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.
