Correspondence.

CORRESPONDENCE .

We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions of our Cor . respondents . All Letters must bear the name ani address of the Writer , not necessarily for publication , but as a guarantee of good faith . We cannot undertake to return rejected communications .

BROTHER JACOB NORTON'S THOUGHTS ON THE MASONIC HISTORY .

To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICM . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —Brother Norton's thoughts , whether right or wrong , must always be eminently readable , such aro the fluency and strength of his pen . I am , however , of opinion that ¦ ome of his thoughts on this occasion will not hold water . He very properly ridicules tbe idea that because similarities may

be traced in two separate organisations , therefore they must be related ; but he has overlooked the fact that if these similarities are Very numerous , if they consist of a close resemblance in phraseology , form , action , and symbolism , a connection becomes probable . We are not to infer that there is any community of ideas between the Compagnonage and Freemasonry becanse both use symbols , or

becanse both possess mysteries , bnfc if we find that as far as we can gather the mysteries and legends are identical , we may then surmise a relationship . Has Bro . Norton grasped the full meaning of the Shoemaker ' s ( Paris ) mystery in 1400 ? Mysteries and Passion plays were usually acted by the chnrch ; the mystery of St . Crispin was represented by cobblers . The chnrch legend of St . Crispin finishes

at his death . The French are born actors and artists , and the death of tbe hero is the natural , and only proper climax of a tragedy . Anything beyond is an inartistic anti-olimax . Fancy an extra act clapped on to Hamlet , in order to show his funeral and that of all the other characters . But tbe Paris shoemakers did add an act on to the authorised chnrch mystery of St . Crispin , in order to show the

recovery of his body and the funeral . Bro . Norton will agree with me that this was not done for the sake of artistic effect ; no Frenchman would be guilty of such a blunder 5 it must have quite spoilt the piece for general representation ; it constituted an offence against every canon of good taste . If we bear in mind that this additional act was an artistic blunder , not necessitated by the

authorised legend , but even contrary to the chnrch version , we may well inquire wh y the Paris shoemakers went out of their way to lug it in par les cheveuso ? Outsiders may wonder , but surely we know or can gness . With the legend of Maitre Jacques before us as a gaide we are not likely to go wrong . Is this not something more than a coincidence ?

As regards the legend of Hiram , Bro . Norton has undoubtedl y placed his finger on Brother Gould ' s weak spot . Bnt Brother Gould has proved this fact . The societies of Jacques and Solomon were distinct from each other previously to 1640 ( pp 242-243 ) . This is no assumption , but a fact . They were sworn enemies previously to the revival of Freemasonry in 1717 , for they fought in 1726 , and snch a

battle was hardly the result of an enmity of short standing . The Jarqnilea had a legend ; we know it . Now conies assumption No . 1 . Tbe Solomonites mnst have had one also . Later on they had the Hiram legend , and there is no trace of their ever having had any other . Assumption No . 2 . Their legend from the very first must have been the Hiramic . I cannot see that the inference is strained ;

it is a legitimate conclusion ; but as it is only an inference , ifc is open to argument . On page 249 et seq , Brother Gould details no less than forty-one points of similarity between the Campanions and Freemasonry . We find seven similarities of expression and phraselogy , five of procedure previous to initiation , six as regards the form of government

one of principle or dogma , fonrteen of ceremonial , ancl seven mis . cellaneous , some of whioh are most striking . Aro these all

coincidences ? Now as to Bro . Gould ' s theory •neither I nor Brother Norton can have the least idea of what it is , becanse Brother Gould has not yet formulated it . But Brother Norton appears to me to believe that Brother Gonld will attempt to prove the direct descent of Freemasonry from the Compagnonage and to protest against this theory

beforehand . So far Bro . Gould has confined himself to tracing a similarity between them , nothing more . I venture to think that Brother Gonld will hardly do more than assert tbat the legends and ceremonial usages of the Companions have influenced our present system , and do nofc consider tbat the Hiramic question need be taken into consideration . The proved existence of the Jacques legend is

quite sufficient . And what is there difficult of belief in this ? Bro . Norton has himself shown ( p 83 ) how French Masons may have innoculated onr working forefathers with the Charles Martel legend ; may they not at the same time have introduced other of their legends and customs ? And if not , as Brother Norton suggests , between 1390 and 1490 , why not after the repeal of the Edict of Nantes ?

Surely there is nothing improbable in all this . Shonld this really be Bro . Gould ' s theory , it will simply amount to this : —That Free ' masonry is directly descended from the working guilds of Masons , that to those we owe our organisation and legends ( not necessarily our ritual , which may be much more recent ) bnt that they themselves derived these legends from imported French workmen .

And now I shall make Bro . Norton's hair stand on end I If this bo granted , bow did the French obtain the legends P Brother Gould has shown that they were possibly perversions and modifications of the old debased Koman mysteries . If so , then our legends are indirectl y derived , through the French , Romans , and Greeks , from E gypt itself , and Dr . Oliver was not so very far wrong in one con-

Correspondence.

elusion after all . Now , I confidently expect Brother Norton to arise in his wrath and como down on me heavily , smito mo hip und thigh . I quite sympathise in Brother Norton ' s exultation that his " bread and butter " theory of former days has been upheld by so abb' a judge as Brother Gould , aud will pass ou to the appeal which ho u instructively makes to me personally . Fiivdel ' s , Fallon's , SteinLrenner ' s ,

and Gould ' s catecliisms are all identical , copied one from the other , and are treated at length ou p 489 et seq of Vol . II . Tho remarks there made as to their antiquity may also apply to the catechism given by me in tho Masonic magazine . Their present form , in construction , and orthography is undoubtedly modern , and unless we can obtain an old MS ., in order to judge by internal evidence of

language , it is impossible to say how old the original version may bo . But there seems no reason to doubt that thoy may be the modern and much moro extended form of a comparatively ancient , short , aud simple catechism , intended to prove that our ancient travelling craftsman hacl been legitimately brought up to his trade and had duly served hia time . There is nothing mysterious or speculative

about them ; translate them properly and look at them in a commonsense' light and they ore plain straightforward answers to workmanlike questions , somewhat encumbered by an excess of verbiage natural to an ignorant workman seeking to lender the ceremony important and solemn . I could produce very similar examinations in other German crafts ( vide Berlepsch ancl Stock ) .

If Brother Norton will tarn to p 264 of tbe Masonic Monthly he will there find somo remarks of mine which will inform him who Brother Fallon was . I have not there stated my opiuion of bis veracity , nor do I care to do so in print , but my verdict would certainly be stronger than " Masonio Komancer . " Yet Findel , Fort , and others have swallowed his very curious statements without an

effort . As regards Perdignier ' s book , I can assure Brother Norton that Brother Gonld has given ns the whole historical part of it . It is only a small 12 mo , and tbe greater part is mado up of his reasons for publishing it , letters for and against between him and other prominent companions , and moral songs , which ho was desirous of

substituting for the bloodthirsty songs then in vogue . A translation wonld add simply nothing to our knowledge ; I havo very carefully collated it with Brother Gould ' s work , and believe he has absolutely omitted nothing bearing on the Compagnonage . In your issue of the 7 th July ( which has only lately come under my notice ) , Bro . Norton inquires whether the mode of recognition in

Scotland ancl Ireland differs from that in England . On this point lam ignorant , but I can give him some information which may be to the point . Some years ago I found myself in Hamburg , with an evening unoccupied . I wended my way to tho Masonic Hall , and found a Lodge ( Hamburg Constitution ) in session . Requesting admittance , ancl being unknown , a brother came out to examine mo . I had on my

Past Master ' s apron , and when I observed that the brother was only an apprentice , I firmly but genially stood upon my dignity , and requested him to send out a M . M . This turned out very luckily , for I found out that the M . M . was not satisfied with my answers as an apprentice , stating that they were those of a Fellow Craft ancl vice versa . I should thus havo unwittingly discovered the secrets

of the Hamburg second degree to an E . A . On talking the matter over at supper with one of the Wardens I was informed that theirs was tbe old original mode , but that Grancl Lodgo in "England had at some time or other reversed tbe order . This holds good of all the secrets , including the use of the gavel , but the grip , I think , remains the same . I am unable to answer for other German Constitutions ,

having only visited under tho Hamburg . I have also visited in Cuba , but I underwent no examination , as I was introduced , and there was so much else to attract my attention that the difference , if any , may have escaped me . But I- should always advise brethren abroad , after my little experience , to prudently require that the examiner should be a Master Mason .

I am , & c . G . W . SPETII P . M . 183 . Clarendon Eoad , Margate .

A meeting of the General Committee of the Royal Masonic School for Boys was lield on Saturday last , at Freemasons' Hall , under the presidency of Bro . Joyce Murray , Vice-Patron . There were also present Bros . Rich . Tyrrell , H . B . Marshall , R . W . Stewart , Dr . Ramsay , L .

Rnff , J . L . Mather , Alfred Williams , C . H . Driver , Donald M . Dewar , J . H Kottari , Freclk . Adlard , W . Maple , Chas . Belton , C . P . Britten , C . P . Matier , G . P . GUIard , E . G . Massey , and Bro . P . Binckes Secretary . The minutes of the General Committee of 4 th August were read and confirmed , and after tbe minutes of the House Committee of the

24 th ult . bad been read for information , one petition was considered nnd . deferred for further medical information , as to an illness which incapacitated the father from following his employment , and keeping up his Lodge subscription , he being at the time a Mason of onl y two years '

standing . A further purchase of £ 1 , 000 stock East India 4 per cents , was authorised , to be added to the Preparatory School Building Pund , which will then amount to - £ 9 , 000 .

An outfit vote of £ 5 was granted to a former pupil at the Institution , and there being no further business on the agenda paper , a vote of thanks to the Chairman terminated the proceedings .