everywhere coinciding in particulars, but everywhere coinciding in general character, is to be found in all the old religions-in sun worship, in tree worship, in animal worship. It was often perverted, it is true, from the original design. Sometimes it was applied to the death of winter and the birth of spring, sometimes to the setting and the subsequent rising of the sun, but always indicating a loss and a recovery.

Especially do we find this legend, and in a purer form, in ahe Ancient Mysteries. At Samothrace, at Eleusis, at Byblos-in all places where these ancient religions and mystical rites were celebrated-we find the same teachings of eternal life inculcated by the representation of an imaginary death and apotheosis.

And it is this legend, and this legend alone, that connects Speculative Freemasonry with the Ancient Mysteries of Greece, of Syria, and of Egypt.

The theory, then, that I advance on the subject of the Antiquity of Freemasonry is this: I maintain that, in its present peculiar organization, it is the successor, with certainty, of the Building Corporations of the Middle Ages, and through them, with less certainty but with great probability,, of the Roman Colleges of Artifieers.

Its connection with the Temple of Solomon, as its birthplace, may have been accidental-a mere arbitrary selection by its inventors-and bears, therefore, only an allegorical meaning; or it may be historical, and to be explained by the frequent communications that at one time took place between the Jews and the Greeks and the Romans. This is a point still open for discussion. On it I express no fixed opinion. The historical materials upon which to base an opinion are as yet too scanty. But I am inclined, I confess, to view the Temple of Jerusalem and the Masonic traditions connected with it as a part of the great allegory of Freemasonry.

But in the other aspect in which Freemasonry presents itself to our view, and to which I have already adverted, the question of its antiquity is more easily settled.

As a brotherhood, composed of symbolic Masters and Fellows and Apprentices, derived from an association of Operative Masters, Fellows, and Apprentices-those building spiritual temples as these built material ones-its age may not exceed five or six hundred years. But as a secret association, containing within itself the symbolic expression of a religious idea, it connects itself with all the Mysteries, which, with similar secrecy, gave the same symbolic expression to the same religious idea. These Mysteries were not the cradles of Freemasonry, : they were only its analogues.

But I have no doubt that all the Mysteries had one common source, perhaps, as it has been suggested, some body of priests; and I have no more doubt that Freemasonry has derived its legend, its symbolic mode of instruction, and the lesson for which that instruction was intended, either directly or indirectly from the same source. ln this view the Mysteries become interesting to the Freemason as a study, and in this view only.

And so, when I speak of the Antiquity of Freemasonry, I must say, if I would respect the axioms of historical science, that its body came out of the Middle Ages, but that its spirit is to be traced to a far remoter period.

The foregoing digest of his conclusions is by Doctor Mackey.

ANCIENTS AND MODERNS

The article which begins at page 75 was written before the publication of some 200 or so Histories and Minute Books of old British and American Lodges, and before the special researches inspired by Henry Sadler’s Masonic Facts and Fictions bad uncovered the detailed history of the Ancient Grand Lodge.

In London, 1717, the first Grand Lodge of Speculative Freemasonry was formed by four old Lodges, and possibly with the support or consent of a number of unrepresented Lodges. It was tentative, experimental, had no precedent to guide it ; at the beginning it consisted of little more than a Grand Master with two Wardens to assist him, and claimed jurisdiction only over such Lodges as might unite with it in an area covering a radius of ten miles from the center of London. As it prospered it warranted (officially approved) Lodges outside of that area and in other countries, and in about twenty years set up a system of Provincial Grand Lodges throughout England

There was at the time no doctrine of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction. A small Grand Lodge at York was not challenged. A Grand Lodge was formed by Lodges in Ireland in 1725; and in Scotland in 1736. If self-constituted Lodges of regular Masons did not unite with the Grand Lodge at London, it did not outlaw them (they were called St. John’s Lodges) but permitted visitation between them and its own Lodges.

Freemasonry had been very popular in Ireland, even before its Grand Lodge of 1725; after 1725 Lodges sprang up in almost every Irish village. Many Englishmen lived in Dublin (“Dublin was almost an English city”) and many families of English origin lived here and there in the Island, especially in North Ireland. It was commonplace for Irish, and for Anglo-Irish, to move to England, to enter business and the professions there, to attend school, etc. ; during the food famines this number was greatly increased.

Among these (and the Irish were not “foreigners” but British!) were a large number of Masons ; among these latter a majority were in retail business, or were carpenters, plumbers, painters, brick-layers, machinists, and in other so-called “trades.” But when these Irish residents or citizens of London who were members in regular Irish Lodges came to visit Lodges in London or to dimit to them, they were turned away, were snubbed, were looked down on because by that time (in the 1730’s) the Grand Lodge had become a fief of the Nobility, and its Lodges had become exclusive and snobbish. A carpenter or a mason or a house painter might be a member in good standing in a regular Irish Lodge, but he was not deemed worthy to sit among English “gentlemen.” the Irish Masons held meetings among themselves, consulted the Grand Lodge of Ireland, set up a Grand Committee in the 1740’s, and in 1751 turned this Committee into a regular Grand Lodge. This action was strictly in accordance with the Ancient Landmarks.

In the meantime many exposés had been published in London, and clandestine “Masons” pestered regular Lodges; and a certain amount of Anti-Masonry became active. To circumvent these clandestines the Grand Lodge shifted the Modes of Recognition from one Degree to another, and made other changes about which little is known in detail. It also discontinued the Ceremony of Installation of the Master, thereby reducing him to the status of a mere presiding officer with no inherent powers. These alterations in things that ought not to be altered aroused resentment among a large number of Lodges. As time progressed, and as Lodge Histories make clear, an increasing number of Lodges ceased to be Lodges and became convivial clubs-some of them very expensive clubs. By 1750 the Grand Lodge had thus departed a long way from the original design. In the cant language of the time it had “modernized” itself ; and it came to be for that reason dubbed “the Modern Grand Lodge.” the members of the new Grand Lodge of 1751 on the other band insisted on retaining the work and customs of the beginning, and because they did so declared themselves a Grand Lodge according to “the Ancient Institutions,” and hence were called “Ancient Masons.”

Because of this, a number of Modern Lodges took out Ancient Charters, a number of St. John Lodges took out Charters for the first time, and many new Lodges were warranted by it. Also, the new Grand Lodge conferred the Royal Arch, issued Ambulatory warrants to army Lodges, and it had the good fortune to have Laurence Dermott for Grand Secretary, of whom Gould was to say that “without erring on the side of panegyric” “he was the most remarkable Mason of that time.” There was in reality no need for this new Grand Lodge; had the Modern Grand Lodge been a genuinely representative Body instead of a governing club of aristocrats, had , its Grand Master been accessible to the Lodges, and had both “parties” sat down in friendly discussion as they were to do after 1800, the whole Craft could have been made as strong and as united in 1750 as it was to become in 1850; but since it was not thus done, any Masonic historian must admit that the Ancient Grand Lodge was the salvation of the Craft, and (comparatively speaking) a great blessing to Freemasonry everywhere.

Mackey in his seven-volume history, and writing before Sadler and Crawley, was inclined to believe that the Ancient grew out of discontent, and a mood of rebellion. Gould, Hughan, Lane, etc., went farther : they condemned it in toto. In his History and in his concise History Gould blasted the whole of Ancient Masonry, and throughout his life insisted on calling them “Schismatics” ; as also did a line of Masonic writers who followed him.

  1. If a number of the Officers and members of the Grand Lodge of 1717 had quarreled with the rest, had seceded, and then had set up a rival Grand Body claiming to possess the original authority, such a Grand Body would have been schismatic. (Preston’s second Lodge of Antiquity, three or four Grand Lodges in the State of New York a century later, and the Wigan Grand Lodge, etc., these were in a true sense schismatic.) This did not occur; what did occur was not only unlike a schism but in principle was the opposite of one ; the regular Masons, Irish and English, who erected their 1751 Grand Lodge were seeking to have a Masonic home, and were doing so because the 1717 Grand Lodge had, violated the first great Landmark when it refused them a home.
  2. Since the Doctrine of Grand Lodge Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction was not yet adopted, the new Grand Lodge did not violate the law. the 1717 Grand Lodge itself had made no claim t.o exclusive jurisdiction, but had fraternized with the Grand Lodge of All England at York.
  3. The new Grand Lodge of 1751 was guilty of no innovations of the ancient secrets, or of Ritual, or of practice ; on the contrary it was the 1717 Grand Lodge that was guilty (and self-confessedly so) of innovations.
  4. The 1717 Grand Lodge was distressed to have a rival in the field, and a vigorous one, but even it, except sporadically, did not condemn Ancient Lodges as clandestine. Members under both Grand Lodges visited and shifted back and forth, often with no more ceremony than to take a second OB ; no court action was taken ; nobody accused the Ancient of using a spurious Ritual; in Canada and America both Lodges worked side by side.
  5. The Grand Lodges of Ireland and Scotland, who were in a position to know the Ancient at first hand, and could speak with more authority than could. Gould, Hughan, or Mackey a century later, both recognized the Ancient, and for some years neither recognized the Moderns; in their eyes it was the Modern, not the Ancient Body, that was “schismatic.” Of Ireland Crawley wrote (in A.Q.C.; VIII; p. 81). “Indeed, the Grand Lodge of Ireland, all modern assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, seems never to have been in fraternal intercourse with the Grand Lodge of the Moderns, after the rival organization of the Ancient had been established.” Even before Sadler and Crawley had discovered and published the documents in the case the action taken by these two Grand Lodges was of itself sufficient to prove that the Ancient had never been “schismatic”–or irregular, or clandestine, or spurious.
  6. For at least five centuries Freemasonry consisted wholly of working men. When they began to accept “gentlemen” into membership, the latter met upon the level to masons, smiths, carpenters, farmers. To meet upon To meet upon the level, to leave aristocratic privilege, prerogatives, titles, and snobbishness outside, was of the essence of Masonry, and ever was unanimously accepted as being such – the name “freemasonry” was almost anonymous with meeting upon the level. The 1717 Grand Lodge destroyed that ancient design Its Lodges could if they wished, shut the door on “the lower orders.”The Earls of Moira. Grand Masters of the Ancient, were twitted by Modern Grand Officers because his Grand Secretary had been a house-painter. This un-Masonic snobbishness, this denial of brotherliness, was the one great sin of the Moderns, and the one great justification of the Ancient; in comparison with that innovation, irregularities in ceremony were of secondary importance, for where there is no meeting on the level there is no Freemasonry. This social cleavage inside of the Fraternity came to the surface and stood out in bold relief on this side of the Atlantic during the American Revolutionary period, and explains why so many Modern Lodges failed or shifted allegiance, and why the Ancient (especially in New York and Pennsylvania) swept the field ; Modern Lodges here were on the whole Tory, Royalist, Loyalist, aristocratic, pro-British ;Ancient Lodges were democratic, pro-Patriotic, as open to blacksmiths as to Royal Governors.
  7. Until a recent period Masons found their knowledge of Masonic history in the general histories, the majority of which were chiefly histories of Grand Lodges, and therefore were long generalizations of nation-wide or world-wide events as seen from a Grand Lodge point of view; with the publication of some 200 or so Minutes and Histories of the oldest British, American, Canadian, and West Indian Lodges it has become possible to know what Freemasonry was in actual practice, locality by locality, month by month, from 1751 to 1813.

NOTE. Since “Ancient” was at the time, and by both Grand Lodges, adopted as technically correct that spelling is here used. Bro. Clegg used “Ancient” on page 75; but see paragraph at top of the left-hand column on page 83. – The Earl who was Grand Master of the Ancient in 1760-5 is spelled Blessington on page 77; Blesinton on page 140. The family itself spelled the name in a dozen forms but in a document still extant, and signed by him in a bold hand, the Earl himself spelled it Blesinton. Gould’s History of Freemasonry spells it Blesington.

In addition to being called “Ancient” the Grand Lodge of I751 was often called “Atholl”-Gould’s book on the Ancient Lodges is entitled Atholl Lodges.

This name came into use because a Duke of Atholl was Grand Master over so many years: John, third Duke of Atholl, from 1771 to 1775 ; John fourth Duke of Atholl from 1775 to 1782 and again from 179I to 1813. In Canada, and, later, often in the American Colonies, the Ancient Body was called York Masonry.

In the 1903 edition of his A Consise History of Freemasonry [Gale & Polden; London], Robert Freke Gould heads his Chapter VII “The Great Schism in English Masonry” ; on page 343 he describes Ancient Masons as “the seceders”; the whole burden of the chapter is that the 1751 Grand Body was born of a rebellion against the lawful authority of the Grand Lodge of 1717, and was therefore irregular and schismatic. After Gould had written his long History of Freemasonry Satdler and Crawley made their discoveries of written records, etc., which showed for the first time what the facts had been, and which proved that the Ancient had been neither Seceders nor Schismatics ; Gould had access to these facts but when be came to write his Concise History he ignored them, and did so against the urgent protestations of his friends and colleagues. In the 1920’s Fred J. M. Crowe issued a new and revised Edition of the Concise History, and in it deleted Gould’s chapter on the Ancient and replaced it by one written by himself.

In a private letter he wrote that he had performed this labor of love not so much because a new edition of the book was demanded, as that English Masonic scholars felt themselves misrepresented by the position taken by their “premier historian.”

It was therefore naturally expected that when he came to revise Gould’s History of Freemasonry(in six volumes ; Scribners; 1936) Bro. Dudley Wright would, like Crowe, make sure to revise completely Gould’s chapter on the Ancient; for some reason which has not been explained he did not do so. Chapter IV, Vol. II, page 145, begins : “The Minutes of that Schismatic body,” etc. This failure in revision is regrettable to American readers because the Revised History elsewhere makes it clear that more than half of early American Masonry (before 1781) was derived from Ancient sources.

ANTI-MASONRY

Of the 225 or so Anti-Masonic books on the shelves in any one of our Masonic Libraries more than nine-tenths of them are about the particular Anti-Masonic Crusade which ensued upon the so-called Morgan Aflair at Batavia, N. Y., in 1826. “Anti-Masonry” and “Morgan Affair” are become synonymous ; Grand Lodges (like their Lodges and members) are so wearied of hearing about this century-old subject that in consequence the whole question of Anti-Masonry has gone by default, with the result that in the present period when Anti-Masonry is the overwhelming and all-important question before the Fraternity, the Fraternity ignores it.

Even d Anti-Masonry were nothing more than open attacks made upon Freemasonry by groups who believe they have reason to hate it, Anti-Masonry would comprise more than the Morgan Affair. The Craft in New England was rocked by an Anti-Masonic crusade immediately after the Revolution; New England and the Bavarian Illuminati, by Vernon Stauffer (New York ; 1918; 374 pages), is a detailed history of it. The Society of Friends (Quakers) either as a whole or in part has for more than a century sought to warn its own members against Freemasonry, and to persuade the public to abolish it ; since the Quaker literature on the subject is unimaginably dull a student need not persecute his mind by reading the whole of it, but can find a representative specimen in the outpourings (not always of the Spirit) of the Tract Association of Friends. It is a shock to find the apostles of reasonableness and gentleness resorting to the ancient propaganda tricks of misdirection, false statements, and violent language.
Tract No. 178, published in 1896, camouflaged an attack on Freemasonry under the title of “Secret Societies” ; in it Masons were accused of murdering each other, of being a secret “society” i.e., a conspiratorial society, like the Black Hand) ; of “covering up crime” ; of giving “a license to immorality,” etc. (Yet Springett Penn, of the Penn family, was very active in the Grand Lodge of Ireland, and wrote one of the verses in the ‘Prentice Song’) ! The Lutheran Church has been as a whole unsympathetic with the Craft, and at one time or another certain of its Synods have been anti-Masonic ; their Pastor Wagner’s writings (of Dayton, Ohio) belong to the demented, or lunatic fringe, of Anti-Masonic “literature.”

The Mormons also—and in the “Mormon Empire” where in six States their influence is very strong their action is not to be lightly disregarded-have carried on an organized Anti-Masonic movement ever since their original members were expelled by the Grand Lodge of Illinois, when the town of Nauvoo was designed to be what Salt Lake City afterwards became.

During this whole time the Roman Catholic Church has carried on a continuous barrage against the Craft, and with an increasing tempo ever since Pope Leo XIII designated agencies for the purpose. (See Freemasonry and Roman Catholicism, by H. L. Haywood; Masonic History Company; Chicago; 1944.)

In these Anti-Masonic attacks enemies of Freemasonry believed themselves to have a particular quarrel of their own against it, and for private reasons.

But the larger number of Anti-Masonic movements have had another basis, one not motivated by any quarrel but rather as a form of an inevitable conflict of teachings, principles, doctrines. Before he had become the inventor of Fascism the ex-Socialist, ex-pacifist Benito Mussolini wrote in 1920:

“Humanity is still and always an abstraction of time and space ; men are still not brothers, do not want to be, and evidently cannot be. Peace is hence absurd, or rather it is a pause in war. There is something that binds man to his destiny of struggling, against either his fellows or himself. The motives for the struggle may change indefinitely, they may be economic, religious, political, sentimental ; but the legend of Cain and Abel seems to be the inescapable reality, while ‘brotherhood’ is a fable which men listen to during the bivouac and the truce. . .”

It is obvious that when he later found himself the head of a new government of which the above doctrine was the comer-stone Mussolini came into irreconcilable conflict with Freemasonry which not only taught brotherhood but was a Brotherhood. Other creeds came into power, became embodied in governments, were backed by money and armies, the Nazi creed, the Phalangist, the French army and church hierarchies, Communism, and what not ; and each of these, of itself, came into conflict with Freemasonry ; and these conflicts were not quarrels or vendettas, or accidental explosions like the Morgan Affair, but were just such conflicts as are waged by two opposed religions, or opposed philosophies, or opposed political programs. Wherever a creed which possesses power or is seeking it is contradicted by the teachings and principles of Freemasonry, it will become Anti-Masonic. It is Anti-Masonry of this latter type, not of the Morgan Affair type, that now confronts the Fraternity in every European country, and is destined to confront it more and more in both Britain and America.

Prince Metternich was the most powerful Anti-Mason whom the Craft has ever faced ; he was also the most successful, for within one generation after the Congress of Vienna he had destroyed it, or crippled it, or driven it underground in every country between Russia and the English Channel ; but he did not attack Masons personally, did not accuse them of crimes or conspiracies, as did the less enlightened architects of American Anti-Masonry, but laid it down as a principle that the anti-democratic, despotic societies being set up by the Holy Alliance could not consistently tolerate in their midst a philosophy so contradictory of it as the democracy, fraternalism, and tolerance of the Fraternity, and which refused to admit that God had made the few to own and to rule and the many to labor and be subservient.

NOTE. Apropos of Mussolini’s reading of “the legend of Cain and Abel”-which in the main is the orthodox one -it is one more proof of the great “peculiarity” of Freemasonry that it has a ”legend” of Cain of a different kind ;it sees in him the builder of the first city, and therefore a man who knew the art of building. See index of Tite Two Earliest Masonic MSS., by Knoop, Jones, Hamer Manchester; 1938.

ANTHEM

The anthem was originally a piece of church music sung by alternate voices. The word afterward, however, came to be used as a designation of that kind of sacred music which consisted of certain passages taken out of the Scriptures, and adapted to particular solemnities. In the permanent poetry and music of Freemasonry the anthem is very rarely used. The spirit of Masonic poetry is lyrical, and therefore the ode or song of sentiment is almost altogether used, except on some special occasions, in the solemnities and ceremonials of the Order.

No mention of Masonic music should fail to allude to the fine collection made under the direction of Brother Albert Pike for the Supreme Council, Southern Jurisdiction, Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, the Royal Arch Orpheus of the General Grand Chapter, and the work of Brother W. A. Mozart.

ANCIENT AND MODERN

The use of these words is frequently assumed to be understood as a expressive of a rebuke or even of contempt. Brother W. J. Chetwode Crawley (Caementaria Hibernica, Fasciculus 1, page 18) points to a different understanding of them. He says, “The terms Ancient and Modem were not epithets of reproach, but seem to have been willingly adopted by the adherents of each Grand Lodge. Brother Sadler points out that they occur in juxtaposition in a Minute of Grand Lodge, March 31, 1735. For purposes of distinctiveness we retain the obsolete spelling Ancient, whenever we use the word in a technical sense, as referring to Dermott’s Grand Lodge.” This practice we have followed in the revision of the present work.

ANCIENT AND PRIMITIVE RITE OF FREEMASONRY, OTHERWISE OF MEMPHIS
ANCIENT AND PRIMITIVE RITE

This rite claims a derivation from Egypt, and an organization from the High Grades which had entered Egypt before the arrival of the French Army, and it has been asserted that Napoleon and Kleber were invested with a ring at the hands of an Egyptian sage at the pyramid of Cheops. However that may be, in 1814 the Disciples of Memphis were constituted as a Grand Lodge at Montauban in France by Gabriel Mathieu Marconis and others, being an incorporation of the various rites worked in the previous century and especially of the Primitive Rite of Philadelphes of Narbonne, which see. In the political troubles that followed in France the Lodge of the Disciples of Memphis was put to sleep on March 7, 1816, and remained at rest until July 7, 1838, when Jacques Etienne or James Stephen Marconis was elected Grand Hierophant and arranged the documents, which the Rite then possessed, into ninety degrees.

The first Assembly of this Supreme Power was held on September 25, 1838, and proclaimed on October 5 following. The father of the new Grand Hierophant seems, to have been living and to have sanctioned the proceedings. Lodges were established in Paris and Brussels until the government of France forbade the meetings in 1841; however, in 1848 work was resumed and the Rite spread to Roumania, Egypt, a America, and elsewhere.

In 1862 J. E. Marconis united the Rite with the Grand Orient of France, retaining apparently the rank of Grand Hierophant; and in 1865 a Concordat was executed between the two bodies by which the relative value of their different degrees was settled.

In 1872 a Sovereign Sanctuary of the Rite was established in England by some American members with Brother John Yarker as Grand Master General.

An official journal entitled The Kneph was at one time issued by the authority of the Sovereign Sanctuary, from which we learn that the Ancient and Primitive Rite of Freemasonry is ”universal and open to every Master Mason who is in good standing under some constitutional Grand Lodge, and teaches the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man.”

The degrees of the Rite are ninety-five in number, starting with the three Craft degrees, and divided into three series, and appear to have been rearranged and renamed at various times.

ANCIENT

See Ancient

ANTILLES, LESSER

See Caribbee Islands

ANTI-MASONIC BOOKS

There is no country of the civilized world where Freemasonry has existed, in which opposition to it has not, from time to time, exhibited itself ; although it has always been overcome by the purity and innocence of the Institution. The Roman Catholic religion has always been anti Masonic, and hence edicts have constantly been promulgated by popes and sovereigns in Roman Catholic countries against the Order. The most important of these edicts is the Bull of Pope Clement XII, which was issued on the 24th of April, 1738, the authority of which Bull is still in existence, and forbids any pious Catholic from uniting with a Masonic Lodge, under the severest penalties of ecclesiastical excommunication.

In the United States, where there are neither popes to issue Bulls nor kings to promulgate edicts, the opposition to Freemasonry had to take the form of a political party. Such a party was organized in the United States in the year 1826, soon after the disappearance of one William Morgan. The object of this party was professedly to put down the Masonic Institution as subversive of good government, but really for the political aggrandizement of its leaders, who used the opposition to Freemasonry merely as a stepping-stone to their own advancement to office.
But the public virtue of the masses of the American people repudiated a party which was based on such corrupt and mercenary views, and its ephemeral existence was followed by a total annihilation.

When the above attempt to destroy Freemasonry had spent its force and vanished, there came in its wake another enemy born of a conference held in October, 1867, at Aurora, Illinois. As a result of this meeting a convention of opponents to secret societies of all sorts assembled at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in May, 1868, when the National Association of Christians Opposed to Secret Societies was organized.

This body was incorporated under an Illinois charter in 1874 as the National Christian Association and has maintained headquarters in Chicago where a magazine, Christian Cynosure, founded in 1868, has been published. The organization has erected a monument to William Morgan in Batavia, New York, and “holds that the Lodge system denies Christ and worships Satan.”

A society which has been deemed of so much importance as to be the victim of many persecutions, must needs have had its enemies in the press. It was too good an Institution not to be abused. Accordingly, Freemasonry had no sooner taken its commanding position as one of the teachers of the world, than a host of adversaries sprang up to malign its character and to misrepresent its objects. Hence, in the catalogue of a Masonic library, the anti-Masonic books will form no small part of the collection.

Anti-Masonic works may very properly be divided into two classes:

  1. Those written simply for the purposes of abuse, in which the character and objects of the Institution are misrepresented.
  2. Those written for the avowed purpose of revealings its ritual and esoteric doctrines. The former of these c1asses is always instigated by malignity, the latter by mean cupidity. The former class alone comes strictly within the category of anti Masonic books, although the two classes are often confounded; the attack on the principles of Freemasonry being sometimes accompanied with a pretended revelation of its mysteries, and, on the other hand, the pseudo-revelations are not unfrequently enriched by the most liberal abuse of the Institution.

The earliest authentic work which contains anything in opposition to Freemasonry is The Natural History of Staffordshire, by Robert Plot, which was printed at Oxford in the year 1686. It is only in one particular part of the work that Doctor Plot makes any invidious remarks against the Institution. We should freely forgive him for what he has said against it, when we know that his recognition of the existence, in the seventeenth century, of a society which was already of so much importance that he was compelled to acknowledge that he had “found persons of the most eminent quality that did not disdain to be of this fellowship,” gives the most ample refutation of those writers who assert that no traces of the Masonic Institution are to be found before the beginning of the eighteenth century. A triumphant reply to the attack of Doctor Plot is to be found in the third volume of Oliver’s Golden Remains of the Early Masonic Writers.

A still more virulent attack on the Order was made in 1730, by Samuel Prichard, which he entitled Masonry dissected, being an universal and genuine description of all its branches from the original to the present time. Toward the end of the year a reply was issued entitled A Defense of Masonry, occasioned by a pamphlet called Masonry Dissected. This was published anonymously, but the fact has recently been established that its author was Martin Clare, A. M., F. R.S., a schoolmaster of London, who was a prominent Freemason from 1734 to 1749 (see Ars Quatuor Coronatorum iv, pages 33–il). No copy of this Defense is known to exist, but it was reproduced in the Free Masons Pocket Companion for 1738, and in the second edition of the Book of Constitutions, which was published in the same year.

The above work is a learned production, well worth perusal for the information that it gives in reference to the sacred rites of the ancients, independent of its polemic character. About this time the English press was inundated by pretended revelations of the Masonic mysteries, published under the queerest titles, such as Jachin and Boaz; An authentic key to the door of Freemasonry, both Ancient and Modern published in 1762, Hiram, or the Grand Master Key to both Ancient and Modern Freemasonry, which appeared in 1764. The Three Distinct Knocks, published in 1760, and a host of others of a similar character, which were, however, rather intended, by ministering to a morbid and unlawful curiosity, to put money into the purses of their compilers, than to gratify any vindictive feelings against the Institution.

Some, however, of these works were amiable neither in their inception nor in their execution, and appear to have been dictated by a spirit that may be characterized as being anything else except Christian. Thus, in the year 1768, a sermon was preached, we may suppose, but certainly published, at London, with the following ominous title : Masonry the Way to Hell; a Sermon wherein is clearly proved, both from Reason and Scripture, that all who profess the Mysteries are in a State of Damnation. This sermon appears to have been a favorite with the ascetics, for in less than two years it was translated into French and German.

But, on the other hand, it gave offense to the liberal minded, and many replies to it were written and published, among which was one entitled Masonry the Turnpike-Road to Happiness in this Life, and Eternal Happiness Hereafter, which also found its translation into German.

In 1797 appeared the notorious work of John Robinson, entitled Proofs of a Conspiracy against all the Religions and Governments of Europe, carried on in the secret meetings of Freemasons, Illuminati, and Reading Societies. Robinson was a gentleman and a scholar of some repute, a professor of natural philosophy, and Secretary of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.

Hence, although his theory is based on false premise and his reasoning fallacious and illogical, his language is more decorous and his sentiments less malignant than generally characterize the writers of anti-Masonic books.

A contemporary critic in the Monthly Review (volume xxv, page 315) thus correctly estimates the value of Robinson’s work: “On the present occasion,” says the reviewer, “we acknowledge that we have felt something like regret that a lecturer in natural philosophy, of whom his country is so justly proud, should produce any work of literature by which his high character for knowledge and for judgment is liable to be at all depreciated.” Robinson’s book owes its preservation at this day from the destruction of time only to the permanency and importance of the Institution which it sought to destroy. Freemasonry, which it vilified, has alone saved it from the tomb of the Capulets.

This work closed the labors of the anti-Masonic press in England. No work of any importance abusive of the Institution has appeared in that country since the attack of Robinson. The manuals of Richard Carlile and the theologico-astronomical sermons of the Rev. Robert Taylor are the productions of men who do not profess to be the enemies of the Order, but who have sought, by their peculiar views, to give to Freemasonry an origin, a design, and an interpretation different from that which is received as the general sense of the Fraternity. The works of these writers, although erroneous, are not hurtful.

The French press was prolific in the production of anti-Masonic publications. Commencing with La Grande Lumare or The Great Light, which was published at Paris, in 1734, soon after the modern introduction of Freemasonry into France, but brief intervals elap8ed without the appearance of some work adverse to the Masonic Institution. But the most important of these was certainly the ponderous escort of the Abbé Barruel, published in four volumes, in 1797, under the title of Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire du Jacobinisme, or Memorials to serve for a history of Jacobinism.

The French Revolution was at the time an accomplished fact. The Bourbons had passed away, and Barruel, as a priest and a royalist, was indignant at the change, and, in the bitterness of his rage, he charged the whole inception and success of the political movement to the machinations of the Freemasons, whose Lodges, he asserted, were only Jacobinical clubs.

The general scope of his argument was the same as that which was pursued by Professor Robinson ; but while both were false in their facts and fallacious in their reasoning, the Scotchman was calm and dispassionate, while the Frenchman was vehement and abusive. No work, perhaps, was ever printed which contains so many deliberate mis-statements as disgrace the pages of Barruel. Unfortunately, the work was, soon after its appearance, translated into English. It is still to be found on the shelves of Masonic students and curious work collectors, as a singular specimen of the extent of folly and falsehood to which one may be led by the influences of bitter party prejudices.

The anti-Masonic writings of Italy and Spain have, with the exception of a few translations from French and English authors, consisted only of bulls issued by popes and edicts pronounced by the Inquisition. The anti-Freemasons of those countries had it all their own way, and, scarcely descending to argument or even to abuse, contented themselves with practical persecution. In Germany, the attacks on Freemasonry were less frequent than in England or France. Still there were a some, and among them may be mentioned one whose very title would leave no room to doubt of its anti-Masonic character.

It is entitled Beweiss dass die Freimaurer-Gesellschaft in allen Staaten, u, s. w., that is, Proofs that the Society of Freemasons is in every country not only useless, but, if not restricted, dangerous, and ought to be interdicted. This work was published at Dantzic, in 1764, and was intended as a defense of the decree of the Council of Dantzic against the Order.

The Germans, however, have produced no such ponderous works in behalf of anti-Masonry as the capacious volumes of Barruel and Robinson. The attacks on the Order in that country have principally been by pamphleteers.

In the United States anti-Masonic writings were scarcely known until they sprung out of the Morgan excitement in 1826. The disappearance and alleged abduction of this individual gave birth to a bitterly spiteful opposition to Freemasonry, and the country was soon flooded with anti-Masonic works. Most of these were, however, merely pamphlets, which had a only a brief existence and have long since been consigned to the service of the trunk-makers or suffered a literary change in the paper-mill.

Two only are worthy, from their size (their only qualification), for a place in a Masonic catalogue. The first of these is entitled Letters on Masonry and Anti-Masonry, addressed to the Hon. John Quincy Adams. The author was William L. Stone. This work, which was published at New York in 1832, is a large octavo of 556 pages.

The work of Stone, it must be acknowledged, is not abusive. If his arguments are illogical, they are at least conducted without malignity. If his statements are false, his language is decorous. He was himself a member of the Craft, and he has been compelled, by the force of truth, to make many admissions which are favorable to the Order. The book was evidently Written for a political purpose, and to advance the interests of the anti-Masonic party. It presents, therefore, nothing but partisan views, and those, too, almost entirely of a local character, having reference a only to the conduct of the Institution as exhibited in what is called the Morgan affair.

Freemasonry, according to Stone, should be suppressed because a few of its members are supposed to have violated the laws in a village of the State of New York. As well might the vices of the Christians of Corinth have suggested to a contemporary of St. Paul the propriety of suppressing Christianity.

The next anti-Masonic work of any prominence published in the United States is also in the epistolary style, and is entitled Letters on the Masonic Institution.

These letters were written by John Quincy Adams.

The book is an octavo of 284 pages, and was published at Boston in 1847. Adams, whose eminent public services have made his life a part of the history of his country, has very properly been described as “a man of strong points and weak ones, of vast reading and wonderful memory, of great credulity and strong prejudice.”

In the latter years of his life, Adams became notorious for his virulent opposition to Freemasonry. Deceived and excited by the misrepresentations of the anti-Freemasons, he united himself with that party, and threw all his vast energies and abilities into the political contests then waging. The result was this series of letters, abusive of the Masonic Institution, which he directed to leading politicians of the country, and which were published in the public journals from 1831 to 1833. These letters, which are utterly unworthy of the genius, learning, and eloquence of the author, display a most egregious ignorance of the whole design and character of the Masonic Institution. The “oath” and “the murder of Morgan” are the two bugbears which seem continually to float before the excited vision of the writer, and on these alone he dwells from the first page to the last.

Except the letters of Stone and Adams, there is hardly another anti-Masonic book published in America that can go beyond the literary dignity of a respectably sized pamphlet.
A compilation of anti-Masonic documents was published at Boston, in 1830, by James C. Odiorne, who has thus in part preserved for future reference the best of a bad class of writings.

In 1831 Henry Gassett, of Boston, a most virulent anti-Freemason, distributed, at his own expense, a great number of anti-Masonic books, which had been published during the Morgan excitement, to the principal libraries of the United States, on whose shelves they are probably now lying covered with dust. That the memory of his deed might not altogether be lost, he published a catalogue of these donations in 1852, to which he has prefixed an attack on Freemasonry.

ANTI-MASONIC PARTY

A party organized in the United States of America soon after the commencement of the Morgan excitement, professedly, to put down the Masonic Institution as subversive of good government, but really for the political aggrandizement of its leaders, who used the opposition to Freemasonry merely as a stepping-stone to their own advancement to office.

The party held several conventions; endeavored, sometimes successfully, but oftener unsuccessfully, to enlist prominent statesmen in its ranks, and finally, a 1831, nominated William Wirt and Amos Ellmaker as its candidates for the Presidency and the Vice-Presidency of the United States. Each of these gentlemen received but seven votes, being the whole electoral vote of Vermont, a which was the only State that voted for them.

So signal a defeat was this publicly expressed national estimate of the party, that in the year 1833 it quietly withdrew from public notice, and now is happily no longer in existence.

William L. Stone, the historian of anti-Freemasonry, has with commendable impartiality expressed his opinion of the character of this party, when he says that “the fact is not to be disguised-contradicted it cannot be–that anti-Masonry had become thoroughly political, and its spirit was vindictive towards the Freemasons without distinction as to guilt or innocence” (see his Letters on Masonry and Anti-Masonry, chapter xxxviii, page 418).

Notwithstanding the opposition that from time to time has been exhibited to Freemasonry in every country, America is the only one where it assumed the form of a political party-. This, however, may very justly be attributed to the peculiar nature of its popular institutions. Here the ballot-box is considered the most potent engine for the government of rulers as well as people, and is, therefore, resorted to in cases a in which, in more despotic governments, the powers of the Church and State would be exercised. Hence, the anti-Masonic convention held at Philadelphia, in 1830, did not hesitate to make the following declaration as the cardinal principle of the parties “The object of anti-Masonry, in nominating and electing candidates for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency, is to deprive Masonry of the support which it derives from the power and patronage of the executive branch of the United States Government.

To effect this object, will require that candidates besides possessing the talents and virtues requisite for such exalted stations, be known as men decidedly opposed to secret societies.” This issue having been thus boldly made was accepted by the people ; and as principles like these were fundamentally opposed to all the ideas of liberty, personal and political, into which the citizens of the country had been indoctrinated, the battle was made, and the anti-Masonic party was not only defeated for the time, but forever annihilated.

For those who desire a further study of this interesting topic, they may refer to the Anti-Masonic Party: A Study of Political Anti-Masonry in the United States, 1827-40, by Charles McCarthy, also contained in the Annual Report of the American Historical Association for 1902 (volume1, pages 365-574) ; Miscellany of the Masonic Historical Society of the State of New York, 1902 ;
Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of New York, 1920 (pages 128–45) ; Mackey’s revised History of Freemasonry (volume vii, pages 2039-60).

ANTI-MASONRY

Opposition to Freemasonry. There is no country in which Freemasonry has ever existed in which this opposition has not from time to time exhibited itself ; although, in general, it has been overcome by the purity and innocence of the Institution.

The earliest opposition by a government, of which we have any record, is that of 1425, in the third year of the reign of Henry VI, of England, when the Masons were forbidden to confederate in Chapters and Congregations. This law was, however, never executed.

Since that period, Freemasonry has met with no permanent opposition in England. The Roman Catholic religion has always been anti-Masonic, and hence edicts have always existed in the Roman Catholic countries against the Order.

But the anti-Freemasonry which has had a practical effect in inducing the Church or the State to interfere with the Institution, and endeavor to suppress it, will come more properly under the head of Persecutions, to which the reader is referred.

ANCIENT AND MODERNS

The article which begins at page 75 was written before the publication of some 200 or so Histories and Minute Books of old British and American Lodges, and before the special researches inspired by Henry Sadler’s Masonic Facts and Fictions bad uncovered the detailed history of the Ancient Grand Lodge.

In London, 1717, the first Grand Lodge of Speculative Freemasonry was formed by four old Lodges, and possibly with the support or consent of a number of unrepresented Lodges. It was tentative, experimental, had no precedent to guide it ; at the beginning it consisted of little more than a Grand Master with two Wardens to assist him, and claimed jurisdiction only over such Lodges as might unite with it in an area covering a radius of ten miles from the center of London. As it prospered it warranted (officially approved) Lodges outside of that area and in other countries, and in about twenty years set up a system of Provincial Grand Lodges throughout England

There was at the time no doctrine of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction. A small Grand Lodge at York was not challenged. A Grand Lodge was formed by Lodges in Ireland in 1725; and in Scotland in 1736. If self-constituted Lodges of regular Masons did not unite with the Grand Lodge at London, it did not outlaw them (they were called St. John’s Lodges) but permitted visitation between them and its own Lodges.

Freemasonry had been very popular in Ireland, even before its Grand Lodge of 1725; after 1725 Lodges sprang up in almost every Irish village. Many Englishmen lived in Dublin (“Dublin was almost an English city”) and many families of English origin lived here and there in the Island, especially in North Ireland. It was commonplace for Irish, and for Anglo-Irish, to move to England, to enter business and the professions there, to attend school, etc. ; during the food famines this number was greatly increased.

Among these (and the Irish were not “foreigners” but British!) were a large number of Masons ; among these latter a majority were in retail business, or were carpenters, plumbers, painters, brick-layers, machinists, and in other so-called “trades.” But when these Irish residents or citizens of London who were members in regular Irish Lodges came to visit Lodges in London or to dimit to them, they were turned away, were snubbed, were looked down on because by that time (in the 1730’s) the Grand Lodge had become a fief of the Nobility, and its Lodges had become exclusive and snobbish. A carpenter or a mason or a house painter might be a member in good standing in a regular Irish Lodge, but he was not deemed worthy to sit among English “gentlemen.” the Irish Masons held meetings among themselves, consulted the Grand Lodge of Ireland, set up a Grand Committee in the 1740’s, and in 1751 turned this Committee into a regular Grand Lodge. This action was strictly in accordance with the Ancient Landmarks.

In the meantime many exposés had been published in London, and clandestine “Masons” pestered regular Lodges; and a certain amount of Anti-Masonry became active. To circumvent these clandestines the Grand Lodge shifted the Modes of Recognition from one Degree to another, and made other changes about which little is known in detail. It also discontinued the Ceremony of Installation of the Master, thereby reducing him to the status of a mere presiding officer with no inherent powers. These alterations in things that ought not to be altered aroused resentment among a large number of Lodges. As time progressed, and as Lodge Histories make clear, an increasing number of Lodges ceased to be Lodges and became convivial clubs-some of them very expensive clubs. By 1750 the Grand Lodge had thus departed a long way from the original design. In the cant language of the time it had “modernized” itself ; and it came to be for that reason dubbed “the Modern Grand Lodge.” the members of the new Grand Lodge of 1751 on the other band insisted on retaining the work and customs of the beginning, and because they did so declared themselves a Grand Lodge according to “the Ancient Institutions,” and hence were called “Ancient Masons.”

Because of this, a number of Modern Lodges took out Ancient Charters, a number of St. John Lodges took out Charters for the first time, and many new Lodges were warranted by it. Also, the new Grand Lodge conferred the Royal Arch, issued Ambulatory warrants to army Lodges, and it had the good fortune to have Laurence Dermott for Grand Secretary, of whom Gould was to say that “without erring on the side of panegyric” “he was the most remarkable Mason of that time.” There was in reality no need for this new Grand Lodge; had the Modern Grand Lodge been a genuinely representative Body instead of a governing club of aristocrats, had , its Grand Master been accessible to the Lodges, and had both “parties” sat down in friendly discussion as they were to do after 1800, the whole Craft could have been made as strong and as united in 1750 as it was to become in 1850; but since it was not thus done, any Masonic historian must admit that the Ancient Grand Lodge was the salvation of the Craft, and (comparatively speaking) a great blessing to Freemasonry everywhere.

Mackey in his seven-volume history, and writing before Sadler and Crawley, was inclined to believe that the Ancient grew out of discontent, and a mood of rebellion. Gould, Hughan, Lane, etc., went farther : they condemned it in toto. In his History and in his concise History Gould blasted the whole of Ancient Masonry, and throughout his life insisted on calling them “Schismatics” ; as also did a line of Masonic writers who followed him.

  1. If a number of the Officers and members of the Grand Lodge of 1717 had quarreled with the rest, had seceded, and then had set up a rival Grand Body claiming to possess the original authority, such a Grand Body would have been schismatic. (Preston’s second Lodge of Antiquity, three or four Grand Lodges in the State of New York a century later, and the Wigan Grand Lodge, etc., these were in a true sense schismatic.) This did not occur; what did occur was not only unlike a schism but in principle was the opposite of one ; the regular Masons, Irish and English, who erected their 1751 Grand Lodge were seeking to have a Masonic home, and were doing so because the 1717 Grand Lodge had , violated the first great Landmark when it refused them a home.
  2. Since the Doctrine of Grand Lodge Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction was not yet adopted, the new Grand Lodge did not violate the law. the 1717 Grand Lodge itself had made no claim to exclusive jurisdiction, but had fraternized with the Grand Lodge of All England at York.
  3. The new Grand Lodge of 1751 was guilty of no innovations of the ancient secrets, or of Ritual, or of practice ; on the contrary it was the 1717 Grand Lodge that was guilty (and self-confessedly so) of innovations.
  4. The 1717 Grand Lodge was distressed to have a rival in the field, and a vigorous one, but even it, except sporadically, did not condemn Ancient Lodges as clandestine. Members under both Grand Lodges visited and shifted back and forth, often with no more ceremony than to take a second OB ; no court action was taken ; nobody accused the Ancient of using a spurious Ritual ; in Canada and America both Lodges worked side by side.
  5. The Grand Lodges of Ireland and Scotland, who were in a position to know the Ancient at first hand, and could speak with more authority than could. Gould, Hughan, or Mackey a century later, both recognized the Ancient, and for some years neither recognized the Moderns; in their eyes it was the Modern, not the Ancient Body, that was “schismatic.” Of Ireland Crawley wrote (in A.Q.C.; VIII; p. 81) : “Indeed, the Grand Lodge of Ireland, all modern assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, seems never to have been in fraternal intercourse with the Grand Lodge of the Moderns, after the rival organization of the Ancient had been established.” Even before Sadler and Crawley had discovered and published the documents in the case the action taken by these two Grand Lodges was of itself sufficient to prove that the Ancient had never been “schismatic”–or irregular, or clandestine, or spurious.
  6. For at least five centuries Freemasonry consisted wholly of working men. When they began to accept “gentlemen” into membership, the latter met upon the level to masons, smiths, carpenters, farmers. To meet upon To meet upon the level, to leave aristocratic privilege, prerogatives, titles, and snobbishness outside, was of the essence of Masonry, and ever was unanimously accepted as being such – the name “freemasonry” was almost anonymous with meeting upon the level. The 1717 Grand Lodge destroyed that ancient design Its Lodges could if they wished, shut the door on “the lower orders.”The Earls of Moira. Grand Masters of the Ancient, were twitted by Modern Grand Officers because his Grand Secretary had been a house-painter. This un-Masonic snobbishness, this denial of brotherliness, was the one great sin of the Moderns, and the one great justification of the Ancient; in comparison with that innovation, irregularities in ceremony were of secondary importance, for where there is no meeting on the Level there is no Freemasonry. This social cleavage inside of the Fraternity came to the surface and stood out in bold relief on this side of the Atlantic during the American Revolutionary period, and explains why so many Modern Lodges failed or shifted allegiance, and why the Ancient (especially in New York and Pennsylvania) swept the field ; Modern Lodges here were on the whole Tory, Royalist, Loyalist, aristocratic, pro-British ;Ancient Lodges were democratic, pro-Patriotic, as open to blacksmiths as to Royal Governors.
  7. Until a recent period Masons found their knowledge of Masonic history in the general histories, the majority of which were chiefly histories of Grand Lodges, and therefore were long generalizations of nation-wide or world-wide events as seen from a Grand Lodge point of view; with the publication of some 200 or so Minutes and Histories of the oldest British, American, Canadian, and West Indian Lodges it has become possible to know what Freemasonry was in actual practice, locality by locality, month by month, from 1751 to 1813.

NOTE. Since “Ancient” was at the time, and by both Grand Lodges, adopted as technically correct that spelling is here used. Bro. Clegg used “Ancient” on page 75; but see paragraph at top of the left-hand column on page 83. – The Earl who was Grand Master of the Ancient in 1760-5 is spelled Blessington on page 77 ; Blesinton on page 140. The family itself spelled the name in a dozen forms but in a document still extant, and signed by him in a bold hand, the Earl himself spelled it Blesinton. Gould’s History of Freemasonry spells it Blesington.

In addition to being called “Ancient” the Grand Lodge of I751 was often called “Atholl”-Gould’s book on the Ancient Lodges is entitled Atholl Lodges.

This name came into use because a Duke of Atholl was Grand Master over so many years: John, third Duke of Atholl, from 1771 to 1775 ; John fourth Duke of Atholl from 1775 to 1782 and again from 179I to 1813. In Canada, and, later, often in the American Colonies, the Ancient Body was called York Masonry.

In the 1903 edition of his A Consise History of Freemasonry [Gale & Polden; London], Robert Freke Gould heads his Chapter VII “The Great Schism in English Masonry” ; on page 343 he describes Ancient Masons as “the seceders”; the whole burden of the chapter is that the 1751 Grand Body was born of a rebellion against the lawful authority of the Grand Lodge of 1717, and was therefore irregular and schismatic. After Gould had written his long History of Freemasonry Satdler and Crawley made their discoveries of written records, etc., which showed for the first time what the facts had been, and which proved that the Ancient had been neither Seceders nor Schismatics ; Gould had access to these facts but when be came to write his Concise History he ignored them, and did so against the urgent protestations of his friends and colleagues. In the 1920’s Fred J. M. Crowe issued a new and revised Edition of the Concise History, and in it deleted Gould’s chapter on the Ancient and replaced it by one written by himself.

In a private letter he wrote that he had performed this labor of love not so much because a new edition of the book was demanded, as that English Masonic scholars felt themselves misrepresented by the position taken by their “premier historian.”

It was therefore naturally expected that when he came to revise Gould’s History of Freemasonry(in six volumes ; Scribners’; 1936) Bro. Dudley Wright would, like Crowe, make sure to revise completely Gould’s chapter on the Ancient; for some reason which has not been explained he did not do so. Chapter IV, Vol. II, page 145, begins : “The Minutes of that Schismatic body,” etc. This failure in revision is regrettable to American readers because the Revised History elsewhere makes it clear that more than half of early American Masonry (before 1781) was derived from Ancient sources.

ANTI-SEMITISM AND MASONRY

Freemasonry is neither anti-Semitic, nor pro-Semitic. The question lies outside of, and apart from, the Fraternity ; and ever has. It would therefore have no proper place in this or in any other Masonic book had it not been that during the period between World War I and world war II the ruling parties, or governments, or both of Spain, France, Italy, and Germany forced the question on the Fraternity’s attention. To understand why and how that was done a number of facts from the past are required :

  1. Ever since the end of the Israelites Period of their history Jews have mingled with and joined with and lived peaceably with a number of Gentile peoples : the Arabs, Syrians, Persians, Ethiopians, Egyptians, Turks, Armenians, and a number of peoples in North Africa, etc. The fact proves that there is no necessary, conflict between jews and Gentiles, or between Gentiles and Jews. The question arises : where, how, and why did anti-Semitism arise? The answer is set forth in the next paragraph :
  2. “In the Island of Corfu also the bells are mute, and the clocks are stopped the last days of Holy Week, but at 11 A. M. on the Saturday morning the whole town seems to have gone mad. All of a sudden a most fearful noise and Babel of sounds ensues, bells ring their loudest, and crockery is thrown out of the windows. . . . With regard to throwing crockery down into the street . . . she is a happy woman who can contrive to hit a Jew with one of her fragments. . . . Both those who fire off guns, and the smashers of old crockery, give us their reason for doing so that their intention is to kill the arch-traitor, Judas Iscariot!” This is quoted from page 196, of Symbolism of the East and West, by Mrs. Harriet Murray-Aynsley; London ; George Redway ;’1900. (She contributed papers to Quatuor Coronati Lodge.) Working, every-day anti Semitism, in its popular, down-on-the-street form, had a theological origin.

When that peculiar religion of Sacerdotalism, called Medieval Catholicism, was set up after Charlemagne had broken away from Constantinople, its theologians in the headquarters at the Vatican laid it down as one of the corner-stones the doctrine called, in its official form, extra ecclesiam nulla salus; “outside the Church there is no salvation”; and this ecclesiam carried on vigorous proselyting in every country it could reach, even in the Near East. Long before this time Judaism already had laid down a similar cornerstone for itself: “Outside the Covenant is no salvation”; only to the circumcised “were the promises made”; and Jews vigorously proselyted in every avialable country-the Pharisees “compassed sea and land to make one proselyte,” but so did every synagogue. When these two proselyting religions, both exclusive, met in western Europe, conflict was inevitable; and since the Catholic Church won out, Jews were looked down on less as religious rivals than as a conquered people. There is no evidence that Medieval Masons, as Masons , ever took part in anti-Semitism, but it is very probable that the charge to apprentism that they “be true to Holy Church” (which in most instances was the Church of England, not the Roman Church) aimed at excluding Jews from the craft. A certain German called Hermann Goedsche had seen Some of the crude Anti-Semitic brawls on Holy Days of the type described by Mrs. Murray-Aynsley.

He had been discharged from the Secret Police for forgery. To get even with the German Socialists and their half-Jewish leader, Karl Marx, on whom he laid the blame for his troubles, Goedsche wrote a series of stories in the style of historical romance which he palmed off under the English pseudonym, “Sir John Ratcliff” In one chapter two of his characters are supposed to overhear the “Elect of Israel,” under the headship of the “Holy Rabbi,” in a meeting held only once a century, discuss the age-old plot they were fostering to overthrow the whole of Christian Europe.
Out of this tawdry stuff was formed the forged, famous “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” of which so much use was made by the Pan-Germans under Treitschke and Stocker before World War I, and by Ludendorf after it.

At first these “Protocols,” printed in broadsheets by the millions, were used to stir up fear and hatred of Jews in Germany. They were then re-issued, somewhat revised, and directed at England to stir up hatred of the English. In Russia the “Protocols” were used to back up charges against the Jews for “ritual murders.” It is said that Alfred Rosenberg, “the Black Balt,” who helped write Mein Kampf, and was Hitler’s official philosopher, came upon his first copy of the “Protocols” in Russia. He, Hitler, and Goebbels together gave the document a new twist, and by that means linked it to Freemasonry, alleging that Freemasonry was nothing but the vehicle of the Elders of Zion; and this was made large use of by Fascists in both Italy and France. Even in England this madness took hold, and burst into the open when the Morning Post, as conservative a newspaper as The New York Times, published under the head of “The Cause of World Unrest” seventeen articles in sixty or so columns of print, and the London Times almost followed suit. English Freemasonry had never had any known or conceivable connection with Judaism, but these monstrously ignorant articles attacked the two as if they were one thing.

Arthur Edward Waite published a conclusive reply but did not reach a large public. The effectual reply was written by Lucien Wolf, a colleague of Bro. Sir Alfred Robbins, who used the columns of the Manchester Guardian, Spectator, and Daily Telegraph.

This masterpiece of polemics was published in book form (53 pages) entitled The Myth of the Jewish Menace in World Affairs (The Macmillan Co. ; New York; 1921). When World war II came, Nazis, Beckists, Iron Guardsmen, Fascists, Phalangists, and Vichyites attacked not Judaism nor Freemasonry but a hyphenated monstrosity which they called Judaeo-Masonry; so that in spite of itself, and manage two whole centuries of keeping out of politics and aloof from controversy, English-speaking Freemasonry was dragged into the very focus of world-affairs; and European Masonry, which was not clear of political involvement, was obliterated. The Protocol of Zion fraud did not take hold in the United States, but it may be that the end is not yet, because the fraud already is proved to possess a salamarider’s longevity. (See article on LUDENDORF, etc.)

Shakespeare’s “Merchant of Venice” has long been a document in the history of Anti-Semitism, but it has not been until modem Shakespearean scholarship cleared up the provenance of the play that its true significance could be understood. Until near the end of the Middle Ages the lending of money on interest (securities were permitted if of no greater value than the loan) was forbidden by the Church as a mortal sin, and by the State as illegal. The Jews had no such rule in their religion, and could therefore lend money when governments permitted or ignored them-Tudor kings hid behind the feudal fiction that the persons of Jews were their private property, and they protected them as such.

This dike was broken, first, when Knights Templar began to make loans on interest (they were virtually state bankers) ; and, second, when Christians from one of the provinces of France appeared in London as money lenders. Such persecutions of the Jews as had occurred before these two developments had some justification on the grounds that money lending was a sin and a crime. When Christians began to lend money these grounds of persecution were removed; from then on any persecution was directed at the Jew solely as Jew. This is the point of Shakespeare’s play. In an anti-Semitic wave which swept London at the end of the Sixteenth Century Queen Elizabeth’s personal physician, Dr. Lopez, a Spanish Jew, was hanged at Tyburn in 1594. It was in the midst of that uproar that Shakespeare wrote and produced “The Merchant of Venice” ; the Shylock in it is no longer the anti-Christian or the criminal usurer, but is the Jew. (See page 139 OE. of Mr. Shakespeare of the Globe, by Frayne Williams; E. P.Dutton & Co. ; New York; 1941.)
In his Jews and Masonry Before 1810 Samuel Oppenheim (not a Mason) has chapters on Hayes, Saxas, da Costa, David Bush; his findings were that Jewish Masons were no larger in number than their proportion to the Jewish population; and that most of the Jewish Masons of the period were either Spanish or French.

The Rothschild family of France contributed members to the Craft, but did not take any position of leadership. Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild was initiated in Emulation Lodge, No. 12, October 24, 1802, in London ; he had been born in Vienna in 1777.

There is no record of an exclusively Jewish Lodge in England ; there are many in the United States. Discrimination by Masons against Jews in Germany began as early as 1742; as late as 1940 three-fifths of the German Lodges excluded them.

(See The Jew in Freemasonry, by Dudley Wright.) In his history of the Riom trial, Pierre Cot, a minister of the French government under Leon Blum, says that in the many Fascist circles before World War II their writers and speakers were under instruction always to call the Republic “the Judaeo-Masonic Government.” (See also Jews in a Gentile World; The Problem of Anti-Semitism,’edited by Isaque Graeber and Steuart Henderson Butt, a symposium by a number of authors ;Macmillan & Co.; New York; 1942. Books of this type are needed on anti-Gentilism, because the record of Jewish persecutions of Gentiles is a long one and they have sometimes been carried out with unspeakable cruelty; the Old Testament itself is in some chapters obviously anti-Gentile.

when the Soviet Government broke down the “pale” in southwestern Russia, in which Jews had been segregated so long, in order to give them a country of their own and equal rights, the officials in charge, of whom the majority were themselves Jews, reported to Moscow that anti- Gentilism obstructed them more than anti-Semitism Since Jewish newspapers and books and sermon preached by the Rabbis cannot be read by Gentiles the latter seldom know the extent of anti-Gentilism in Jewish communities, in ghettoes, and in segregation even in small towns. Anti-Gentilism and anti-Semitism are two halves of one problem.)

ANTOINE, ORLLIE

Ever since the invention of writing the race of authors has had a share of individualities, eccentrics, wild men and madmen as much as any other art or calling; the tribe of Masonic authors, one must fear, has had more than its share but it is doubtful if among them there ever has been a more incredible man than the Frenchman, Orllie Antoine. This impossible man was born on May 12, 1825, in the Department of Périgeux, not many miles from Bordeaux. He grew up a tall young man with a French beard and a wild light in his eyes, and studied law. But instead of practicing that respectable profession he devoured travel books by the hundred, and therein was his undoing because he decided to become an adventurer. In 1858 he took to himself the title of Prince de Tounens, crossed over to Southampton, and from there took ship for South America.

The southern third of Argentina and Chile was at that time occupied by some fifteen or twenty Indian peoples, untouched by the White man, among whom the most powerful were the Araucanians, a warrior folk somewhat like our own Apaches, and famous for the fierceness of their battles; Charles Darwin accused them of being cannibals (but erroneously).

This people, along with a number of their neighbor peoples, long had a legend that some day a white man would come, and would be their leader and paramount king, and would sweep the Spanish invaders out of the land. Orllie had read about this in a book, and he set out to be that white man; indeed, while still on the boat he crowned himself King of the Araucanians with the title of Antoine l e, and drew up a very detailed code of laws by which he intended to govern the tribes whom he had never seen, in a country of whose location he was ignorant.

He succeeded in his amazing coup ! By 1860 he was sending from the central fortress of his chiefs heavily ribboned documents to “neighboring chiefs of state” in Chile and Argentina. His official title was “King of Araucania and Patagonia.” For a narrative of the adventures and excitements of his reign a reader must consult the history books of South America, because there were too many of them to be crowded into a paragraph.

During one period he was captured by the Chileans, thrown into a prison at Santiago, was rescued by a French consul, and returned to France. For six years he made his living as a journalist in Paris, but in spare time continued in the campaign for a “French empire” in Patagonia which resulted finally in his being returned to Patagonia in a French warship. It was in that period, probably, that Orllie became a Mason.

In 1865 the Pope excommunicated Freemasons in France. As soon as Orllie discovered his own name in the blacklist he appealed to the Vatican, but without success. To prove that he was not an atheist, as the Pope had alleged that every Mason was, he composed a book of Masonic prayers and published it. The title (translated) was Masonic Prayers, by the Prince O. A. De Tounens, King of Araucania and Patagonia; it contained thirty-two prayers, and sold for twenty-five centimes.

He died in 1878. His rightful and legitimate title (far more legitimate than half the crowns in Europe) he bequeathed to his heirs. It never became operative again because the Christian soldiers of Chile and Argentina massacred the Indian peoples and left nobody to govern.

NOTE, Orllie Antoine was in no sense a crank or a fanatic but a cultivated, intelligent man who made friends and supporters among the first men of France. His memoirs possess the genuine sparkle of literature, and would make somebody’s fortune if they were turned into a biography in English. For a brief epitome, written on the spot where Orllie once reigned, see chapter in This Way South-ward, by A. F. Tschiffely; W. W. Norton & Co. ; 1940. The same writer was author of Tschiflely’a Ride, an account of a famous journey on horse-back from Patagonia to Washington, D. C.

ARCHEOLOGY AND FREEMASONRY

Archeology underwent at about the turn of the century a transformation which turned it from an almost esoteric specialty or hobby, engaged in by a small number of experts, into a large and ever-expanding profession which has covered the world with a network of activities, and is about to take its place alongside history and literature as one of the subjects for every well-read man to know. This transformation came about when a number of very highly specialized sciences and forms of research found in it a center and a meeting place. In consequence, archeology is now being carried on by a combined corps of specialists or experts in philology, in the history of art, in geology in paleontology, in philology, in ethnology, in chemistry, in geography, of experts on documents, of symbologists, of specialists in ethnic literatures, and of technologists who manage and carry on the work of expeditions, explorations, and excavations.

The public is not yet aware of the immensity of the findings, or to what an extent those findings are already effecting fundamental revisions in the writing of political, religions, and social history. Archeology has not absorbed antiquarianism on the one hand, nor historical research on the other, but it has become so dove-tailed into both that it is impossible to draw sharp boundaries between them. Masonic research under a have debt to this new archeology ;especially is so, when antiquarian and historical research are added to it. In it Masonic students possess new bodies of facts which belong to their own field.

Among these are such as: masses of data about the Ancient Mysteries in general and about Mithraism in particular; about the Collegia; about the origins of the gild system ; about the beginnings of European architecture; about the documents, customs, and practices of the earliest stages of Freemasonry; about the earliest Medieval social and cultural system in which the earliest Freemasonry was molded; about the arts, the engineering, and the mathematics of the period when Freemasonry began ; and about rites, societies, symbols, etc., which aliterate Freemasonry or were in action in other parts of the World ; about the Crusades ; and about the earliest present time larger part of the findings of archeology are in the form of reports of archeological societies or expeditions, in archeological journals, and in brochures and treatises not often found in bookstores. Only a small portion of this material has any bearing on the origin and history of Freemasonry ; but that portion is decisive for many questions and in the future must be included among the sources for Masonic history and research.

ARCHITECT AND MASTER OF MASONS

Medieval Freemasons were organized as a body when employed on a cathedral, a castle, an abbey, or any other large building. This body, or Lodge, though its own officers were members of it, and though it as a body made many decisions, was not a soviet, or commune, nor was it a “democratic” body working through committees, but it worked under and was sworn to obey a chief officer, or Master of Masons (called by a number of titles). This Master of Masons, however, was not an architect, but rather was a superintendent ; the making of plans and specifications was done by the Lodge itself, and in many places it had a separate room or building for that purpose.

In the course of time, however, the development of architectural practices brought about a divorce between the making of plans, designs, and specifications, and the carrying on of the daily work called for by the plans. The modem office of architect came into use.

This architect might have his own quarters at a distance from the building; he need not be a member of the Craft ; after he had made the drawings, models, and plans, the Craftsmen were then to carry them out under a Master who had become merely a superintendent of workmen. It is impossible to mark the new system with a date but the beginning of the office of architect as a profession may be signalized (in England) by the career of Inigo Jones (z.d) This transition to an entirely new basis for the art was essentially brought about by an intellectual advance, which can be best described briefly by comparing it with a similar revolution more than 2,000 years before. In Egypt many trained workmen were employed by the state or by cities to do surveying, to measure the water allotments for irrigation, to lay off building sites, etc. This called for geometry, and especially for trigonometry ; but the Egyptians had their knowledge of these things only in an empirical, piecemeal, rule-of-thumb form, and did not try to dissociate geometry from surveying and empirical measurements and calculations. The Greeks discovered that these surveying formulas and rules could be divorced from surveying land, could be cast in abstract form, and could then be used for countless purposes. They transferred geometry from the land to the mind; found it to power certain necessities in thought; made of it a system of principles; perfected it as a pure science. what had begun as land-surveying became geometry.

The Medieval Mason is comparable to the Egyptian surveyor. He was trained, rather than educated ; was an apprentice rather than a student ; and was taught how to perform certain given tasks. These were empirical. He did not dissociate them from the style and structure of the type of building on which he was working. Then came the discovery that there are a number of principles, formulas, and processes which hold not for one type of building but for any building. Then architecture became independent, free, an art, a science, and men could study it in universities and learn it in architects’ offices. In both cases there was, as it were, a transition from an Operative (or empirical) Craft to a Speculative one.

An account of the rise of the profession of architect is invariably given in any one of the modem standard histories of architecture. See in addition The Cathedral Builders in England, by Edward S. Prior; E. P. Dutton & Co.; New York; 1905. The Builders of Florence, by J. Wood Brown; Methuen & Co; London; 1909. Notes on the Superintendents of English Buildings in the Middle Ages, by Wyatt Papworth. An Historical Essay on Architecture, by Thomas Hope ; John Murray; London. Medieval Architecture. by Arthur Kingsley Porter. The Guilds of Florence, by Edgcumbe Staley. Westminster Abbey and the Kings’ Craftsmen, and Architecture, both by W. R. Lethaby. Gothic Architecture in England, by Francis Bond ; B. T. Bostfood; London; 1905. A Short History of the Building Crafts, by Martin S. Briggs, Oxford; 1925. The Master Masons to the Croun of Scotland, by Robert Scott Myine; Scott & Ferguson; 1893.

ANTON, DR. CARL GOTTLOB VON

A German Masonic writer of considerable reputation, who died at Gorlitz on the 17th of November, 1818. He is the author of two historical works on Templarism, both of which are much esteemed.

  1. Versuch einer Geschichte des Tempelherren ordens, that is, An Essay on the Order of Knights Templar, at Leipzig, 1779.
  2. Untersuchung uber das Gehemniss und die Gebrauche der Tempelherren, that is, An Inquiry into the Mystery and Usages of the Knights Templar, at Dessau, 1782.

He also published at Gorlitz, in 1805, and again in 1819, a brief essay on the Culdees, entitled Ueber die Culdeer.

ANTON HIERONYMUS

In the examination of a German stanmetz, or stonemason, this is said to have been the name of the first Freemason. The expression is unquestionably a corruption of Adon Hiram.

ANTRIM, EARL WILLIAM OF

Brother W. J. Hughan’s Memorials of the Union says the Earl of Antrim was Grand Master from 1782 to 1790 of the Ancient or Athol Masters.

ANUBIS OR ANEPU

Egyptian deity, son of Osiris and Nephthys. He was an equivalent to the Greek Hermes. Having the head of a jackal, with pointed ears and snout, which the Greeks frequently changed to those of a dog. At times represented as wearing a double crown. His duty was to accompany the souls of the deceased to Hades or Amenthes, and assist Horus in weighing their actions under the inspection of Osiris.

APE AND LION, KNIGHT OF THE

See Knight of the Ape and Lion.

APEX, RITE OF

See Sat B’hai, Order of

APHANISM

In the Ancient Mysteries there was always a legend of the death or disappearance of some hero god, and the subsequent discovery of the body and its resurrection.

The concealment of this body by those who had slain it was called the aphanism, from the Greek, abavatw, to conceal. As these Mysteries may be considered as a type of Freemasonry, as some suppose, and as, according to others, both the Mysteries and Freemasonry are derived from one common and ancient type, the aphanism, or concealing of the body, is of course to be found in the Third Degree. Indeed, the purest kind of Masonic aphanism is the loss or concealment of the word (see Mysteries, and Euresis).

arrow_larrow_r