Note: This material was scanned into text files for the sole purpose of convenient electronic research. This material is NOT intended as a reproduction of the original volumes. However close the material is to becoming a reproduced work, it should ONLY be regarded as a textual reference. Scanned at Phoenixmasonry by Ralph W. Omholt, PM in May 2007.
A COMMENTARY ON THE FREEMASONIC RITUAL
TOGETHER WITH NOTES ON THE CEREMONIAL WORK OF THE OFFICERS
by the late Dr. E.H. CARTWRIGHT
Barrister-at-Law; D.M., B.Ch. (oxon,); Past Grand Deacon.
FENROSE
First Edition 1947
Second (Revised) Edition 1973
Published by Fenrose, Ltd., 21 Mount Ephraim Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent Cover design by Ronald Burch Studio Typesetting by Amigo Graphics Centre, Ltd.
Printed photolitho in Great Britain by Ebenezer Baylis & Son Limited, The Trinity Press, Worcester, and London ©1973 Lyn Hepworth ISBN 0 903879 00 X CONTENTS Introduction to the Second Edition .. .. Vii Other Works by Dr. Cartwright .. .. .. x Author's Preface .. .. .. .. xi 1 Introductory .. .. .. .. 15 2 Rituals Referred to in the Ensuing Chapters .. 39 3 Some Matters of General Concern Simultaneity of Action .. .. 47 Opening, Closing and `Resuming' .. 48 Knocks, Reports and Alarms .. 50 Sps., Sns. and Salutes .. .. 54 Attitude during Prayers and Obs. .. 56 Standing to Order .. .. 58 Passing round the Lodge .. .. 58 S...g, i.e. Shielding .. .. 58 L...g or H...g .. .. .. 60 The First Joint .. .. .. 60 A Detail in the Second Degree Preparation 61 The Bible Openings .. .. 61 The Lesser Lights .. .. 62 The Columns of the Officers .. 65 Gloves .. .. .. 67 Masonry or Freemasonry .. .. 69 Master Elect or Worshipful M.E. .. 69 Initiate and Brother Initiate .. 70 The Number that Constitutes a Quorum 70 The Number of Perambulations .. 70 "As happily we have met" .. 71 The Status of the I.P.M. .. .. 72 The Ballot for Candidates .. .. 72 A* 4 The Work of the Tyler .. .. .. - 73 5 The Work of the Inner Guard .. .. .. 82 6 The Work of the Deacons .. .. .. .. 90 The First Degree .. .. .. .. 94 The Second Degree .. .. .. .. 101 The Third Degree .. .. .. .. 107 Deacons - other Duties .. .. .. .. 110 7 The Work of the Junior Warden .. .. .. 112 The Ceremonies .. .. .. .. 118 Calling Off and Calling On .. .. .. 122 8 The Work of the Senior Warden .. .. .. 124 The Ceremonies .. .. .. .. .. 127 9 The Work of the Master .. .. .. .. 133 Openings and Closings .. .. .. .. 135 The Questions before Passing .. .. .. 140 The Questions before Raising .. .. .. 143
The Ceremony of Initiation .. .. .. 144 The Charge .. .. .. .. .. 162 Tracing Board of the First Degree .. .. .. 165 The Ceremony of Passing .. .. .. .. 166 Tracing Board of the Second Degree .. .. 174 The Ceremony of Raising .. .. .. .. 177 The Traditional History continued .. .. .. 190 Tracing Board of the Third Degree .. .. .. 193 The Signs .. .. .. .. 194 The Ceremony of Installation .. .. .. 197 The Inner Working .. .. .. .. 200 The Concluding Addresses .. .. .. 207 The Investiture of the Immediate Past Master .. 209 The Installation of a Past Master .. .. .. 209 10 The Lectures .. .. .. .. .. 210 11 Information for Candidates .. .. .. 212 Appendices - A The Working Tools of the Second Degree .. 215 B Explanation of the Second Tracing Board .. 216 C Explanation of the Third Tracing Board .. 219 D Address to the I.P.M. .. .. .. 220 Notes and References .. .. .. .. .. 223 E. H. Cartwright - A Biographical Note .. .. .. 229 Index .. .. .. .. .. .. 237
INTRODUCTION
to the Second Edition by
HARRY CARR
Secretary and Editor of the
Quatuor Coronati Lodge
Here is an extremely interesting book on a subject which is important to all who are concerned with the ritual of Craft. Nobody has written anything better in this particular field. Commendation in such terms needs to be justified and that can best be done by a brief survey of the circumstances which led Dr. Cartwright to his favourite branch of Masonic study.
In the lodges under the United Grand Lodge of England there are hundreds of different `workings' in use today, which, with only a few rare exceptions, are all descended from the ritual that was `approved' at the Union. So far as is known, no detailed record of the approved forms was permitted to be made or published. Certain it is that the earliest printed post-Union rituals were far from perfect. In the century that followed, the most popular versions were printed and reprinted frequently and, in due course, new versions began to appear. It seems likely that all of them had suffered at some stage, perhaps from the vagaries of individual Preceptors, and almost certainly from careless or illiterate editors.
None of these 19th century publications displayed major changes in the words of the rituals, or in the procedures, 'floor-work' etc., but the language had become slovenly and was marred in many cases by faulty grammar.
Undoubtedly these defects must have been noticed, times out of number, by the Officers who recited the words and by the Brethren who heard them. But the manner in which the ritual was taught (and still is taught) in Lodges of Instruction, with their fanatical stress on the printed word, has tended to give the pages of the `named' rituals an aura of sanctity,so that the Officers, struggling to master their allotted tasks, begin to believe that every word of their particular ritual has come down to them directly from Heaven, and that even the slightest alteration would be a Masonic crime.
Cartwright was a ritualist, not a historian. His published writings do not reveal any specialised interest in the early history of the ritual and he was no advocate for any particular working. His first and principal care was grammar. In Bro. Cartwright's argument, no matter how strongly a Mason might cleave viii Introduction to a particular `working' because that was the one used in his Mother Lodge, or for any other good reason, nothing could ever justify the use of ritual framed in language that was ungrammatical.
He was forthright, too, in his condemnation of `psittacism', i.e., the parrot-like repetition of words without thought of what they really mean - a disease encouraged and fostered - all unwittingly, by our Lodges of Instruction, because their work-programmes are designed primarily for rehearsal, leaving little or no opportunity for discussion or explanation. Cartwright wanted to ensure that the spoken word should convey the speaker's meaning precisely. For him, in a well conducted ceremony, every word was something precious, every phrase a pearl, and he was merciless in attacking passages in any `working' of the ritual which did not conform to the high standard that he deemed essential.
Quick to notice a grammatical error, or the faulty construction of a sentence that conveyed the wrong meaning, and always ready to clarify or correct, he was, nevertheless, firmly opposed to the idea of the sanctity of the printed word or of a particular `working', an idea that had been sedulously fostered at first by the advocates of Emulation and which grew quite naturally among the adherents of the many later workings as the printed versions began to appear with increasing frequency.
In 1926, Dr. Cartwright, aged 61, had already retired from his professional duties and he began to write articles on his favourite subject for the Masonic press. His papers usually began with a brief note on the evolution of the printed post-Union rituals and an attack on the Emulation officials who, in those days, claimed superior authenticity for their `working'. His critical approach to the ceremonies was virtually a word-by-word analysis of every defective passage. He condemned errors forthrightly when that was justified, and after comparing the passages with other workings he would recommend the best version, or the requisite changes. The list of his Masonic writings is not particularly long, but they all attracted attention from Preceptors and specialists in this field.
To level criticisms of any kind against `named workings' was a courageous undertaking, no matter how justly they were founded. There can be little doubt that his views deserved a sympathetic hearing, but that was rarely forthcoming. Indeed he made enemies, but he pursued his mission and it was only the zealous attachment to the printed word, or the inherited word, so long fostered by the different `workings', that tended to set limits on his success.
In addition to his work on the words of the ritual, he turned his attention to the ceremonial procedures, the duties of the individual Officers, the Knocks, Steps, etc., etc. In this field, too, because of ingrained customs, he was treading equally dangerous ground and the hazards were not diminished Introduction ix when he based his arguments continually on what he called `Freemasonic Theory', as though those theories had been officially codified into Craft Law, when, in fact, his arguments, often loosely stated and not subjected to test, might better be described as 'Cartwright's Theory'. In similar vein, he referred to various signs as `landmarks', without any definition of what a `landmark' is, or should be, and without any statement of the principles on which he classified those procedures as such. Yet, in all fairness, it must be acknowledged that his arguments arose from deep conviction and an overwhelming desire to explain, to justify and amend.
In 1936 he published The English Ritual, based admittedly on The Perfect Ceremonies which represented the `working' that he had attacked most continuously. Undoubtedly he chose that work as his basis, because it contained the greatest number of faults. It is possible, too, that in choosing the most widely used ritual for his pattern he was aiming to make the greatest possible impact with his own amended version. He published a revised edition of The English Ritual in 1946, which, after a lapse of ten years, would seem to suggest that it had had only a moderate success.
In 1947, he published his Commentary on the Freemasonic Ritual, virtually a collection of the materials in all his earlier papers in a new and well-ordered arrangement and, in this form, it attracted much wider attention. The book was very well reviewed in A QC Vol. 59, pp. 84/5, though not without some well-merited criticism, inevitable in a controversial work of this kind. Too many of Cartwright's views were based on ideas and arguments which needed rather more of explanation and supporting evidence than he had given them.
As a set-off against these faults, his catalogue of the numerous `named' versions of the ritual that form the basis of his work is extremely instructive and valuable to every reader. His critical analysis of words and phrases, practices and procedures is always of the highest interest, and although the reader may find cause on every page to disagree with Cartwright's views, he will be rewarded, throughout the book, by the force and freshness of his approach and by the many instances in which our ritual procedures, and many of the things we say and do unthinkingly, simply because we inherited them from our predecessors, are examined, explained and often criticized in a provocative manner that stimulates thought and debate.
The adjective "provocative" is perhaps the ideal summary of the book and is its principal characteristic. For the reader who loves his ritual and is eager to know more about it, Cartwright's Commentary is essential - and it is never dull. Whether the reader accepts Cartwright's rulings or not, he will know a great deal more about our ceremonial practices when he has finished reading it, and the words and procedures will have acquired new dimensions and a wider and deeper meaning.
X OTHER WORKS BY Dr. CARTWRIGHT BOOKS: The English Ritual of Craft Freemasonry published primarily for the use of the Pellipar Lodge, No. 2693 (Lewis, London, 1936) - 2nd Edition (1946) A Commentary on the Freemasonic Ritual, with Notes on the Ceremonial Work of the Officers (Hepworth, Tunbridge Wells, 1947) PAMPHLETS AND ARTICLES: A Note on Browne's Master Key A.Q.C. xlv (1932) pp. 90-96. A Chronicle of the Pellipar Lodge No. 2693, 1898-1933 (1934) "The Ritual of the Union & the Ritual of Today" Trans. Manchester Assn. forMasonicResearch (1928/9) pp. 19-51 "Some Notes on the Appurtenances of the Lodge Room" Ibid (1932) pp. 71-99 "Some Further Notes on the Ritual" Ibid (1938) pp. 67-94 "Some Notes on the Ritual, and Criticisms of Certain Details of the Working as Practised in many Lodges Today" Trans. Somerset Masters' Lodge (1940/41) pp. 149-179 "Knocks, Reports and Alarms" Misc. Lat. Vol. xix (1935) pp. 113-119 "The Ceremony of Opening and Closing a Board of Installed Masters" The Freemason, (Feb. 1932) pp. 518-9 & 536 Unpublished Papers in the Library of the Quatuor Coronati Lodge: A Summary of the History of the Mark Degree, and its present Relationship in other Countries (Undated) Notes on the Ceremonial Opening and Closing of the Board of Installed Masters (Undated) Summary of the History of the Craft prior to the Union (read to the Lodge of Unity, No. 69 - May 1935) A Translation (decoding) of Browne's Master Key (April 1931)
[N.B. The list does not include Bro. Cartwright's comments on Papers by other writers in A.Q.C., and it omits the shorter notes contributed at intervals to Misc. Lat. in response to queries..... Harry Carr, London, 19731
AUTHOR'S PREFACE
The raison d'e"tre of this book is explained in the first chapter. The sections on the work of the several subordinate officers are reproduced from a series of typescript notes drafted many years ago for the use of one of my own Lodges and, save for the excision of repetitions (for in their original form each part was designed to be complete in itself) and a few recently added notes and comments, are almost exactly as they were first written in, or about, 1910.
The rest of the book has been in contemplation (lack of time and then the interruption of the war years having prevented its completion until now) since 1929, when I read to the Manchester Association for Masonic Research a Paper which contained the germ of the subject and which was printed in their Transactions, Vol. XIX (1929-30), pp. 19 et seq.
Further Papers by myself on the subject of ritual &c. will be found in the Manchester Transactions, Vol. XXII (1932) and Vol. XXVII (1937), in the Transactions of the Somerset Masters' Lodge, Vol. 7 (1940), and in The Freemason, February, 1932, pp. 518 and 536.
By a coincidence, about the same time that I read my first Paper at Manchester, Brother H. Hiram Hallett, of Taunton, independently prepared a Paper on somewhat similar lines which he read to The Somerset Masters Lodge and which has been published as a pamphlet entitled A Short Account of the Lodges of Promulgation, Reconciliation, Stability and Emulation.
The duties of the Director of Ceremonies, important as they are, have not been given a place in this book because they have been so thoroughly and efficiently dealt with by the late Brother Algernon Rose in his The Director of Ceremonies. On almost every point, except the matter of the Junior Warden's column, I am in entire accord with his views.
In this volume I am not concerned with the history and antiquarianism of the Craft or with the interpretation to be attached to its symbols. Those whose interests lie in such directions can have recourse to the plentiful literature on the subjects including the older books by Paton and Oliver, and the more modern ones by Hughan, Vibert, Knoop, Jones and Poole on the one hand and by Ward, Newton, Wilmshurst and Waite on the other, as well as to the multitudinous papers in the Transactions of the several Lodges and Associationsiofresearch and study, of which the Quatuor Coronati Lodge is the most important and the Correspondence Circle of which all those whose interest in the Craft goes beyond the mere repetition of ritual formularies should join. Such brethren would do well also to become subscribers to Miscellanea Latomorum, a periodical freemasonic `Notes and Queries'. Herein I merely submit a commentary on the ritual as we have it now, postulating that - whatever may be its origin and esoteric meaning - if it is to enlist the intelligent interest of reasonably cultured brethren, whether novices or seniors, it must at least be rendered logically and grammatically.
I would, however, express my opinion that every Brother, as soon as he has been raised, should be induced to read the late Bro. Vibert's small volume, The Story of the Craft.
Eighty years or so ago, when printed rituals were still generally looked at askance, it would probably have been thought undesirable to write on the subject in such detail as is here done; but now that they are ubiquitously - though naturally not officially - recognised and can be bought by anyone, and the details of the ceremonial (esoteries, of course, excepted) are freely discussed in Masonic books and periodicals, no objection can be taken to yet another critical survey, in which the matter is treated in a way that it is hoped may eventually have the result of increasing the appeal of our ceremonies to those better educated brethren in whose minds the illiteracy of their present rendering in many Lodges tends to bring them into contempt.
I am indebted to the Secretary of the Manchester Association for permission to quote freely from my Papers in their Transactions, and to the Editor of Miscellanea Latomorum for leave to reprint the article on `Knocks, Reports and Alarms' and to quote from other contributions to that periodical.
I would also record my indebtedness to Brothers H.H. Hallett, R.R. Conway, F.A.F. Cole, Sydney Race, G.Y. Johnson and R.H.B. Cawdron for sundry items of information regarding details of practice in their respective Lodges or localities.
E.H.C.
May, 1947.
Since 1959, (A.Q.C Vol. 72) 'Notes and Queries' has been embodied with the annual volumes of Transactions of the Quatuor Coronati Lodge, No. 2076, London. [Ed.] THE SECOND EDITION FENROSE was fortunate in allying the services of Harry Carr, well-known as the Secretary and Editor of the Quatuor Coronati Lodge. He has not only written the Introduction and Biographical Note, but also given much skilled advice in the preparation of this volume.
Our thanks to Raymond Lawson, whose critical eye saved many technical errors.
Lyn Hepworth, friend and original publisher of Dr. Cartwright, has long hoped for and encouraged this Second Edition. We hope its publication will be his best thanks.
There have been numerous enquiries for copies of the Commentary, but the book has been out of print for many years. This edition has been compiled from an annotated copy of the book containing a large number of manuscript paragraphs to be added or substituted, together with various amendments, all in Cartwright's own miniscule handwriting, which he had prepared in readiness for a hoped-for second or revised edition. All this new material has been embodied in this new publication.
References to Cartwright's source volumes and other bibliography are indicated by superior figures, and these are listed together by chapters commencing on p. 223.
1 Introductory
Before dealing with the details of the ritual as now practised, it is desirable to remind the reader of the main facts concerning its history at the period of the Union (1809-1816) and during the years that have elapsed since then.
We have little definite knowledge of ritual details prior to the Union, but it would appear that about the 1760s the actual ceremonies were brief - probably not performed in any set form of wording save in a few portions such as the obligations - and that instruction in the theory and principles of the Order was subsequently conveyed to the novices through the medium of catechetical `lectures'.
By the end of the century, however, the ceremonial ritual had become much better ordered and more formalised, especially under the Antients, whose working in the years immediately preceding the Union probably approximated very closely to what we follow today.
It is common knowledge among us that certain vital differences existed between the Antients and the Moderns. For example, with the Moderns the Wardens both sat in the west, the Ws. of the First and Second Degrees were used in the reverse order, and the P.%. had acquired a position of importance apparently superior to that of the Actual Ws? But it seems probable that, except for such variations as were consequent on those fundamental differences, the ceremonial formularies of many Moderns Lodges - as a result of intercommunication and adoption - in the early years of the 19th century ran on very similar lines to those of the Antients.
It was in effect a condition precedent to the Union that the moderns should bring their working into accord with that of the rival dispensation, and to do this they set up the special Lodge of Promulgation which recommended the changes necessary for the purpose.
Among the points they dealt with were the ceremonies of opening and closing in the several Degrees. We know exactly what were the Moderns' formularies for these; they are set out in Browne3 and they were very crude 16
Introductory
and rudimentary, while those of the Antients had attained a higher degree of development. The members of Promulgation availed themselves of the services of a Brother of the Antients to teach them those forms.' They were also taught the ceremony of Installation which hitherto was almost unknown among the Moderns.s When Promulgation had completed its work, the Grand Lodge of the Moderns ordered all its subordinate Lodges to adopt the alterations, and the Master and other members of Promulgation undertook expeditions into all parts of the country to teach them to the Provincial Lodges. This no doubt explains the fact remarked on by Tuckett7 that when the Union was accomplished the workings of the Lodges under the Antients and the Moderns were in many localities already so nearly in accord that no further adjustments of the ritual were necessary.
The Union was consummated on December 27, 1813, and the Lodge of Reconciliation, composed of representatives of the two previously rival bodies, was formed, ostensibly to draw up and promulgate a ritual that would be acceptable to both parties, though Vibert was of opinion that `it is not likely that the original intention was to prescribe a complete, or insist on an exact, rendering in which every word and every gesture was immutably laid down'.' Many brethren are imbued with the idea that our ritual in its present form originated with the Lodge of Reconciliation and that that Lodge drew up an entirely new formulary in full detail. But nothing is farther from the truth, and, as Hextall has said of that Lodge, `the effect of its existence and working upon the general body of English Masonry was more academic than real, amounting to much less than was anticipated by the framers of the Articles of the Union, or has since been attributed to it'. 9 The members, or some of them, must have met for discussion between the date of the Union and August 4, 1814, though no records exist of any such meetings. At all events on the latter date they were ready to begin the formal teaching of the so-called new ritual; and from then to May, 1815, they held 26 meetings for demonstration, which were attended by representatives of Lodges both metropolitan and provincial. They also sent accredited emmissaries (Broadfoot, McCann, Satterley and others) all over the kingdom to instruct the more distant Lodges. Thus Broadfoot was in Yorkshire in June, 1815, and was teaching at the Northern Lodge of Promulgation on the Sunday on which the battle of Waterloo was fought! o Peter Gilkes (seep. 21) also visited some parts of the country about this time, but not as a representative of Reconciliation of which he was not a member, nor was he ever given official authority of any kind as a teacher of the ritual (cf p. 33).
That Reconciliation made some modifications in the existing methods is Introductory 17 obvious since they had something to teach. That these can have been but few and of no material complexity - mainly, indeed, relating to practical, rather than verbal, details - is evident from the fact that they could all be learnt by one or two attendances at the demonstrations.* They probably dealt with the general arrangement of the ceremonies - the order of events and so on; and they may have systematised such details as the knocks of the Degrees and the perambulations. They no doubt paid a certain amount of attention to some parts of the verbal formularies, for instance, the obligations; but at no time can they have debated, or decided on, ultimate verbal details throughout the whole ceremonial; still less can they have formulated a ritual de novo. To do so without a written or printed draft for reference would be practically impossible; to attempt it without having permission to make notes of their decisions would have been futile; and we know that not a word was allowed to be written down." Fancy - as the writer has said elsewhere' 2 - a Bench of Bishops meeting to debate the wording of a religious formulary, such as a Prayer Book, without having a tentative proof of the material before them or being allowed to record the results of their deliberations! They apparently instituted the office of Inner Guard, for although there is no reference in the Minutes to a decision to that effect, a holder of the office suddenly appears (the first known mention of it) in the list of officers present on August 23, 1814, and the office was filled at all subsequent meetings.
It would seem probable that it was now that the Christian references, which were still retained in the working although non-Christians had long been admitted to the Order, were deleted. Curiously, however, one of these seems to have been overlooked and it still remains in most versions, though even now many brethren fail to realise its significance. This is the reference to Christ as `that bright and morning star' (a quotation from Revelation, xxii, 16, but often misquoted as `bright morning star' (see p. 192).
Otherwise they virtually adopted in toto what had been the working of the Antients which - as the outcome of the labours of Promulgation - was now being followed everywhere, though undoubtedly there were many local peculiarities and differences in unessentials.
It may be worth remarking that Reconciliation, in reporting to the Grand Master, said that they were `most anxious that the general harmony of masonic arrangement should not be disturbed by a pertinaceous adherence to mere forms which are in themselves of minor import'.
When Reconciliation had completed its teaching throughout the country (it is to be noted that it was not until after that completion), it exhibited before Grand Lodge on August 23, 1815, `the forms and ceremonies for the * Of the 555 representatives of Lodges who attended the demonstrations in London, 340 came only once and 115 but twice; 37 came three times, and 29 four times; so that those who came more often were very few.
18 Introductory Openings and Closings in the three Degrees'' 4 and these were ordered to be used and practised by all dependent Lodges. At the same meeting the Obligations of the First and Second Degrees were recited (the former by the Grand Master himself), and it was resolved that they should be `the only pure and genuine obligations'. It must, however, be borne in mind that memory alone was relied on for the preservation of the verbal details.
Possibly the reason why special attention was thus paid to the Openings and Closings was that there must have been some slight modification of the forms previously in use in consequence of the introduction of the office of Inner Guard.
On February 26, 1816, Reconciliation held a special meeting at Freemasons' Hall at which they demonstrated the Installation ceremony, which, as already stated, was of quite recent introduction in most Moderns' Lodges.
Finally, on May 20, 1816, Reconciliation rehearsed before Grand Lodge the Openings and Closings and the three degree ceremonies, and at the Quarterly Communications on June 5 the working received the `approval' of Grand Lodge, but (save for the formal pronouncements already made on August 23 of the previous year and resolutions now passed regarding two matters of practical detail*) `it was not enjoined, although the contrary is frequently asserted'.' s Nor did Grand Lodge proscribe any of the immaterial differences in detail, or additional items of verbal or other ceremonial, that might exist in various Lodges or localities; so that to this day `many Lodges jealously preserve special variations of their own, and rightly so'." `Rightly' because, in the words of Wonnacott, `some of the most interesting differences in working, if pruned away, would be lost to us as valuable historical evidences of former Customs,. 17 It is impossible that at the rehearsal on May 20, 1816, the audience can have been expected to carry in their minds the whole of that lengthy performance with sufficient accuracy to give critical attention to minor verbal details. The utmost they could do would be to regard broad outlines and the general order of procedure. Anyone will realise this who has ever attended a ceremony in which he has expected to hear petty differences in wording from * One of these appears to have been the adoption of both the former words of the Third Degree as alternatives. The other had to do with the Master's light, but what the terms of the decision were - or, indeed, whether there really was a definite decision - appears to be uncertain. Until recently a letter written in 1839 by Bro. White, one of the Joint Grand Secretaries, had been generally accepted (even by Grand Lodge itself in 1934) as giving the exact terms of a resolution that was passed, but a recently published letter of Broadfoot, written in 1816, only a few weeks after the event, throws considerable doubt on the accuracy of White's statement. (See Hanson's The Lodge of Probity, No. 61, pp. 210-213; and Miscellanea Latomorum, XXIX, 113; XXX, 17.) Introductory 19 what he is accustomed to. He will probably have noticed the variants as they occurred, but when he has tried to recall them afterwards, he will have found it impossible to remember more than a few of the specially striking ones.
Nobody now knows, nobody ever can know, exactly what verbal formularies were used in the Reconciliation demonstration before Grand Lodge, for, as Robbins has said, `everything was entrusted to human memory passing through differently disposed minds'." And the opinion of the late Brother Hextall (`that eminent and respected Masonic historian', as Inman justly terms him)" is undoubtedly true, namely, that `any claim made at the present time to a precise acquaintance with the ceremonies as they were settled and approved at the Union is illusory'.' ° After the meeting on June 5, 1816, the Lodge of Reconciliation lapsed and the duty of carrying on, and preserving, the agreed ritual fell to the Regular Lodges throughout the country. The statement that has been made that `the propagation of the newly arranged Reconciliation ritual devolved upon the Lodges of Instruction which came into being at that period','' if it is meant to imply either that Lodges of Instruction were a new development or that, whether new or old, they were regarded as in any sense the officially recognised repositories of the ritual, is contrary to fact.* Equally fallacious is Rankin's statement that `for making known to the Craft generally those Reconciliation Ceremonies that Grand Lodge had authorised, a system of Lodges of Instruction was set up under Regulations issued by Grand Lodge'." That Grand Lodge made Regulations is true, but they were simply to ensure the proper conduct of Instruction Lodges, both old and new, and none were set up officially, or specifically for the purpose stated. Every Lodge of Instruction is set up by, and works under the sanction of, a Regular Lodge.
It is, perhaps, regrettable that the members of Reconciliation did not take advantage of the opportunity that then presented itself to settle a definite form of ritual in the same way as religious formularies are settled by the leaders of the Church. But owing to the then rooted prejudice against committing any part of the ritual to writing it was clearly impossible to do so.
The position to-day is that, notwithstanding many local variations in unessentials - variations that it is hoped will always be studiously preserved - every Lodge in England (including those of the Province of Bristol which have more distinctive features in their working than any others) works the ritual that was `approved' at the Union, and no one of them has the right to claim that its mode of working rather than any other has had such approval. The present writer, however, is strongly inclined to except certain * The first edition of Browne's Master-Key (1798) contains a list of 29 Lodges of Instruction then working (all but three of them in London or the suburbs) with their places and times of meeting. Nearly two-thirds of them met on Sunday evening.
20
Introductory
Lodges in so far (but only in so far) as, following the present practice of the Emulation Lodge of Improvement they use and teach a bastard form of the E.A.'s sign and adopt an utterly irrational and innovationary attitude for the last of the f. p. o. f. (see pp. 116 and 156), for these, as it seems to him, cannot but be regarded as `landmarks', and if that is so, the alterations, made since early post-Union days, that those Lodges adopt cannot but be regarded as unconstitutional.
Although the large majority of Lodges accepted the terms of the Union and took their assigned places on the roll of United Grand Lodge, there is no doubt that the rituals they practised continued to differ considerably, as they had previously, in unessential details, and many pre-Union incidents were still retained here and there. In fact, as Wonnacott put it,2 3 `There was much give and take in matters of ritual and many Lodges stubbornly refused to conform to official regulations'.
Some such relics of pre-Union practice are still to be met with; for instance, the writing test in Bristol and certain Cheshire Lodges; the circle of swords in Bristol; the wearing of a hat by the Master in the Newstead Lodge, Nottingham (see p. 136), and the Third Degree working in All Souls Lodge, Weymouth.
It must not be forgotten that some Lodges in various parts of the country, apparently not realising how little the formalities that had taken place in London really affected them and resenting alterations in the working that they thought were being unduly forced on them, for varying periods stood aloof from the new Grand Lodge. But after a short time most of them fell into line. A number of such Lodges, however, in a northern area co-operated in setting up in 1823 the independent Wigan Grand Lodge, the history of which was written in 1920 by Bro. E.B. Beesley. * Its constituent members gradually deserted it in favour of the metropolitan Grand Lodge and its last meeting was held in 1866. One only of its Lodges, that of Sincerity,- No. 1 on its roll, was obstinately recalcitrant and maintained an isolated existence until 1913, when at last it, too, came into the fold as No. 3677.
Shortly after the lapse of the Lodge of Reconciliation two new Lodges of Instruction were started which soon came to be regarded as the two principal Lodges of Instruction in London and which are still in being.
The first of these was sanctioned in 1817 by the Lodge of Stability, and three of its founders had filled offices in the final demonstration by Reconciliation, namely, Brothers Broadfoot,24 McCann and Satterley, who * Further information regarding this body has been unearthed by Bro. Norman Rogers, A.Q.C. lxi, p. 170. He also discovered the record of a short lived seceding Stockport Grand Lodge that started in 1837.
t This Lodge was warranted by the Moderns in 1786 as No. 402. It became No. 486 at the Union, but in 1823 seceded to Wigan.
Introductory 21
had acted respectively as Senior Warden, Senior Deacon and Junior Deacon. Moreover, the Rev. Dr. Hemming who had been the Master of Reconciliation, and the Joint Grand Secretaries, Brothers Harper and White, who had been respectively Secretary and Treasurer of that Lodge, shortly afterwards joined it.25 It `preserves an unbroken record of Preceptors who have handed down the Reconciliation working'.2 s The second was - to give it its full designation - the Emulation Lodge of Improvement for Master Masons Lodge of Instruction, which popularly is, and will be here, styled briefly `Emulation'. It was sanctioned in 1823 by the Lodge of Hope. There was a technical break in the continuity of its existence in 1830 when its original sanction was replaced by one granted by the Lodge of Unions under which it has worked ever since. This break occurred immediately after an application by Emulation to Grand Lodge for `especial licence and authority' had been refused, but whether there was any direct connexion between the two incidents it is impossible to say, though Sadler's account certainly gives the impression that there was.
Emulation was founded, according to Sadler,28 for the purpose of `working the lectures only, on a new system'. The present writer has advanced the view that this `new system' may have consisted in the incorporation in the then existing lectures of the whole of the ceremonial formulary 2 9 Apart from these interpolations the lectures of the First and Second Degrees as now worked by Emulation are virtually identical (except for the omission, or alteration of the Christian allusions) with the pre-Union lectures of the Moderns which are given in full in Browne30 and which are believed either to have been composed by Preston or to be older lectures rearranged and elaborated by him, perhaps as early as 1772. In the Emulation lectures, as worked now and as they were worked in, or about, 1840,-the whole of the former Third Degree lecture (except the Eulogium on the f. p. o. f) is omitted and is replaced by their ceremonial ritual of that Degree cast into catechetical form.* Both of these instruction Lodges at first, like others at that time, worked only the lectures, but later they adopted the practice of also rehearsing the ceremonies. When this took place in Stability is not known. In Emulation it was, according to Rankin, `round about 1830'.31 About eighteen months after its inception Emulation was joined by the famous Peter Gilkes, who quickly became its autocratic leader (or `Preceptor', as Fenn termed him32 ),'a position he retained until his death in 1833. Sadler tells US33 that at first Gilkes had refused to join it, thinking `that a Lodge of Instruction restricted to Master Masons and working the lectures only, on a new system, could not succeed'.
* In All Souls Lodge, No. 170, Weymouth, the Third Degree is still worked on the lines indicated by the Lecture of that Degree in Browne.
22
Introductory
From what is known of Gilkes one is inevitably led to the conclusion that he was probably a natural son of Lord Petre, at one time Grand Master of the Moderns; but neither this conjecture, nor the statement that he was a man of but little education, is advanced with the slightest derogatory intent, for he is most certainly to be numbered among the Freemasonic worthies of the past. Gould includes him among several whom he names as being `noted in their day as Masonic preceptors'34 Born in 1765 and initiated in a Moderns Lodge in 1789, he was an enthusiastic ritualist, and, on inheriting from his mother a small competence, he thereafter devoted himself entirely to the Craft and spent all his afternoons in the gratuitous teaching of the ritual to Masters and others who cared to avail themselves of his services. In those days printed rituals (except certain `spurious rituals' which byGfkes's time, although still being regularly reprinted - as, indeed, they are to this day - were already so out of date as to be useless for practical purposes) did not exist, so that the work could only be learnt from oral instruction, necessarily a slow and laborious process.
Gilkes was engaged in this work for a good many years before the Union. What form of ritual he then used is, of course, unknown. He attended some of the meetings of the Lodge of Promulgation and was one of the three brethren who attended the Reconciliation demonstrations ten times ,3 s and he undoubtedly brought his working into accord in all essentials with that agreed on by those two special Lodges. He died in December, 1833.
After Gilkes's death, George Claret printed a ritual which, with a degree of probability amounting to virtual certainty, presented Gilkes's working. The earliest edition now known (a copy is in Grand Lodge Library) is dated 1838 and is priced at a guinea, but from a reference in Sadler (p. 18) it seems likely that it first appeared in 1836. Save for a `spurious ritual' of 1825 by Richard Carlile, (originally published in the columns of a periodical and reprinted in book from in 1831), it is the earliest complete record of any post-Union working that we have.
As a member of Emulation, Claret had worked with Gilkes for years; he was evidently an enthusiast, for he attended six of the Reconciliation demonstrations, at some of which he acted as candidate. He was a Past Master of Lodges 12 and 228.
The present writer is indebted to Bro. Arthur Saywell, P.A.G. St.B., for the information that `Gilkes and Claret used to come to the Percy Lodge of Instruction. If one was in the chair, the other was S.W., and the evening was spent in Masonic catechism'. Even though Bro. Saywell thinks that 1829 was the earliest date when a ceremony was performed in that Lodge of Instruction. it is to be remembered that the whole ceremonial formulary of Gilkes had already been incorporated in the Lectures as worked by Emulationists, so that Claret had ample opportunity of learning Gilkes's working accurately.
Introductory 23
Although Claret's Ritual was not actually published until after Gilkes's death, it is not unfair to assume that it was no hurried production but had been in manuscript for some years - even in Gilkes's lifetime - before being put into print.
For these reasons Claret's Ritual may reasonably be accepted as giving the working of Gilkes and therefore that of Emulation at the time, and in the subsequent pages of this book it will be so regarded.
An 1840 edition of Claret contains diagrams illustrative of the `advances' in the three degrees which indicate the same fantastically absurd modes of procedure that are followed by Emulationists today. What is denoted as his second edition' is dated 1841, and his `third edition' 1847.
Mention must be made of another ritual published about the same time, namely, The Whole of the Lodge Ceremonies as taught by the late P. Gilkes. It is to all intents in verbatim accord with Claret and indeed at one time was thought by some to be his first edition, since his `second edition' was then the earliest known. But when the 1838 Claret came to light, this view was exploded. Moreover it was then noticed that the ritual in question bears internal evidence of not having been issued before 1844.
It would appear that one or two other rituals were printed about the same period (e.g. one quoted in The Etiquette of Freemasonry, p. 84) but they do not seem to have attained any great publicity and very few, if any, copies of them now exist.
Claret's Ritual and its numerous subsequent editions were effectively brought to the notice of the Craft at large and, the usefulness of a printed ritual being quickly recognised, they found their way to all parts of the country. There can be no doubt that quite a number of provincial Lodges, where copies had been introduced, brought their workings into accord with the version therein presented, in many cases pretty certainly at the cost of dropping old and perfectly legitimate variants. It was thus that Gilkes's rendering of the ritual became so widely known and adopted.
In some lodges, however, comparatively soon after the Union, manuscript notes of the working, were made and were passed on from one Master to another. They had the effect of stabilising the ritual in those lodges, so that some of their special characteristics were preserved. On such manuscripts certain recently printed rituals are based, for example, the Unanimity Ritual and the Humber Use (see pp. 39 and 42). It may be that the Bristol Ritual (see p. 40), which has never been printed but is still preserved in manuscript, was so stabilised at an early date, but we have been given to understand that no one now knows when it was first written down. In Cornwall notes of certain parts of the ritual were made as early as 1819 and all Lodges of the Province were then ordered to copy them. The old Lodges there are said still to adhere punctiliously to those forms.
24
Introductory
After Claret's death in 1850 his ritual was for a time sold by his widow,'' but in 1870 it was superseded by The Perfect Ceremonies (seep. 36), which professed to give the then Emulation working, though it is somewhat doubtful if the claim was entirely justified in regard to the first edition inasmuch as in nearly all particulars it is in accord with the Claret Rituals. A second edition was published in 1874 which contains many alterations of details that had been made in Emulation since its early days under Gilkes, and it is unlikely that they were all made between the dates of those two editions.
Later editions have been brought into complete accord with the Emulation working and the publishers take the utmost trouble to ensure that any petty alterations that have been made in it, whether by accident or design, since the last edition was issued are incorporated in a fresh one.
Emulationists are wont to take the absurd attitude of either affecting ignorance of the existence of this ritual or pretending that it neither gives, nor ever did give, their working accurately; but it has just been said that `Everyone knows that the Emulation ritual published by Lewis is identical with that taught at Emulation.... It is probably not too much to say that all the present members of the Emulation Committee learnt the words of the Ceremonies from the book they decline to recognise and have a copy in their possession for the purpose of reference. Naturally the Committee cannot give the publication official recognition, but it is something akin to foolishness to pretend that it does not exist'.' 8 Although Gilkes's working was, like all other versions practised since the Union, the `approved' working, it had the unfortunate blot that it was couched in the most lamentable English, and this was no doubt due to his lack of education. The present writer has always felt that if anyone had pointed out to him his errors of grammar, he would readily have corrected them. Naturally, Claret, in printing his formularies, reproduced all his faults, and unhappily Gilkes's successors in Emulation have not only studiously retained them but have even added to them.
Some would have us believe that Gilkes's formulary exactly reproduced that used by Reconciliation; but it is inconceivable that the learned Doctor of Divinity who was the Master of that Lodge and who presided at the final rehearsal should have used such atrocious grammar, or that, even if he and those who filled the other offices on that occasion were guilty of such lapses, it was intentional and that illiteracy was meant to be a permanent characteristic of the ritual for ever afterwards.
As already mentioned, in respect to two details, which the writer regards as `landmarks', definite variations from the general usage of the early post-Union period have been at some time or other introduced in Emulation working (see p. 20). When this was done cannot be ascertained, but it may well have been in the time of Gilkes's immediate successor, Wilson (seep. 33), Introductory 25 for in 1849 Emulation was criticised in the Masonic Press as being `neither correct, orthodox nor grammatical' ,39 and the changes referred to are just such as would rightly be termed `not orthodox'.
It is true that whenever one speaks of differences between the present Emulation formularies and those of the 1830s, as evidenced by Claret's Ritual, Emulationists maintain that they have not altered a word but that Claret's Ritual did not give their then working correctly. But surely any rational being would prefer the evidence of a contemporary printed record to that of notoriously fallible oral transmission through all the intervening years on which alone they profess to rely.
As is well known, the principle of Emulation is a punctilious adherence, word by word, and action by action, to their particular version of the ritual and one cannot but admire the keen enthusiasm which its members bring to bear on their rehearsals of the ceremonies and their zealous, and often successful, endeavours to achieve word-perfect renderings. So long as they restrict their efforts to their legitimate sphere, carrying out their objects within their own walls, no one, save only the Lodge of Unions by whose sanction, and at whose pleasure, they exist, has any right to cavil at, or adversely criticise, the style of their English or the Freemasonic solecisms and irregularities that they perpetrate.
But it is a different matter when their devotees attempt to impose their methods and principles on all and sundry, as they have systematically done in recent years. Criticism and plain speaking then become permissible.
The fact that Emulation meets at Headquarters (as it has virtually done since 1839 when it first went to the Freemasons' Tavern) tends to give it a spurious cachet of authority. But it must be remembered that it has no special position, nor any official recognition or approval. Its status differs in no way from that of any other Lodge of Instruction. Its members have no more right to attempt to impose their own peculiarities of working on any Regular Lodge than a Lodge of Instruction set up today by the youngest Lodge on the roll would have. As Hextall has written, `No Lodge of Instruction possesses the right to prescribe, or place its imprimatur upon, any mode of working outside its own membership; and no official authority attaches to the working or procedure of any Lodge of Instruction, and to this there is no exception or qualification'.' ° Formerly Emulation comported itself in a decorous and constitutional manner, not pretending to be anything but an ordinary Lodge of Instruction, nor claiming that its working had had any special mark of approval or authority.
For many years they were in perfect amity with Stability and until 1879 each body entertained representatives of the other at their annual festivals, recognising that they presented, as Sadler puts it, `two distinct systems of 26
Introductory working ... both acknowledged to be equally correct'4 1 To call them `two distinct systems' is an exaggeration; they are the same system, differing only in immaterial details. But the statement of the definitely pro-Emulation, Sadler that they are `equally correct' is to be particularly noted in view of the attitude now taken up by certain Emulationists that they, and they alone, work a `correct' ritual.
It is worth recalling that in 1869 the then Grand Registrar spoke of the working of Stability as being `the correct ritual of the Craft'." Seeing that the Stability Lodge of Instruction was started by some of those who actually took part in the final demonstration by Reconciliation, it might be expected that that body would follow more closely the wording used on that occasion than did the other body whose working was that of the freelance, Gilkes.
While, however, we know exactly what was the Emulation formulary in its early days, we have no such record of that of Stability at the same period. As the Stability ritual was never printed until 1902, but was ostensibly handed down orally, it is impossible to know how closely its original form has been adhered to. Nevertheless certain similarities between it and 'the Unanimity Ritual (see p. 34) and other old records suggest that in some points the present Stability is more nearly in accord with Reconciliation working than is Emulation.
In 1867 a proposal was mooted for the unification of the Stability and Emulation workings43 but, though it was under consideration for several years, it came to nothing. Some maintain that the fact that such a scheme was contemplated proves that the differences between the two workings were less marked then than they are now. There are no grounds whatever for such a conclusion, and the present writer is of opinion that the differences (which, except in respect of the explanation of the First Degree Working Tools, are all trivial) are probably less now than they were in the 1850s. No doubt petty variations in the formularies have been introduced into both versions since then.
But it matters not whether either of them does, or does not, reproduce the ipsissima verba of Reconciliation. They are both equally the `approved' mode of working. But, in the writer's view, the working presented in the Claret Rituals, besides being the most widely known and used, is - except for its palpable blemishes of illiteracy and certain other solecisms which it is part of the object of this book to point out - fundamentally the most satisfactory and appealing of all the extant versions, with the proviso, however, that the Bristol Ritual (see p. 40) is not included in this comparison because, while just as much the `approved' form as the others, it has so many features, both in method and wording, that are peculiar to itself, that it is really not comparable with them. It is purely a matter of personal predilection whether Introductory 27 it or the type exemplified by Stability, Emulation, etc., is preferred. Nor is it intended to decry any of the numerous local variants or additions that are met with, provided that they conform with the conditions that are hereinafter advocated.
In addition to The Perfect Ceremonies there are many other printed versions based on Gilkes's working, but of all that are known to the writer there was until recently not one that was free from grammatical and other errors. As a rule, however, what is faulty in one is found to be correct in others. The Oxford Ritual (seep. 40) was by far the best but even it is not perfect. On the other hand, The Perfect Ceremonies, which embodies the present-day Emulation working, contains almost every error that is to be met with anywhere, and for that reason it serves as a useful text on which to base the critical commentary that follows. In a few instances the rendering of The Perfect Ceremonies is preferable to that of most of the other versions and such cases will be duly noted.
Some of us feel very strongly that our ceremonies ought to be rendered intelligently and logically; that the language should be unexceptionable on the score of English; and that both words and actions should be strictly in accord with the underlying theory they are intended to express and illustrate, so that it may appeal to, and engage the intelligent interest of, our candidates and be free from anything that tends to evoke adverse criticism from cultured and attentive hearers such as would divert their minds from the sense and tenor of the proceedings.
That was in effect the view held by the author of The Etiquette of Freemasonry to which further reference will be made later (see p. 30). Those conditions nowadays too often fail of being fulfilled and during the last fifty years the position has grown progressively worse as the result of the wide extension of Emulation influence.
Fifty years ago Emulation was unknown outside its own circles in London. Although its ritual, The Perfect Ceremonies, which has long been the most generally used book, bore its name on the title page, that conveyed nothing to most of those who bought it. In those days, in Provincial Lodges especially, an educated brother, whatever printed ritual he used for the learning of the work, customarily corrected in his own delivery the errors, grammatical or Freemasonic, that he noticed, or had been taught to recognise, in it, well knowing that he was under no obligation to follow verbatim what was an entirely unofficial production.
But for some years past it has been increasingly the practice with those who use The Perfect Ceremonies to adhere punctiliously to the printed formulary and ignore all questions of grammar. This is the result of a systematic campaign of propaganda in favour of the Emulation working and the Emulation principle, which was started about 1890 by certain devotees of 28
Introductory that Instruction Lodge whose zeal for the only working they knew outran their knowledge of Freemasonry and their acquaintance with the English language. In furtherance of their object they are wont to take advantage of the natural ignorance of young brethren by impressing them with the idea that Emulation has been granted special recognition and authority and that anything but a strict adherence to its particular formulary is `irregular', a proposition which is absolutely untrue.
As the result of this campaign the Emulation principle has now become very widely spread, so that from a literary point of view the rendering of the ritual has markedly deteriorated, and Emulation, instead of providing (as it might have if it had been controlled by educated and Freemasonically knowledgeable persons) a permanent standard of perfection in ritual working, has become a decidedly debasing influence.
One would, indeed, greatly like to know what warranty Letchworth had for the extraordinary statement attributed to him by Inman, that `the records of Grand Lodge conclusively proved that the Emulation Lodge of Improvement was looked upon as the standard of Masonic perfection'!" It may safely be said that nowhere in those records will any support be found for the assertion quoted.
An interesting side-light on the literary attainments of at any rate one regular Emulation worker is to be found in Sadler,45 where a Brother Parkinson is reported to have said of the Emulation working that, `as a mere matter of literary style, next to the Sacred Volume and the English Prayer Book, he knew of no ritual and no variety of language in which the tongue was set before them so purely and so grandly'! Since the recent spread of strict Emulation working, letters have from time to time appeared in the Masonic Press criticising the bad grammar in which, as a result, the ritual is now rendered in many Lodges. Thus there was one from the late brother Fighiera, P.G.D., in The Freemason of January 23, 1932, in which he complained of `the atrocious grammar in which Emulation - and other workings derived from it - indulge', and he added that `one is increasingly meeting with men of education who decline to perpetuate these grammatical outrages'. And the following week Brother Rockliffe PA.G.D.C., wrote, `[Though my Lodge worked Emulation,] as I declined to give my initiates the impression that one ignorant of the rudiments of the English language was communicating to them the principles and tenets of Freemasonry, I refused to sully my tongue with its "atrocities". It was clear to me that, as the candidate before me knew nothing of Emulation or its "claims", he could not but feel "outraged", as an educated person himself, at the perpetration of those ungrammatical crimes; and that the beauty of the ceremony would not only be marred, but the impression sought to be created in the mind of the candidate hopelessly lost thereby'.
Introductory 29
It is indeed extraordinary that well-educated brethren, when reciting the ritual, can bring themselves to use faulty English that they would not think of using in any other connexion and that they would certainly not allow their secretaries to use in their correspondence. They would surely think better of it if they would for a moment consider what effect a similar perversion of the language of the prayers of the Church would have on its hearers.
When the systematic pro Emulation propaganda was first inaugurated, the officials of the Instruction Lodge affected to stand aloof and, when challenged, were wont to assert that it was merely individual enthusiasm run wild, excusable on the ground of ignorance and entirely contrary to their desire, as they had no wish to impose their working in others. So lately as 1894 Brother Sadlow, then the Emulation leader, speaking at their annual festival, actually deprecated general uniformity of working a s His successor, however, adopted a very different view and himself took an active part in the propagandising campaign, not only in England but abroad. In 1921 Brother Rankin embarked on the project of a tour round the world, which he is reported to have described as his `inevitable pilgrimage for Emulation' .4' Before he started he was presented with the proceeds of a subscription which had been raised by supporters of Emulation under the organisation of its then Secretary, `for the purpose of enablini him to undertake his tour', and `which realised a very substantial sum'.4 He was also given an album containing the signatures of contributors to the Fund, many hundreds in number, which is now in the Grand Lodge Library.
The supplement to The Masonic Record of December 1922 contains the report of a meeting of Emulation, held on November 3rd of that year, at which Brother Rankin, who had returned on September 4th, gave an account of his travels, in the course of which he said: `On the eve of my departure you and some friends of Emulation ... most generously subscribed a gift towards the expenses of my journey, so that a considerable part of the weight of the undertaking was lifted off my shoulders'.
A later incident in this connexion affords an interesting instance of the fallibility of human memory, for when, in 1929, a jocular reference was made to his tour and the fund raised in aid of it49 Bro. Rankin, taking umbrage at the suggestion that his travels had been subsidised, had apparently so completely forgotten the receipt of that useful present that he authorised Bro. Beagley to publish on his behalf in the pamphlet mentioned in the preface to this book, the following statement: `No fund has ever been raised to enable me to go anywhere. Whatever travelling I have done, and I have done very much, has been paid for entirely out of my own pocket'.5 ° It is rather surprising that, although his attention was publicly called, in the Masonic Press, to this lapse, he never saw fit to express regret for having inadvertently been guilty of it.
30
Introductory
On account of its subsequent history, this is, perhaps, an appropriate place to mention The Etiquette of Freemasonry, a small volume published anonymously in 1890, but now known to have been by Franklin Thomas" It was from a perusal of this book, which came out two years after his own initiation and was then recommended to him by Bro. Colville Smith, that the present writer first derived his interest in the ritual. The author held practically the same views that are advanced in this volume namely that, the ritual should be rendered in good English and should accord with the theory on which it is based. He mentioned many details in which, on that assumption, Lodges erred and he was able in almost all cases to quote the practice of other (usually older) Lodges as exemplifying the correct form. In a few matters he tripped from insufficient historical knowledge or an incomplete appreciation of the theoretical aspect, but his main contention is incontrovertibly sound. He made - what nearly everyone regarded as - the mistake of advocating one or two definite new departures in nomenclature as distinct from purely corrective restorations. These he afterwards incorporated in The Revised Ritual (see p. 43).
The Etiquette ran to a second edition, but after the author's death in 1907 in his 90th year, the copyright was acquired in the interests of Emulation propaganda, and in 1919 what was virtually an entirely new book appeared under the name of Freemasonry and its Etiquette, though the title page bears the addition, `with which is incorporated "The Etiquette of Freemasonry" '. It is got up in specious imitation of the real Etiquette but the `incorporation' consists of barely a quarter of the original matter and that merely such portions as were in general terms and had little or nothing to do with the actual ritual. Everything that was in the slightest degree at variance with strict Emulation practice is omitted and the exclusive use of that working is advocated, while its claim to being the only `approved' form of ritual is supported by unwarrantable implications and actual mis-statements.
The original book, The Etiquette of Freemasonry, will be frequently quoted in the course of this volume and will be referred to simply as The Etiquette (or occasionally as Et.) and the reader is asked to bear in mind that by this reference it is the original publication (the 1890 edition) that is intended. Among Freemasonic students the later book is familiarly known as the `spurious Etiquette'.
We must beg for the reader's indulgence while we traverse some of the claims by which the Emulation devotees attempt to further their scheme of propaganda in favour of the ubiquitous adoption of their own special version, and point out the fallacies on which they are based.
They are wont to maintain that their present working is in accord verbatim with that of Gilkes and that therefore it reproduces, also verbatim, the formulary used in the final Reconciliation rehearsal.
Introductory 31
It is true that in the main they follow Gilkes closely, but, as already stated (see p. 25) and as will be shown later in connection with some of the details, the accord is not exact in all particulars. But even if it was so, to claim that it therefore follows that they are equally in verbatim accord with the Reconciliation working is to beg the question, because not only is there no possible proof that Gilkes's working was word for word that of Reconciliation, but there is every reason to believe that that was by no means the case.
In Brother T.W. Hanson's history of The Lodge of Probity, No. 61 (1939), certain letters written by Broadfoot in 1816 are for the first time published. They contain a few excerpts from the ritual which give definite proof that in some details neither Gilkes nor the present-day Emulation is in exact accord with Broadfoot's working which must clearly be taken as that used in Reconciliation. If this is the case in respect of even a few points, all ground for the Emulation claim is swept away. As a matter of fact the letters show that, as regards the fragments of ritual contained in them, none of the present-day versions are in exact agreement with Reconciliation (see p. 25).
Again, on the assumption that the above claim on their part is justified, Emulationists assert that it is an offence against the Constitutions to alter one word or `even a comma'* (the absurdity of altering `a comma' in a working that they pretend has never been printed does not seem to occur to them) of their present working. That this assertion is unwarrantable is evident from what has been said previously in this book.
They do not hesitate to assert that their working is the only working that can be regarded as that which was `approved' by Grand Lodge at the Union and that all others are irregular. This claim is absolutely groundless. It is, moreover, a definite departure from their former attitude when, as Sadler tells us (see p. 26), they recognise Stability as `equally correct' with their own working. In support of it they are fond of quoting a letter from the late Brother Letchworth, Grand Secretary from 1892 to 1917, to the author of `the spurious Etiquette', which it is desirable to give at length: 'While it is true that no edict has ever been issued by Grand Lodge as to any particular working being accepted, nor is it compulsory that Lodges should conform to what is termed the "Emulation" system of ritual, on the other hand' it is an historical fact that Grand Lodge in 1816 definitely adopted and gave its approval to the system of working submitted to it by the Lodge of Reconciliation, and it is also a fact that this is the system which the "Emulation" Lodge of Improvement was founded in 1823 to teach, and which is taught by that Lodge today.
The late Bro. Fenn ... always held the opinion that the "Emulation" working was authorised, and that opinion is also held by Bro. Sudlow, his * See `the spurious Etiquette', pp. 120 and 131.
32
Introductory
successor ... Certainly no other system of ritual has received at any time the official approval of Grand Lodge'.
This letter is a curious mixture of fact and fable. The writer begins by controverting the modern Emulationists' claim that it is obligatory for everyone to follow Emulation working verbatim.* He says with truth that Grant Lodge approved the system of working demonstrated by Reconciliation; but that Emulation was `founded to teach' that - or any other - system of ceremonial working is contrary to fact (see p. 21). No one denies that Emulation, in its rehearsals of ceremonies, works the approved ritual (except possibly in regard to the two `landmark' items previously referred to), (see p. 20), but while it is true that `no other' working has received specific approval by name, that is equally the case with Emulation itself, the fact being that every present-day working is the `approved' working. The letter, of course, expresses merely the personal opinion of its writer. Letchworth, although an efficient and picturesque Grand Secretary, was devoid of any knowledge of, or interest in, the historical aspect of the Craft or its ritual (of which indeed, the letter contains internal evidence) and his opinion in that respect carries no weight. The letter is in fact a specious bit of special pleading, and bears the stamp of having been written to order for that purpose, with one or two truths inserted to salve the writer's conscience.
Emulationists are prone to lay stress on two letters written by former Grand Secretaries in answer to enquiries, wherein the writers say that Gilkes was `fully master of the ceremonies' and taught `the correct method adopted since the Union'." While those statements are true, there is no ground whatever for reading into them the implication that Gilkes used the ipsissima verba of Reconciliation or that nothing but a verbatim reproduction of Emulation working constitutes the `approved' form.
Those letters certainly do not provide any proof, as Fenn pretended that they do, of the truth of the statement, attributed by him to Wilson, that Gilkes was authorised by Reconciliation to teach its workings. 5 3 Still less do they warrant the augmentation that `Gilkes was officially acknowledged by Grand Lodge as the exponent of the ritual of the Lodge of Reconciliation'. As Golby says, `No trace of any such official acknowledgement is anywhere to be found'. 14 Then, as an attempt to answer those who argue that, as Emulation was not founded until six years after the lapse of Reconciliation and did not begin the practice of working ceremonies until even later, there was not an uninterrupted connexion between the two, Emulationists call attention to the short-lived Perseverance Lodge of Instruction which was established in January, 1818,'5 and several members of which became founders of * Lord Ampthill's statement that 'no Lodge is compelled to conform to Emulation working'. `Preface to Rankin's Some Account of the Ritual etc.) Introductory 33 Emulation, `thus forming a strong chain of connexion between the two Lodges [of Instruction]' and `reducing the gap' to only eighteen months. 16 They gratuitously assume that Perseverence used the exact Reconciliation formulary and that it necessarily follows that Emulation did the same. But there are no grounds for that assumption. Although, like other Instruction Lodges, `formed chiefly for the purpose of working the Lectures','' Perseverence did work ceremonies at thirteen of its 130 recorded meetings, but, according to Fenn, as Gilkes was present (and was then elected a member) on the first occasion of the working of a ceremony, `a reasonable inference would be that if Gilkes did not actually do the work it was done under his direction.' $ If so, it was presumably his working and not that used by members of Reconciliation, that was followed.
In support of their pretence that their working had been handed down by purely oral transmission and that nevertheless, in spite of the unreliability of such a mode of perserving verbal details,' 9 their formulary accurately reproduces that of Gilkes, they stress the point that no one member of their body has ever been responsible for maintaining the invariableness of their working but that the responsibility is, and always has been, shared by a Committee, of whom `each has to serve a lengthy apprenticeship"' and who provide an effective check on one another so that no variation has ever been p ossible.
Theoretically that may be so, but Gilkes was notoriously an autocrat and would certainly have brooked no correction .e' His immediate successor, Wilson, probably did need assistance in his early days because he became `leader' only three years after his initiation, and his `lengthy apprenticeship' in Emulation extended to but fifteen months! Indeed, it puts considerable strain on one's powers of credence to accept it as fact that after such a brief novitiate he had attained by oral reception only the proficiency that is supposed to be essential for a `preceptor'.
According to all reports Fenn was as great an autocrat as Gilkes, and no one who knew Sudlow would have the slightest doubt as to what his reaction would have been if anyone - even a fellow member of the Committee - had ventured to correct him.
It is difficult to reconcile the claim of a joint responsibility with Sudlow's own statement, `that upon one member of the Committee rests the responsibility for the teaching of our system. You have heard from our departed Bro. Fenn that four brethren have since the foundation of the lodge in 1823, accepted the supreme responsibility. You know their names - Bro. Peter Gilkes, Bro. S.B. Wilson, Bro. Thomas Fenn and myself.
Incidently, it is to be noted that it was obviously not until Fenn's time that the hide-bound principle of ne varietur was adopted in Emulation, because during Wilson's reign the question of an assimilation of the workings 34
Introductory of Emulation and Stability was for several years under contemplation, 13 although in the end - probably owing to Wilson's death - it came to nothing. Sudlow himself told the present writer that, when he succeeded Fenn in 1893, the latter had made him take an oath that he would never alter a word of the working as he (Fenn) had rendered it. A somewhat rash undertaking had not a printed record of the formularies then been in existence! As a matter of fact the writer, in view of the universally admitted fallibility of oral transmission, is strongly of opinion that the Emulation working would not have been maintained since 1823 with so little variation as has been the case, unless the leaders had - surreptitiously no doubt - availed themselves of either manuscript notes or the printed book as a check on their memories.
Some of the unwarrantable claims put forward by Emulationists are set out on pages 131 et seq. of `the spurious Etiquette', which may justly be described as a tissue of nonsense. Thus it is said that Emulation claims `that it works now, [and] always has worked ... without variation ... of a letter, character or figure', the Ritual settled by Reconciliation `and that alone'; while `whatever the Ritual was settled to be by Grand Lodge in 1816, so it must remain, word for word and letter for letter, until Grand Lodge should see fit to alter it'. Seeing that no one knows exactly what the verbal details of the Reconciliation working were, the remarks above quoted reach the acme of absurdity.
We may fairly apply the author's own words to the very opposite proposition to his and say that `many causes have contributed to' the unfortunate success that has attended the pro-Emulation propaganda `and among them may be mentioned: (1) Apathy of Masons generally.
(2) Want of knowledge or remembrance of past history. (3) Failure to instruct incomers.
(4) Bad advice on the subject'.
He adds a reference to `Modesty on the part of Emulation', the most appropriate comment on which is a series of notes of exclamation! ! ! ! ! The reader will naturally want to ask those of us who advocate the emendation of some of the details of the various present-day versions of the Gilkes working, by what criteria we would judge of the correctness or otherwise of any particular rendering. We would reply that, firstly, in regard to mere points of syntax there can be no difference of opinion among educated persons. At the same time it must be remembered that there are cases where a phrase which on the surface seems bad grammar to us was perfectly good grammar at the time when it was introduced into our ritual. In such cases we should not think of modernising the form, save only in one or two cases, such as those dealt with on pages 159 and 169, where a change in Introductory 35 the accepted usage has resulted in the old form jarring unpleasantly on the modern ear. It is very different when a phrase that is bad grammar now, never was anything else in the whole history of English literature. Similarly, we should not suggest the alteration of a word merely because its meaning has, in the course of years, become somewhat modified.
Secondly, in a case of doubt evidence may be available as to what was the early post-Union form, and we should advocate the resumption of that form. In some such cases the practice of old provincial Lodges may be helpful, because, like Dring, we `should expect to find ... a purer ritual in an out-of-the-way village, where the lodge has been adamantine against modern attempts to [obtain] uniformity of working'. Crowe, too, held that `Provincial custom is quite likely to be as correct as that of London'.6 s Thirdly, where there is no definite evidence as to which of two or more alternatives is the older form, there is the appeal to the Freemasonic theory. One may fairly assume that the Union revisers did not purposely introduce anything that was at variance with that theory but on the contrary meant it to be illustrated rationally and logically as it had been theretofore.
Lastly, seeing that but little change was made at the Union in the accustomed phraseology, there are some cases where it is quite legitimate to consider the evidence of pre-Union rituals and other publications.
By acting on the above principles there will be no differences of opinion among those who have seriously and intelligently studied the subject; and by making such modifications in present-day formularies as are thereby required, we shall not only attain the nearest approach now possible to carrying out the work as the Lodge of Reconciliation intended it to be carried out, but we shall be taking the best course to secure the abiding interest of well-educated recruits to our Order. Surely when such persons here the ritual.performed as it too often is (more especially in London Lodges), and give it their critical attention, they cannot be favourably impressed; and when they are told (as they often.are with a forceful air of authority) that the bad English and the illogical inconsistencies between theory and practice are actually obligatory, can we be surprised if some of them become imbued with contempt for the whole esotery of our system? It should be noted that there are not a few instances where two existing versions are equally logical and where there is no reason to prefer one to the other on the ground of antiquity or otherwise. In such cases it must clearly be left to each individual exponent of the working to use whichever form he likes, and he will probably use the one which obtains in the particular version of the ritual on which he has been brought up.
Some brethren, though admitting the faulty English of the Emulation ritual, will have it that that is a matter of no moment because the candidates are rarely in a state of mind to be critical of the language in which they are 36
Introductory being addressed. That may be so in many - perhaps even in most - cases, but there are exceptions. And after all it is not the literary susceptibilities of candidates only that should be considered. Brethren of mature standing have to hear the work over and over again, and if they have any reasonable degree of education they cannot fail to grow more and more painfully conscious of its illiteracies, until it becomes actually distasteful to them as it is to the present writer, to sit through a ceremony conducted on strict Emulation lines.
The groundless claims and false statements made by Emulationists unfortunately impress and deceive many young and freemasonically ignorant brethren who blindly accept them, and they are constantly reiterated by those who are too untutored or too indolent to think for themselves. They have even had effect on some Provincial Grand Masters, who might have been expected to know better, and who have actually ordered their Lodges to adopt Emulation working in all its details, an action which is utterly ultra vires and in regard to which the late Sir Alfred Robbins, then President of the Board of General Purposes, wrote as follows: `I have long striven to combat the fetish that any particular sanctity attaches to Emulation and from the time of Sudlow, whom I knew well and personally liked, I have laboured to show that, while admiring the pious, though occasionally pompous, zeal of its chief advocates, I could in no way countenance their pretensions; and whenever Provincial Grand Masters have striven to impose this particular working upon their Lodges, I have fought hard and with a deal of success against any such arbitrary interference with the independence of the Lodges and the individual brethren'.
It is often advanced that most brethren nowadays buy The Perfect Ceremonies and that however much one may feel disposed to render the work in English, it is difficult to learn from a faulty book and make the necessary corrections in the course of learning from it. Such brethren could always have bought the Oxford Ritual, in which, as already stated, most of the really serious faults are amended. There is, however, now available a ritual issued by Lewis under the title of The English Ritual - for the publication of which the present writer is mainly responsible - which is essentially The Perfect Ceremonies put into grammatical English and in which, in the few cases where that book differs verbally from Gilkes's working and where definite alterations in practical details have been made since Gilkes's time, the early post-Union forms have been restored either in the text or by rubrical directions. It is based throughout on the principles enunciated in this volume and it is believed that its English is unexceptionable .6 7 It might, perhaps, be thought that, in view of the existence of that ritual, it would be needless to publish the critical commentary presented in the Introductory ,37 following chapters. But the writer has found that, in spite of the vaunted education of the present day, many brethren fail to realise why some of the alterations from the formulary of The Perfect Ceremonies are necessary. Therefore a detailed explanation seems desirable.
It is sometimes said that, even though its working may be open to criticism on the score of bad grammar or on other grounds, a Lodge of Instruction like Stability or Emulation, which professes to maintain an unvarying formulary, is of value in that it provides a standard for comparison and thus serves as a check on undue variations involving possibly not only alteration of wording but even changes of sense which, since there is no authoritative version, might otherwise creep into the working of ordinary Lodges to an unlimited extent. There may have been something in that view in the immediately post-Union period when purely oral transmission had to be relied on. But as soon as printed rituals came into being, or manuscript versions began to be made in individual Lodges, the basis of such an argument was swept away. In any case it is difficult to see that any real good can result from a so-called `standard' unless it is a worthy and unexceptionable one, grammatically rendered and correct in its Freemasonic details; and both Emulation and (though to a slightly less degree) Stability fail to comply with those conditions.
Lodges of Instruction undoubtedly provide a useful training ground for those who, being of somewhat sluggish mentality, find that they can only master the ceremonial working by parrot-like repetition, but it is to be regretted that the methods of such bodies are not more in accord with what is fitting than in the vast majority of cases they are.
The following remarks of W. Bro. David Flather, P.A.G.D.C., are worthy of quotation: - `In the large majority of Lodges little more than the working of the three degrees is communicated to the Brethren. The young Mason of today ... wants to know more. Lodges of Instruction fall far short of their duty in this respect. Most of them are mainly, if not exclusively, concerned with the learning of the particular brand of Ritual they affect and repeating it with meticulous accuracy of detail and action, generally speaking with an entire absence of understanding. Fortunately many Lodges have, of later years, begun to include Lectures and Addresses on Masonic subjects in their Agenda, and this is a move in the right direction, especially if these Lectures are of a sufficiently elementary character to interest and attract the young Mason'.6 e There is one further observation to be made before this chapter is concluded. In `the spurious Etiquette' it is implied at page 137 that variations in ritual details are mainly of modern introduction and it is also stated that `these "Workings" are utterly unauthorised'. The truth is the exact opposite of this. In the years immediately following the Union there were far more B• 39
Introductory variations in working than there are now. The publication, and the wide-spread use, of the several successive editions of Claret's Ritual resulted in the disappearance of a large number of the old workings and a much greater degree of uniformity ensued. It is true that technically the workings referred to are `unauthorised' but, as has been shown, the same is the case with Emulation working itself, since there is no such thing as an `authorised' working at all. Provided that it follows the system adopted at the Union and observes the `landmarks', every `working' in use today can rightly claim to be the `approved working'. And - to quote Crowe - `Many old Lodges have traditional usages and would rather surrender their Warrants than give them up, and it adds greatly to the pleasure and interest of "Visiting" that there is not a dead uniformity of working all over the country ... as long as the essentials remain the same no one need complain'.6 9 2 Rituals Referred to in the Ensuing Chapters In the succeeding portions of this volume reference will frequently be made to certain of the more important or more interesting rituals and, for the sake of brevity, the reference will often be by a single word or a contraction. A list of these is therefore given here, together with some particulars of the rituals that have not been mentioned in the previous chapter.
CLARET Claret's various editions have been mentioned on pages 22, 23 and 38. The later ones have a few petty variations but the earlier ones (of 1838 and 1840) are herein regarded as giving Gilkes's working accurately.
UNANIMITY (or Unan.).
This is a MS. ritual belonging to the Lodge of Unanimity, No. 102, North Walsham. It was written in 1838 by the then Secretary and was copied by him from an earlier MS. In 1814 Bro. C.J. Williams became Secretary of the Lodge and in the following year he was made Senior Warden of the Apollo Lodge, Beccles, in order that he might be qualified to attend the Reconciliation demonstrations in London. The records of Reconciliation show that he did so attend on six occasions.' It is thought that the earlier MS. mentioned above was probably penned by him after he had been present at those demonstrations. But as this - however probable it may be - is no more than supposition, the ritual cannot be regarded as of earlier data than 1838. It is interesting not only as being contemporary with the earliest Claret but because in many details it resembles the present Stability working and in more than one instance the Bristol system. It was printed by the Lodge in 1907. Incidentally the Lodge itself has an interesting history. An account of it will be found in Hamon le Strange's History of Freemasonry in Norfolk and further particulars in a paper printed in the Transactions of the Norfolk Installed Masters Lodge, Vol. VII, 1931, by W. Bro. Sorrell, of Lowestoft, to
whom the writer is indebted for the gift of a copy of the ritual.
Bro. le Strange, who was Provincial Grand Master of Norfolk from 1898 to 1918, wrote of the Lodge and its ritual as follows: 2 `This old established Lodge has preserved certain old-fashioned ways of working that give it a character of its own, which it would be a pity to disturb for the sake of an ideal and impossible uniformity. So long as the real landmarks are preserved, the retention of these little peculiarities is much to be commended as evidence of what the working of our craft was in days gone by'.
Bro. Chetwode Crawley, reviewing le Strange's History, remarked of the foregoing sentence: `These are words of wisdom, born of reflection, and ripened by experience. Our brethren in the English jurisdiction run some risk of aiming at an acid uniformity that deprives our ritual of vitality and can only be attained by that psittacism, which the metaphysicans tell us is the begetter of mental atrophy. Memory is not everything in Freemasonry'.
BRISTOL The Bristol working is probably the oldest that survives in this country. While, of course, it conforms in all essentials with what was `approved' in 1816, it retains certain incidents of pre-Union working (e.g., the circle of swords and the writing test), which have generally been dropped, though one or more of them are still met with in individual Lodges in various localities.
In many ways the Bristol working, especially that of the Third Degree, is more dramatic than is the usual present-day practice.
The ritual has never been printed but manuscript copies are obtainable by brethren who desire them. It is unusually free from grammatical errors, there being only about a dozen altogether. It does not necessarily follow that it was always so nearly grammatically correct; the writer suspects that, as it was never crystalised in print, the faults in the early days may have been more numerous but have from time to time been amended as attention was called to them.
OXFORD (or Oxf.).
The Oxford Ritual did not arise, as some seem to think was the case, in connexion with the Apollo University Lodge. It was compiled by Franklin Thomas- a member of Alfred Lodge, a Pr.S.G.D. and Pr.G.Reg., who was afterwards the author of The Etiquette of Freemasonry (see p. 30) in the early 1850s, when he was in business in Oxford. He probably collaborated in the work with a fellow tradesman, Alderman Spiers, who was for many years the Deputy Provincial Grand Master. It is based directly on Claret's Ritual, but many - though by no means all - of the grammatical faults of that version are corrected. It may be noted that the investiture address by the Senior Warden in the First Degree and the Explanation of the Working Tools Rituals 41 of the Second Degree are given in full instead of in the curtailed forms in which they appear in Claret and which are used in the present-day Emulation working.
The ritual was at first printed locally but the date of its first issue cannot now be ascertained, though it was probably in the 1860s. More than one subsequent edition was produced locally but shortly after 1870 the publication was undertaken by Lewis.
It is used in most of the Lodges of the Province and was at one time, if it is not still, used by some Lodges in the adjoining Provinces as well as very generally in South Wales. It is also still used in some Lodges in East Lancashire, its introduction there being obviously due to the influence of Thomas, who had removed from Oxford to Blackburn, where he became Senior Grand Warden of East Lancashire.
In 1904 a ritual, in waistcoat-pocket form, entitled Ritus Oxoniensis, was produced by Bro. Horlock in collaboration (but pretty certainly only nominally so) with Lord Valentia, then the Deputy Provincial Grand Master: but although it claims to be the ritual `as antiently practised in the Province' and in the main accords with the Oxford Ritual, it differs in some particulars so materially from that book and from what had until then been the accepted local practice, that it cannot be regarded as correctly representing the Oxford working and in our present connexion it may be ignored.' For example, it makes the Master open, and the Senior Warden close, the several degrees `in the name of the Deity, which is entirely at variance with the Oxford Ritual and it also regards summary openings as permissible. (See pages 49 and 137).
THE PERFECT CEREMONIES (or P.C.).
This publication which claims to give the Emulation working at the dates when its numerous successive editions were issued, has already been mentioned (see pp. 24 and 27). When any particular edition is referred to, the date will be given, thus the first edition will be quoted as `P.C(1871)'. Where no date is attached the edition quoted is that of 1920, the issue current when the production of this volume was first under consideration.
Actually, it was first published in 1870, but only one, or perhaps two, of the books with that date are believed to be now in existence. Further impressions were published during 1871, and in the present connexion the issues of these two years may be regarded together as the first edition. The volume was in large 8vo and is an interesting production as the pages have a series of elaborate decorative frameworks with illustrations of the Dance of Death. A second edition was published in 1874 with the same `Holbein borders', as they were termed in the advertisement pages at the end of the book. Later editions were in small 8vo without the borders.
In 1890 it was first issued in the popular and excellently printed 'waistcoat-pocket' form.
In most of the editions there are given in footnotes the more extended forms, or in some cases variants, of certain items of the ceremonial that, although not used in Emulation, were formerly more generally practised than they are now.
It may be mentioned that in 1874 The Perfect Ceremonies of the Mark and Royal Arch Degrees was published. Like the Craft Ritual of 1871, it was in large 8vo with marginal decorations, but the designs are smaller and, though on the same lines, are somewhat different from those of the Craft book.
There are several other Rituals of the Gilkes type, besides The Perfect Ceremonies, used in London Lodges, but they are of no real interest or importance because they only differ from the present-day Emulation working in a very few immaterial points. Among these are the West End Working, the Logic Working, Taylor'sRitual* and the Universal Ritual.
HUMBER The Humber Use is the ritual used in the Humber Lodge, No. 57, Hull. Although not printed until 1922, it claims to be the ritual exercised in that Lodge for over a hundred years. It is based largely on MS. notes of the middle of the last century and earlier, the existence of which has obviated the risk of variation, at any rate since that period. It is noteworthy that there are in it many phrases and expressions which are similar to those of the Bristol Ritual but which, so far as the writer is aware, are not now met with elsewhere. These similarities in places so far apart suggest that they may both contain relics of a working that, before the Gilkes version had-become so wide-spread, was in very general use.
A point of interest in the publication is a prefatory note on the historical literary aspect of a number of words and phrases that are of common occurrence in our ritual.
The writer is indebted to the kindness of Brother Easingwood, the Secretary of the Humber Lodge, for possession of a copy of this most interesting and important ritual.
YORK The York Working of the Masonic Ritual, for the possession of which the writer has to thank Brother G.Y. Johnson, Librarian of the York Masonic Library, is the formulary used in the York Lodge, No. 236 (formerly, and * This was originally issued by Hill as the North London Working. After Hill's death his foreman printer, Taylor, continued to issue it but without any specific descriptive title.
until 1870, The Union Lodge, York). It is based on several mid-nineteenth century MSS., of which the principal one dates from the 1840s. In essence it is the Gilkes version but there are certain noticeable differences of detail.
THE REVISED RITUAL (or R.R.) This ritual was compiled by Franklin Thomas and was first issued in 1888, running through several subsequent editions. It obtained for a time considerable vogue, especially in Lodges in India and the East. In the main it follows the Oxford Ritual but the compiler introduced a few alterations in the accepted terminology which most of us would certainly regard as both unnecessary and undesirable. Thus he employs the term `novice' (in the 1°) and `probationer' (in the 2° and 3°) as applying to candidates who have been obligated but have not yet been entrusted with the secrets. There are, however, a number of footnotes throughout the book, many of which are decidedly apposite and informative, and it is chiefly in connexion with these that the ritual will be referred to.
STABILITY (or Stab.) As already stated, the Stability Ritual was never printed until 1902, having been - ostensibly at any rate - handed down since the Union by purely oral transmission. It differs from the Gilkes version in a numbe= of minor details, and markedly so in the Explanation of the Working Tools of the First Degree and to a less extent in that of those of the Second Degree, the forms of which there given are still found in the practice of some of the older Lodges. As previously mentioned (see p. 26), there is evidence in existence that in some particulars its phraseology is more in agreement with that of the Reconciliation workers than was that of Gilkes.
Stability is the mother of a number of daughter Lodges of Instruction and its working is used in many Lodges in London and elsewhere. There are also several London workings that are derived from it, of which Golby mentions' the Domatic, the South London, the East London and the West London workings and the so-called Metropolitan working.
CARLILE 1825 By this contraction reference will be made to the Ritual of 1825 mentioned on page 22. Although, as a `spurious ritual', it is theoretically unreliable, there is no doubt that in some points it does present the contemporary practice of regular Lodges and provides useful evidence in regard to some of the details.
THE EXETER RITUAL This, although not printed until 1932, claims to `vary little, if anything, from the version taught in Exeter about the year 1817' and worked in St. John the Baptist Lodge, No. 39. It is used by all but one of the Lodges in the city and by several in the surrounding districts. In the ceremonial of the three Degrees it presents nothing that calls for special remark here, though occasional reference will be made to it later on. But the chief interest in the book lies in the fact that it contains the full opening and closing of the Board of Installed Masters which had been for long handed down orally in the above-named Lodge, and it was that Lodge that, when trouble arose in Grand Lodge in 1926 in connexion with this item of ceremonial, was able to provide evidence of its use for over 150 years, evidence which was a potent factor in bringing about the ultimate decision on the matter (seep. 201). A second edition was issued in 1936, but as all the stock and type thereof were destroyed in the air-raid of May 1942, a third edition was printed in 1944 in which a few emendations of faults in unessential details have been made. The writer is indebted to Bro. F.A.F. Cole, P.A.G.D.C., for the gift of copies of the second and third editions.
Numerous details in this ritual indicate that the editor of the first printed edition was to some extent influenced by the P.C. That no doubt accounts for the fact that in the 3° they now teach the Emulation `Sign of G. & D.' referred to on page 194 infra, this being the only ritual in England, except P.C., known to the writer, in which this sign is mentioned.
BRITANNIA (or.Brit.) This ritual is used by the Sheffield Lodges. Although it bears merely the imprint `Sheffield', it is generally known as the Britannia Ritual, apparently because it is published mainly under the aegis of the Lodge of that name, No. 139, which is the senior lodge in the city. In presents a few variants that are probably peculiar to it and it is moderately, but by no means entirely, free from grammatical and other solecisms.
THE ENGLISH RITUAL This is described on p.36 and will be cited on occasion, sometimes simply by the initials ER. It was first published in 1936. Unfortunately that edition was disfigured by numerous typographical errors and by the accidental omission of two lines in the obligation of the First Degree. A revised edition was published by Lewis in 1946 which is believed to be free from mistakes.
There are a few other rituals known to the writer, mention of which may be of interest. There are probably many more in use that he has not met with. In recent years a number of lodges have had their workings printed for 45 their own individual use. Among these are the Veritas Lodge, No. 4983, and the Authors Lodge, No. 3456. It might have been thought that this development indicated a growing distaste for the `atrocities' of Emulation, (see p. 28), but unfortunately most of these rituals - including the two just named - retain many, if not most, of the faults of that version; so it may merely express an antipathy to the pushful pertinacity by which the devotees of Emulation endeavour to impose everywhere the use of their own particular system.
The Authors Lodge is of interest in that it is one of the few London Lodges that open and close the Board of Installed Masters ceremonially. Incidentally, it has embroidered its Inner Working by the presentation of `the Working Tools of an Installed Master' (the trowel, the plumb-line and the plan of the work) adopted from a small volume by J.S.M. Ward.' As the writer had never heard of these until they appeared in Ward's book, he consulted Bro. Vibert, who gave it as his opinion that they were previously unknown and owed their origin to Bro. Ward's inventive faculties.
Another Lodge that works its own rendering of the ritual is the Benefactum, No. 5231. Its ritual has not yet been published but it probably will be in the near future and the writer has been privileged to peruse the typescript copy.* It appears to be entirely free from any details of diction open to adverse criticism, but it has one marked peculiarity in regard to which opinions will doubtless differ, namely that - on the ground that we habitually speak of an Entered Apprentice Freemason and a Fellow Craft Freemason- it systematically uses the term `Master Freemason' in place of the usual `Master Mason'.
All Souls' Lodge, Weymouth, No. 170, has a working some details of which date back to the 18th century and one or two incidents in which will be referred to later (see pp. 142 and 211).
Then there is the curiously-named Common Sense Ritual which was compiled by the late Bro. Crowe, P.G. Org., for the use of his Lodge at Plymouth. Afterwards, when he went to Chichester as organist to the Cathedral, he introduced it into the Lodge there, where we believe it is still in use.
Mention may also be made of the Robinson Ritual which for a fairly long series of years was used in certain Lodges in the Maidstone area but was, about 1910, discarded in favour of The Perfect Ceremonies under pressure from the then Deputy Provincial Grand Master, Bro. John White, who was a bigoted Emulationist. It was compiled by a well-known parson in that locality whose name is perpetuated in the Robinson Lodge, and it was virtually the * This interesting Ritual was published in c. 1928. [Ed] Oxford Ritual with a few variants and interpolations.* Occasional reference will be made to a Scotch ritual issued as Volume XIX of The Masonic Miscellany.' The writer does not know how closely it accords with the common usage in Scotland, but from its publication in that series it may be presumed to be of fairly general adoption in Scotch Lodges. Strictly speaking it is of no concern in a book that deals with the ritual in England, but it comprises a few items that in this connexion have a certain interest.
This chapter cannot be closed without a reference to one other recent production, the Nigerian Ritual (1944). It is part and parcel of the proEmulation campaign of propaganda and aims at securing the exclusive use of that working throughout the Freemasonic District of Nigeria. One gathers from the preface that a Bro. Tasker made a tour through the District in the interests of Emulation, which reminds one of Bro. Rankin's similar `pilgrimages' (see p. 29). The volume claims to have been drawn up by the Deputy District Grand Master and to be a verbatim presentation of Emulation working, and the rubrical directions of The Perfect Ceremonies are considerably elaborated. It is actually issued under the auspices of the District Grand Master who contributes the Preface, in which he advises every brother in his jurisdiction to buy a copy and recommends its general use. In so doing he sails very near the wind, all but rendering himself subject to Bro. Robbins's stricture on `arbitrary interference with the independence of the Lodges and the individual brethren' (see p. 36). The compiler actually makes the unwarrantable statement that `Emulation' is a guide and authority on Ritual! On the eve of going to press the writer received a copy of The Bury Ritual, which he knew of but had not previously seen. In many details it distinctly shows the influence of the Oxford Ritual. Some of its other details are unusual and interesting, and may or may not be peculiar to it. It gives the opening and closing of the Board of I.M.s.
* There was also a Robinson Royal Arch Ritual, similarly based on the Oxford working, which contained some useful and instructive interpolations in the Lectures of the Principles. It met the same fate, and about the same time, as the Lodge,ritual, being supplanted by a version newly compiled by Bro. Sudlow and a few of his Emulation friends.
3 Some Matters of General Concern SIMULTANEITY OF ACTION In the interest of simultaneity of action, which adds so greatly to effectiveness, we would advocate a practice that the late Grand Secretary, Sir Colville Smith, always followed when he was in the chair and the habitual adoption of which he insisted on in his mother lodge, the Apollo University Lodge, Oxford, of which he was Secretary down to the time of his death.
After opening the Lodge, in whatever degree, the Master (and, naturally, everyone else) remains standing until the Deacons have attended to the Tracing Board and have returned to their places. In the Third Degree the G. and R. Salute will now be given.) Then the Master says, "Be seated, Brethren', and all present sit down simultaneously with him.
This is much to be preferred to the more usual custom of the Master sitting down without a word, while the other brethren sit down more or less at once, but practically in a sort of `dropping fire'.
The same practice is followed when the Lodge is closed `in full' in the Third and Second Degrees, and also at certain a point in the course of the Third Degree Ceremony.
Another matter, also bearing on simultaneity of movement, may here be mentioned. At certain places in the openings and closings we take concerted action; thus, at the Master's command we stand to order as E.A.s., F.C.s or M.Ms. Now if the Master, who leads, or should lead, the movement, performs his part deliberately - not necessarily slowly - and distinctly, and the brethren are taught from their earliest days to keep their eyes on him and to `take the time' punctiliously from him, we secure that impressive concurrency of action that is probably seen at its best in military Lodges. The same procedure would obtain when the Master drops his sign in the course of declaring the Lodge open.
In the Second and Third Degree openings, when the Junior Warden orders the brethren to prove themselves, the Senior Warden becomes the leader. He should be as carefully deliberate and distinct as the Master previously, and now everyone should watch him and move in unison with him.
48 Matters of General Concern It may be noted that in the Carlde 1825. when the Junior Warden calls on the brethren to prove themselves, he is made to add, `and to prevent confusion observe the Senior Warden'. And in Unanimity he says, `to prevent confusion take the Sns. from the S.W.' Exeter has the same usage. It has been rightly advanced against this addition that the hypothetical cowan, by watching the Senior Warden, would learn and could copy, that which he does not know. Whereas if he has not been thus specifically told to watch that officer it would not occur to him to watch him in particular, and he would be more likely to attempt to copy those near him or directly opposite to him; and then the very fact that, in addition to his being a little behindhand in his `time', his eyes are not directed towards the west, would render him even more likely than in the other case to arouse the suspicions of an observant Junior Warden.
Similarly, when the Senior Warden declares the Lodge closed; he is again the leader and everyone should watch, and act with, him.
Of course, when a Principal Officer takes a step his feet are not visible, but he can easily make his movements so obvious that his `time' can be accurately followed.
OPENING, CLOSING, and `RESUMING'.
A Lodge once closed cannot be re-opened on the same day (Rule 140, B. of C.), but the Second and Third Degrees may be opened and closed at any one meeting as often as is necessary for the convenient performance of the work.
It has long been a practice of Lodges of Instruction to open up to the Third Degree at the beginning of the meeting and thereafter to jump about from one degree to another by the mere declaration-of the Master that he `resumes' the Lodge in such and such a Degree. That procedure may be permissible in a Lodge of Instruction where those present all know one another intimately and only meet informally for practice; indeed, in such circumstances there is no real necessity to go through any formal openings and closings at all unless it is particularly wished to rehearse them, just as it is unnecessary to do so when the officers of a Lodge meet privately to rehearse a ceremony.
But there is no justification to import the slipshod method of an Instruction Lodge (however venial it may be there) into a Regular Lodge, and it must be remembered that the word `resume' has no place in our ritual. It is an innovation inthe ceremonial and should never be used in Lodge. A Lodge, or a Degree cannot be `resumed'. It can only be `opened' or `closed'. When a Lodge is closed (whether in `full' or `summarily') in the Third Degree, it is then ipso facto open in the Second. And, it is to be noted, it is not permissible to skip a Degree; that is to say, it is irregular to declare the Lodge, Matters of General Concern 49 by a single act, closed in the Third Degree and open in the First. It can only be brought down to the First by passing through the Second. Moreover, it is absolutely contrary to the principles of the Craft, and therefore irregular, to open, or re-open, a Degree `summarily' without the formality of proving that those present are qualified in that Degree. It does not matter in the least whether the Lodge has been in the Degree earlier in the evening or not. An unqualified brother may have entered while it was in the lower Degree, and we certainly ought in theory and practice to take all precautions against the presence of a cowan or of a brother who has not heard or has disregarded the direction to withdraw. It is on record' that this was the opinion of Bro. Hughan, an acknowledged authority on matters of ritual. The editor of The Freemasons' Magazine in 1861 took a similar view' and Bro. Hextall, over his customary signature of 'D.C., expressed his opinion to the same effect.' Hughan also held that skipping a Degree was not permissible.
If the Lodge has previously been opened in the Third Degree and it is necessary to return to that Degree (as when a Raising is followed by an Installation), a shortened form may be adopted for the re-opening, namely, omitting the questions after the essential proving of the brethren and the Junior Warden's report thereon. Thus: W.M. - I acknowledge the correctness of the proof* and declare the Lodge again open on the c. for the purposes of Freemasonry in the Third Degree. A similar shortened form may be used if it is necessary to re-open the Second Degree.
In the writer's young days it was the invariable custom in the Apollo University Lodge, Oxford, and in the other Lodges of that Province, if a Degree had to be opened a second time, to do it with the same full formulary that had been used on the first occasion., Some few years ago the writer took an Irish brother to a London Lodge where the objectionable practice of summary opening was followed and the visitor was horrified at what he regarded as a gross irregularity, as, indeed, it was. Not only so, but he regarded us as unduly careless in our ordinary full openings, for in Ireland they never begin the opening ceremony in any Degree (the First not excepted) until the Deacons have gone round the room and taken a password (in the First Degree a phrase) in a whisper from each person present.
A note in Ritus Oxoniensis (see page 41 supra) says that the Second and Third Degrees may only be opened once in a day, but that after they have been opened the Master may jump the Lodge up and down summarily into any degree as often as he pleases, using the word `resume' when doing so. This statement is absolutely unwarranted and is entirely contrary to the principles and practice of the Oxford Ritual.
* P.C. has `of the Sns.' but Oxford and Bury have the more rational words, `of the Proof'. cf. p. 138.
50 Matters of General Concern KNOCKS, REPORTS AND ALARMS.
(R eprinted from Miscellanea Latomorum, XIX 113.) In theory everyone who seeks admission to the Lodge (with the exception of a candidate for initiation) gives the knock on the door himself and, obviously, if he is a qualified brother, he will, on learning from the Tyler the Degree that is open,* give the knock that appertains to that Degree to intimate to those within that he is qualified for admission. Although modern custom ordains that the knocks are actually given by the Tyler, it is surely obvious that that Officer should give the same knock that the brother himself would have given.
A cowan would not know the proper knock and would, presumably, give some other form of knock (e.g., a single rap or a rat-tat-tat), which would constitute an alarm to the brethren that some one unqualified was trying to get in. It is clear, therefore, that the practice prevalent in many Lodges today, whereby the Tyler gives a single stroke when members or visitors seek admission is quite irregular.
The knocks for candidates are also regulated in strict accordance with the theory. Thus a candidate for passing theoretically knocks for himself and gives the best knock he knows, which is that of the First Degree. In the Second Degree Lecture, Section 1, we find the question, `How did you gain admission?' and the answer, `By the knock of an E.A.' Similarly a candidate for raising gives the best knock he knows, which in his case is that of the Second Degree. It will be remembered that one of the usual Master Mason's * It would appear that with the Antients in the immediately pre-Union time the brother had to glean this for himself. In the Minutes of the Lodge of Promulgation, January 26, 1810, it is recorded that `The W.M. explained the means by which in future the Brethren would be enabled by the Great Lights at the entrance of the Lodge to ascertain the Degree in which it was then open'. (Misc. Lat. IV, 79). Although thus adopted by Promulgation and consequently no doubt ordered to be followed by all Moderns Lodges, the practice was afterwards dropped. It had long been forgotten and the reference to it in those Minutes had puzzled many of us in recent years until Bro. Meekren, a well-known American Freemasonic student, threw light upon it. He tells us (Misc. Lat., XVHI, 33) that in some old country Lodges in New England, where many of their uses are derived from the ritual forms of the Antients, it is the custom (one, he says, which seems to be a genuine survival of old usage) to place a duplicate set of the Three Great Lights on a shelf or stand outside the Lodge door. The Tyler changes their arrangement as he is officially informed (to wit, by the knocks of the Inner Guard on the door) of any change in the status of the Lodge, and the brethren wishing to enter have to learn from their relative positions which Degree is open, so that they may know how to knock to gain admission and which salute to give after entering. This is with a very great degree of probability the clue to the puzzle. Bro. Meekren adds that in the Lodges where this custom prevails a stranger, in the course of being `proved', is almost always asked to demonstrate the arrangement of the 'Lights in one or more Degrees, for which purpose use is made of another duplicate set in the preparation room, where the examination is carried out.
Matters of General Concern 51 test questions is, `How did you gain admission?' and the reply, `By the knock of a F.C.' A candidate for initiation could not, of course, give for himself any knock but that of a cowan, which would not avail him. But our theory is that he is brought into the Lodge by his proposer, who knocks to gain admission for himself and consequently gives the first Degree knock. Hence, in the First Degree Lecture, Section 2, we have the following colloquy: Q. - Who brought you to be made a Freemason? A. - A friend whom I afterwards found to be a brother. Q. - How did you gain admission? A.- By t. d. k.* It was formerly the custom (and happily is still so in those Lodges where a little elementary Freemasonic knowledge obtains) for the Inner Guard, when making the announcements to the Junior Warden, to distinguish between a ,report' (i.e. a correct knock, or the knock of the Degree open) and an'alarm' (i.e., an incorrect, and therefore a warning, knock). And, of course, the Junior Warden, in forwarding the announcement to the Master, uses the same term that the Inner Guard has used to him. Nowadays it has become customary in most London Lodges to use only the word `report' in all cases. This being an attenuation or improverishment of ritualistic formality, as well as contrary to Freemasonic theory, is much to be regretted.
The writer knows one Lodge where, although they still retain the distinction between the two words, they commit the very curious solecism of using them in the inverse sense, calling a correct knock an `alarm' and a wrong knock a `report'. This irrational practice can only have arisen through lack of appreciation of the reason underlying the use of the words. It is an interesting example of how an error, once committed through ignorance, can become stereotyped and persistently continued by unthinking brethren.
In the case of a candidate for initiation the announcement can only be of a ,report', because, as already explained, the correct knock of the Degree open is given. It is, however, customary for the Tyler (in order to let the Lodge know that it is for the candidate and not for an ordinary member or a visitor) to give the knock rather more loudly and more deliberately than usual.
A faulty custom has grown up in some Lodges, when closing `summarily' in the Third or Second Degree, of giving the knock of the Degree into which the Lodge is lowered, i.e., the knock of the Second Degree when closing the Third and that of the First when closing the Second. This is utterly irrational. When we close `in full' we always give the knock of the Degree that is being closed, and there is no reason to do otherwise when we close the Degree summarily; in fact to do so would theoretically mislead the Tyler. When the Tyler hears the knock of a particular Degree `go round' (i.e., hears the series of * In 1730 `admittance' was by `three great ks'.
52 Matters of General Concern four knocks by the W.M., and S.W., and J.W. and the I.G., which series he himself has to complete by a fifth knock on the door), he knows that the Lodge has been opened in that Degree. It continues in that Degree (and he informs anyone who desires to enter of the fact) until he hears the same knock `go round' again, which occurs when the Degree is closed. Suppose that the Lodge has been opened in the Third Degree and that in closing it summarily the knocks of the Second Degree are given. It is the second time that the Tyler has heard the series of Second Degree knocks and this is an intimation to him that the Second Degree has been closed. It is true he has not heard the Third Degree knock go round a second time (to intimate the closing of that Degree), but he can only presume that either he has forgotten it or that he failed to hear it and the Master did not wait for his final knock to complete the series. It is, therefore, obvious that when closing `summarily' the Master should give (being followed by the Wardens and the I.G.) the same knock that he would have given if he had done the closing `in full'.
Some Masters have a way of saying, `By virtue of the power vested in me, I close the Lodge in the Third Degree and resume it in the Second'. Apart from the irregularity of the word `resume' (see p. 48), the last six words are unnecessary. The Lodge has become automatically open in the Second Degree when it was closed in the Third and it is pointless to announce the fact.
Very occasionally one hears a Master, when closing summarily, proceed as follows: He says, `By virtue of the power vested in me, I close the Lodge in the Third Degree [He then gives the knock of that Degree which goes round] and resume it in the Second [and then gives the Second Degree knock which also goes round]'. This is irregular as being contrary to theory and is misleading to the Tyler who gathers, or should gather from the second round of knocks, that the Second Degree has been closed.* In the course of the Installation ceremony the Installing Master is often heard to direct his successor thus: - `You will now close the Lodge in the Third Degree or [sic] resume it in the Second'. But as already shown, these are not possible alternatives. All he can do is to close in the Third Degree. He cannot get into the Second without doing so. The direction that should be given is: `You will now close the Lodge in the Third Degree, which you may do in full or summarily, as you please'; and whichever course the Master decides to adopt, he should give the Third Degree knock.t The curious practice of the Master giving the closing knock with his left hand may here be mentioned. The late Bro. Hextall, P.G.D., in his pamphlet on Craft Ritual (1902), wrote of it as follows: * This solecism is actually prescribed in the Exeter Ritual (1944). pp. 33 and 36.
t The Exeter Ritual has the phrase, `You will now close the Lodge in the Third Degree and [sic] open it in the Second': and the same mutatis mutandis when the Second Degree is to be closed. This is even worse than the more common formula.
Matters of General Concern 53 `A practice which seems to prevail in some Lodges induces me to express a decided opinion that the final knock given by the Master in a closing ceremony should be given with the right, and not with the left, hand. If the left hand is used, it gives an awkward appearance, as well as personal inconvenience, to the Master himself, and is also an infringement of that strict observance of squares, levels and perpendiculars which was enjoined upon each of us at Initiation. I suppose the idea prompting the use of the left hand has been that until the Senior Warden has actually pronounced his words of closing the Master should retain the sign; but his part in the ceremony is at an end when he has given the command, and there is no reason why he should give the knock otherwise than with his right hand. It is obvious that if the Master were to retain the sign in closing in the Second Degree it would be physically impossible for him to give any knock until the Senior Warden's duty was performed'.
In the copy of this pamphlet that Bro. Hextall gave to the present writer he has written in the margin, `I feel strongly about this. The knocking with the left hand appears to me nothing less than atrocious; and it is quite a modern innovation of comparatively recent date (as is the habit of the Can. standing with legs crossed in part of the 3° ceremony)'. It is not mentioned in the Claret Ritual, which at any rate suggests that it was not Gilkes's practice, for if the awkward and unnatural action had been adopted by him, it is most unlikely that it would not have been specially mentioned in the printed exposition of his working.
It may be added that in 1914 Hextall again referred to its as an `objectionable innovation' that `originated in the inventiveness of some Preceptor of a Lodge of Instruction'.
Although the writer entirely agrees with Bro. Hextall's strictures on the practice, it does not seem to be of quite such recent introduction as he thought, for the left hand knock is actually prescribed in the Oxford Ritual, though, curiously enough only in respect of the First Degree closing.
It is interesting to note that the Bristol custom (a custom which, like all their practical ceremonial, has undoubtedly been handed down unchanged since the time of the Union) is really rational. The Master, when he has delegated to the Senior Warden the duty of closing the Lodge, drops his sign, gives the knock (with the right hand) and sits down. He has finished his job and retires from the command, leaving the Warden in charge. Everyone else naturally remains standing and retaining the sign. The Senior Warden then does his part and when he drops the sign all the others do so simultaneously. In Lodges elsewhere it is obviously not advisable for the Master to sit down after giving his knock, for some of the brethren might unthinkingly copy him and so confusion would result, but he should certainly discharge his sign and knock with his right hand.
54 Matters of General Concern It may be noted that in Carlile 1825, after the Master has commanded the Senior Warden to close the Lodge, a rubrical note directs that he `Gives the knock and sits down'. And the Senior Warden is similarly directed after he has declared the Lodge closed.
Occasionally one sees the Senior Warden also give the knock with his left hand. There is no possible excuse for this gaucherie, though it is only carrying the absurdity a step further. Perhaps the next thing will be for the Junior Warden and the Inner Guard to use the left hand too. This left-handed innovation cannot be too strongly deprecated.
We conclude this section by a reference to the curious custom introduced into certain circles in comparatively recent years, of the Master giving a resounding double knock (which is not repeated by the Wardens) when the presence of the Tyler is required in the Lodge, for instance when he is about to be invested on Installation night. The custom is, strictly speaking, irregular. In the first place it is a knock that has no freemasonic significance. Secondly, the fact that the Wardens do not repeat it contravenes the old-established rule that every knock given by the Master should be `answered' by the Wardens. Further, while the obvious reason for the knock being given so loudly, as is invariably the case, is that the Tyler may hear it and take it as a summons to enter, that Officer cannot possibly act upon it until the Inner Guard opens the door to admit him. Although, in view of the wide prevalence that the practice has now obtained, the writer is not prepared incontinently to condemn it, it does appear to him that it is an unnecessary innovation and that it would be more seemly for the Master, instead of knocking, simply to request the Inner Guard to call in the Tyler, which is customary when - as is the practice in some Lodges - he is brought in to recite his own duty (seep. 80).
SPS., SNS., and SALUTES It is the rule that whenever a sn, qua sn., is given, it should be preceded by a sp. Thus the sp. is taken when we are called to order, and when we prove ourselves in the openings and closings; when we show the sn. to demonstrate our qualification on entering the Lodge; when we leave the Lodge; and when a brother addresses, or is addressed by, a superior.
But when the sn. is used as a salute - a gesture of courtesy, as it were - there is no need to preface it by a sp. Therefore, when the E.As. `greet' their newly installed Master, the sn. by which they do it is not preceded by a sp. Similarly, when the F.Cs. are called to order in readiness for their salute, they do not take the sp. And, obviously, when brethren salute the Master as they go in procession round the Lodge, or when a candidate in his perambulations merely passes a Principal Officer, there is no preliminary Matters of General Concern 55 sp. To halt in order to take a formal sp. on such occasions would be as ludicrous as for a soldier, when passing an officer, to halt and come to attention before saluting. But, naturally, the person saluting will turn his head towards the officer as he gives the salute.
A brother addressing a superior in the course of the ceremonies invariably gives the sn. and keeps it up while speaking. But opinions differ as to whether an officer who is addressed by a superior should rise and stand with the sn. or should remain motionless. There is little doubt that the old custom was for him to show due deference to his superior by rising with the sn., but in some Lodges today this courtesy is habitually omitted.
Opinions also differ as to whether a brother who has occasion to address the Master on a matter of Lodge business should retain the sn. all the time he is speaking, or should give and complete it before begining to speak, and give it again when he has finished. This detail has been discussed on two occasions in Miscellanea Latomorum. 6 On the whole the latter practice would seem to be preferable.
As there has never been any authoritative ruling on either of the points just mentioned, it is open to every Lodge to follow whichever custom it likes. On entering a Lodge it is sufficient to take the sp. and give the sn. of the Degree then open, and the same applies to withdrawal from the Lodge. A knowledge of the sn. of a higher Degree necessarily implies a knowledge of that of a lower and therefore it is needless to give the latter as well as the former. It is generally those who are prone to `show off' or to give themselves airs, who, if they enter a Lodge in the Third Degree, make a practice of going through the whole series of sns.
With regard to the `three regular sps.', one of which is taken in each degree as a preliminary to the sn., many a Brother can recall a certain feeling of surprise when, as a candidate, he was taught that the three are identical in the mode of performance. Yet, incongruous though it seems, there is no doubt that such is the case nowadays in the vast majority of Lodges. It is however, interesting to know that in the Bristol and Humber workings the first sp. is taken in the usual way, but the second is the exact reverse as regards the movements of the parts concerned, while the third, though begun like the first, is concluded by coming h. to h. The same method of taking the second is prescribed in the Unanimity Ritual; the third is not mentioned therein but it is not an unfair presumption that the practice accords with the other two workings just cited. This agreement in places so far apart certainly suggests that their method was general in early post-Union days, and it is at least possible that Gilkes may have been responsible for the alteration to the system that is now commonly followed.
In the Installation ceremony it falls to the Director of Ceremonies to direct the salutes given to the newly installed Master in the several Degrees.
56 Matters of General Concern In giving that of the First Degree he should be punctilious in performing it, and seeing that it is performed, in three distinct movements which may be indicated by the letters p. 1. r. The first motion, the `p', should on no account be omitted or slurred.' In the Second Degree salute, a comparatively modern innovation met with in some Lodges, and presumably introduced by someone with a perverted sense of humour, is to end the direction with the words, `in time with the knocks of the Degree'. This is pointless and nearly always results in such confusion as to render the procedure ludicrous. The motions should be made at regular intervals. The part of the badge referred to is in its lower right hand corner. Occasionally one sees the D.C. and the brethren hitting themselves on the epigastrium instead of on the thigh.
It may be noted that in Bristol working the order of the movements is h., b...t, b...e, and this certainly has a more seemly effect than the method adopted in most other Lodges.
In the Third Degree salute also Bristol differs slightly from the general mode in that they do not, as most of us do, use for the purpose the Sri. of J. and E. purely and simply but the downward motion thereof is interrupted. Their method will probably be understood if we say that the movements may be indicated in the same way as those of their Second Degree salute but in this case both arms are employed similarly and simultaneously.
It need hardly be said that when coming `to attention' preparatorily to giving a salute, the D.C. should not slap his thighs any more than does a soldier when assuming the attitude. This is a gaucherie too often in evidence nowadays.
THE ATTITUDE TO BE ASSUMED DURING PRAYERS AND OBLIGATIONS s It was formerly the custom to stand during obligations with the `S ... g. Sn. or Sri. of F.', everyone thus silently reaffirming his own adherence to the solemn undertaking that is being recited. During prayers the brethren stood to order with the sn. of the Degree.
But in comparatively recent years a considerable number of Lodges have altered this rule and now use the sn. of the Degree during obligations (in some cases in the Second Degree the Sri. of F. only) and in prayer adopt what they call the Sign of Reverence or of Prayer, which they say differs from the Sri. of F. in the position of a digit. In fact, however, there is no such sign as the latter in Freemasonry. It is not taught in any of the three ceremonies and it is, therefore, patently irregular to use it in a Lodge.
In a discussion of the subject some years ago in Miscellanea Latomorum a brother actually admitted that `the sign of prayer is not taught in any Lodge but in Lodges of Instruction'!' That stultifies his support of its use, for no Matters of General Concern 57 Lodge of Instruction has the right to invent, and to teach, any sign that is not taught in the course of the recognised ceremonies.
The attitude of this so-called Sign of Reverence or Prayer is not even suggestive of either the quality or the act. It is suggestive of fidelity and secrecy and is, indeed, used in that sense as part of a sign in the Royal Arch.
Present-day practice varies so much that one must be content to copy the action of the members of the Lodge in which one finds oneself. But undoubtedly the correct (as being the rational and certainly the older) method is to use the sign of the Degree during prayers and that of F. during obligations, the latter being of course, retained until after the formal `sealing'.
It is to be observed that in the Bristol Ritual a note directs that `during the Obs. the Brethren stand making the Sn. of F. until after it is sealed'. This is good evidence of the antiquity of the practice. The Exeter Ritual directs the Sn. of F. to be used during all Prayers and Obs.
Exception is sometimes taken by the punctilious to the exhibition of the Sn. of F. during the obligation in the First Degree, but they forget that it is invariably used by all the brethren when the I.P.M. recites his closing tag in that Degree. Such an idea was evidently in the minds of the early Emulationists, for in Claret's Rituals (as well as P. C. (1871) and P. C. (1874) ) the rubrical direction before the First Degree obligation is simply, `The Brethren rise and place the r...t h...d on the l...t b...t'. But even if the candidate could see it, or if an E.A. were present, the Sn. of F. is such a natural position in the circumstances that neither of them would suspect that it had any esoteric import. It was apparently at some later date than 1874 that Emulation adopted their present practice of using the sign of the Degree instead of that of F. during obligations.
It had similarly been argued that it is wrong to let the candidate see us standing to order during the prayers at the beginning of the ceremonies of passing and raising. But, as in the case previously mentioned, the attitudes have as yet no esoteric meaning for him, and even if he should suspect that they may have some such import and the ceremony should have to be interrupted on account, say, of his sudden illness, he is precluded by his former obligations from disclosing them.
It may be desirable to emphasise the point that the dictates of good manners require a visitor to conform with the custom of the Lodge in which he happens to be in regard to any details of practice in which he may know, or notice, that it differs from the custom of this own Lodge. Nothing looks worse in, say, a Lodge which has adopted the innovation of standing to order during obligations with the sign of the degree than to see visitors from Lodges that follow the older practice standing - often somewhat ostentatiously so -- with the Sn. of F.; and vice versa. This applies equally to the position of the hand in the H. Sn. of the Second Degree mentioned at page 171.
58 Matters of General Concern STANDING TO ORDER.
It is thought well to include a reference to this subject because of a tendency that the writer has occasionally noticed on the part of individuals, and even of Lodges, to adopt a procedure that is at variance with long established practice.
When `coming to order' in the 1° the first two movements of the sn. should be made and the position then attained held for as long as is required. The arm should, of course, be held well up and the hand kept flat with the fingers extended. Any sagging should be avoided, though perhaps some little licence in this respect may be allowed to aged brethren to whom the ideal position is somewhat of a strain if it has to be retained for any length of time. In assuming this position the first movement of the sn. is too often slurred or even - as in those Lodges where the sn. is wrongly taught (see pp. 20, 25 and 138) - entirely omitted. When the time comes to determine the `orderly' posture, the sn. is completed by its third movement and the hand is dropped to the side.
In the 2° the S. of F. and the H.S. are made and the position is retained. In dropping it, the H.S. is dismissed and the P.S. is given before bringing the hand to the side.
The faulty practice mentioned above consists, in the 1°, in completing the sn. and then reverting to the position at which the movement should have been arrested. In the 2° the P.S. is given (but without dropping the H.S.) and then the S. of F. is re-assumed (see p. 172).
When we are called `to order as M.Ms.' (as in the 3° closing) no sn. is given, but the position that is ordinarily arrived at in the `recovery' after the P.S. has been given is directly assumed. The hand should, of course, be kept in the position described at page 196. In due course the hand is simply dropped to the side without any preliminary horizontal movement.
PASSING ROUND THE LODGE No doubt in theory, on the `squares, levels and perpendiculars' principle, everyone passing round, or moving about, the room should `square the Lodge', that is, should follow the periphery of a rectangle whose sides just clear the pedestals and the Secretary's table (and of course, any seats for the brethren that may project beyond those pieces of furniture), or, if he has occasion to go nearer the centre of the room, lines parallel to those sides, making every turn a right angle.
S ... g, i.e., SHIELDING Possibly in olden times that rule was always followed, but nowadays it is usually considered sufficient if it is strictly adhered to by the Deacons when Matters of General Concern
59 in charge of candidates, by the Wardens when they `make trial' at a certain part of the Third Degree ceremony, and by the brethren when they go in procession round the Lodge at an Installation. In other cases a brother need not punctiliously follow straight lines and make right-angled turns, but he should, of course, always go round `with the sun' and not `withershins'. Thus in the Bristol Ritual in the instruction, `Those brethren wishing to proceed to seats in the S. (when the Lodge is open) should do so by way of the N. and E.* Yet even to this rule exceptions are generally permissible in the case of short journeys. Thus, when the Senior Deacon fetches the Minute Book from the Secretary's table and takes it to the Master for signature, he may go to and fro by the short direct route. If he were to go right round the room in order to reach the Secretary and again round it when returning the book, it would savour of undue, and even unseemly, pedantry. This applies also to the Senior Warden when he returns to his chair after investing a candidate. But with longer journeys the rule ought to be strictly observed. The Senior Deacon, when going to the door to receive a candidate, should invariably go across the east, down the south and across the west; and similarly, the D.C., in going to receive distinguished visitors, should proceed down the south side of the Lodge and not down the north.
Deacons when in charge of a candidate should at all times make him square the Lodge formally and should never lead him diagopally across the room, a slovenly practice sometimes seen today that probably results in copying the slipshod method of an Instruction Lodge.
When `squaring the Lodge' a brother should not halt at each corner and make play with his feet like a sentry turning at the end of his beat. This habit, which is often witnessed, introduces an undesirable element of comedy into the procedure (cf. p. 91).
In connexion with the placing of the newly passed F.C. at the S.E. part of the Lodge, Exeter has the curious rubrical direction that "the S.D. conducts him to the S.E. by way of the S. Note: - This is the only occasion in Craft Masonry when the advancement to the E. is by way of the S." It is difficult to imagine how such an utterly pointless variation from normal practice can have arisen. Let us hope that it does not obtain anywhere else.
It is probably unnecessary to say that whenever anyone has occasion to pass the Master, he should salute (but see pp. 95 and 102), but, of course, without halting while he does so (see p. 54). Formerly it was the custom - a custom still kept up in some old Lodges - similarly to salute each Warden.' ° * Quite recently the writer actually saw a Past Provincial Warden, whom one would have expected to set a better example, on entering the Lodge proceed to his seat, among the Past Masters by way of the west and south! 60 Matters of General Concern L...GorH...G.
In regard to the cautious reciprocal interchange of certain secrets in the First and Second Degrees in the manner indicated in the heading of this paragraph, may unintelligent Wardens, and even some Masters, seem to think that because their printed book puts (as the PC does merely by way of example) into the mouth of the officer the words, `Which you please, and begin', no other formula is permissible, and we hear it repeated ad nauseam. It is much better for the officer to give the candidate definite instructions as to which of the several possible variations he is to adopt (e.g. `h. it and begin' or `I. it and I will begin'), and it is well to ring the changes; that is to say, the Junior Warden should notice which mode the Master uses in his catechism in the course of the `entrusting' and should himself adopt a different form. Similarly the Senior Warden will in his turn select a third variant.
It must be observed that after the I...g or h...g, the secret ought not to be repeated `at length', as is too often done, because the procedure is designed for the education of the candidate in the mode of `probation' that is available for use outside the Lodge. In such circumstances it would not be permissible to utter the secret in full (to do so would virtually be a violation of one's obligation) and therefore it is better not to do so in this rehearsal, notwithstanding that it is actually taking place in open Lodge where the utterance in full is really allowable.
As the result of the common practice in this respect the writer has more than once been present when a stranger was being tested in the anteroom and, after the interchange of the secret, it was given in full by both parties, neither of whom realised that he was contravening the injunction laid on him when it was originally communicated to him.
The only ritual, other than the English, known to the writer in which this point is specifically mentioned is the official Ritual of the Grand Lodge of New Zealand, where on each occasion that the interchange occurs, a rubric directs that, `The w... is 1... or h... , but not given in full'.
THE FIRST JOINT.
We often hear Masters, in a certain connexion, refer to `the first joint of the hand' or sometimes to `the first knuckle joint'. The former expression is meaningless. To the anatomist it conveys nothing, because there is no joint to which the term can be applied. If forced to give an opinion as to what it might mean, he would undoubtedly say that it could only be the joint between the bones of the wrist and the upper ends of the metacarpels (the bones of the palm). The second term is a definite anatomical locality but it is not what we intend to refer to. The knuckle joint is, in the average man's hand when the fingers are flexed, a full half inch along the finger from the Matters of General Concern 61 knuckle. What is meant, and what should, therefore, be said, is simply, `the first knuckle'. It may be added, although it is impossible to explain the point here, that at one time in our past history the mention of the knuckle joint was probably correct, but it has not been so since as far back as 1730, when the word `knuckle' was properly used." A DETAIL IN THE SECOND DEGREE PREPARATION.
It is not known when the formality of preparation in the several Degrees came into vogue, but, if we accept Vibert's view that the Second Degree was originally evolved by a division into two of the old `Apprentice's Part', we should naturally expect the preparation in that Degree to be the exact opposite in each particular to that in the First Degree, and that, therefore, in the Second Degree the right b. should be made b. That actually is the case in nearly all the old workings - in Unanimity, Bristol, Exeter and York, as well as in Carlile 1825. But in Claret the left b. is prescribed as it is in the Oxford Ritual which is based directly on Claret. Practically all workings today except Emulation and Oxford' 2 (and also, rather curiously, Humber) make b. the right b. and it seems at least possible that Gilkes himself made the alteration to left. P.C. (1871) and P.C. (1874) have `right', which suggests that Emulation had by then fallen in with the older and usual practice, though since the latter date they have, as indicated by the modern P. C. , and confirmed by Inman" reverted to `left'. In this book, and in the E.R., it is assumed that the older, and still the more general practice, is followed. It may be observed that in Stability working no distinction is drawn between right and left, and in each Degree `the B.' (i.e. both bs.) is made b.
THE BIBLE OPENINGS.
The practice in regard to this detail has varied from time to time and is not uniform now. In a ritual of 1762 a note directs that the Book should be opened at 11 Peter in the First Degree, at Judges xii in the Second, and at I Kings vii in the Third. According to another ritual of the same period it was - with the Moderns at any rate - to be opened at the Gospel of St. John during the First Degree obligation.
But since quite early in the 19th century (possibly even before that, for we have no indication when it started) the practice in London Lodges has been to keep the book open at 11 Chronicles ii throughout the meeting. We find evidence of the long standing of this custom in the dirty state of the leaf on which this chapter occurs in old Lodge Bibles.
No place for the opening was prescribed in the Gilkes Ritual nor until lately in P.C. ; and one gathers from Inman' a that in Emulation the Book is opened haphazardly at no particular chapter. But in recent editions (1918) C 62 Matters of General Concern and after) P. C., II Chronicles vi is prescribed. We do not know by whom this alteration was inspired.
In Yorkshire (at least in the older Lodges in that county) it appears to be the custom to open the volume in the First Degree at Psalm cxxxiii; in the Second Degree at Amos vii; and in the Third at Ecclesiastes xii. That practice is believed to obtain also in America, where it is, or was, a frequent usage for the Master to recite that chapter of Ecclesiastes, or for the brethren to sing a metrical version of it, while the candidate for raising perambulates the Lodge. In this country, as the reader doubtless knows, it is often recited at a later point in the course of that ceremony.
Bristol Lodges adopt openings which are possible peculiar to themselves. Moreover it is there the practice for the Master, immediately before declaring the Lodge open, to recite the verse or verses that are about to be exposed. In the First Degree the reference is Ruth ii, 19; in the Second, Judges xii, 5 and 6; and in the Third, Genesis iv, 22. This may be a relic of the pre-Union Moderns' practice, when with them the P.Ws. had acquired a greater importance than the `words' (cf. p. 15).
Except where there is some good reason for adopting particular openings (for instance that which obtains in Bristol, or the existence of an old-standing custom in the Lodge), the writer agrees with the Emulation view that a haphazard opening will suffice, though on the whole he is of opinion that, if the same opening is to be retained throughout the meeting, II Chron. ii is probably the most appropriate and this is prescribed in the English Ritual.
Whether the Book should be placed so that the Master can read it or so that the candidate could do so, does not greatly matter, but it is more rational, as well as the generally accepted practice, that it should be placed for the Master to read. If, however, it lies on a separate support, close up to, but at a lower level than, the pedestal, and practically beyond the reach of the Master's vision, it is more appropriate that it should be the other way round, so as to be readable by the candidate, as was the practice when it lay on an altar in the centre of the room. In either case the S. and Cs. should be so situated that the arms of the former, if produced, would include the candidate between them.* THE LESSER LIGHTS In the earliest days of our modern speculative Craft, that is at the beginning of the 18th century, the Lodge was said to have three lights representing `Sun, Moon and Master Mason', and these were three large candles. Exactly where they were placed is not recorded. There were also three `fixed lights', * The view is strongly held nowadays that whichever way the V.S.L. is facing, the points of the compasses should be towards the foot of the page and this is the practice in Grand Lodge. [Ed].
Matters of General Concern 63 which were said to be situated East, South and West, and whose purpose was `to light men to, at, and from their work'. These we are told were three actual or imaginary windows on those sides of the Lodge Room.
Subsequently, the two triads of lights were evidently merged into one, the three candles which were known by the Moderns as `The Three Great Lights' but by the Antients as `The Three Lesser Lights', for the latter body applied the term `Great Lights' as we do now. The candles stood on the east, south and west sides of the Lodge Board, as they still do in Bristol, in Cornwall, in at least one London Lodge, the Lodge of Antiquity, No. 2, and perhaps elsewhere.
From quite early days the candlesticks were in the form of columns of the three principal Orders of Architecture, and Heiron gives an illustration' 5 of three such candlesticks that were bought in 1739. When the Orders first became associated with the abstract qualities of Wisdom, Strength and Beauty (which in 1730, as now, were said to be the hypothetical Three Great Pillars that support the Lodge) does not appear to be known. They were certainly so associated by the Moderns in 1789 and probably earlier, and it would seem that Wisdom, Strength and Beauty were then represented respectively by the Doric, Ionic and Corinthian Orders. This supported by the fact that in several of the old Tracing Boards illustrated by Dring in his papers on the subject' 6 the initials of the qualities placed on the pillars indicated that allocation.
When they are regarded as representing the Sun in the successive parts of his daily course, the situation of the lights is rational. But difficulty arises when we regard them as typifying the Sun, the Moon and the Master of the Lodge, as in our ritual they are now said to do.
So long as they were, or are, in the Centre of the Lodge it does not really matter which represents which, and probably it was tacitly assumed that the east light, on the Doric column, symbolised the Sun, the south light, on the Ionic column, the Moon, and that in the west, on the Corinthian column, the Master.
Then came the time when the candles were in most English Lodges moved to the places they now occupy, namely, close to the Principal Officers. When this was done is not definitely known, but it was probably coincident with the introduction of pedestals for the Wardens, that is, shortly after the Union. It seems likely that at first the candlesticks, which in most cases were of comparatively small size, were put on the pedestals, but, as they were found to be somewhat in the way there, they were subsequently provided with special bases so that they could, without being dwarfed by the pedestals, stand at the side. Which side they were put on was a pure matter of chance. There is no symbolical or other reason to prefer one side to the other. Some Lodges, as those of Oxfordshire, put them on the Officers' left. In the old room of the Apollo University Lodge, which was furnished in 1863, the 64 Matters of General Concern candlesticks screwed into sockets let into the floor on that side. London Lodges appear to have generally put them on the right. When they are on that side, however, they are often very decidedly in the way of a Deacon in the course of his perambulations with a candidate. A very little clumsiness on his part, or even a quite unavoidable accident, may easily result in a shower of wax on his coat (see below). On the other hand, if they are on the left, there is no `Boxing Up' of the Deacon and candidate when going through a `probation by the Warden, and that is by far the more convenient side on which to have them. No Lodge that has ever tried them on the left will want to revert to the other side.
The change of place has given rise to a very obvious difficulty in regard to the symbolism. In our present ritual the only reference to the lights is when they are pointed out as being `situated east, south and west' and as representing the Sun, the Moon and the Master. This undoubtedly implies that it is the light in the west, the one by the Senior Warden, which typifies the Master, and this must appear, even to- the candidate, distinctly incongruous. Moreover, if it be true that at the Union it was decreed by Grand Lodge that the Master's light was never to be extinguished while the Lodge was open (see p. 19) that can hardly have referred to anything but the candle that is regarded as representing the Master. If the lights were still round the Board, there would be no striking inconsistency if it were the western light that was so regarded; but when they are placed by the chairs it would surely seem that `the Master's light' ought to be the one that stands by him.
At first it might appear that we could easily get over the difficulty by saying that the Lights `are situated south, west and east', and, as a matter of fact, this is done in the Bristol working, although there they are in the centre of the Lodge, and it is also the order given in the Britannia ritual. But this is not entirely satisfactory, because if the light that represents the Master is placed in the east which is clearly the premier position, the Sun and Moon, represented by the other two lights, though they are surely of greater importance than the Master, are relegated to the inferior positions.
There seems to be no possible way of satisfactorily circumventing the inconsistency. The symbolism is hopelessly confused and we must put up with it. The best course for a Master to adopt when dealing with these lights is to point to them successively when he tells the candidate that they are in the east, south and west, but in the next part of the sentence to refrain from pointing at all, leaving it to the candidate to allot them as he likes. It may not occur to him to attempt any definite allocation, and, if so, all the better." It is greatly to be regretted that in some Lodge Rooms the Lesser Lights are now represented by electric bulbs, for they are comparable to the liturgical candles on a Church altar and it is inconceivable that those should Matters of General Concern 65 be electric. If electric candles are to be suffered at all, they should at any rate be of as low a power as an actual candle. Those usually fitted are far too bright, so that a single one of them is enough to illuminate the whole room and thus the symbolism and effectiveness of a certain part of our ceremonial is appreciably discounted. One would not have expected to find these electric abominations in the Lodge rooms of the new Freemasons' Hall, but unhappily they actually are in evidence there, a lamentable failure on the part of those responsible for the furnishing of that building to evince a sense of what is fitting.
THE COLUMNS OF THE OFFICERS.
Here we meet with differences of practice and some confusion. In most Lodges only the Wardens have columns, and in such cases they are obviously meant to represent the Two Great Pillars and are surmounted by the celestial and terrestial globes. But in most of the sets supplied by the purveyors of Lodge furniture the solecism is committed of putting the globes on the top of a Doric and a Corinthian column for the Senior and Junior Wardens respectively. This seems to have been done even in pre-Union days. The classical Orders are entirely out of place in connexion with the pillars of the porch. If any kind of ornament is displayed, it should in some way suggest the capitals, or `chapiters', as described in the Bible and as usually depicted in the sketches on the Tracing Board. In any case the two columns should be identical.
Some old Lodges (and a few modern ones have copied them), instead of two columns, have three, one for the Master and one for each Warden. These clearly typify Wisdom, Strength and Beauty and are of the three principal Orders, none of them, of course, having globes but each being finished with a flat square entablature.
The author of The Etiquette referred to the columns at some length' $ and one gathers that in his day the sets of three were proportionately more common than they are now. If they were used before the Union it was probably by the Moderns, because there seems no doubt that with the Antients the Wardens held in their hands (they had no pedestals in those days) representations of the pillars of the porch. It is certain that the columns were at one time allotted, the Doric to the Master, the Ionic to the Senior Warden, and the Corinthian to the Junior Warden. Then, as The Etiquette records, a discussion arose `as to the qualities assigned to each' of the Orders, and it was argued `that the Doric column, in its sturdy proportions and its spare ornamentation, represents Strength in a far greater degree than the more slender and more ornate Ionic column'. Undoubtedly the Corinthian most appropriately indicates Beauty.
Although some opposed any variation. of practice as being the alteration of 66 Matters of General Concern a Landmark, the proposed change was generally made, and thereafter the Doric column was assigned to the Senior Warden, whose characteristic is Strength, because, as an old ritual expresses it, it is his function `to pay the hirelings their wages, which is the strength and support of all business'. The Corinthian was allotted to the Junior Warden, who `stands in the south at high twelve, which is the beauty of the day, to call men off from work to refreshment'; while the Ionic, which, by a process of exclusion, must signify Wisdom, was given to the Master whose province it is to `give instruction to the Craft to carry on their work in a proper manner with good harmony'.
A similar change was made, no doubt at the same time, in regard to the distribution of the candlesticks, and with them the new arrangement is now practically ubiquitous.
It may be noted that whereas in Claret's rituals Wisdom, Strength and Beauty are said to be represented by the `Doric, Ionic and Corinthian' Orders (in that sequence), the present Emulation working, if correctly expressed by the P. C, puts them in the sequence, `Ionic, Doric and Corinthian'.
It is curious that in the alternative addresses to the Officers that are, or used to be, printed in the P.C., which include a formulary for the presentation to the Master of his Ionic column, it seems to be presumed that each Warden has two columns, or, as it is put, a pillar and a column. That this ritual contemplates the set of three, shows that it must have been in fairly common use at one time, otherwise a publication intended to appeal to the Craft at large would hardly have considered it. But it is scarcely conceivable that the Wardens were ever burdened with two columns each and one can only suppose that the apparent duplication arose from the confusion of two independent practices.
The column of the Master (when he has one) should, of course, be erect all the time that the Lodge is open. The same rule applies to that of the Senior Warden, save that it is lowered during such time as the Lodge is `called off' to refreshment. The Junior Warden's column should never be erect except when the Lodge is called off, during which time it is just as much `open' as while work is progressing.
In recent years it has become the practice in most Lodges for the Tyler, when preparing the room for the meeting, to place the Junior Warden's column upright and for the Junior Warden himself to raise it on the closing of the Lodge. This is obviously wrong.
In 1913 the late Bro. Hextall (over the initials 'D.C.) mentioned' 9 that as long ago as 1885 a writer has called attention to `the common error entertained by many, that before opening and after closing the J.W. should place his column in a vertical position. Unless the Lodge be at work or at refreshment in open Lodge, there is no J.W. officiating, and therefore no emblem of office. His column is at all times lowered except at refreshment'.
Matters of General Concern Hextall said, `Although the usual practice is otherwise, and the J.W.'s column is placed vertically as part of the Tyler's preliminary arrangements, and so necessitates adjustment when the Lodge is declared open, I think the right method is the one suggested'.
In the York Lodge, No. 236 (see p. 42), the Junior Warden's column is never raised except when the Lodge is `called off. That is fair evidence of the antiquity of this, the theoretically correct, practice.
It is true that in these days we often leave the Lodge room when we are ,called off, and some have argued that on such occasions the JW.'s column should not be left standing. But the brethren of old would not have gone out. They would have partaken of their refreshment in the Lodge room itself, the Tyler still remaining on guard outside, and in theory we do the same and therefore the column should be left erect.
Frequently nowadays the Master and Wardens are seen to remove their right-hand gloves prior to communicating, or testing a candidate's knowledge of, a token. This should not be done. Gloves are part of our formal clothing and if we are not wearing them we are not `properly clothed'. It would be no more illogical to take off one's apron while giving a G. than it is to remove a glove.
The practice of so doing appears to have arisen from the increasingly prevalent modern idea that it is impolite to shake hands while gloved. How often do we find that a brother whom we are about to greet in the anteroom with a handshake, hastily removes his glove or, if he cannot quickly do so, murmurs `Excuse my glove'! Let us not forget that in France, the birth-place of la politesse, it is (unless the social custom has altered in quite recent years) an appalling gaucherie for a man to shake hands with a lady with his hand ungloved.
Sometimes a Master also removes his glove before administering an Ob., apparently because he thinks that to touch the Bible (which he customarily does at an early point in the Obs. of the Second and Third Degree*) with a gloved hand is a degradation of, or is disrespectful to, the Holy Book. In view of old customs that is an entirely erroneous conception. To touch a sacred object, such as an altar, with the naked flesh was to defile it, save only in the case of one taking an oath.
The candidate takes his Ob. with a bare hand touching the Book not * See p. 151. In the First Degree Ob. one occasionally sees the Master touch the Book at the word `hereon', just as he does in the othbr Degrees; but the action is pointless since the candidate is necessarily unaware of it and so it conveys nothing to him. In this Degree the Master should simply place his hand on that of the candidate and keep it there while he says, `hereby and hereon'.
GLOVES 67 68 Matters of General Concern because it is sacrilegious to touch it with a gloved hand, but because from times of the remotest antiquity it has always been regarded as essential to the binding quality of an oath that some part of the swearer's bare flesh should be in contact with the sacred object. In ancient times, before the days of books, the sacred object on which the oath was taken was the stone altar itself, and the person taking the oath knelt at it with either his bare knee or his bare breast touching it. When an oath is taken in a Court of Law the Book must be held in the bare hand.
The candidate for initiation naturally does not wear gloves. But an E.A. or a F.C. does so when he is in Lodge but is not the subject of a ceremony. When he is about to be passed or raised he is without gloves, partly because he is about to take an Ob., but also because gloves would be obviously out of keeping with his then condition of technical preparedness. But that is no reason for the Officers to remove a glove when exchanging the G. with him.
Fifty years ago the degloving habit was unknown, at any rate in Provincial Lodges, where ritual formalities are more rigorously preserved than in the metropolis, the source of most of the modern innovations.
Occasionally an Officer is obliged to remove a glove, e.g., the Master when signing the Minutes. If he happens to be wearing a `gauntlet', he should remember to remove it also. The gauntlet is virtually part of the glove, and to remove one without the other is incongruous. Owing to failure to appreciate this fact we often see photographs of brethren in Freemasonic costume wearing gauntlets but holding their gloves in their hands! * The reader will realise that this section was written before the wartime relaxation of the rule as to the wearing of gloves was promulgated, but as their use will no doubt in due time be made obligatory it is unnecessary to modify what has here been said.
In a paper on `Masonic Clothing' in the Pansactions of the Master's and Past Masters' Lodge, No. 130, New Zealand, May 1949. V.W. Bro. Norman B. Spencer, P. Pres. B.G.P., writes: `The gloves worn by our ancient brethren had large cuffs or gauntlets attached to them. These have been separated in modern times, and now form an entirely distinct article of Masonic Clothing, and are only worn by officers of Lodges and officers and past officers of Grand Lodge. They usually follow the colour of the apron which the brother is entitled to wear and are ornamented with the emblem of the office which the brother holds or has held'.
Although I have hitherto argued that `gauntlet' and `glove' are still a single article of clothing and that, therefore, when a glove is not worn or is temporarily taken off, the gauntlet should also be doffed. I think that, in view of the fact that it seems probable that the wearing of gloves in our Lodges will be dispensed with for some time to come, we might well accept Bro. Spencer's view that the `glove' and the `gauntlet' may now be regarded as having become two separate items of clothing and that consequently the gauntlet may now continue to be worn even though gloves are not de regle, and even if gloves are worn the gauntlet need not be taken off if the glove is for any reason removed.
Matters of General Concern MASONRY OR FREEMASONRY Although the Craft is generally referred to as `Masonry' and the brethren are called `Masons', our modern purely speculative fraternity is properly `Freemasonry' and its members are `Freemasons'. The author of The Etiquette devotes a chapter to a discussion of the subject2 ° in the course of which he relates an instance where the use of the less specialised term led to a rather amusing misunderstanding. He strongly advocates the use in the performance of our ritual of the words `Freemason' and `Freemasonry' wherever possible, in preference to the more common terms. Most persons who give the matter serious consideration will probably agree with that view. There are, however, a few instances where the reference covers not only the modern organisation but also the ancient operative craft from which we are presumed to derive, and there `Masonry' is a more appropriate word than `Freemasonry'.
Even those who are wont to adhere almost consistently to the forms `Mason'and `Masonry', invariably speak of a `Fellow Craft Freemason' and never of a'Fellow Craft Mason'.
The Principal Journal of the Craft is The Freemason, and The Etiquette pertinently asked, `would it commend itself to the notice of the brethren if its title was `The Mason'?'" The official term for the ruler of a Lodge, as used in the Book of Constitutions, is `Master'. Therefore, strictly speaking, he should not be described in a list of members, or of officers, or in the heading of a summons, as `Worshipful Master' or `W.M.' but simply as `Master' or `M.', though of course he would be correctly named as `W. Bro. So-and-so'. Similarly his elected successor is strictly `Master Elect'.
But it is a common practice, justified by the prescription of long usage, to refer to the office as that of `Worshipful Master', and so to describe it on the summons. When this is done, it stands to reason that his successor, prior to his installation, should be termed `Worshipful Master Elect', that is to say, he has been elected to the office of `Worshipful Master'.
In the Bristol working of the Installation ceremony the `W.M. Elect' is consistently so described.
It matters little which form is used but they should be used consistently. If, on the Installation summons, the ruler is termed `Master', his successor * For example - In the 10 prayer, `our Masonic art'; in the 2 Tracing Board (ER. version), `Geometry ... on which Masonry is founded' in the 30, `the annals of Masonry' (thrice); and `the worthy Mason'; and in the Installation (E.R. version), `a Master of the art and science of Masonry'. (see pp. 146, 183, 203).
c* MASTER ELECT OR WORSHIPFUL MASTER ELECT.
69 70 Matters of General Concern should be called `Master Elect', and this is probably the preferably practice. But if the former is described as `Worshipful Master', the latter should certainly be `Worshipful Master Elect', To call the one `Master Elect' and the other `Worshipful Master' is inconsistent and, therefore, incorrect, fully as much as would be the conjunction of `Master' and `Worshipful Master Elect'.
It is rather curious that those who maintain most rigorously that the term `Worshipful' appertains only to the person and is inapplicable to the office, habitually act in contravention of their own principles when working an Installation, for in the course of that ceremony they invariably proclaim 'Bro. A.B.' as `Worshipful Master of the Lodge', whereas, if they were consistent, they would proclaim `W. Bro. A.B.' as `Master of the Lodge'.
`THE INITIATE' AND `BROTHER INITIATE'.
These expressions, now so often heard in the course of the proceedings after Lodge, may be here adverted to. They are of quite modern introduction and their use cannot be too strongly deprecated.
The term `initiate' does not apply specially to one who is newly initiated. Since it means one `who has been admitted to an esoteric society', it applies equally to us all. We are all initiates of the Freemasonic mysteries.
Moreover, the new member of our Order has become entitled to have the word `brother' prefixed to his name and we should make a point of bringing that fact home to him by so addressing him. He should invariably be referred to, and toasted, as `Brother So-and-so', and the toast should be designated in the toast list as that of `The newly Initiated Brother', not as that of "The Initiate'.
THE NUMBER THAT CONSTITUTES A QUORUM.
A Lodge may be opened and may transact all its ordinary business if five (of whom the Tyler outside the door may not be counted as one) be present. These must be the Master (or a Past Master acting for him) and his Wardens (or two Master Masons deputising for them); the other two need not be of higher status than Fellow Craft. Rose 22 erroneously says that seven are necessary to open a Lodge.
An initiation may not be performed unless two more, who need only be Entered Apprentices, are present, making seven in all.
A passing may be worked by five and, theoretically, a raising by three only, though the latter would in practice be somewhat difficult and would certainly be far from effective. 2 3 THE NUMBER OF THE PERAMBULATIONS.
It may be of interest to mention that although in the large majority of Lodges the candidate makes one, two and three perambulations in the First, RESOLVE WITH MATERIAL BELOW - 70 Matters of General Concern should be called `Master Elect', and this is probably the preferably practice. But if the former is described as `Worshipful Master', the latter should certainly be `Worshipful Master Elect', To call the one `Master Elect' and the other `Worshipful Master' is inconsistent and, therefore, incorrect, fully as much as would be the conjunction of `Master' and `Worshipful Master Elect'.
It is rather curious that those who maintain most rigorously that the term `Worshipful' appertains only to the person and is inapplicable to the office, habitually act in contravention of their own principles when working an Installation, for in the course of that ceremony they invariably proclaim 'Bro. A.B.' as `Worshipful Master of the Lodge', whereas, if they were consistent, they would proclaim `W. Bro. A.B.' as `Master of the Lodge'.
These expressions, now so often heard in the course of the proceedings after Lodge, may be here adverted to. They are of quite modern introduction and their use cannot be too strongly deprecated.
The term `initiate' does not apply specially to one who is newly initiated. Since it means one `who has been admitted to an esoteric society', it applies equally to us all. We are all initiates of the Freemasonic mysteries.
AA...-...._.__ t --I- -_ _r ___ -.- i. , ...+ Q.
A. The late Bro. Dr. Cartwright was a man of very decided views and as Bro. Harry Carr wrote in his Introduction to the Second Edition of this work, `The adjective "provocative" is perhaps the ideal summary of the book and is its principal characteristic'.
`THE INITIATE' AND `BROTHER INITIATE'.
7 J THE NUMBER THAT CONSTITUTES A QUORUM Bro. E. H. Cartwright in A Commentary on the Freemasonic Ritual states: "A Lodge may be opened and may transact all its ordinary business if five ... be present. An initiation may not be performed unless two more, who need only be Entered Apprentices, are present, making seven in all. A passing may be worked by five and, theoretically, a raising by three only. . . ." (page 70.) On what is this statement based and is it correct? Bro. Cartwright may have had in mind either the Lectures of the Three Degrees in Craft Masonry or the Explanation of the Second Degree Tracing Board-'Three rule a Lodge, five hold a Lodge, seven or more make it perfect, etc.' but Bro. Cartwright, on this occasion, was in error.
The present position in any Lodge under the jurisdiction of the United Grand Lodge of England, irrespective of the Degree to be worked, is that a quorum is five (excluding the Tyler and the Candidate) of which two must be members of the Lodge and one an Installed Master.
(Vide Masonic Year Book 1974 (U.G.L.E.) p. 834.) C. N. Batham Matters of General Concern 71 Second and Third Degrees respectively, variations in this practice are met with. Thus in Bristol and York there are three perambulations in each Degree; while in the Humber working there are three in the First Degree but only one in each of the other two; and in Unanimity there are two in each of the First and Third Degrees but only one in the Second Degree. In Carlile 1825 the numbers are one, three and three respectively.
`AS HAPPILY WE HAVE MET'.
This tag is nearly always recited by the Junior Warden at the end of the closing of the Second Degree. Since Brethren often wonder why it should have its place there, rather than at the final closing which would seem more rational, the following may be of interest.
The writer is indebted to Bro. H. Hiram Hallett for the information that the late Bro. J.T. Thorp , in a paper published in 1924, stated that `This is an adaptation of one of the oldest Folk-songs in the English language, which runs somewhat as follows: Merry have we met, merry have we been, Merry may we part, and merry meet again: With our merry sing-song, happy, gay and free, And a merry ding-dong, happy may we be.' paper on `Bristol Freemasonry' Bro. Cecil Powell mentioned that the Freemasonic version was included in a Collection of Catches and Glees arranged by Robert Broderip of Bristol in 1791. This suggests that at that time the brethren may have sung it as a glee either in Lodge or at the subsequent supper.
Although the verse is not, so far as the present writer knows, found in any of the 18th century rituals, spurious or otherwise, it occurs to him that, since it is an adaptation of such an old song, it may possibly have been the custom in the early years of that century - in some Lodges at any rate - to sing it after working the `Apprentice's Part'. When that `Part' was divided, as Vibert believed was the case, to form the germs of our first two degrees, the glee, which has now degenerated into a mere spoken tag, may well have been retained in its original place which would bring it to the end of the Second Degree.
In the Exeter Ritual the tag, though rendered in the imperfect form, Happily have we met, Happy may we part, And haply [sic] meet again, has been appropriately transferred to the end of the First Degree closing. The same practice obtains in Bro. Hallett's Lodge, No. 261, Taunton, where it takes the 18th century form given on page 117 infra.
In the Humber Use the verse is to be found only at the end of the book as In a 72 Matters of General Concern `The Parting Toast' in the form, Happy have we met, Happy have we been, Happy do we part, and Happy meet again.
For more detailed information the reader is referred to an article by Bro. Hallett in Miscellanea Latomorum,XXVI, 113, and to further notes at IV, 98 and 136, and XXVIII, 125, of that periodical.
THE STATUS OF THE I.P.M.
Although this is a matter that concerns the Director of Ceremonies and is not really connected with ritual, we mention it here because the position has materially altered since the publication of Bro. Rose's book.
From what may almost be called `time immemorial' it has been customary for the I.P.M. to sit by the Master, no doubt because, being fresh from office, he is presumably the most likely to be au fait with the business of the chair and the details of the ceremonial ritual. But although some years ago he was accorded quasi-recognition in the B. of C. (Rule 141 of the code), his rank in the Lodge was merely that of the junior Past Master. In the revised B. of C., however, which was published in 1940, his position is formally recognised and he now takes rank in Lodge immediately after the wardens. (Rules 104 and 119.) Consequently, although not an officer, he is entitled to a place among the officers in the processions into, and out of, the Lodge-room.
THE BALLOT FOR CANDIDATES.
When announcing the result of a ballot for candidates for initiation or joining, the Master should not fall into the habit of saying - even though that be the fact - that it is `unanimously' favourable, for on some future occasion if 'he should, either unthinkingly or because there are one or more black balls - but not enough to involve rejection - omit the adverb, the brethren will naturally presume that the election was not unanimous and the new member is then inevitably prejudiced in the minds of some.
If there should be more than one candidate it is permissible to take a collective ballot, but if one black ball is cast individual ballots must be taken. It is sometimes thought that, even if there be one or more black balls in a collective ballot but an insufficient number to exclude even one candidate, an individual ballot is unnecessary. But the Board of General Purposes, in its wisdom or otherwise, has ruled that if there be but one black ball individual ballots must be taken. [The present ruling of the Board (Masonic YearBook 1969) only requires an individual ballot if there has been "a sufficient number of black balls to exclude a Candidate". Ed.] 4 The Work of the Tyler The Tyler's first duty is to set out the Lodge Room. The chairs for the Principal Officers and the pedestals, if not already in position, have to be put in their proper places.
In practically all Lodges nowadays each principal officer has in front of him a pedestal. The introduction of these cannot be definitely dated. It is probable that before the Union the Master had one, which may have been merely a table or, as indeed is still the case in No. 20, Chatham, may have been the actual altar which had formerly - at any rate with the Antients - stood in the middle of the room and was afterwards moved to the east. The provision of pedestals for the Wardens appears to have been a post-Union development. In Miscellanea Latomorum, V, 135, there is quoted from the Minutes of No. 26 in 1817 the decision to buy pedestals for the Wardens, which would seem to suggest that the Master already had one.
The pedestals, as usually made by the Lodge furnishers, have some resemblance to the pedestals, or plinths, of columns, and the Exeter brethren maintain that they are actually to be so regarded and that, as such, they are intended to represent, and suggest the presence of, the three pillars of Wisdom, Strength and Beauty. The present writer ventures to doubt whether they were originally designed with that object and he regards the Exeter view as more likely to be an ex post facto argument.
As regards the candlesticks, some Lodges have them on the right of the pedestals, others on the left. It has been pointed out (see p. 64) that the latter is much to be preferred, but the Tyler must, of course, conform to the L;istom of the particular Lodge. If then are columns of the three principal Orders, the Ionic is placed by the Master, the Doric by the Senior Warden and the Corinthian by the Junior Warden.* As a rule the Tyler will light the * For the benefit of any reader who is not familiar with the characteristics of the Orders it may be said that the Ionic column has spiral scrolls at each corner of a square capital immediately below the entablature. The Corinthian has a Capital decorated with acanthus leaves. The Doric capital is quite plain.
candles shortly before the brethren begin to assemble, but in some Lodges this is done ceremonially by certain of the Officers either just before, or immediately after, the opening of the Lodge.
On the Master's pedestal is placed the cushion and upon it the closed V.S.L., on which are laid the S. and Cs., the latter with its points shut together. To the right of the cushion are placed the Master's gavel and (where three columns are provided) the Ionic column - of course recumbent.
In some lodges the h... m... is also put here but usually it is kept out of sight until it is required for its special purpose.
The Book of Constitutions and a copy of the By-Laws, together with the Warrant of the Lodge, should be put on the left side of the pedestal.
Some Lodges, who meet in their own premises, have the Warrant framed and hung on the wall, but that practice is most strongly to be deprecated. The Warrant should remain in the custody of the Master (who is primarily responsible for its safe keeping) or of the Secretary and except when required for a Lodge meeting should always be kept in a safe.
The box of Working Tools may be put in any convenient spot within easy reach of the I.P.M.
When there are three Officers' columns, that of the Doric Order goes on the Senior Warden's pedestal and that of the Corinthian Order on the Junior Warden's. If there are only two columns, one for each Warden, their chapiters, or capitals, should be identical and it matters not how they are allotted. They should both be laid horizontally on the pedestals (seep. 66).
The Warden's gavels, the Senior Warden's level and the Junior Warden's plumbrule are also placed on their respective pedestals.
In rooms that are restricted to Freemasonic purposes we generally find that the ashlars are sizeable models of some nine or- ten inches wide. The rough ashlar then lies on the floor in front of the Junior Warden's pedestal, while the perfect ashlar, suspended from its tripod, is generally placed in the south-west, sufficiently towards the centre of the room to leave space for the Deacons and candidates to pass outside it.
In Lodges that do not meet in their own premises and whose apparatus have, therefore, to be packed away after each meeting, the ashlars and the tripod are necessarily very much in miniature and are then placed on the Warden's pedestals.
It may be mentioned that the tripod, although it had come into use - in London at any rate - before the Union, is by no means ubiquitous. Thus in Manchester neither it nor the lewis is in evidence, the stones lying on the north-east and south-east corners of the small area of tesselated pavement in the middle of the floor. Nor is there a tripod in Bristol Lodges where the stones are placed on the easterly corners of the low table that supports the Tracing Boards.
The Tyler 75 It may be of some slight interest to mention that in New South Wales the Grand Master has directed that the ashlars shall be placed in the N.E. and S.E. corners at the foot of the dais, but clear of the gangway. Also that with them the perfect ashlar is right down in the First Degree, drawn half way up in the Second, and up to the top of the tripod in the Third.' As the Tracing Boards are directly descended from the old drawing on the floor, they should lie in the centre of the room and are to be regarded as theoretically fixtures. That they are sometimes raised above the floor level by being placed on a dwarf table (as in Bristol), or on top of the box in which they are stored, is in no way at variance with this principle. Nor is the fact that they have to be changed according to the Degree open, this being in effect the erasure of one design and the drawing of another. Since they are fixtures, it is incongruous, contrary to theory, and therefore wrong, for a Board to be carried to the Master's chair to be there `explained' by him as is so often done in London Lodges.
The Tyler must be careful to arrange the Boards so that they are properly placed for their manipulation by the Deacons when the Lodge is opened. He should turn each Board face down, that of the Third Degree at the bottom, then that of the Second, and that of the First on top, all being, of course, properly oriented. The ends of the First and Third Boards are usually marked to indicate the directions towards which their ends should lie. The Second Board is generally not so marked.' It should be so placed that when exposed with the First Degree Board. The Third is to be seen the right way up by the Master.
The late Bro. Dring pointed out that these Boards would more properly be called Lodge Boards than Tracing Boards 3 and, indeed, the former term was used by the Reconciliation workers, as in evidenced by the recently published letters of Broadfoot.4 However, we are too wedded to the name Tracing Board to make any change in nomenclature either desirable or possible now; but the true purpose and origin of the Boards should always be borne in mind.
The Secretary's table usually stands about the middle of the north side of the Lodge. Pens, ink and blotting paper must be provided. The receptacle for charitable contributions is generally put on the table, and the ballot-box either on the table or beneath it.
Chairs are to be set for the Senior Deacon (either on the Master's immediate right or at the north-east corner - most frequently below the dais if there is one - according to the custom of the Lodge); for the Junior Deacon (at the right of the Senior Warden); for the Inner Guard (either by the door or on the Senior Warden's left); and for the Director of Ceremonies. The position of the last named Officer varies in different Lodges. In some he sits on the right of the Junior Warden; in some at the south-east corner, balancing the Senior Deacon; sometimes in other situations. When an Assistant Director of Ceremonies is appointed he most commonly sits just west of the Secretary's table.
The wands of the Deacons and Directors of Ceremonies will be placed by their respective chairs (usually in some form of supporting socket) unless it is the practice of the Lodge for the Officers to enter the room in procession.
The seats for other Officers and brethren will be arranged according to custom.
The s... i..., the S. and the Cs., required at certain times by the Inner Guard, may be placed on the floor by, or underneath, his chair or in some other convenient spot. In some Lodges they are hung on a board fixed to the Wall just inside the door. In some other Lodges they are kept on the Master's pedestal whence the Inner Guard or (preferably) the Senior Deacon takes each one as it is required.
If the Officers and the I.P.M. do not enter in procession, the collar of each one will be placed on his chair. The Treasurer sits at the table on the Secretary's left. The Past Master's collar that is provided in most Lodges for the use of the I.P.M. is put on the chair on the Master's left. The chair next beyond him is for the Chaplain.
While the Lodge is open the Tyler must be on the qui vive to repeat on the door every knock given by the Inner Guard. Nowadays it is the custom in most Lodges for the Inner Guard, when ordered as a preliminary to the opening in each Degree to `see that the Lodge is properly tyled', to give on the door the knock of a Degree. It is, however, to be noted that in early post-Union times that was not the common practice but the Inner Guard opened the door and satisfied himself by ocular evidence that the Tyler was at his post. Some Lodges still follow this- theoretically the more correct - method (seep. 84).
It is the Tyler's duty to see that every brother, whether member or visitor, signs the book before entering the Lodge. In the case of visitors we have unfortunately become somewhat careless in regard to their admission, a carelessness that cannot be too strongly deprecated. The ideal practice undoubtedly is that, when the visitor has signed, his host should sign his own name in the space provided, as evidence that he vouches for his guest. The present less desirable custom is for the visitor himself to fill in the name of his host. This obviously affords no evidence whatever that he is duly vouched for. Unless, therefore, the host is in the anteroom and is seen by the Tyler to recognise the stranger, the Tyler is placed in a difficult position. The present writer's own view is very definitely that if the host has already gone into the Lodge, the Tyler should send a message to him by the Inner Guard and ascertain whether he knows the visitor and vouches for him, before the latter is allowed to enter. If the host has not arrived, the guest (unless someone else The Tyler 77 can vouch for him) should be asked to wait in the anteroom until his host comes. If he avers that his host is likely to be late and he is not known to any other member, he can, if he is desirous of going into Lodge without delay, ask for the Junior Warden, or a past Master, to be called out to prove him. The writer on one occasion went to a Lodge and, arriving before his host, was prepared to wait for him. Nevertheless, although he was unknown to anyone present, he was incontinently ushered into the Lodge room in spite of his remonstrances and without any questions being asked or any attempt made to prove him. Such procedure he regards as utterly irregular and its danger must be obvious. No brother, if a worthy Freemason, can possibly object to the taking of all due precautions, even though these may entail a short delay in his entering the Lodge or may involve his undergoing a probation.
In any case the Tyler, when the Inner Guard comes to the door after a report, should make a point of giving the name of every visitor; on no account should he include anyone but members of the Lodge among the ,other brethren' in his announcement. If several visitors are about to enter together, he should write their names and respective ranks on a slip of paper and hand it to the Inner Guard who can then read from it when making his announcement to the Master. In some well-worked Lodges it is the custom for the Tyler to add to the announcement of each visitor's name the words, ,vouched for by Brother So-and-so'.
It is essential that the Tyler should thoroughly understand the theory by which the knocks are regulated,since modern custom ordains that he should actually give them in all cases. As the matter has already been dealt with at length (see p. SO et seq. ),it will suffice here to give a summary of what should be done.
In the case of a member of the Lodge, or of a visitor of whose qualification he is satisfied, the Tyler will give the knock of the Degree that is open. The custom (so prevalent in London Lodges today, though we have been assured that it is not the practice in Emulation) of giving only a single knock for qualified entrants cannot be too emphatically condemned (cf, pp. SO and 224). For a candidate for initiation he will give the knock of the First Degree*, but with slightly more emphasis and deliberation than usual, in order that those within may recognise its import. For candidates for passing and raising he will give the knocks of the First and the Second Degrees * For the reason of this see p. 51. In Oxford, however, two knocks are given and in Exeter only one; yet in both cases the normal three are given when shortly afterwards the candidate is brought to each of the two hypothetical `doors' guarded by the Wardens. It is difficult to see how this inconsistency arose unless it was due to the mistaken idea that the knock on the Lodge-room door should constitute an `alarm'. It may be mentioned that in Benefactum working a single knock is given at each of the theoretical `three doors', and they defend that practice by the argument that it is to such three separate knocks that the phrase 't.d.k.' refers.
respectively.
When he has knocked for a candidate the Tyler must be prepared to give correctly and unhesitatingly the replies to the questions of the Inner Guard. For the sake of completeness the catechisms are here set out in full.
(1) In the case of a candidate for initiation: - I.G. - Whom have you there? Ty. - Mr. A.B. a poor candidate in a state of d., who, having been well and worthily recommended, has been regularly proposed and approved* in open Lodge, and now comes of his own free will and accord, properly prepared, humbly soliciting to be admitted to the mysteries and privileges of ancient Freemasonry.
I.G. - How does he hope to obtain those privileges? Ty. - By the h. of G. and the t.o.g.r., being free.
In almost all rituals the Tyler's first answer in the above colloquy reads, `who has been well and worthily recommended, regularly proposed and approved in open Lodge, and now comes [or and who now comes] etc.' This is an example of what Fowler terms `Bastard Enumeration',' of which he says, `There is perhaps no blunder by which journalistic and other hasty writing is so commonly defaced'. Hastiness can hardly be advanced as an excuse for the illiteracy in a ritual.
For the benefit of the unliterate we may point out that the fault lies in the fact that `has been' is common to the first two components of the phrase but has no relation to the third, so that the sentence really says, `who has been ... recommended, has been regularly proposed and approved ... and has been now comes etc. The insertion of `and' before `regularly' would make it correct English, but the modification given about is more euphonic.
Humber has, `who, having been well and worthily recommended, regularly proposed, balloted for and accepted in open Lodge, now comes etc. At first sight it might seem that the editor had noticed the usual faulty syntax, but, even if so, he has failed to correct it by saying, as he ought to have, either `and regularly' or - and perhaps preferably - `has been regularly ... and now comes'.
In PC (and presumably, therefore, in Emulation working) the Tyler's second answer is, `By the h. of G., being free and of g. r.', but in view of the words of the Master when this answer is repeated to him (viz, `the t. of g. r. has already been heard etc.') it is obvious that the form given above (which is that of Unanimity, Bristol, Oxford and Humber) is preferable. It may be added - though the point cannot be fully explained here - that if a brother Both Claret and PC. (1871) have `approved of, but P.C. (1874) has `approved' simply. It is immaterial which form is used, but `approved', as in modern P.C. and practically all other rituals, is probably to be preferred. It may be noted that Brit. has ,approved of.
The Tyler 79 desires to visit an Irish Lodge he will find it necessary to know the phrase as in the above catechism and the P. C. version will not avail him.
The Claret wording is the same as that of P. C. except that it has `freeborn' in place of `free'. On this point see page 144.
(2) In the case of a candidate for passing: - I.G. - Whom have you there? Ty. - Bro. A.B., who has been regularly initiated into Freemasonry and has made such progress as he hopes will recommend him to be passed to the Second Degree, * for which ceremony he comes properly prepared.
I.G. -- How does he hope to obtain the privileges of the Second Degree? Ty. -- By the h. of G., the assistance of the S. and the benefit of a P.G. and a P.W.
I.G. - (to Cand.) Give me that P.G. and P.W. [Done.] What does ... imply? [Cand. answers] In P.C. no mention is made here of the P.G. and consequently in many Lodges it is not referred to. But it ought to be mentioned and asked for by the Inner Guard, because the candidate has (or should have) been previously told by the Master that without both it and the P.W. he will `be unable to gain admission to the Lodge when opened in a superior Degree'.
When the Inner Guard makes his demand of the candidate, the latter must, if it is necessary, be prompted by the Tyler. But should he hesitate, the Tyler ought not at once to dictate the P.W. He should try to make him recall it for himself by saying, for example, `Give the P.W. you receive in Lodge'; or `Don't you remember the P.W. that the Master gave you?' (3) In the case of a candidate for raising: - I.G. - Whom have you there? Ty. - Bro. A.B., who has been regularly initiated into Freemasonry and passed to the Second Degree, and has made such further progress as he hopes will entitle him to be raised to the sublime Degree of Master Mason.-{ for which ceremony he comes properly prepared.
I.G. - How does he hope to obtain the privileges of the Third Degree? Ty. - By the h. of G., the united aid of the S. and Cs. and the benefit of a P.G. and a P.W.
I.G. - (to Cand.) Give me that P.G. and P.W. [Done.] What does ... denote? [Cand. answers] The remarks previously made as to the Tyler's prompting apply equally here.
When a brother who has withdrawn to restore himself `to personal * This is the Oxford formula. P.C. has `to the Degree of a F.C.', as to which see p. 167.
t It should not be, as in P.C, 'of a M.M.' See p. 167.
comfort' is about to re-enter the Lodge, the Tyler should not announce him as `the candidate on his return', a comparatively modern innovationary practice. He is no longer a candidate, and therefore should be announced as `Brother So-and-so', with or without the addition of the words `on his return'.
It is a not uncommon custom (one that is both harmless and useful) for there to be an understanding that if the Tyler wants to communicate informally with the Inner Guard (for instance, to send a message to someone in the Lodge or to obtain some necessary information) he either scratches on the door or gives a very gentle single or double tap. On hearing this the Inner Guard, as soon as a suitable opportunity occurs, comes to the door without first announcing any `alarm'.
In many Lodges the Tyler is called in to prepare the Lodge for the ceremony of raising. In doing this he first places the `sheet' (see p. 179), taking care to leave room between it and the stool for the `last f. b. or m ... g s ... s', which the candidate will have to perform, though in many cases somewhat in miniature. In a small room it may be necessary to remove the Tracing Boards a little back, i.e., westward. As he withdraws after carrying out his duty, he will, of course, go via the south and west, and as he passes the Wardens he will attend to their lights.
In some Lodges, however, the Tyler is not called in for this purpose and in such case he must place the required appurtenances beforehand in an agreed spot (inside one of the pedestals or elsewhere) so that the Director of Ceremonies, on whom will then fall the duty of arranging them, may know where to find them.
Prior to a raising the Tyler must not forget to adjust the belt of the candidate's new apron to the proper length before putting it on the Senior Warden's pedestal in readiness for the ceremony. Nothing looks worse than to see the Warden fumbling to adjust the strap in the course of the investiture.
In a few Lodges, in the opening ceremony, after the Junior Warden has stated the situation of the Tyler, that Officer is called into the Lodge and asked to define his duty. This he should do in the following terms: `Being a. with a d. s., to keep off all cowans and intruders from Freemasonry, and to see that the candidates come properly prepared'.* Needless to say, when the Tyler is brought in for this, or any other, * See pp. 84, 113, 136. A writer in Misc. Lat (XXXI, 29) mentions a Lodge in which `before the Lodge is opened, the Tyler's sword lies on the pedestal in the East. When the Tyler is summoned into the room to answer regarding his position and duty, after he has replied the Master hands to him the sword, and as he does so repeats the serious injunction which is frequently given at the termination of the investiture of the Tyler'. At XXX, 139, we are told that in Lodge No. 311 `the Tyler, armed with a drawn sword enters the Lodge at the end of the formal procession, stands within the closed door, announces the nature of his duties in reply to a question by the W.M.. . . and then withdraws'.
The Tyler 81 purpose, the Inner Guard will temporarily take his place without.
As the Tyler has to prepare the candidates, the following note will be a useful reminder of certain details in the first two Degrees: - First Degree. R.A., L.B., L.K., R.H.
Second Degree. L.A., R.B., (see p. 61) R.K., L.H.
Whenever an Entered Apprentice is about to enter the Lodge, the Tyler should make sure that the flap of his apron is turned up (see p.129).
Many a Tyler, after having been invested on Installation night, commits a serious solecism when saluting before he goes out, namely, by holding his sword in his right hand as he gives, or purports to give, the sn. It should be obvious that if he does so he cannot possibly give the sn. correctly. He ought to transfer the sword to his left hand, holding it either against his hip, as if it were hanging there in its scabbard, or pointing forwards and towards the ground, while he makes the sn. in proper form with his unencumbered right hand. Some Tylers like to follow this by a salute with the sword. There can be no objection to that harmless gesture.
When the Lodge has been closed it is the Tyler's duty to pack up and put away all the appurtenances that have to be so dealt with.
At the conclusion of the repast that usually follows a Lodge meeting, the Tyler is called on to propose the timehonoured `Tyler's Toast', which he does in these words: - 'To all poor and distressed Freemasons, wherever dispersed over the face of earth or water, wishing them a speedy relief from all their sufferings and a safe return to their native country, if they desire it'*. Then, repeating the words, `To all poor and distressed Freemasons', he and the brethren drink the toast, after which he leads the Tire'.
Occasionally one still meets with instances of `silent fire' being given after this toast, but that should never be permitted. The only appropriate time for silent fire is when we drink to the memory of a departed brother. Happily, many, if not most, Provincial Grand Masters have formally called attention to the erroneous practice and discountenanced it. As was well said by a writer in 1885, when deprecating `the recent absurd innovation for which no authority can be found ... the wish expressed is for "relief from suffering" and "safe return", and is not at all in the nature of sorrowful regret unmixed with hope. Sympathy for present circumstances should be accompanied with cheerful anticipations and best wishes for future prosperity; not with despondent condolences and grieving lamentations'. One Provincial Grand Master, in condemning silent fire, said, `It is quite bad enough for them to be in distressed circumstances, we do not want to bury them'.' * Oxford says `if they desire and deserve it'! In some lodges this toast is proposed by the Junior Warden.
5 The Work of the Inner Guard Prior to the Union this office did not exist, the duty of attending to the door devolving in the First Degree on the junior Entered Apprentice, who wore as his badge of office a silver trowel appended to a collar, and the trowel was long regarded as the special mark of an Apprentice. Lodge Union, No. 52, Norwich, still invests the newly initiated brother with that jewel.
Shortly before the Union some Lodges appointed an `Inner Tyler' to guard the door within. This was done in 1808 by Love and Honour, Falmouth, and it was decided that the brother so appointed should wear a trowel as his badge of office. In that Lodge the trowel to this day designates the Inner Guard' The office of Inner Guard would seem to have been instituted by the Lodge of Reconciliation. Although there is no reference to it in the Minutes, an officer with that title suddenly appears (the first known mention of it) in the list of officers at the meeting on August 23, 1814,2 and is regularly included in the subsequent lists.* The present jewel of the Inner Guard, two swords in saltire, was first authorised in 1819.
The office, though a subordinate one, is none the less important. The duties are simple and yet, only too frequently, we find them performed in a slovenly manner, either from carelessness or from lack of native acuteness on the part of the holder of the post. For the credit of the Lodge the Inner Guard should do his utmost to discharge his duties with strict formality and punctilious correctness, for the way in which he does his work contributes in no small measure to the impression gleaned by visitors of the working of the Lodge as a whole.
The Inner Guard's chair should obviously be placed within easy reach of * A still earlier mention of the office is found in a paper by Bro. Norman Rogers on "200 Years of Freemasonry in Bury" published in A.Q. C., Vol LVIII, in which he tells us that in the Anchor and Hope Lodge (a Moderns Lodge) an Inner Guard was appointed in 1799. Apparently it was only done in that one year. In Relief Lodge, which sprung from it, there was no Inner Guard until the Union.
The Inner Guard 83 the door. In many Lodges it is customary to set it on the immediate left of the Senior Warden. This is quite an appropriate situation (and the advantage that he `balances' the Junior Deacon), provided that he is then reasonably near the door. But when the door is some distance away, it is better that the Inner Guard should sit close to it. This is especially the case when, as sometimes happens, the door is at the south-west corner of the room. When that is so it is well for him to make all his announcements from his place by the door. Nothing is more awkward, more annoying to the onlookers, or more absurd, than the practice of the Inner Guard, every time he has to make a report, walking to and fro behind the Senior Warden, more than half the width of the room, in order that he may stand on the Senior Warden's left while speaking.
When the brethren have entered the Lodge Room and it is evident that the Master is about to open the Lodge, the Inner Guard closes and locks (or bolts) the door.
In due course the Junior Warden orders the Inner Guard (addressing him by name) to carry out `the first duty', namely, to `see that the Lodge is properly tyled'. The Inner Guard thereupon goes to the door, opens it and sees that the Tyler is in his place. After closing the door he advances to a point level with, and on the left of, the Senior Warden (unless, as already mentioned, the position of the door makes this undesirable), stands `to attention' facing the Junior Warden and reports to him, using his name, `Brother A., the Lodge is properly tyled'. For obvious reasons he gives no sn. on this occasion.
Some would have it that he should not face the Junior Warden when addressing him but, on the ground of following the principle of `squares, levels and perpendiculars', should face due east, only turninghis head towards the Warden. And yet the very people who insist on this, when the candidate is placed in the north-east corner put him in such a position that he faces the diagonal of the room! It is not a matter of any great import, but it is surely more natural, more courteous, and more seemly that he should face the person to whom he is speaking.
In many Lodges it is now the practice for the inner Guard, instead of opening the door and seeing the Tyler at his post, to give the knock of the First Degree on the door, which the Tyler answers by the same knock. Although that was the practice in Gilkes's working, it is entirely at variance with our theory. When we have not yet proved that only Freemasons are present we carefully refrain from showing any sign and even from using the titles of our officers. Under these circumstances it is clearly inconsistent to make use of the secret knock of the Degree. According to Carlile 1825 the Tyling in the First Degree opening was proved by a single rap given by the Inner Guard and answered by the Tyler. Thus the esoteric knock was not 84 The Inner Guard revealed.
There is good evidence that in former times the practice of many Lodges accorded strictly with theory and, indeed,the very fact that the words used in the instruction to the Inner Guard differ in the openings and closings (`see' in the former; `prove in the latter) is in itself suggestive of this. The following quotation from The Etiquette (p. 82) bears on the point: "In many well-worked Lodges ... it is the invariable custom in the opening in each of the three degrees, when the I.G. receives the instructions from the J.W. to "see that the Lodge is properly tyled", for him (the I.G.) to open the door and actually to "see" that the Tyler is in his place ... He is told to see, etc.; he opens the door and sees. On the other hand, in the closing the J.W. instructs the I.G. to "prove", etc., so he gives the k ... k and thus proves.... In the opening in each degree, before the brethren have proved themselves, the k ... k of the degree is not given on the door, lest it should improperly become known to the problematical cowan.. . . The difference, so clearly marked, between the order given in the opening and the one given in the closing, is strong presumptive evidence that the custom in earlier times corresponded with that just described.... In corroboration of this presumption, w2 may take the evidence of a very early copy of the Ritual in the possession of the writer. The passage runs thus: "The I.G., after seeing that the Tyler is in his proper place, turns round, and says to the J.W., `Brother A.D., the Lodge is properly tyled....... In the closing of each of the three degrees, the words are: "The I.G. gives the k ... s, which are answered by the Tyler"; thus showing that no accident or carelessness has caused the difference in the orders given respectively in the openings and closings, because they are each three times repeated, and always respectively in the same form of words'.
It may be observed that although, as above indicated, the old custom was to carry out the proving in the Second and Third Degree openings on the analogy of that followed in the First Degree (and, in view of the ubiquitously accepted use of the word `see' in every case, it is probably best that it should be so), it is in no way at variance with theory to prove the tyling in the opening of the higher Degrees by giving the knock, because the knock given would be that of the Degree open at the time and therefore no secret would be in danger of being divulged.
After addressing a question to the Senior Warden and receiving his answer -the-Master commands the brethren to stand `to order in the First Degree'. The Inner Guard then takes -the sp. and stands to order. In doing this he - as should everyone - keeps his eye on the Master so that simultaneity of action may be secured. The position now assumed is maintained until the Master The Inner Guard 85 declares the Lodge open, when all present complete and drop the sn. synchronously with him.
When the Master has received the Senior Warden's reply to his enquiry as to `the situation of the Inner Guard', he addresses the latter with the words, `Brother Inner Guard, what is your duty?' The Inner Guard answers, `To admit Freemasons on proof, to receive candidates in due form., and to obey the commands of the Junior Warden'. The P.C. has, since 1871, interpolated `the' before `candidates'; the word does not appear in Claret, Oxford, Bristol, York or Stability, though it does in Carlile 1825, Humber and Exeter; but, as it is superfluous, the phrase is certainly better without it. Exeter concludes with the addition, `and to be of assistance to the Junior Warden'.
In some Lodges it is the custom for the Master to ask the Wardens to recite the duties of the Assistant Officers, but this is only excusable if the Master has reason to suspect that those Officers are incompetent to do it for themselves.' Sometimes it is customary for the Assistant Officers to be asked to define their situations as well as their duties.
An occasional variant is for each Officer to be asked to give the situation of the next senior Officer, who is then asked to state his duty. Thus in Britannia working, the I.G., after giving the place and duty'of the O.G. and of himself, is asked the situation of the J.D., who in his turn is asked that of the S.D., and so on, the question as to the Master's place being addressed to the S.W. (seep. 136).
In a few Lodges the practice obtains of the Tyler, after the Junior Warden has stated his situation, being called in to recite his own duty (see pp. 80, 113 and 136). When this is done, the Inner Guard should, on admitting the Tyler for the purpose, take his place outside the door until the Tyler returns to his post. It may be added that the same rule applies whenever the Tyler is brought into the Lodge room, e.g., when he comes in to prepare the Lodge for the Third Degree ceremony, or to be invested on Installation night.
When the remaining formalities have been carried out, the Master declares the Lodge open and as he does so he dismisses the sn., all the other brethren, keeping their eyes on him, doing the same simultaneously.
The Master then gives the knock of the First Degree, and the Inner Guard at once goes to the door in readiness to knock immediately after the Junior Warden. He waits there until the Tyler has repeated the knock and then returns to his place, standing `to attention' until the Master directs the brethren to `be seated'. In some Lodges the Master sits down as soon as the knocks have `gone round' and the brethren then resume their seats without awaiting specific instructions to do so. In such cases everyone will probably be seated by the time the Inner Guard reaches his place and he will then, of course, sit down at once.
In the openings in the Second and Third Degrees the work of the Inner 86 The Inner Guard Guard is on the same lines as in the First Degree, save that he is not called on to recite his duty and that when addressing the Junior Warden he uses the latter's Freemasonic title instead of his name. He also takes the sp. and stands to order when he makes his report. When ordered to `see that the Lodge is properly tyled', he ascertains the fact either by opening the door and observing the Tyler at his post or, if such be the custom of the Lodge, by giving on the door the knock of the Degree then open.
In the closings the Inner Guard's work is practically the same as in the openings, but the difference in the wording of the instructions is to be carefully noted. The Junior Warden now commands him to prove `the Lodge close tyled', and when he has done so by giving the knock of the Degree open, he reports (of course with sp. and sn.), `Brother Junior Warden, the Lodge is close tyled', or, as in some workings (e.g., Brit.), `the Lodge proves close tyled'. It does not in the least matter which word is used, `is' being, perhaps, the more common, `proves' the more logical.
When the Lodge has been closed in the Third or the Second Degree and the closing knocks have gone round, the Inner Guard returns to his place and either sits down (if the Master has done so by then) or awaits the general order to `be seated', as the custom of the Lodge may be.
Sometimes the Master will close the Third or Second Degree `summarily' and not `in full'. In that case the Inner Guard is not called on to prove the tyling but will merely have to do his part in the round of knocks.
When the First Degree has been closed and the I.P.M. has pronounced his concluding formula, the Inner Guard will open the door widely for the brethren to pass out of the room. If, however, a procession is formed, he will not open the door until the procession begins to advance for its exit.
Whenever the Tyler knocks on the door, the Inner Guard (waiting, of course, for a convenient moment when he can do so without interrupting the business of the Lodge) announces it to the Junior Warden either as a `report' (if it is the knock of the Degree open), or as an `alarm' (if it is a wrong knock (see p. 51). In both cases he takes the sp. and stands to order before speaking.
The Junior Warden (who, if he has not been authorised to take reports, will first pass the announcement on to the Master) in due course directs the Inner Guard, by word or gesture, to see who seeks admission. The Inner Guard then ascertains from the Tyler the name of the would-be entrant and, after closing the door, with sp. and sn. announces it directly to the Master who, if satisfied that he is known or properly vouched for, orders his admittance (see also pp. 76, 77).
Formerly it was the custom for the names to be passed from the Inner Guard to the Master via the Junior Warden, just as is done with the announcement of reports and alarms, and the order for admittance followed the reverse route. This is still the practice in at least one The Inner Guard 87 Lodge, namely No. 20. We shall now consider entrance of candidates.
To take first the case of a candidate for initiation. Here the knock is theoretically in no way differentiated from that given for a brother but, as has previously been noted, (see p. 77) the Tyler generally gives this knock with somewhat greater emphasis and in rather slower time than on ordinary occasions.
The Inner Guard announces the `report' as usual, and when he has been told to `see who seeks admission' he opens the door a little and stands in the doorway, or goes just outside leaving the door half open, and a colloquy takes place between him and the Tyler. This has been set out in full on page 78 and need not be repeated here.
The colloquy ended, the Inner Guard shuts the door, goes to the spot from which he ordinarily reports, and, with sp. and sn., announces, `Worshipful Master, there now stands at the door of the Lodge Mr. A.B., a poor candidate etc.,' using the same words as did the Tyler.
Claret, P.C., and Stability omit the words prior to 'Mr.-A.B.' in the foregoing sentence spoken by the Inner Guard; but without them the beginning of the announcement is unpleasantly bald, and they appreciably add to the effectiveness of the speech. They (or equivalent words) occur in Carlile 1825 and are used in Unanimity, Bristol, Oxford, York, Humber and Exeter.
Then comes the following series of questions and answers: - W.M. - How does he hope to obtain those privileges? I.G. - By the h. of G. and the t.o.g.r., being free (see p. 78).
W.M. - The t. of g.r. has already been heard in his favour; do you, Brother Inner Guard, vouch that he comes properly prepared? I.G. - I do, Worshipful Master.
W.N. - Then let him be admitted in due form.
The Inner Guard completes and drops the sn. and returns to the door, remembering to possess himself of the implement that he will require. He waits until the Deacons have arrived and are ready to receive the candidate. He then opens the door and the Deacons lead the candidate in and halt him. After closing the door the Inner Guard comes in front of the candidate and applies the s ... i ... to his l. b., asking him, `Do you f.aY On receiving an affirmative reply he raises the implement above his head as an indication to all present that the necessary formality has been observed. He moves aside to allow the Deacons and candidate to pass and returns to his place. He must not forget to give the s. i. to the Senior Deacon, who will take it to the east and put it on the Master's pedestal.
In some Lodges the I.G. himself takes the implement to the Master and in detail the procedure connected with the 88 The Inner Guard sometimes he even fetches it from the East when he requires it for use, but such practice is strongly to be deprecated. On no account should the I.G. leave his post except only when he has temporarily to take the Tyler's place outside (see pp. 81 and 85).
In some old Lodges the Inner Guard, after receiving the candidate's affirmative reply to his question, addresses him thus: `As this is a prick to your flesh, so may the recollection of it be a prick to your conscience should you ever be tempted improperly to reveal the secrets of Freemasonry'.
A peculiarity of Gilkes's working, which was copied into the Oxford Ritual where it still remains, was that the implements were applied to the candidate, not by the Inner Guard, as in Unanimity, Bristol, Humber and Stability, but by the Deacons - the Junior Deacon in the First Degree and the Senior Deacon in the Second and Third. In the latter two the candidate was made to advance and salute before the application. The directions in P. C. (1871) are as they were in Claret, but in PC. (1874) the duty has been transferred to the I.G. Emulation now conforms with the general - and certainly the more convenient - practice, but when they first made the alterations we do not know.
The admission of candidates for passing and raising is conducted on the same lines as in the case of initiation, except that, as the knock is not that of the Degree then open, the Inner Guard will announce it to the Junior Warden as an `alarm'.
The questions and answers that pass between him and the Tyler in each case are set out on pages 78 and 79. He must not omit to take the P.G. from the candidate as well as the P.W.
After shutting the door the Inner Guard makes his announcement to the Master, prefacing it as before with the words, `Worshipful Master, there now stands at the door of the Lodge Brother A., etc.' The catechism is repeated and the Master orders the admission of the candidate.
In the Second Degree the Inner Guard applies the external angle of the S. to the candidates' r.b. (seep. 61) and raises it up in evidence of its use. According to Inman4 present-day Emulation practice is to apply the arms of the S., but this is an innovation since their early days, for a rubric in Claret specifies that the Senior Deacon `applies the external angle of the s ... e to his b ... t', and in P. C. (1874) the I.G. does the same. York and Exeter also specify the angle of the S.
In some Lodges, on the analogy of what is done in the First Degree, the Inner Guard, after using the S., says to the candidate, `You are now admitted into a Fellow Craft's Lodge on the S. and this should teach you that you are to act on the S. with all mankind, more especially with your brethren in Freemasonry'. This address, somewhat extended, appears in Carlile 1825 and its use is, therefore, no modern innovation.
The Inner Guard 89 In the Third Degree b. ps. of the Cs. are applied to b. bs. and sometimes the following address is given: `You are now admitted on b. ps. of the Cs. applied to b. your bs., and as between those parts he the vital parts of man, so are the most valuable tenets of Freemasonry comprehended between the ps. of the Cs'.
With regard to the re-admittance of the brother after his withdrawal to ,restore himself' see page 80. Even if the Tyler makes the mistake of referring to him as `the candidate on his return', the Inner Guard should announce him as `Brother X'.
It must be added that the Inner Guard should never carry the s ... i ... except when he is using it at the reception of a candidate for initiation. On no account should he commit what has justly been termed the `atrocious and ignorant mistake" of holding it in his right hand when he stands to order or gives a sn. As is remarked on the page that has just been quoted, `In the 2° and the 3° other implements are used in the admission of candidates; so that if it were correct to use the s ... i ... in giving the sn. in the 1°, it would be equally correct to use the other implements respectively in those degrees'. Moreover, if anything is held in the hand it is physically impossible to give a sn.'correctly.
6 The Work of the Deacons Next to the Master the Deacons are, in the ceremonial working, the most important officers in the Lodge and on the manner in which they perform their functions depends very much the impressiveness of the various ceremonies and the effect that they have on the candidates.
The Deacons must know accurately their respective duties as formally prescribed and must be prepared to recite them when asked by the Master to do so in the course of the opening ceremony; though, as has been previously mentioned (see p. 85), in many Lodges where the working is slovenly the Deacons are not trusted to answer for themselves and the questions are put to the Wardens.
In almost all the printed rituals the statement of the Junior Deacon's duty ends, `and to see that the same are punctually obeyed'. No fault can be found with this on the score of grammar, and a hundred years ago no exception need have been taken to it; but, although `the same', used as here, occurs in both the Bible and the Prayer Book, in recent times it has become so essentially a characteristic of the form of language known as `commercialese' (and has even obtained a vogue with a certain type of lawyers) that it jars unpleasantly, not to say offensively, on educated ears; so that Fowler has pilloried it among the `illiteracies'.* Therefore the J.D. will be well advised to adopt the Oxford formula, `and to see them punctually obeyed'; or even better, `to see that they are punctually obeyed', which is the Unanimity wording.
In A.Q.C., xlix, p. 120, a brother expresses his preference for the formula of the Ritual of 1825, viz.: `that the same may be punctually obeyed', on the ground that the form now usual implies `that the J.D., a junior officer, is to see that one of the Principal Officers performs his duty properly'. In the light * `As the working man puts on his Sunday clothes to be photographed, so the unliterary adorns himself with "(the) same" when he is to appear in print; each seems bent on giving the worst possible impression of himself. Modern English Usage sv. SAME and ILLITERACIES. See also A.P. Herbert's What a Word! pp. 83-4.
The Deacons 91 of the above note on `the same', those who agree with this criticism should, of course, say, `that they may be punctually obeyed'.
In the openings and closings in each Degree the Deacons must be on the qui vive, ready to advance and attend to the Tracing Board (seep. 75), at the proper moment. Some Masters prefer that they should not move until the series of knocks has been completed, but there is no reason whatever why they should not step forward as soon as the Junior Warden has given his knock. The Master should not direct the brethren to `be seated' until the Deacons have attended to the Board and have returned to their places.
The Deacons must be particularly careful to avoid any clumsiness in manipulating the Boards, and with this object they should, before the proceedings begin, satisfy themselves that the Boards are properly arranged, each one face downwards, the Third Degree Board at the bottom and that of the First on top, all being correctly oriented (see p. 75). When the Lodge is opened the top Board is turned over on its long axis; in the Second Degree the two upper Boards are turned over together; in the Third Degree all three are turned over at once. In the closings the same processes are carried out in the reverse order. Thus everything goes smoothly; there is no hesitation, no tentative peeping such as is so often witnessed; and the face of a Board of a higher Degree than the one open is never exposed.
In a few Lodges the Boards are too large and unwieldy to be manipulated in this ideal manner and can only be dealt with one by one. But even then care should be taken that the Third Degree Board is not exposed to the view of one who is but an E.A. or a F.C.
Reference may here be made to a minor detail of practice which was introduced by the late Grand Secretary, Sir Colville Smith, in his mother Lodge. The effect, adding as it does to the formality of the procedure, is decidedly good. When they have adjusted the Boards, the Deacons come `to attention' and make a slight bow to one another before returning to their places.
As a general rule a Deacon, when moving about the Lodge, should go `with the sun', though in practice certain exceptions to this rule are permitteds in most Lodges; and if this course takes him past the Master he should salute. Whenever he is in charge of a candidate he will be careful to `square the Lodge' (see p. 58), but a warning must here be given in regard to a fault on the part of some Deacons that is far too often in evidence and the commission of which introduces an unseemly element of the ludicrous into what should be a solemn and reverent ceremonial. When the Deacon and candidate make the rightangled turn at a corner, the Deacon should on no account step back, an action which - especially if accompanied, as it frequently is, by a sort of forward peck - inevitably calls to mind a certain trick of gait that used to be not uncommonly affected by low comedians on the Music Hall stage.
92 The Deacons On the contrary, the Deacon must remember that, being on the inside, he forms the pivot on which they turn and he should simply `mark time' without taking any backward step while he guides the candidate to wheel round him.
When a candidate is about to be admitted, the Senior Deacon will go to the door via the east, south and west*. As he passes the chair of the Junior Deacon the latter will join him and they go on together walking side by side, the Junior, of course, on the left. Before the candidate is admitted they must see that the stool is duly placed in position. In some Lodges it is the custom for the Deacons to attend to this; in others the duty, is allocated to the D.C. or the A.D.C. In the latter case the same brother who has placed it will also remove it at the proper time; otherwise the removal will be effected by whichever Deacon is not in immediate attendance on the candidate.
On the candidate's entry, the Deacon who is to have special charge of him during the ceremony (i.e., the J.D. in the First Degree, the S.D. in the other two) will stand at his right hand, the other Deacon on his left.
Although it is now usual for the Master, when he has ordered the admittance of a candidate, to call on the `Brothers Deacons' to perform their office, it should be mentioned that some of our older brethren of long experience take strong exception to this call on the ground that, by implying some suspicion as to the readiness of those officers, it casts a reflection on their alertness. Hextall quoted' with approval the following remarks of a writer of nearly sixty years ago: `There is no occasion to use the two words [Brothers Deacons.] In the first place, it sounds as though a direction were given to officers to perform an act not within the scope of their duty, and it is the absolute duty of the officers you address. In the second place, Deacons who are worth anything are ready to take charge-without being called to attention'. The present writer's opinion is that the Deacons should spring to action the moment the Master has ordered the admittance of the candidate and that the call to them is only justifiable if they are asleep when wanted. In Stability working the Master does not call either to the Deacons here or to the Wardens at a certain point in the ceremony of raising.
During prayers and obligations it is now the general custom for the Deacons to cross their wands above the candidate, and in these notes it will be assumed that the rule obtains. The practice, however, is by no means obligatory and, so far as can be ascertained, it never had any symbolical meaning. In fact Hextall has expressed the opinion 2 that `the crossing was at first accidental, and passed into a custom without any significance attaching to it'. He added that it `was not of importance or insisted on' in his early * In Lodges where the implements used by the I.G. are customarily kept on the Master's pedestal, the S.D. will, as he passes, pick up the one required on the occasion and convey it to the I.G.
The Deacons 93 days in the Craft and he regarded it as comparable to the `similar fashion ... of making an arch of (e.g.) swords or scouts' staves at weddings. Whether, therefore, in any particular Lodge the practice is adopted or not will depend on custom or the wishes of the Master for the time being. In a few Lodges it appears to be customary for the D.C. to join the Deacons and add his wand, thus `making a sort of tripod over the candidate's head'.
Claret (4th edition) has a footnote to the First Degree prayer which reads, `While the prayer is being given, the two Deacons join hands over the head of the Candidate, holding their wands with the other'. Perhaps that was the accepted practice before the crossing of the wands was introduced.
The supervision of the various `probations' to which candidates are subjected by the Wardens in the course of the ceremonies calls for some adroitness on the part of the Deacons. The practical purpose of these examinations is not merely to instruct the candidate but also to serve as tests of his apprehension and knowledge of what he has been taught and to exercise him in the art of `proving' himself and of applying the test to others. Obviously, therefore, he should be encouraged to go through them as far as possible without assistance. In the probations proper (i.e., the examinations in the technicalities of Degrees which he has previously taken) the candidate ought not to require any prompting at all, though this ideal is not always attained. In the examinations that deal with details he has only just been taught, more or less prompting will be necessary according to his mental acuity and habits of observation; but even here the Deacon, while carefully supervising his every action and word and correcting any mistake, should at least allow him the opportunity of showing his intelligent interest in, and attentiveness to, the ceremony by answering for himself as far as he can. If from the start he finds that full dictation is the rule, he will never make any attempt to act on his own initiative. To insist, as is usually done nowadays in London Lodges, on his repeating all his answers disjointedly, two or three words at a time and only as they are dictated to him, not only defeats the theoretical object of the examination but is bad for the candidate and detracts appreciably from the interest of the proceedings. Nothing is more deadly dull for the audience than this mechanical dictation and repetition. No doubt in the case of an unusually stupid or nervous individual dictation in full may be required throughout, but intelligent Deacons will gather at the outset of each candidate's career what line it will be advisable to take with him in order to serve best all the interests concerned. The custom of the Deacon dictating every one of the candidate's answers in full and aloud results from the importation into Regular Lodges of the practice of Lodges of Instruction. In them the rehearsal is essentially for the benefit of the Deacon himself and, naturally, to evince his knowledge he is made to dictate the answers at length to the acting candidate. But in Lodge he should surely let the candidate give D 94 The Deacons for himself, if he can, the answers he has just been taught and he should only prompt (and then sotto voce) when it is really necessary. As a consequence of the unfortunate prevalence of the custom here deprecated, we find Bro. Cecil Powell relating4 that visitors to Bristol often remark with apparent surprise that there they do not prompt the candidates but make them answer for themselves! We shall now proceed to deal with the work of the Deacons in the several ceremonies and in doing so shall give directions in somewhat elaborate detail, not with any suggestion that they must necessarily be followed in all particulars punctiliously (or as the modern unliterary journalist and third-rate novelist would probably say, 'meticulously')', for some Lodges will have their own peculiar time-honoured variants but simply because they form a system which a practical experience of nearly sixty years has shown the writer will ensure an effective result. It is important that the working throughout should give to the onlookers an impression of smoothness; it is still more important, nay, absolutely essential, that it should strike the candidate as intelligently rendered and logical, and that the language employed should be such as would be used by an educated person. It is in the last particular that the working of many Lodges today is woefully lacking. Bad English, unwarrantable mis-statements (e.g., the blasphemous suggestion so often made that the Ob. is not binding without the `sealing' of it on the V.S.L.) and uncouth actions cannot inspire the candidate with any great respect for our Order.
These notes should be read in conjunction with one of the printed rituals. Which one, of the score or more that are procurable, does not greatly matter, but the one that most nearly exemplifies the practices and wording advocated by the present writer is, as has been already stated, The English Ritual (see p. 36).
THE FIRST DEGREE.
When the candidate enters he is led by the J.D. to the appropriate spot where, after a question has been asked and answered, he is told to kneel. The J.D. should guide him into position, and should whisper to him that a stool is in front of him. During the prayer the Deacons cross their wands. No attempt should be made to place the hand, or hands of the candidate in any particular position; he should be left to dispose of them as he likes. (This applies equally to the corresponding incidents in the other Degrees.) The answer to the ensuing question must, of course, be quietly prompted by the J.D.
After an announcement by the Master, the J.D. leads the candidate round the Lodge. In this Degree he obviously cannot salute the Master as he passes him, even if it be the custom of the Lodge for the Deacon to do so in the The Deacons 95 other Degrees. (The S.D. follows them up the north and then, after putting on the Master's pedestal the s ... i ... that he will have received from the I.G., resumes his seat.) The J.D. brings the candidate successively to the two hypothetical doors guarded by the Wardens, at each of which he makes him give the `report either on the Warden's shoulder or, as in Oxford, on his out-stretched closed fist. The Deacon has to give certain answers which he should enunciate clearly in a voice audible throughout the room. In the progress he must take special care to avoid contact by the candidate with any piece of furniture.
When they have passed the second `door', the J.D. takes the candidate to the Senior Warden's left, and if in doing so he circles round him he will be able to bring him to the exact spot required (where he will be made to stand facing east) without having to push him back into position as would otherwise be necessary. The J.D. then gives the candidate's right hand to the Senior Warden who `presents' him.
The action of the Deacon in thus circling round the candidate, though herein recommended both on this and on subsequent similar occasions, is in some Lodges - particularly in Benefactum - deprecated on the ground that it entails an anti-solar movement. Although the objection is logical, it seems to the writer that the movement is so unobtrusive that it may be condoned as being preferable to the altenative of bringing the candidate to a halt facing east and then pushing or drawing him backwards into his correct place in relation to the Warden. It is particularly useful, as tending to smoothness of the procedure, when there are two or more candidates.
There follows a series of questions, the answers to which should not require prompting, and the J.D. is then directed to instruct the candidate to advance to the E.
This advance is often most ineffectively performed on account of an insane adherence to a measurement given in the rubric of the P. C. A `yard' is much too short, for in that limited space it is absolutely impossible for the required movements to be properly executed. A suitable distance is five feet, and if this be divided into sections of about 1, Ph and 2'h feet the final position will be exactly attained. Any contact with the furniture must be most carefully precluded.
Having brought the candidate to the starting point, the J.D., still holding his hand, explains to him aloud: `The proper method of advancing to the E. is by t. i. s.; the f. s., and s. 1. and the t. l. s.*; beginning with the 1. f.' He then goes behind the candidate and whispers to him the details of the instruction seriatim. He will find that if he grips both the candidate's arms above the elbows he will be able to control his every movement to a nicety and the result will be entirely effective. Should he be doubtful of his ability to * i.e., ". . . three irregular steps, the first short, the second . . . and the third ... [Ed] 96 The Deacons manage his wand while thus engaged (though there should be no difficulty about it), he may arrange with the S.D. for the latter to come forward a little earlier than he would ordinarily do and hold the wand temporarily.
As the final position is reached, the S.D. comes forward and takes his place on the candidate's left.
In connexion with the s ... s it may be observed that the practice varies in regard to two points. In most London Lodges - and nowadays probably elsewhere too - the candidate is made to come h. to h. between each s. Too often, when this method is adopted, he is so directed in the placing of his f. that his progress is virtually sideways or crablike. In any event that mode of progression should be avoided; the candidate should face due east all the time, with his f. equally averted when they are h. to h. Formerly in most Provincial workings the advance was by ordinary s... s, with no intercalated h. to h., as is still the Oxford practice, and this would appear to be more nearly in accord with the Freemasonic theory in that the advance is intended to be emblematical of the uncertain and irregular progress of an unguided person in the then condition of the candidate. In the Humber Use the s ... s are described as `sliding'.
The other point where difference in practice occurs is in the order of the s ... s. According to Gilkes's working, and still in some Provinces (e.g., Oxfordshire) the order is the reverse of that usual in London and described above. Since the essential characteristic is merely the irregularity, and no theoretical significance attaches to any particular sequence, it is really quite immaterial in what order they are taken and any Lodge is free to adopt whichever order it prefers. We would, however, remark that to end with the shortest of the series has the advantage that it entails less risk of a painful contact with the k ... s ..., an unfortunate contretemps that sometimes occurs with an inexperienced Deacon when the candidate straightens himself up after a long s ... carried rather too far forward.
In Exeter working no instruction as to the form of the s ... s is given to the candidate who is allowed to take them in whatever way he likes which may be as ordinary walking s ... s, a Deacon on each side of him merely keeping him on a straight course.
It may be noted that Claret's Ritual prescribes that `The J.D. states to the Cand. that the method of advancing from W. to E. is by three irregular s ... s, and after leading him about a yard from the W.M., he first directs him to take a short pace of about 15-in. with his 1 ... t f ... t bringing his r ... t h ... 1 into the hollow thereof, one of about 12-in., and another about 9-in., . . .' This shows that, although in modern Emulation practice the J.D. gives the candidate no preliminary hint as to what he is about to be made to do, in Gitkes's time he did so. It is most desirable that he should do it, for then the candidate better appreciates the nature of the procedure. It will also be The Deacons 97 observed that with Gilkes the individual s ... s had a character which is clearly wrong in that it is anticipatory and therefore contrary to theory. It appears to be unknown when Emulation altered the Sequence of Gilkes's time to that which they now adopt.
The direction in P. C. (1874) is curious in that each s ... is to be `with his I ... t f ... t bringing the hollow of the r.f. to h. of 1.' One wonders whether this correctly expresses the Emulation practice of that date or whether an accidental interchange of `hollow' and `h' occurred in the print.
Just before the Ob. the candidate is asked a question. If he hesitates too long before replying, the J.D. may in a quiet whisper prompt him to give his answer or may even suggest the words thereof. Recently in some Lodges an unpleasing custom has grown up whereby the Deacon loudly ejaculates `Answer', the moment the question has been put, without giving the candidate time to speak, or even to think. This should never be permitted. It unnecessarily startles the candidate and distracts his attention.
In the Master's directions as to the candidate's attitude during the Ob., reference is generally made to the r. f., and one sees Deacons making all sorts of extraordinary endeavours to put it in the position suggested, usually with the result that the subject is placed in a posture of such discomfort as to distract his mind from the words that he has to repeat. If it be remembered that the k. s. is a modern luxury, that the r. f. should be flat on the g ... d, and that only one limb is concerned in the formation of the r. a., it will be realised that the correct position is only capable of attainment with a small k.s., or if the candidate is at the extreme end of a long one. If neither of these conditions obtains, it is best for the Deacon to pay no attention to the reference, or at most merely to indicate the site of the r. a. by a light touch on the front of the a ... e, leaving the rest to chance. Much of the doubt and difficulty on the point will be avoided if the Master slightly amplifies the usual direction by saying, `Your r. f. at r. a. to the leg in the form of a S' (see p. 148).
The S.D. must help the master to adjust the Cs. (or, in Oxfordshire working, the s.i.), and while doing so he will be well advised to get the J.D. to hold his wand.
With regard to the employment of the candidate's left hand, see page 149. The preparation for the act of `restoration' requires some savoir faire in order that it may be effected instantaneously at the right moment and a little preliminary practice on the part of the J.D. is desirable.
After the `restoration' a curious solecism is often witnessed.
The J.D. has been so impressed with the necessity of checking any tendency of the candidate to gaze about him that, even when there is not the slightest indication of such an inclination, he presses down his head to so extreme a degree as to make it actually impossible for him to see certain 98 The Deacons objects to which at this point the Master draws his attention. A modicum of intelligence or common sense on the part of the J.D. should obviate this really serious fault. Unless the candidate shows a decided intention to gaze around, the J.D. need not touch him at all; but if he thinks it advisable to do so, he will be content to check any turning of the head without depressing it.
When this part of the ceremony is concluded, the S.D. returns to his seat and the candidate is placed by the J.D. at the Master's right. He is often placed too close. If the Deacon will bear in mind that when two persons shake hands they naturally stand fully three feet apart, he will realise exactly where the candidate should be put so that he may reach the correct spot when the `communication' is to be made. When the Master gives instructions as to certain details of posture and action, the J.D. must see that the candidate carries them out correctly.
There follows a short catechism. Two different methods of conducting this are met with in practice. Sometimes - and perhaps more frequently - the J.D. stands behind the candidate who is made to repeat the answers as the J.D. dictates them to him. In this dictation the Deacon should avoid cutting up the sentences into too small portions, since to do so renders their sense more difficult of apprehension. Thus, it is better to say straight off, `At my initiation I was taught to be cautious' than to subdivide the phrase into two or more sections, and similarly with the second half of the answer. According to the other mode - practised in Oxfordshire and elsewhere - the J.D. stands in front of, and facing, the Master and recites the answers freely, the candidate not being made to repeat them. In the writer's experience this has always seemed to him the better plan, because the candidate appears to take in the meaning more readily and is then better prepared to give the replies in due course to the Wardens than he is when the first method is adopted, and especially so if the Master has said (as it is desirable that he should in this case), `the Junior Deacon will now dictate the answers that you will then have to give for yourself.
In Exeter, both here and in the 2°, the examination is rehearsed between Master and Deacon and is more complete than usual.
It must be remembered that at the end of the 1 ... g or h ... g, the W. should not be given `at length' (seep. 60).
In Oxf. and Exeter the candidate is taught to say, `but with you I will 1. or h. it', which is patently erroneous, for it emphasises the wrong point. That wording stresses the `you' and means, `I will 1. or h. it with you, though I wouldn't do so with anyone else'. What is intended is, `I will not give it in full but I am prepared to 1. or h. it with you or anyone who so asks me for it'. The PC. formula, `I will 1. or h. it with you' is the correct one.
The candidate is now conducted to the Junior Warden to whom he is presented `on his initiation' and at whose hands he undergoes a `probation'.
The Deacons 99 The J.D. should only prompt when it is necessary and then in an undertone (see p. 94). Some judgement is required in doing this; so much depends on the acumen of the candidate; if he is moderately intelligent, he will probably need little or no prompting.
Sometimes one sees the Deacon adjusting the G. given by the candidate. That is not his duty; in fact, if the G. is properly `covered' by the Warden, as it should be (see p. 119), it is impossible for the Deacon to know whether it is being given correctly or not. Any adjustment should be made by the Warden.
They next go to the Senior Warden. Here the J.D. must carefully direct the advance which is now made piecemeal. He must also dictate in full the first few answers, as they are fresh to the candidate. In doing so, he should avoid unduly splitting up the sentences.
This examination concluded, the J.D. takes the candidate to the left of the Senior Warden, circling round him so as to bring him to the required spot without any pushing back (see p. 95). He gives the candidate's right hand to the Warden who `presents' him for a mark of the Master's favour (cf. p.128).
The J.D. will give any assistance that may be needed in the investiture and - should the Warden overlook this detail - must see that the flap of the badge is turned up (see p. 129).
The Deacon is now directed to place the candidate in the north-east. A curious and altogether undesirable pose has been adopted in many Lodges which has no allegorical or symbolical foundation and is simply absurd. The following quotation explains the point: - `When in the north-east corner the candidate represents the foundation stone [laid at the north-east corner of the building] and should, therefore, stand `square with the Lodge', that.is to say, facing due south. He should, of course, be placed as nearly as possible level with the Master, towards whom he can then look with a minimum turning of his head; but sometimes the arrangement of the seats for the brethren in the east prevents the attainment of this ideal. In some Lodges he is told to stand with his l.f. across the Lodge and his r.f. down the Lodge, and to `pay attention to' [which he naturally interprets as `look towards'] the Master.
In this position he faces approximately along the diagonal of the room, and in order to look towards the Master he has toturn his head over his left shoulder. When it happens that he has to be placed at an appreciable distance west of the line of the Master's pedestal, his attitude is not only ludicrous, but is one of such discomfort and strain that it can hardly fail to distract his attention from the words addressed to him. I have heard this position defended on the ground that he is supposed to be standing on the corner stone with his heels at its outermost angle, and one foot along each of its sides. But he is not supposed to be standing on the stone. He figuratively is the stone. Consequently his only logically correct position is 100 The Deacons to stand square with the Lodge'.' That is the position in which the candidate is placed in Oxford working. The explanation of the adoption of the absurd attitude just mentioned is probably as follows. Formerly the newly initiated brother was made to stand on the north-east corner of the `Lodge' drawn on the floor or of the painted `floor cloth' that succeeded it, certain that he then stood `square', i.e., facing full south. When the cloths were replaced by framed paintings on canvas (the modern `Tracing Boards')* he could not stand on the Lodge, but, in order that he might be as nearly as possible on its corner, he was placed with each foot in contact with a side of the frame, thus practically facing along the diagonal of the Board. That is still his position in Stability. Some years ago, but `within living memory', Emulation moved him to the north-east corner of the room,' but retained the illogical diagonally-facing posture, which has been copied by many Regular Lodges.
It appears that in some Lodges, e.g., most of those in Oldham, the rough ashlar is placed in the N.E. corner and the candidate is made to stand on the floor with his feet against its northern and eastern sides. In the 2° he similarly `squares' the perfect ashlar in the S.E. corner. 8 Having posed the candidate, the J.D. possesses himself of the receptacle that he will presently require. When the time comes he puts his questions audibly. They will be as follows: - Have you anything to give in the cause of c Were you d. of e. v. previously to entering the Lodge? If you had not been so d., would you g. f.? The candidate's answers being satisfactory, the J.D. reports, `Worshipful Master, our newly made brother affirms that he was d. of e. v. previously to entering the Lodge; otherwise he would g. f.' In some Lodges (e.g., Benefactum), the solicitation is made by the Almoner.
When the succeeding address is concluded, the J.D. places the candidate in front of the Master who presents and explains the Working Tools, after which the J.D. conducts the candidate via the south and west to the door and sees that he salutes properly (first taking the sp.) before leaving the Lodge.
The Etiquette utters a warning agains `any informality or slovenliness in the performance of the salute. A mere raising of the hand to the appointed position should not be allowed; the hand should be thrown out boldly to the front.... A perfunctory or slovenly manner of giving the salute is a breach of Masonic Etiquette'.9 * It will be remembered that at a consecration, when the elements are scattered or poured `on the Lodge', it is what we ordinarily call the `First Degree Tracing Board' that receives them.
The Deacons 101 THE SECOND DEGREE.
The J.D. alone has charge of the candidate while he undergoes his examination by the Test Questions of the First Degree, and on its completion, without waiting for any command, he takes him to the right of the Master who communicates the P.G. and P.W. He then conducts him via the south and west to the left of the Senior Warden where he directs him to salute,. and then leads him to the door.
Sometimes, both here and in the corresponding place in the next ceremony the Deacon is seen to bring the candidate down the north side of the Lodge. This should never be permitted. His progress is a formal one and therefore the-rule of always going round `with the sun' should be strictly adhered to. The question is sometimes asked whether they should salute the Master as they pass in front of him. Obviously they should not, just as they do not salute a Warden when passing his pedestal after a probation with him. They are not in fact `passing' him at all, but are merely leaving him. This will be clear if it is realised that it is only for convenience that the candidate on these occasions is brought to the side of the Officer instead of being placed directly in front of him, as is, indeed, still done in some Lodges. Usually the large modern pedestals are obstacles to that mode of procedure.
The Deacon should bear in mind that the word `approbation', given in the P.C. in the answer to one of the Test Questions, is incorrect. The word should be 'probations' (seep. 141).
The Lodge having been opened in the Second Degree, the candidate seeks admission by the knock of an E.A. On his entry he is received by the two Deacons, the S.D. (who will have charge of him during the ceremony) being on his right and the J.D. on his left. When the implement has been applied by the Inner Guard, he is led to the left of the Senior Warden and halted about 18 inches short of the kneeling stool,where the S.D. directs him to take the sp. and to salute.
After the prayer, during which the Deacons cross their wands, the J.D. removes the stool and then returns to his place, which he may do by the direct route across the west.
The S.D. now conducts the candidate through the perambulations. It is in these perambulations that Deacons often appear lacking in savoir faire, with the result of conveying, not only to the onlookers but to the candidate himself, an impression of slovenliness. A careful reading of the following detailed instructions should obviate any risk of slipshod working.
The S.D., taking the candidate by the right hand, leads him up the north. When about half-way up the room he instructs him aloud, `Salute the Worshipful Master in passing as a Freemason (see pp. 56 and 69). It is best to give this order while still in the north because, except in a very large room, there is not time to do it properly and for the candidate to absorb it, between V Ds 102 The Deacons the turn at the north-east corner and the Chair.
As they approach the pedestal the Deacon drops the candidate's hand and transfers his wand to his own left hand and they both salute as they pass the Master.* There should be no pause in their progress nor any turning of the body towards the Master (see p. SS). To avoid this the Deacon should, when giving the instruction, emphasise the words, `in passing'; and if the candidate still shows a tendency to check his progress as he salutes, the Deacon can tell him in a whisper immediately afterwards that he ought not to do so. He will then know how to comport himself on similar subsequent occasions (cf. p. SS).
Having saluted, the Deacon replaces his wand in his right hand and resumes hold of the candidate with his left.
Immediately after turning the south-east corner he begins the next direction, `Advance to the Junior Warden as a Freemason, showing the s. and communicating the t. and w.' Regrettably often one hears this direction worded, `Advance to the Junior Warden as such, etc'. As a rule that conveys nothing to the candidate and the Deacon has to explain further. It says little for the intelligence of some of our brethren that this phrasing should ever be used in the Lodge working! It is quite appropriate and unexceptionable in a printed rubrict (and in the Lecture, where also it occurs), because there the word such' comes in the same sentence as, and only a few words after, its correlative word and therefore its meaning is evident. But in the practical performance of the ritual the two parts of the rubrical instruction become absolutely dissociated. The first part is completed and, as it were, erased from the surface of the candidate's conscious mind as soon as he has saluted and passed the Master. When the Deacon begins to give the next instruction it comes to him as an entirely fresh subject, having no obvious connexion with what has gone before. Consequently, when he is told to `advance as such', he inevitably asks himself, `What on earth is a such, and how does a such advance?' That this absurd formula is ever heard in Lodge is the outcome of the unintelligent use of printed rituals.
(The above remarks apply equally to corresponding incidents in the Third Degree).
* As already stated some Lodges have in recent times adopted the rule that when in charge of a candidate the Deacon himself does not salute the Master or Wardens. This has a certain advantage in the case of an inexperienced Deacon who is thus free to give all his attention to the candidate.
In the P.C., as lately at any rate as the 1909 edition, the instruction was given, as in all other rituals, in a rubric, but in the 1918 edition, and all subsequent editions, this has been altered and now some of the words of the former rubric are actually prescribed to be spoken by the Deacon. Unthinking users of the book are thus misled into committing a piece of stupidity.
The Deacons 103 The S.D. halts the candidate at the appropriate distance from the Junior Warden and lets go of his hand in order that he may carry out the instructions. He should correct him if he does anything wrong, and during the examination should prompt him if necessary, but otherwise should not interfere.* When he has finished the probation the Junior Warden, saying, 'Pass... ', hands the candidate over to the Deacon who leads him on and, while still in the south (unless the room be of unusually palatial dimensions), gives the direction, `Salute the Senior Warden in passing as a Freemason'. This salute is effected in the same way as the previous one in the east, namely, without any check or turning round.
The candidate is then halted in the north-west. The corner there is negotiated by an ordinary right-hand turn. It is unnecessary for the Deacon to walk round the candidate on this occasion as it is not needful to bring him westward into a position level with the Senior Warden, and the halt is made directly after the corner has been turned. This remark will apply to the similar turns at the end of the first two perambulations in the Third Degree ceremony.
The Master now calls the attention of the Brethren to the forthcoming second perambulation. This is carried out exactly on the lines of the former. When about half way, or a little more, up the north side the Deacon directs the candidate, to `Salute the Worshipful Master in passing as a Freemason'. This is done and he then directs him to `Salute the Junior Warden in passing as a Freemason'. The next instruction (which, in an ordinarily sized room, should be begun immediately after passing the Junior Warden's pedestal) is, 'Advance to the Senior Warden as a Freemasont showing the s. and communicating the P.G. and P.W. that you received from the Worshipful Master previously to leaving the Lodge'. If the candidate is fairly intelligent he should be able to give the answers with little or no prompting. In any case the Deacon should not prompt more than is absolutely necessary and then, as on other occasions, sotto voce. It is to be hoped that the candidate will have been taught by the Master to say, `near a f. of w.' and not `near to a f. of w.' (see p. 143 and cf. p. 125).
After the examination the candidate is handed back to the Deacon with the words, `Pass, ... '. He is then taken to the left of the Senior Warden (the Deacon this time walking round him in order to manoeuvre him into his proper place) and his right hand is given to the Warden by whom he is formally `presented' to the Master. The latter then orders instructions to be given for the `advance to the E.' * At some time or other after his initiation and befove his passing, one or other of the Deacons should make an opportunity to impress on the candidate that the sp. taken prefatorily to a sn. should always be a short one, six inches being ample.
t Not `as such'. See p. 102.
104 The Deacons It is difficult to explain in writing exactly how this advance should be executed but the following hints may serve to clarify it. It must be remembered that the are of the hypothetical w. s. is a quadrant.' ° A glance at the design on the Tracing Board (if it be of the usual modern pattern) will make this clear. That design came into being after the adoption of the present mode of advance and was almost certainly intended to conform with, and illustrate, it." The candidate should be taken to the appropriate spot, which in a smallish room will probably be on the line of march up the north, but in a wider room will be somewhat nearer the central line of the Lodge, and he is there made to stand facing due south. The S.D., standing in front of, and facing him, and a couple of yards or so from him, addresses him thus: `The proper method of advancing to the E. in this Degree is by ... ... , emblematical of a ... a w ... s ... , beginning with the 1. f. For your instruction I will go through them and you will afterwards copy me'. He then takes his stand immediately in front of the candidate and demonstrates the procedure, after which he signifies to him to do the same. According to his apparent intellectual alertness, the candidate may be guided or may be allowed to go through the performance alone; but probably it will generally be better for the Deacon to take his hand. Except in the case of a phenomenally dense candidate, it is, according to the writer's experience, very rarely that any appreciable mistake or muddle occurs, provided that the Deacon has effectively secured the candidate's attention and has made his demonstration clearly and correctly.
A warning may here be given to the Deacon that, when he arrives in front of the pedestal at the end of his demonstration of the mode of advance, he should not perpetrate the gaucherie - all too often committed - of bowing to the Master. This remark applies also to the corresponding- place in the Third Degree.' z A reference must here to made to an extravagantly absurd mode of performing this advance which is sometimes witnessed and which is believed to have originated as a vagary on the part of some member of a Lodge of Instruction. In this method the starting point is located at the head of the Tracing Board and, as that is in the central line of the Lodge, the course followed purports to be a semi-circle instead of a quadrant, though in actual practice it is usually more suggestive of the attempt of an inebriate to negotiate a straight line. Moreover, the candidate, when at the starting point, is placed in an extraordinary attitude which can only have been evolved by someone either devoid of all sense of the ludicrous or desirous of making the procedure ridiculous. He is instructed to stand with his 'I. f. pointing to the J.W. and his r. f. to the S.W.', so that he practically turns his back to the Master. Not only is this position of the f. lacking in any symbolical meaning (and therefore unnecessary) but the whole posture is an utterly unreasonable The Deacons 105 one in which to put a whole person prior to his a ... g a w ... s ... in the direction proposed, unless, indeed, it were desired that he should trip and perhaps fall in the process!' 3 Bury Ritual is the only version known to the writer in which it is directed that the steps of this advance, instead of being straightforward steps as usual, are `each to be taken with the 1. f., bringing the r. h. into the hollow thereof. Moreover, it would appear that the candidate at the start of his advance, though he is made to face south, stands in the central line of the room and so, presumably, traverses a semi-circle as in the method mentioned above.
We must now hark back a little in order to describe the procedure of the Junior Deacon. When the S.D. and the candidate leave the Senior Warden after the latter's examination as to the P.W., the J.D. rises and follows them. During the `presentation' he stands on the candidate's left. Then he follows the other two up the Lodge* and while the candidate is being instructed in the advance he again stands on his left, remaining there until the advance has been accomplished, when he moves up to his appointed place on the candidate's left during the Ob.
The candidate now takes up his position for the Ob.
The remarks previously made (see p. 97) regarding the r. f. in the Ob. of the First Degree apply here to the 1. f. and to the action of the J.D.
The Etiquette contains the following comment on a detail of the posture: `A mistake is often made in placing the 1. a. in the proper position; the a. should rest in the angle of the S. and not the elbow on the S. with the 1. h. elevated. That position of the 1. h. comes in a later stage of the proceedings"' Bro. Thomas was, however, certainly wrong in calling it `a mistake'. Without doubt the elevation of the 1. h. is an old-established practice. Nevertheless, it is a position of strain, and as such tends to divert the candidate's attention from the words of the Ob. For that reason, and then only because the position is at the moment of no special import, the writer is in favour of the adoption of Bro. Thomas's suggested modification. The 1. h. may then be allowed to rest on the edge of the pedestal.t This effectually obviates any distracting strain or discomfort.
During [i.e., throughout. Ed.] the Ob., the Deacons cross their wands. When the Ob. is over, the J.D. retires to his seat (going thither down the south side of the Lodge) and the S.D. places the candidate at the Master's right, a little further away from him than at the corresponding point in the former Degree, to allow for the two sps. that have now to be taken.
With regard to the catechism that follows the communication of the s ... s, the same observations apply that were made in reference to the similar * If there is not a sq. in readiness on the Master's pedestal the J.D. must remember to carry with him the one that was used by the I.G. at the candidate's admission.
t [This implies that the 1. a. is to be held horizontally throughout the Obligation. Ed.] 106 The Deacons incident in the First Degree (see p. 99). As there stated, the writer is very decidedly of opinion that when the answers are recited freely by the Deacon (the S.D. in this case), the candidate assimilates their wording and sense much better than when he only hears them in disjointed segments which he does not readily connect together in his mind. The Deacon must, naturally, arrange beforehand with the Master which method is to be adopted.
On the conclusion of the catechism the S.D. takes the candidate to the J.W., to whom he presents him `on being passed to the Second Degree'. The Deacon must carefully supervise his advance, correcting any mistake and, if it seems advisable, making him repeat the movements.
They next go to the Senior Warden, where more detailed instruction and dictation will be required in the earlier part of the examination, as was the case in the First Degree. It should be noted that the correct appellation of the first part of the sn. is, `the S.S. or S. of F.' (see p. 170).
After this probation the candidate is led (the S.D. walking round him to bring him into position) to the left of the Warden who, taking him by the right hand, presents him to the Master for some further mark of favour, and he is then delegated to invest him. The Deacon should at once remove the E.A. badge, afterwards helping the Warden to adjust that of a F.C. Nothing is more atrocious than to put the second badge on top of the first; and yet one occasionally sees it done.
The Deacon is now directed to place the candidate in the south-east, and he conducts him thither via the north and east.* The ideal spot is one on a level with the Master's pedestal, but he will probably have to be a little west of that. His posture should be similar to that which he assumed when in the north-east in the previous Degree. The Deacon places him facing due north and tells him, in an undertone, to stand erect with his feet at right-angles, that is, with each foot equally everted to 45 degrees. He should not be made to stand with `one foot across the Lodge and one foot down the Lodge' (cf. p. 99).
After a brief charge has been delivered, the candidate is placed in front of the Master for the presentation of the Working Tools. Finally, he is led, via south and west, to the left of the Senior Warden where he salutes (with the sp. and sn. of the Second Degree only) before withdrawing.
When the newly passed brother re-enters the Lodge, the S.D. receives him at the door (or course going thither down the south side), tells him to salute as a Fellow Craft, and then at once leads him up the north until they are on a level with the Tracing Board. Then, making a right-hand turn, he takes him to the Board, placing him either at its side or at its west end, as the Master may desire. He hands his wand to the Master for use as a pointer. Some Masters * On the curious solecism that obtains in Exeter practice see p. 59.
The Deacons like the Deacon to remain by the candidate during the `explanation'; otherwise he will go to his chair, remaining on the alert to come forward and conduct the brother to a seat as soon as the Master has finished.
THE THIRD DEGREE It is presumed that the foregoing notes on the Previous Degrees have been read, so that some remarks may here be omitted which otherwise it would be necessary to set out in full.
While the Lodge is in the Second Degree the candidate for raising undergoes his test examination under the charge of the Senior Deacon, who then takes him to the Master for the communication of the P.G. and P.W. Then he is led (by way of the south and west) to the left of the Senior Warden, where he salutes as a F.C. and is conducted to the door.
The Lodge is opened in the Third Degree and the room is made ready. In due course the candidate seeks admission `by the knock of a F.C.' He is received by the Deacons* (the S.D. being on his right) who, when the Inner Guard has fulfilled his duty, lead him near the kneeling stool where the S.D. directs him to salute as a F.C. He should not first salute as an E.A. (cf. p. 228).
After the prayer, during which the Deacons cross their wands, the S.D. takes the candidate by the right hand and embarks on the first of the three perambulations, the J.D. following behind them.t On their way up the north the S.D. gives the order, `Salute the Worshipful Master in passing as a Freemason'. This is done, and the next direction (begun at the south-east corner) is, `Advance to the Junior Warden as a Freemason,$ showing the sn. and communicating the t. and w.' The candidate ought to be able to achieve this probation without any prompting. While still in the south, the S.D. directs, `Salute the Senior Warden in passing as a Freemason', which is done. Immediately after turning the north-west corner they halt momentarily and then enter on the second perambulation.
As they go up the north, the S.D. tells the candidate to `Salute the Worshipful Master in passing as a Fellow Craft' and, that having been accomplished, to `Salute the Junior Warden in passing as a Fellow Craft'. He next instructs him to `Advance to the Senior Warden as a Fellow Craft,§ The lighting must not be adjusted until immediately before the actual entry of the candidate.
In some Lodges it is the custom for the three to walk abreast, but that is undesirable except in a very large room. If, however, it is done, they must remember that when they turn the corner the S.D. forms the pivot on which they turn and the other two wheel round him. Also that, when the candidate is about to pass, or advance to, one of the Principal Officers, the J.D. should temporarily fall behind.
$ As has been previously emphasised, not `as such'., § Again, not `as such'.
107 108 The Deacons showing the sn. and communicating the t. and w. of that Degree'. When the probation has been effected, they go on to the north-west corner and after turning it halt while the Master calls attention to the ensuing third perambulation.
As in the second round, the candidate is ordered to salute, first the Master, and then the Junior Warden, `in passing as a Fellow Craft'. Having passed the J.W., the S.D. gives the final instruction, `Advance to the Senior Warden as a Fellow Craft, showing the sn. and communicating the P.G. and P.W. that you received from the Worshipful Master previously to leaving the Lodge'. The amount of prompting here required will vary according to the candidate's degree of acumen.
The S.D. now takes the candidate to the left of the Senior Warden, bringing him into position by walking round him, makes him face east and gives his right hand to the Warden, who 'presents' him. Thereupon the Master gives orders for the advance to the E.
For that purpose the candidate is led by the S.D. to a spot level with the head of the o. g. and is turned to face south. Then the Deacon, standing opposite to him, explains: `The proper method of advancing to the E. in this Degree is by ... . . ., the f. t. as if s. o. an o g.;* the 1. f. b. or m. s. For your instruction I will go through them and you will afterwards copy me'. He demonstrates the method and then sees that the candidate, whom he had better take by the hand, accurately follows his example.
Because the wording of the PC (now in the text but until lately a mere rubric) does not specifically mention the latter part of the advance, it often happens nowadays that the Deacon fails to refer to it in giving the instruction to the candidate, who is thus incompletely informed as to the procedure and does not realise that the last f. sps. are part of the formality. This omission should not be permitted. Claret, Oxf., Stab., Exeter and York give the directions in full.
The movements involved are often attempted in a manner that renders the whole performance little short of farcical. It is impossible on paper to give a lucid criticism of the faulty method referred to, but it may suffice to say that at two points in the early part of the progress such an extravagant eversion is inculcated as no one, unless he is actually deformed, can possibly execute without rotating on his heel or risking the dislocation of his knee. It is related that an irreverent spectator, witnessing this exhibition, was once heard to remark that the Deacon might well have interpolated the words, `as though you were skating on the outside edge'' s The result is that what is attempted * A recent innovation is to omit the word represented by the second 'o', but to do so is a gross error. Hextall refers to it in Misc. Lat., IV, 59, and points out that 'in the absence of the particular condition imported by the missing adjective all reason for the advance taking its emblematical form would be absent'.
The Deacons 109 is not accomplished and that a good deal of extraneous movement and unseemly shuffling takes place.
It may be helpful to say that at no single moment during V his progress should the candidate face in any direction other than due east. The annexed diagram may, perhaps, supply a ' ~ hint as to the correct consecutive positions of the first t. ss.* [The lines commence each step; the dots complete it. Ed.] \.' The J.D. in the meantime has remained in the position he took up on the candidate's left prior to the advance. He now comes to the east in readiness for the Ob. which follows and during which the Deacons cross their wands.
On the conclusion of the Ob. the Deacons move the candidate back so that he stands just clear of the o.g., the S.D. telling him in a whisper to stand erect with his feet squared. He must not be made to cross his feet (see p. 184).
Having so placed him, the Deacons at first stand close to, and a little behind, him. As the Wardens now approach, the Deacons each move a full pace outwards so that the Wardens may take the places they previously occupied. As soon as the Wardens have reached their stations the Deacons quietly proceed to their chairs. In some Lodges it is the custom for them to move back and remain standing on a line a little eastward of the Senior Warden's pedestal.
Later on, when the master is about to tell the candidate that he may withdraw, the S.D. comes forward, timing his approach so that he reaches the candidate just as the Master finishes. It is unnecessary for the J.D. to take part here unless there should be two candidates.
When the Master has dismissed the candidate, the S.D. takes him by the g hand and conducts him down the south and across the west to-the left of the S.W. and there directs him to `Salute as a Master Mason', adding in a whisper, `Take the sp. and give the three sns. that you have just been taught'.
The Master should have explained to the candidate that these three sns. are always to be given on entering a Third Degree Lodge, but that ordinarily the p. s. alone is enough on leaving such a Lodge. On this occasion the three are given in order that the candidate may have the opportunity of practising them under supervision, but the S.D. may remind him, before he goes out, that in future he need give the p. s. only.
When the newly raised brother returns, the S.D. receives him, takes him to the left of the S.W., and directs him to salute the Master as a Master Mason, seeing that he does so correctly. He must be careful on this occasion not to let him go so far forward that he has to be pushed back just afterwards.
The Deacon gives the candidate's hand to the Warden who presents him, * Regrettably in Oxford Working there is no representation of the o.g., and the sps. are taken somewhat differently.
110 The Deacons and the Master then orders the investiture. The Deacon removes the F.C. badge and assists the Warden in the adjustment of the new badge.
Directly the Master has finished his short address to the candidate, the S.D. leads him up the Lodge, makes a right-angled turn at the appropriate spot and places him in front of the Master a few paces from the pedestal.
Some Masters like the Deacon to remain by the candidate for the rest of the ceremony. Others prefer him to resume his seat. In the latter case he must be ready to come forward and conduct the candidate to the Tracing Board when the Master is about to leave his Chair for the explanation of the Board. During this most Masters like the candidate to be placed on the north side and near the foot of the Board, the Master himself standing opposite to him. The Deacon hands his wand to the Master and stands behind the candidate.
It is, we trust, unnecessary to repeat that under no circumstances should the Board be carried to the Master for the explanation. It is of the very nature of the Board (consequent on its evolution) that it should lie on the floor of the Lodge (see p. 75). Almost equally objectionable is the use of a miniature sketch of the Board for the purpose (seep. 193). The Master should go down to the Board when he explains it just as he does in the other Degrees.
After the explanation, the Master returns to his chair and the S.D. again places the candidate before him. Here, too, he should have ascertained beforehand whether the Master wishes him to resume his seat or to stay by the candidate.
On the conclusion of the ceremony the S.D. conducts the late candidate to a seat in the Lodge.
Should there be two candidates for the Degree, the Deacons will have to act as assistant Wardens, and directions as to the procedure in that case will be found at the end of the Chapter on the Work of the Senior Warden (see p. 131).
DEACONS - Other duties Besides the ceremonial work certain other items of duty fall to the Deacons which, for the sake of completeness, may here be mentioned.
In most Lodges the S.D. carries the Minute Book to the Master to be signed by him, though in a few lodges it is customary for the Secretary himself to do this. In returning he need not punctiliously go round the Lodge, but may return directly to the Secretary's table (seep. 59).
The Deacons also have to conduct the ballots. In the case of a ballot for a candidate the J.D. distributes the balls, going first to the Master and then round the Lodge `with the sun'. The S.D. then takes the ballot-box to the Master - approaching him on his left side - who satisfies himself that the drawer is empty (usually getting the I.P.M. to confirm the fact) and then casts his own vote. The S.D. then collects the other votes and returns to the Master The Deacons III who, in conjunction with the I.P.M., examines the drawer.
In the case of a paper ballot, the J.D. distributes the papers, beginning, as before, with the Master. When he has done so, the S.D. proceeds to collect them and takes them to the Master.
One or other Deacon may be called on at any time if a principal officer wishes to send a message to someone in the Lodge or to the Tyler. In carrying such a message he will, of course, as a general rule follow the sun.
The Work of the Junior Warden In the main the work of the Wardens is set out in fairly full detail in the various printed rituals, but additional notes on some points are desirable. In dealing with the work of each Warden we shall first consider the openings and closings and afterwards the ceremonies proper.
Whenever the Junior Warden enters his chair, whether prior to the opening of the Lodge or when returning to his place after a temporary absence in the course of the work, he should do so from its eastern side; and when he has occasion to leave it he should move out towards the west.
It will be remembered that the J.W.'s column should be erect only when the Lodge, though still open, is `called off' seep. 67). If, therefore, the Tyler has in error set it up when preparing the room, the J.W. must lay it down before the opening ceremony is begun. He must not raise it on the closing of the Lodge.
Opening of the 1 ° Until the brethren have `proved' themselves and it has been thereby shown that no cowans are present, the officers taking part in the ceremony address one another by name, with the simple prefix of `Brother'. The reason for this is that, although the outer world know that we call each other `Brother so-and-so', they are presumed not to know that there are any distinctions among us (in the sense, that is to say, of some being office-holders), what the titles of our offices are, or who at the moment hold them. Therefore the Master, in putting the first question to the J.W., addresses him by name as `Brother A.' Similarly the J.W., in directing the I.G. to `see that the Lodge is properly tyled', addresses him as `Brother B.' When the I.G. has ascertained that the tyling is effective, he reports to the J.W. in the words, `Brother A., the Lodge is properly tyled'. The J.W. passes on this report to the Master, also addressing him by name, `Brother C., the Lodge is properly tyled'.
In the P.C. (the only ritual known to the writer in which the peculiarity occurs) it is directed that the J.W., in making the report, should use `no The Junior Warden name'. This is at variance with the Freemasonic theory, because the making of even this slight difference in the mode of address implies some distinction between the brother so addressed and the others.* That is the Emulation form and it is an innovation in their working since their early days, for Claret of 1838 and PC (1871 and 1874) direct that the J.W. shall report to the Master `calling him by name'. When and how this curious and illogical variant was introduced in this one working is unknown. It may possibly have resulted from the misreading as `no' of an indistinctly printed `by' in some edition; or it may have been brought in, as some other variants would seem to have been, merely for the sake of differing from other workings.
As has been stated (see p. 84), the I.G. ought to satisfy himself as to the tyling by opening the door and seeing the Tyler at his post; but sometimes nowadays he does it by giving a knock on the door which the Tyler answers. Whichever method the I.G. employs, the J.W. should on no account preface his report to the Master by a knock on his pedestal. Not only is it meaningless and therefore unnecessary, but it is a time-honoured rule that the Wardens should never use their gavels except in answer to a knock by the Master, save only in the case of `Calling off and `Calling on', when the J.W. initiates the series of knocks which then passes upwards to the Master.
The above remark applies equally to the J.W.'s corresponding reports in the openings of the 2° and 3° and in the closings, as well as to his announcements of Reports and Alarms.
It need hardly be said that the J.W. gives no sn. when reporting as to the tyling in the 1 ° opening, though in the other Degrees and in the closings he will do so.
Except in the few Lodges where the Tyler is brought in to do it for himself, it falls to the J.W. to recite the Tyler's duty. This he will do in the following words: `To keep off all cowans and intruders from Freemasonry and to see that the candidates come properly prepared'. The earliest known post-Union printed ritual, namely Rit.1825, has, `To keep off all cowans and listeners from Masonry and to see that the candidates for admission come properly prepared'; this is still the formula of the York Ritual and is unexceptionable. The Claret Ritual has, `To keep off all cowans and intruders to Masonry', which might pass if `to' was replaced by `into', for the latter preposition, but not the former, can legitimately follow `intruders' to which alone it would then apply. The modern P.C., by inverting `cowans' and `intruders' in the above, has made nonsense of it, for one does not `keep off a person `to' a place or thing; and it cannot be argued that the `to' merely links `intruders and cowans' with the word that follows, because one can no more speak of `a cowan to Masonry' than one can of `a gate-crasher to a party'.
* West End, Taylor's and Logic Club rituals, though in most details they copy P.C., direct the J.W. to address the Master by name.
114 The Junior Warden Some may think that, as so few ever notice the incongruities of the P.C. version, it is a small matter to which the rule of de minimis non curat might well apply. But we should be false to our own principles if we failed to call attention to the faulty English.
It may be added that occasionally one hears - emanating from some of our less intelligent brethren - a criticism of the word `come' in the above answer. They seem to think that it implies that the candidates come to the Tyler already `prepared'! It does not occur to them that the wilfully obtuse could read exactly the same meaning into `are', which in Claret and P.C. replaces `come'. The only way to satisfy such critics would be to alter the whole phrase into `and to prepare the candidates'. As a matter of fact, `are' is peculiar to the versions just named and Exeter. Every other ritual (Unanimity and Rit.1825 included) has `come', and the obvious meaning is that the Tyler must be careful in carrying out his duties so that the candidates leave his hands and come to the Lodge `properly prepared'.
If the Master follows the modern slovenly practice of asking the Wardens to recite the duties of the Assistant Officers (as if, forsooth, he did not expect them to know, or to be capable of defining, their own duties), the J.W. will also have to state the duty of the Junior Deacon. In doing so he will, if he has any sense of seemliness, end it, `and to see that they are punctually obeyed' (see p. 90).
In the recitation of his own duty the educated J.W. will, of course, recognise that in nearly all the printed versions a necessary conjunction is omitted. English requires that the wording should be, `To mark the Sun at its meridian and to call the brethren etc.' The omission of the conjunction is one of the errors classified by Fowler as `Bastard Enumeration'.' Occasionally we hear a criticism of `at its meridian', on the ground that it should be `on the meridian'. No doubt an astronomer would use the latter - the technically correct - form; but, as we find in Jane Eyre (ch. 37) a reference to the sun and `its meridian', we may take it that that expression was accepted in the ordinary language of the first half of the 19th century and need not go out of our way to be pedantic. (See also page 123).
Openings of the 2° and 3° There is little that calls for special remark in connexion with these, save, perhaps, to note that when the J.W., having `proved' the brethren, proceeds to demonstrate the proof to the Master, he drops the first sn., and takes a sp. before putting up the other sn. The space at his disposal will probably prevent his taking an actual sp., but he can make certain movements that will render it evident that he is ostensibly taking it.
With regard to the answer to the question, `Whence come you?' Claret and P.C. give it baldly as, `The E.' That is unpleasantly curt and uncouth and it is The Junior Warden 115 preferable to conform to the wording of all other rituals and say, `From the E.' This remark applies equally to the S.W.'s answer to the next question (which all the other rituals give as either `Towards the W.' or 'To the W.') and to the J.W.'s reply to the similar question in the closing, which should be, `From the W., etc.' For the reason given in The Etiquette 2 it is desirable that the J.W. should say that the g. s. were lost `by the u. d. of our ancient G.M., H.A.' Unanimity and Exeter have `our G.M., H.A.' `Our M.', as in P.C., is too indeterminate.
The wording of the first question and answer relating to the centre varies in different workings. Two forms are equally rational, namely, that of Unanimity, Bristol and Humber, which run: Where do we [or you] hope to find them? Within [or in] the [or a] centre.
and that of Oxford, Exeter and York, which have: How do we [or you] hope to find them? With a centre.
The formulary of Claret and P. C. is quite illogical: Where do you expect [or hope] to find them? With the centre.
Each individual Lodge may use the form it prefers, but clearly, if the question begins with `Where', the answer must begin `In' or `Within'. The answer `With etc.' is only appropriate after a question beginning `How'.* It is to be noted that the J.W.'s definition of a centre, as usually printed, is not English, since a single item (namely, `every part') cannot possibly be `equally' anything, for there is nothing for it to be equated with. It should be `from which all parts of the circumference are equally distant'. t Most of the rituals have the unpleasantly stilted word, `equidistant', no doubt originally introduced by someone desirous of parading his `little learning'; `equally distant' (the form of Gilkes and Oxford) is a far more euphonious ending to the sentence.
Closing of the 3° Sometimes the I.G. in his report to the J.W. ( e.g., in Britannia) says, `the Lodge proves close tyled', which is logical; though most rituals have, `the Lodge is close tyled'. But whichever form is used by the I.G.. the J.W. should, of course, pass the message on to the Master in the exact words in which he has received it. As already pointed out (see p. 113), he should not use his * See also p. 138. It should, however, be stated that Benefactum workers defend the P.C. conjunction of `Where' and 'With', taking `with' to signify 'in the company of or 'at the abode of instead of the more natural 'by means of'.
Unanimity has the entirely satisfactory definition, `That point within a circle from which all straight lines drawn to the circumference are equal to one another'.
116 The Junior Warden gavel before reporting. This applies also to the other closings.
In the J.W.'s reply to the question, `Whence come you?' the words `whither we have been', although they appear in almost every ritual, are not, and never were, grammatical English. To conform to that standard they must be either, `where we had been' or - and perhaps better - `whither we had gone'.
When the Wardens leave their chairs for the purpose of communicating the s ... s ... , the J.W. will move out to his left and stand there until the S.W. has come level with him. They then proceed to their respective stations just east of the Tracing Board.
Strictly speaking, by passing up the south side of the Lodge, the J.W. contravenes the general rule of going `with the Sun' (see p. 59), but a little consideration will make it obvious that an exception, both here and when he goes to the east in the course of the 3° ceremony, is not only permissible but desirable.
The directions for the communication are badly worded in the P. e rubric, because a careless reading gives the impression that the J.W. is first to give the three sns., then to give the P.G. and P.W., and finally to repeat the sns. What is meant, however, is that he should begin with the P.G. and P.W., then take the sp., and lastly give the sns.
In the Oxfordshire and Exeter workings the J.W. advances as an E.A. and as a F.C. before he gives the P.G., but this is an unnecessary and pointless elaboration.
Attention may here be called to a curious error in regard to the last of the f. p. o. f. which has grown up in many London Lodges in recent years and which is believed to have had its birth in the Emulation Lodge of Improvement. It is not only. contrary to the early post-Union practice but is entirely at variance with the hypothetical origin and symbolical meaning of the attitude. In the method referred to, the h. is held aloft waving in the air, whereas it ought to be in actual contact with the b. Although it is now customary to term the position `h. over b.', we find from old allusions that the formula used to be `h. to b.' Moreover, Rit.1825 definitely specifies the contact, as does a note in the Bristol Ritual and a rubrical direction in Exeter. The innovation is surely the alteration of a `landmark', and consequently irregular.
Closing of the 2° We often hear the J.W. give his answer to the question, `To whom does it allude?' in the words, `To G., the G.G.O.T.U.' The first `G.' is a needless tautological interpolation found in several rituals, including Brit. and Exeter. The P. C. correctly omits it.
The only other note necessary is to call attention to the ineffective form The Junior Warden of the closing tag spoken by the J.W. that is printed in the P. C. The 18th century wording was: Happy have we met, Happy have we been, Happy may we part And happy meet again.
In those days adjectives were habitually used adverbially, so no exception can fairly be taken to the use of this archaic form. In the Claret Ritual, however, the grammar is modernised, but unfortunately the second line is entirely omitted, so that it runs: As happily we have met, So happily may we part, And happily meet again.
The same version appears inP.C (1871), but P C (1874) and subsequent editions revert to the old form, still leaving out, however, the second line, the result being crude and vapid.
Since we have the example of Gilkes for modernising the grammar we might as well follow it and secure effectiveness by using the version of the Oxford Ritual: As happily we have met, As happy we have been, So happily may we part And happily meet again. This, as the author of The Eqiquette remarks,' `has the merit of being at once metrical and grammatical'.
The verse does not appear in either Rit. 1925 or Unanimity, nor does it occur in the ceremonial part of the Humber Use. Bristol- uses the 18th century wording given above (see fuller notes on p. 71).
After reciting the above tag, the J.W. concludes with the words, `and it is closed accordingly'. He then gives the knock.
Closing of the 1° The J.W. must remember to have the date of the next meeting clearly in his mind in view of his final sentence. For the reason previously given (see p. 67), he should not raise his column on the closing of the Lodge.
In the opening in each Degree the Wardens (as well as all the other brethren should keep their eyes on the Master so as to dismiss the sn. simultaneously with him. In the closings the time will be set by, and taken from, the Senior Warden (see p. 48).
Every report and alarm given by the Tyler while the Lodge is open will be announced by the Inner Guard to the J.W., who at once passes it on to the Master. He must never use his gavel before doing so. As a rule, after he has 118 The Junior Warden passed on one or two reports, the Master will instruct him to `take reports for the rest of the evening'; but until he has been so instructed the J.W. has no authority to refrain from passing them on.b When he has received this authorisation he will, on the announcement by the Inner Guard of a report, at once (or after a short delay if the moment is not an appropriate one) direct that officer to see who seeks admission. On no account should he commit the solecism of conveying this order by a stroke of thegavel, but probably in most cases an inclination of the head or some other gesture will serve instead of a spoken direction.
It must be noted that the authorisation to `take reports' does not cover `alarms', nor does it apply to the `report' of a candidate for initiation, if the J.W. recognises it as such.
Although it is preferable that the Master, on receiving the announcement of a report or an alarm, should direct the J.W. to `Enquire who seeks admission' (see p. 144), some Masters use the words, `wants admission'. The J.W. must always pass the order on to the Inner Guard in the same words in which the Master has given it. Whatever his own views may be as to the preferable word, he has no right to vary the terms of an order given to him by his superior officer.
It is an accepted practice (or, perhaps, one should say, used to be so, for slovenly working has led to it being dropped in some Lodges in recent years) that whenever the Master stands (save only when he does so in the course of the ceremonies proper) the Wardens should also rise. They will, therefore, stand when the Master, towards the end of the proceedings, rises thrice to enquire as to propositions. It is because of the existence of this rule, which has obtained from time immemorial, that the custom exists of the Wardens standing when the Master rises to propose a toast after dinner.
Even where the Wardens no longer stand at the 'risings' in Lodge, one still almost invariably hears the Master's call, `Brothers Wardens, upstanding', if they do not get up when he is about to propose a toast. This shows ignorance of the origin of their standing with the Master during the proposal of a toast, for if the practice is given up in Lodge it is pointless to continue it at the dinner table.
THE CEREMONIES There is not much that needs remark in connexion with the First and Second Degree ceremonies. The only duties that fall to the J.W. are the challenging of the candidate for initiation at the hypothetical door, the preliminary testing of candidates for passing and raising and the `probation' of the E.A. and F.C. after the secrets have been communicated to them. In the first of those duties it is quite unnecessary for the Warden to rise as he bids the candidate to `enter'.
The Junior Warden 119 In the other cases custom ordains that he should rise to receive the g. from the candidate. He should not remove his glove for this purpose, a breach of etiquette too often seen in recent years (see p. 64). He must be careful to `cover' the g. with his 1. h. `to hide it', as Exeter says `from the eye of the cowan or insidious', and should remind the candidate of the importance of doing so. In the Bristol, Exeter and Humber workings this cover is termed the `due guard'* and its necessity is specifically emphasised. In many Lodges in England today slovenly working has led to its being altogether ignored.
The Warden must remember that it is his duty, and not that of the Deacon, to make any necessary adjustment to the g. as given by the candidate (seep. 99).
Whenever a Warden directs a candidate to give the W. `freely and at length', he should invariably interpolate the words, `and on this occasion, being in open Lodge, freely and at length'. Otherwise the candidate, having been previously schooled in the principle of never giving it in full, and possibly forgetting for the moment that in Lodge it may be so given, is apt to be startled and to incline to hesitate.
As to the procedure in the exchanging of the W. in the probations proper, see page 60.
The Deacon in charge is, of course, primarily responsible for seeing that the candidate takes the sp. and gives the sn. correctly, but the Warden also should pay attention to those details and should have them repeated if he thinks it advisable. It is particularly advisable that he should carry out this supervision with thoroughness if the Deacon happens to be Freemasonically young or lacking somewhat in self-confidence.
In the early part of the Third Degree ceremony the only thing that falls to the lot of the J.W. is the brief test in the First Degree. But after the Ob. the Wardens have a very important duty to perform and the effectiveness of the ceremony depends materially on their bearing and expertness.
A custom has unfortunately grown up in many Lodges (a custom which probably has its origin in a liability to somnolence on the part of the officers concerned) whereby the Wardens wait to be called up by the Master at the last moment. This is a most undesirable practice if we regard it in the light of its effect on the candidate; and, after all, the essential object is to make the ceremony as impressive as possible from his point of view.
To quote from The Etiquette: `It will be found convenient, immediately after the candidate has been bidden to rise (i.e., after the Ob.) for the Wardens to leave their places ... and silently to take the places of the Deacons. If the change is made at a * In America the term `due guard' is used in a different sense, and it is so also in Scotland where it is termed 'Dieu garde' and is explained as `being the position your hands were in when you were taking the obligation'.
120 The Junior Warden later stage - as is often done - when the Master breaks off in the narrative and with almost startling suddenness says, "Brother Wardens", there ensues a certain degree of movement which the candidate cannot understand and which to a great extent distracts his attention from the Master's address and the narrative of the Traditional History. This is altogether undesirable, entirely purposeless and consequently unnecessary'.' The writer personally feels very strongly on this point. If the Master is delivering his matter well, he will, during the `Retrospect', secure the candidate's attention wholly; the latter's mind becoming riveted almost hypnotically on what is being related to him. It is an appalling mistake suddenly to snap that bond of rapt attention by stopping the recital and calling to the Wardens. The candidate's mind is thereby taken off the narrative; he is, as it were, brought back to earth; he hears people moving about and begins to wonder what is going to be done to him. When after the interruption the narrative is resumed, he has largely forgotten the sense of what he has already heard and he can never again satisfactorily pick up the thread of the story. In a word, the effectiveness of the ceremony is for him utterly ruined.
No one who has seen the ceremony worked without the unseemly interruption, as it is in Stability and in a number of regular Lodges, is ever in doubt as to which is the preferable mode.
Although The Etiquette suggests that the Wardens should replace the Deacons immediately after the candidate has risen at the end of the Ob., the present writer, as the result of long experience, considers it better that they should so time their movements that they do not reach the east until the Deacons have adjusted the candidate in his place at the foot of the o. g. The Master will, of course, not begin the `Retrospect' until they have come up.
When the Deacons have placed the candidate their relative positions may be thus indicated: CAN.
J.D. S.D.
The Wardens leave their chairs (not forgetting to carry with them the necessary implements), the S.W. walking up the north side of the Lodge, and the J.W. remaining by his pedestal until the S.W. comes level with him when he too proceeds eastwards. As they approach, each Deacon takes a step outwards and the Wardens take their stands on the spots that the Deacons previously occupied. The Deacons then retire to their seats, unless it is the custom of the Lodge for them to remain standing (seep. 110).
The Junior Warden 121 On no account should the Wardens touch the candidate until it becomes necessary later on. The candidate should not be made to cross his feet (cf. p. 184), a procedure which (besides being a public confession of incompetence on the part of the Wardens) only serves to distract him and cause nervousness as to coming events. Hextall has stated that the practice was started within his recollection,' and rightly terms it `unnecessary and inappropriate'.9 A rubric in P.C., which expresses Emulation working, says that the Wardens are to `direct' the candidate `to c ... his f ... ', which means `to cross his feet'. In some Lodges, however, this is interpreted as `to calm his fears'.' o In Stability the feet are not crossed.
The writer has been told that in Ireland the candidate is placed in an attitude of which crossed feet form a part, but that has a special significance which cannot be explained here.
When the Master reaches the point where he describes the action of the first of the three mythical personages, at the words, `glanced on his r. t.' (the last of those words being his cue for action), the J.W. gives a light glancing stroke (from before backwards) on the site referred to, having previously stepped a little forward so as to stand on the candidate's right front. At the words, `s. on his 1. k.', the S.W. takes the candidate from behind by both upper arms, whispers the instruction, `k. on your 1. k.', and guides him in carrying out the required movement. He will find that by thus holding him he can easily and effectively control him.
The candidate retains the posture until the Master utters the word, `Recovering', on which the S.W., with a whispered `Rise', again places him erect.
The next action is taken by the S.W. who, stepping forward and turning towards the candidate, illustrates the Master's words, `a. v. b. -on the 1. t.' (he must not make his stroke a glancing one); after which, at the words, `brought him to the g. on his r. k.', the J.W. takes the candidate's arms from behind and, whispering, `k. on y. r. k.', makes him take the appropriate action and then immediately bids him rise. Note the immediate rising here, since there is no verbal cue to wait for as there was on the first occasion.
Then comes the culmination when, at the proper moment, both Wardens take hold of the candidate and place him in the requisite position. The S.W. may, if he thinks fit, give him a whispered hint to be passive; but if the Wardens are moderately competent, this is never really wanted. `The simple silent action of the right foot of the S.W..... renders a step back impracticable'." Occasionally one sees the candidate's feet crossed at this point, but such a posture is absolutely inappropriate.
The Wardens now take their stands about a yard behind the candidate and about two yards apart.
122 The Junior Warden When in due course the J.W. is ordered to `make trial', he passes behind the S.W., turns sharply to the right and proceeds as far east as is necessary; then, making another right-angled turn, he goes southwards until he is immediately in front of the candidate. He performs his duty and then returns to his place via the south, taking care to make his turns right angles. When he has reached his former place (on a level with the S.W.) he faces the Master and, standing to order as an EA., reports.
The S.W. then makes trial, squaring the corners in his progress and passing behind the J.W. to regain his place, where, standing as a FC., he makes his report.
The two Wardens now assist the Master in his action, after which they are directed to resume their seats, and all the brethren are directed to `be seated'. The S.W. goes down the north and the J.W. down the south, the two keeping abreast. When the J.W. reaches his pedestal he stands at its east side until the S.W. has arrived at the south side of his pedestal and they then take their chairs simultaneously. In the interests of effective working attention to these small details is well worth while.
CALLING OFF AND CALLING ON A curious solecism is commonly in evidence in the working of these minor ceremonies. When the J.W. is asked, `What time is it?' he is generally heard to reply, `High time, Worshipful Master' in the Calling Off, and `Past high time' in the Calling On. `High time' is an utterly meaningless expression, save in such a colloquialism (said, indeed, to have been seriously cited in explanation of the use of the phrase here) as `It is high time for some refreshment'. The logical term is `high twelve' and old rituals show that this was formerly used in the working.* Thus in 1730 we have: Q. - What's a clock? A. - High twelve. and in 1797: Mas. - What o'clock is it, Brother? Ans. - High twelve.
Mas. - Call the men off from work to refreshment.
And, again, we find a reference to the J.W. who `stands in the south at high twelve ... to call the men off from work to refreshment'.
It ought not to be necessary to explain that `high twelve' is a well known archaic term for noon which was used in `low twelve' or midnight. According to the more elaborate version of our legend that was in vogue shortly before the Union, the body of the ancient G.M., who had been slain at high twelve, * We still have the term in the Third Degree ceremony where it is related that the ancient G.M. was wont to go to worship 'at the hour of high twelve'.
The Junior Warden 123 was hidden in the Temple until low twelve, when it was secretly removed to its first burial place.
The writer strongly suspects that the erroneous form `high time' was originated by some uneducated exponent of the ritual who had recourse to a note in which the term was camouflaged as `High t. ... '. Not knowing the expression `high twelve', he filled the blank with the same word that occurs in the question, and the error became crystallised.' s In support of this the writer has a copy, made by himself, of a MS., believed to date from the 1790s, that belonged to the late Bro. Tuckett, in which occurs: What..., is it? High t ..., R.W. Sir.
What is to be done at H ... T ...? To call the workmen from L ... to R ...
Here `t ... ' in the second line obviously represents `twelve', but an uneducated person might quite conceivably think that it was meant to indicate the same word that occurs in the previous line. And similarly in regard to `T ... ' in the third line.
The error of `high time' actually occurs in Browne's Master-Key' 3 a fact that may possibly have conduced to its dissemination.
It is, of course, well known to those interested in archaisms that old-time workmen called the period of their mid-day recess `the high time of the day',' a and a correspondent of Miscellanea Latomorum actually claimed that it was this that gave origin to the term `High time' in the modern Calling Off formula. But that contention is put out of court by the habitual pre-Union use in this connexion of `high twelve', as in the instances quoted above. It is most unlikely that our brethren in the early 19th century would have gone out of their way to substitute for the hitherto accepted term an expression that had long since become obsolete and that probably few, if any, of them had ever heard. Even if they had done so, they would obviously have said `the high time' and not simply `high time'.
It may be of interest to note that in the Scotch working the answers, in Calling Off and Calling On respectively, to the question, `What is the time?' are: `The Sun is at his meridian', and `The Sun has passed his meridian'.
8 The Work of the Senior Warden On the assumption that the preceding chapter has been read it will be unnecessary to repeat the references that have there been made to some of the duties of the Senior Warden.
Whenever the S.W. enters his chair he should do so from the south side; and whenever he leaves it he will move out towards his left, i.e. northwards. It has already been pointed out that (see p. 59), although it is the general rule that anyone moving about the Lodge should `follow the sun', seemliness dictates certain exceptions to that rule. Thus, it would be absurdly pedantic for the S.W., after he has invested a candidate, to go all the way round the room in order to regain his chair. It suffices that he should simply pass across in front of his pedestal to reach its southern side. So, too, after the Wardens have performed their functions in the 3° ceremony, it is more effective that, in returning to their places, the J.W. should go down the south and the S.W. down the north. On the other hand, in the 3° closing, when the S.W. has communicated the s.s. to the Master, there is no reason why he should not comply with the rule and return to his chair via the south side of the Lodge.
Opening the 1 ° If the Master, in his first question to the J.W., used (as it is to be hoped he did) the word `Freemason' and not the more usual `Mason', the S.W., in answering the next question, will of course say, `To see that none but Freemasons are present'.
Incidentally, a brother once queried the correctness of the above answer on the ground that it should be `is present'. But such a form would be `journalese' and due to faulty education. Those who are addicted to that type of language are referred to Fowler's Modern English Usage, s.v. None.
In reply to the Master's question as to how many Assistant Officers there are, the S.W. should say, `Three besides the Outer Guard or Tyler, namely, etc.' The P.C. makes him say, `the Tyler or Outer Guard', which is illogical, because one would naturally give his general descriptive appellation first and The Senior Warden 125 then our technical term for him. In Claret the S.W. makes the same mistake, but the Master just afterwards puts it correctly, `Outer Guard or Tyler'. Every other ritual except Exeter has the proper form, `Outer Guard or Tyler', in both cases.
Where slovenly working prevails, the S.W. will be asked to state the duty of the Inner Guard. This he should do in the words, 'To admit Freemasons on proof, to receive candidates in due form, and to obey the commands of the Junior Warden'. Modern editions of the P.C. interpolate a superfluous `the' before candidates' (see p. 85).
The S.W. is next asked the situation of the Senior Deacon. In answering this let him say, 'At, or near, the right of the Worshipful Master'. Alone of all the rituals, except only R.R.., (it is not in Claret or P.C. (1971)* the modern P. C. has, 'At, or near to, the W.M.', a form of expression which, since it is contrary to the mode of speech of the educated, strikes a stilted and dysphuistict note. If one were asked, `Where will you sit?' he would not reply, 'I will sit near to you', but would say, `near you'. There is no need
