The Builder Magazine
June 1929 - Volume XV - Number 6
A Roman Catholic Grand Master
BY BRO. A. J. B. MILBORNE, Canada
OF the many brethren who have occupied high offices in the Craft in Canada, none are more affectionately remembered than the Honorable Claude Denechau, a distinguished French Canadian, who rendered valuable public service to his fellow countrymen during the formative period of the country.
Claude Denechau was a Roman Catholic, and became a Mason under the early "Modern regime in Lower Canada, and as appears from a Certificate issued by St. Paul's Lodge, Montreal, No. 12, of the P.G.L. of Lower Canada ("Ancients"), he was "haled" from Modern to Ancient Freemasonry on the 14th of January, 1800. He subsequently became a member of Merchants Lodge, No. 40, at Quebec, and was appointed Grand Junior Warden of the Provincial Grand Lodge of Lower Canada in 1805 during the Grand Mastership of H.R.H. The Duke of Kent. Appointed Grand Senior Warden in the following year, he served in that capacity until 1812, in which year H.R.H. The Duke of Kent resigned as Provincial Grand Master in order that he might accept the office of Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of England ("Ancients").
The official Circular for the year 1812 records that the Hon. Claude Denechau was "elected" Grand Master of the Provincial Grand Lodge of Lower Canada. This was an irregular proceeding for it was acknowledged that the appointment of the Provincial Grand Master was a prerogative of the Grand Master of England. It seems clear, however, that Denechau's election was merely an expedient to meet the situation which had arisen, and that steps were immediately taken to regularize his position by the application to England for a Patent. This Patent was not received until 1820, the delay in issuing it being no doubt due to the difficulties the United Grand Lodge of England was experiencing in putting its own house in order following the Union of 1813. Denechau's unconstitutional position was clearly recognized at the time, for in The Mason's Manual, issued on the 2nd March, 1818, by the Provincial Grand Lodge, it is provided that "the appointment of the Provincial Grand Master is a prerogative of the Grand Master of England, by whom . . . a Patent may be granted. . . . The Grand Master shall be installed, agreeably to ancient usage, on the twenty seventh of December annually, provided his PATENT has been obtained." (Italics in the original.)
A Special Communication was held on the 12th June, 1820, after the Patent had been received, and the Hon. Claude Denechau was regularly installed as Grand Master of the Provincial Grand Lodge of Lower Canada, a position he held until 1823 when the Provincial Grand Lodge was divided into two Districts the Hon. William McGillivray being appointed P.G.M. for the District of Montreal and William Henry, and the Hon. Claude Denechau P.G.M. for the District of Quebec and Three Rivers. This office he held until his death in 1836.
The Grand Master's address, delivered by Denechau on the 27th December, 1821, is to be found in Graham's History of Freemasonry in Quebec, but it was not the last Charge given by him to the P.G.L. of Lower Canada, as the Quebec historian suggests, for there has recently come to light a later address contained in the printed proceedings of the P.G.L. of L. C., held on the 27th December, 1822.
As this address is of unusual interest, apart from its historical value, it follows:
BRETHREN:
It is with heartfelt pleasure that on again meeting you at the Anniversary of our Tutelar Saint, I have to congratulate you on the improving state of the Craft, and the progress it has made in this Province, since I last met you on a similar occasion.
The observations which I then thought it my duty to make on the neglect which to a culpable degree I found to prevail in the several lodges throughout the Province, have not been without effect and I have now to acknowledge the dutiful and corresponding spirit with which the Brethren have universally received the admonition, which I can only ascribe to a conviction on their part of its propriety.
Not only have the Brethren been more zealous and punctual to their Masonic duties and in their attendance to their respective lodges, but by the information I have received from the Deputy Grand Master, our numbers have considerably increased. This circumstance is the more gratifying as many of the Brethren recently initiated are from that class of our fellow subjects amongst whom prejudices against the Craft are industriously kept alive from an erroneous notion or rather pretext of the views we are supposed to entertain with respect to matters of Religion. The deception is gradually dispelling, and a steady perseverance in that probity of action which characterizes Masons throughout the world, and which in fact is the very essence of the principles of the Craft, will hasten the period when our most ancient and honorable Institution will not be less revered by our Catholic Fellow Subjects in this quarter of the Empire, than by our Protestant Fellow Subjects in Britain and elsewhere.
The great maxims of our Institution comprehend all that is valuable in Christianity, and while it embraces all that is charitable among every sect or denomination of Christians, it entertains nothing repugnant to those great truths in which every true Christian must agree. The practice of the Masonic Craft is by no means incompatible with the religious exercises of any sect of Christians or of Christian virtues that can be named.
Our duties are plain, simple and consolatory, to the Great and Omnipotent Architect of the Universe we owe our gratitude as the great basis and foundation of all the happiness we now enjoy, to the King, attachment and allegiance, to all mankind (and in a more especial manner to Brethren of the Craft) friendship Charity and brotherly love. From him who hath much wealth much charity to his poor and suffering fellow-creatures is required, and from him who hath little, not more is required than he can consistently with his other obligations conveniently spare, from the poor it requires honesty, industry and sobriety, a due respect for superiors and all those who are placed in authority over them.
Exempt from those scandalous persecutions, to which under the pretext of religion, the Craft has and still does labour in some countries, Masonry has at all times prospered under the powerful and protecting arm of the British Government, and accordingly our lodges are proverbially Loyal. The Craft we profess instead of debasing mankind tends to enlighten, and many are the Brethren of exalted rank and eminent character whose names are foremost in Patriotism, and whose devotion to their King and Country, evince that Loyalty may be justly considered as among the first of Masonic virtues.
It is our bounden duty, Brethren, collectively and individually as far as our influence may extend among our fellow subjects to inculcate principles of Loyalty to the King and obedience to his Laws as well as the most entire confidence in the wisdom and efficiency of his Government as exemplified in our present and unequalled constitution without which there can be no rational freedom.
To you Brethren, Officers of the Grand Lodge, who have served for the last year, I return thanks for your assiduity in the duties of your respective offices, and the assistance you have rendered me in the discharge of mine, and to you Brethren and Officers of the Provincial Grand Lodge installed this day, I enjoin a perseverance in the zeal and harmony which I have witnessed in the lodges for the last year, and desire that you will afford a like laudable example to your successors as you have received from those you have succeeded. In your several lodges you are to take care that the necessary labour be duly and fully executed, you are to be regular and careful that a proper decorum be observed, and that the advice and instructions necessary to form the perfect Mason, be from time to time attended to, and imparted so that the younger Masons may have frequent occasions to improve in the Craft and qualify themselves as officers in their several lodges. I must particularly call your attention to the Returns, and request that they may be regularly made at the appointed times to the Grand Lodge, and I am confident that this request will meet with a ready acquiescence on your part.
I take this opportunity of informing you, Brethren, that our Grand Master, His Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex, has been pleased to appoint by an Instrument under his hand and seal of the Grand Lodge of England, Brother McGillivray, to be Provincial Grand Master of the Lodges in Upper-Canada a Brother of distinguished merit, and I therefore desire that whenever he may honor any lodge in this Province with his presence, he may be received with the distinction and respect due to his Masonic Rank and Station.
(Signed) C. DENECHAU,
Grand Master.
There is now on the Register of the Grand Lodge of Quebec a lodge which bears the name of Denechau. Founded in 1906, and drawing its membership from the French-speaking citizens of Montreal, it has had a steady and encouraging growth. The ceremonies are conducted in the French language. The translation formerly in use has been revised, with the result that the difficulties and harshness of a literal rendering have been removed.
----o----
The Hiram Abiffs of Other Races
By BRO. D. D. ANDERSON. Island of Mauritius
THE legend of H. A. forms the kernel of Freemasonry; it is the peg on which all that the Craft teaches is hung. Let us very briefly sum up the tradition having not only the rendering as given in "Emulation" working, but where necessary, going outside it to other sources in order to fill in the picture.
H. A., the Master Architect, paid his devotions to the Most High . . . I have so far no precise information as to where it was in the Temple; probably somewhere towards the W. where was situated the Holy of Holies. In the Ritual of the Grand Lodge of Scotland, it should be noted, he eventually tries to escape by the W. door. Emulation then states that he went to the S., to the N., and then to the E. Other rituals give a different path, but all that I have had access to agree in the main detail that death overtook him in the E. Another point of difference among the rituals are the working tools figuring in the tragedy. His grave was marked by a sprig of acacia. All the various traditions agree on this point. Some rituals stress the r .... g of the corpse on the F. P. of F. and its subsequent interment as near to the Holy of Holies as possible. Others the finding on the body of the Mystic Name engraved on a gold triangle, which with the sprig of acacia, is placed in a coffer on the altar in the Holy of Holies.
Now although these last details appear so different, the underlying meanings are identical. We must realize that it has been for long a common belief that human spirits on death enter into plants. Acacia, more than any other, is associated not so much with the actual survival of the ghost, but with the idea of resurrection. What is more dead looking than the pod containing the seeds, yet what is more certain to sprout however adverse the conditions? The sprig of acacia thus symbolizes two distinct but complementary ideas, that of immortality in the abstract and that of survival of the soul in the concrete (if it is permissible to use such a word in this connection).
The Sacred Name engraved on the Triangle of Gold is another paraphrase of the same general idea, but advanced a degree further. Ever since the ancient Egyptians pictured Osiris as the All-Seeing Eye, the Triangle has served as the representation of God Almighty, no matter how different the name by which He has gone for the time being. The removal of the Golden Triangle is another way of describing the transference of the Vital Spark, the Blazing Glory at the c .... e, the G. from the human corpse to the Holy of Holies, that is back to the Godhead. Consequently, whether you take the tradition of the actual body being taken to the sacred spot, or others of the Triangle or acacia being placed on the altar, the idea remains the same; an actual, positive step-up of H. A. from being a mere man to a being somewhat nearer to Divinity.
We are now in a position to analyze this extraordinary myth. Stripped of all its pictorial and descriptive trappings, a man who is above the average is killed by members of the ruck of mankind because of his superior relationship towards the Deity. But instead of being snuffed out, he is elevated to rank with the Gods, and as such continues to benefit the human race. The Masonic Ceremony forces this story in a peculiar way to the attention of every Brother, thereby linking up the impersonal external teaching with the internal personality of each of its members. It is therefore of considerable interest to inquire whether we can find the same teaching in any other ceremonial practiced either in the present or in the past.
We meet it at once as the underlying motif of the best known theology of our surroundings, the Christian religion. Let us here consider the one of its facets which is pertinent to our ends. The Christian story is of a Man superior in many notable respects (conception, powers, etc.), who by reason of this superiority and of His connection with His "Father," is put to death. He comes to life again, but there is already something more of the sublime, of the untouchable about Him, and He finally "ascends into Heaven," i.e. to the Godhead where He continues to benefit mankind. The whole matter is too well known to require more than this brief reference. We should realize its importance, however, as it is the only modern religion which uses the H. A. principle. It is not contained in any other. Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, the beliefs of the Parsees or those of the Jews; they all use other vehicles to carry the truths as they see them into the minds of man. Even in the creed of Islam, its chief actor does not die to benefit the genuine believer. In the past, however, we find a very different state of things.
The earliest trace of the Resurrection-God appears probably in the myth of Osiris. Originally one of the minor gods of Egypt, the Spirit of the Corn and no more, he wedded his own sister, Isis, who was the personification of nature. As time went by tradition changed him into a great and beneficent king and Isis into his queen; of her it was said that she discovered how to plant corn and taught the secret to her subjects. Osiris was possessed of a half-brother, Set, the God of Storm and Darkness. Bad brother Set killed him by luring him into his coffin by a trick, nailing on the lid and throwing it into the Nile. After many adventures Isis found the corpse, and with the help of certain other gods, revived Osiris, who thenceforth reigned as king over the dead in the Underworld, his particular seat being the Morning Star. All corpses were made to go through the adventures of Osiris, which course would then, by the concepts of imitative magic, ensure immortality for their respective disembodied spirits. Some authorities believe that an actual ceremony of initiation was made of the myth whereby the initiates guaranteed for themselves continuity after death.
In Babylonia, not long after, or perhaps even before, a different version of the same idea arose, which is summed up in the words of the Grand Old Man of the Euphrates, Ea. "Let one brother God be given, let him suffer destruction that man may be fashioned." The story goes that the great Mother, before the creation of the world, was Tiamat, the Womb of the Abyss. When the gods decided to bring the world out of the universal chaos, she opposed the scheme and was championed by a human-shaped monster, Kingu, also called in the tablets "her husband." Marduk, the leader of the pantheon, slays Tiamat and makes use of her body to form the arch of heaven. He gets hold of Kingu, who has hidden himself in Tiamat's womb, kills him and "created man out of the blood mixed with earth."
We have here the old collateral meaning of "blood" and "life," that we also find in Genesis, ix, 4. "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat" . . . In the Tiamat-Kingu tale we find a supernatural being dying, but his spirit (the blood) continuing, and in its continuance being of use to mankind.
The passing centuries saw Babylon climbing the ladder of civilization and the modification of the older gods into newer guises. Ishtar, the nature goddess, is fertilized by her lover, Tammuz, who dies as a result of that act which is so violent as to mutilate him. From the union a son is born, who is the reincarnation of Tammuz. Each year he sacrifices himself, and were the tragedy not to occur there would be no subsequent crop to feed mankind. The myth in different forms flourished all through the Near East in early historical and classical times, the chief actors always being the same, although disguised under a host of different names such as Astoreth, Astarte, Aphrodite, Cybele, etc., and Adonis, Attis, Pygmalion, and many others.
More recently we have an almost historical person in the shape of Hercules. He was a man strong above all others, who died at the hands of his wife. It is beside the point that he burnt himself on a funeral pyre, as the cause of his act was the poisoned shirt sent him by his better half. His after-life is depicted in the story of the eleventh and twelfth Labours, which by various erroneous trains of thought have been transferred into his earthly life. In one of these he goes to the underworld to rescue the human souls in bondage; in the other he is wafted to the Isles of the Blest where he marries the Goddess of Eternal Youth; it would be laboring the point to analyze this further story of the dying god.
We have a disguised version in Celtic mythology. Taliesin, who claimed to be the chief architect at the building of the Tower of Babel, in his previous incarnation was pursued by a woman. To evade her he changed into a bird, but the woman, adopting the form of a hawk, was too quick for him, even when he changed himself yet again, this time into an ear of corn, for she promptly ate him up. On resuming her human form she found herself to be pregnant, the baby being Taliesin, a man above men.
All over the world the legend is found in some form or other, in the present and in the past, some with minor variations, others with distinct and even striking differences, but all built upon the substructure of the death of a supernatural being under unnatural circumstances, who by his resurrection to a heavenly life benefits mortal man. But when we have attained the end towards which we set out and have contented ourselves by finding that H. A. is not the solitary hero of a single system but rather a Saviour recognized by mankind throughout the ages, we find our journey of discovery but begun. Intimately bound up with him in his many personalities are the sprig of acacia (sometimes metamorphosed into an ear of corn), the tau cross, the lion, the morning star, the emblems of mortality and many another symbol of well-known import to the Freemason. As our French friends would say "it gives one to think," which, after all, is the essence of our Second Degree.
NOTE
The following authors were consulted in the preparation of this article:
Ward: Who Was Hiram Abiff?
Fraser: The Golden Bough.
Driver: The Book of Genesis
Stewart: Symbolism of the Gods of Egypt.
----o----
The Degrees of Masonry; Their Origin and History
By BROS. A. L. KRESS and R. J. MEEKREN
(Continued from May)
WE now come to the consideration of the second division of the evidence, the old lodge records.
It will, fortunately, not be necessary to bring forward very much that has not already been discussed, with the exception of the Aitchison's Haven minutes, which will have to be cited in their place. The great bulk of these records are Scottish; for, beyond York and Alnwick, none exist in England earlier than 1717, and none at all before 1700. Those of Alnwick beginning in 1701 apparently and those of York in 1712 (1).
This state of affairs, which Hughan found inexplicable (2), makes it essential that the question of the relation of Scottish to English Masonry before the Grand Lodge era should be fully canvassed before we can proceed with much hope of arriving at safe conclusions; for as Gould says, there is far more involved in the reply made to this question than at first sight appears (3). We have already had it before us, and we have sufficiently indicated our own views (4), but the point is too important to be left with a mere expression of opinion. The situation may be thus described; Gould as learned counsel presented an argument based on the brief provided by Lyon. The conclusions he reached seem to have been accepted by everyone as final. Fortunately, to continue the legal metaphor, there is no statute of limitations in such matters, and no judgment at the bar of scholarship is beyond reconsideration and revision.
Gould treated this question in the sixteenth chapter of his history. While it seems fairly certain that he had not then been converted to the theory of the existence of a plurality of degrees before 1717, yet he does not ever seem to have relaxed in the least his conclusion that Scotch and English Masonry were so different that, judging by some expressions, there was really nothing in common between them. As, for example, when he tells us that the "old Scottish Mason Word is unknown" and that there is nothing to show whether it was ever, before 1736, the same as anything used in England.
Owing to his discursive style of writing this chapter requires careful reading and close attention to disentangle the various steps of his argument. As a whole it makes a general advance over the terrain of Early British Freemasonry. First one feature and then another is taken up. This tends to conceal whatever weaknesses there may be in the argument on this particular point. For in one place we are promised further discussion later on, and then we are referred back to what was said earlier. The chapter should be re-read in conjunction with this criticism, so that our analysis may be checked (5). To give our own impressions quite frankly, it might be likened to a trial where a clever rogue is acquitted because there is insufficient legal evidence against him, although every one, judge, jurors and counsel, are quite certain of his guilt. Or putting it less figuratively, Gould so limited and restricted the significance of the facts that it was impossible to arrive at anything but a negative conclusion.
THE CHARACTER OF EARLY SCOTTISH MASONRY
The essentials of his argument seem to be the following: It is pointed out that the scanty traces of lodge activities in England prior to the eighteenth century seem to reveal only speculative (or more accurately, non-operative) bodies; with possibly, of course, some operative Masons in the membership. Only one exception to this rule exists, the operative lodge at Alnwick. But it is not properly included in the period as the existing minutes do not begin until 1701. Besides it was close to the Scottish border, and might well have been of Scottish derivation.
On the other hand, the comparative wealth of records in Scotland reveals an organization, wholly operative in character, though including a considerable number of honorary and non-operative members, in some lodges, indeed, a majority. Again there is just one exception, the lodge at Haughfoot. But this also is close to the border, and might have derived its ritual from England; and besides, like Alnwick, it is too late to be included in the period, as its earliest records do not begin till December, 1702. It is insisted that, in spite of possible inferences from the Old Charges, there is no proof, outside of Alnwick, that there ever was an operative lodge in England. Thus a presumption is raised in the reader's mind that these two exceptional cases in effect cancel each other out. The one really Scottish though in England, and the other having an English character though in Scotland.
As we have stated earlier (6), Gould went beyond Lyon in his interpretation of the phrase "the Mason Word." Lyon had said that it was evident, from the Dunblane record, that "this talisman consisted of something more than a word." This Gould refused to accept, standing on the literal meaning of the phrase. (7) The Haughfoot reference to a grip he dismisses summarily as abnormal (8). The reference in the Dunblane minutes to "the secrets of the Mason Word" is then evacuated of its apparent meaning by the following argument.
On Dec. 27, 1729, two Entered Apprentices from Kilwinning desired to join the lodge of Dunblane and be passed as fellows of Craft. This petition
. . . being considered by the members of Court [i. e. of the Lodge] they ordain James Muschet to examine them as to their qualifications and knowledge, who having reported to the Lodge that they had a competent knowledge of the secrets of the Mason Word, then the said Lodge, after entering them apprentiees pass them to be fellows of craft of this Lodge (9).
However (according to Gould (10)) this really means little (or nothing) because, even so late as 1735 the Kilwinning "ceremony of initiation was so simple" that two persons, in that year, were "received into Masonry by individual operators at a distance from the lodge," and "being found" in lawful possession of the word "were recognized as members of Mother Kilwinning.
CRITICISM OF GOULD'S ARGUMENTS
This seems to be the real substantial argument offered by Gould in support of his position. Naturally, clothed in literary form, with the aid of forensic rhetoric, and with its weak places concealed by the many breaks in carrying it through to a conclusion, it appears much more convincing than in this summary. Whether this last is really a just analysis and exposition or not, must be left to our readers to judge for themselves. To us it seems that the logical fallacies of the argument are so obvious as to scarcely need pointing out. We have just as much right to insist that the last mentioned incident proves that "possession of the word" at Kilwinning included the "secrets of the word" spoken of at Dunblane, as the reverse. We are in fact faced with the negative argument in an acute form. And when we consider the practical side of the question, it is seen that the inference last suggested gives the most probable result. Gould presumably understood the "benefit of the mason word" to mean the obtaining recognition as a mason among strangers. Upon reflection it will be obvious that a single word, with nothing leading up to it, would be totally inadequate for this purpose, unless, like military watch words, it were changed very frequently. Even then, there would have to be some rules as to how it was given. Gould appeals to universal silence. But the silence is not universal, for there are the exceptions. And as we have insisted at painful length, one positive instance is sufficient, logically, to overbalance the negative weight of an otherwise complete silence. Of course such a single instance must be "exceptional" as long as it stands alone. To so describe it does not reduce its force, as Gould seemed to think. To do that some other consideration would have to be brought forward to show why it should not be accepted. This indeed he tried to do by the suggested doubt raised by date and locality, but these have no weight unless we admit that the difference which he assumed between English and Scottish Masonry really did exist in this radical form.
Of course Gould (11) was too careful to state these conclusions positively, as being compulsorily required by the evidence; and we have always to bear in mind that the only alternative to this position which then presented itself was practically the acceptance of the traditional position of the antiquity of our present system and ritual. We have no desire to call in question the value of Gould's work. He cleared the ground and laid the foundations; we are only trying to continue the building where he left off. We are not demolishing any part of the structure he reared, but removing some of the scaffolding for which there is now no need.
We must go a little further, however. In the course of this argument Gould lay great stress on the date. The suggestion was that Alnwick, Haughfoot and Dunblane could tell us nothing of the state of affairs in the seventeenth century. This sounds impressive, but there is a kind of fallacy in it. Centuries, after all, are artificial periods. We may compare one with another, as wholes, just as we may compare one month with another. March is windy, April is showery. But the last week of March may be rainy and there may be high winds early in April. We cannot, without fallacy, separate the last years of the seventeenth century from the beginning of the eighteenth. There is this just kernel of truth in the suggestion created by Gould's classification of the evidence by centuries; that we can only infer the existence of a thing before the date of its being first definitely mentioned. Yet in this case such inference is sound enough when the whole nature of the phenomena is considered, and especially the intensely conservative and traditional nature of the institution. And we need only ask that a very few years of previous existence be inferred to carry things back over the fatal (artificial) line drawn between 1699 and 1700.
That there was a difference between English and Scottish Masonry we willingly admit, and Gould has the credit for having pointed it out. It was a difference of organization and function. Where we hold that he was mistaken, and indeed went beyond legitimate inference from the evidence, is in the assumption that this external difference implied equally great differences on the esoteric side. We know that very great differences of organization during the strictly historic period, even down to the present day, have not involved differences in ritual to the point of making recognition impossible. Variations exist now, and very likely existed then to an even greater degree than now, but that is not the same thing at all (12).
ENGLISH AND SCOTTISH MASONRY ESOTERICALLY IDENTICAL
Although Scotchmen will doubtless repudiate the idea with vigor, and perhaps with heat, historically the English speaking people of Britain have a common origin and culture. The Lowlanders of Scotland are ethnologically the same race in the main as the inhabitants of the north of England. That there was ever a division between them was a political accident, largely due, it is probable, to geography. The natural assumption is that Scottish Masonry would be derived from England. There is no need to go over in detail the minor features that are common. Just one thing may be mentioned, and that is the fact that a good number of copies of the MS. charges have been found in the possession of many of the old Scotch lodges. When therefore the argument against recognizable likeness and close relationship between the Masonries of the two countries has been countered, the original and natural assumption, that internally they were closely related, once more takes its place.
There is one more argument that may be brought forward. Scottish minutes go on speaking of the "Mason Word" years after Desaguliers' visit to Mary's Chapel, where he, a London Mason, was examined and "found duly qualified in all points of Masonry." This hardly bears out the minimal interpretation of the phrase insisted on by Gould; and, once we are free of that presumption, the possibilities are unlimited. Scottish forms, under the influence of extreme Protestantism may have been, and very probably were, subjected to a process of deletion in some places, each lodge being a law to itself, but not to the point of making intercommunication impossible (13). There may also have been a process of decay and atrophy. Gould gives a sketch of Scottish history, dwelling on the many invasions the country endured, most of them accompanied by complete devastation of towns and countryside alike; and the unexpressed suggestion is given that as the arts and crafts generally declined the esoteric side of Masonry would also decay and be forgotten. This does not necessarily follow. Men could remember and transmit signs and tokens and secret catechisms even though practically debarred from exercising their craft. The process of decay would probably, we think, affect England equally. It would be merely another example of the gradual change of institutions; and one of its effects might well have been that alleged fusing of two grades into one in some non operative lodges in England in the seventeenth century which Speth suggested.
We have thus given our reasons for refusing to admit that the external differences of organization and function in the two countries in the seventeenth century necessarily require us to postulate equally radical differences on the esoteric side. Our contention is that the attempt to prove such differences breaks down under critical examination. There must have been, in the nature of things this much we may assume geographical variations, both local and regional, just as there must have been secular changes in the passing of the years. But equally, on the other hand, the intercommunication, indications of which are everywhere frequent, and the conservatism which so strongly characterized members of the Craft, must have had a strong stabilizing effect. Like an army on the march, with scouting and foraging parties on the flanks, the vanguard far ahead while the rearguard lags behind, nevertheless the organization may be supposed to have retained coherence, and to have evolved along the same lines in different places and at different rates. We say supposed, deliberately, because it is not proved, nor can it be disproved beyond all shadow of doubt. The dictum of Huxley, quoted by Gould himself, regarding that "postulate of loose thinkers; that what may have happened must have happened," is a warning. Yet there is its converse, which Bro. Tuckett has more recently enunciated; the unconscious postulate that the critically minded often assume; that what cannot be proved cannot have happened - the pitfall of the negative argument, in other words (14). In view of all which we hold that we may assume, not only as possible, but to some degree probable, that the Masons of the two countries employed substantially the same ritual forms and possessed in essentials the same secrets. Upon this assumption we will proceed.
THE TERMINOLOGY OF THE OLD RECORDS
First we will recall that in our consideration of the Old Charges last month, we saw that they pointed to a definite dividing line between apprentices and the skilled Fellows and Masters. Further, it appears that (though far from consistently) there was a tendency to employ different terms for changing the status of the individual. An apprentice was "allowed" according to some versions, but a Mason was "made," and a Fellow was "received." Any interpretation of these vague indications by themselves is mere guesswork. But they may fit into a scheme suggested by other facts. The Schlaw Statutes and the Orders of the lodge at Alnwick do give some further precision to the hazy impression received. According to the former the apprentice was "taken" by his master; "received" either by his master or the lodge, or by both for this is not clear and "entered" to the lodge- or in the lodge records for again it is not clear. On the other hand it is quite clear that a master or fellow was "received and admitted'' into the lodge; and this "admission" must almost certainly, from the way it is spoken of, have been formal in character.
At Alnwick (15) we saw that the apprentice was "entered" and "given his charge," while "Masons" were "made free," and apprentices at the end of their servitude were "admitted or accepted." Again we have the same vagueness as appeared in the Old Charges, yet an outline begins to appear, as in a clearing mist. Remembering, as we saw last month (16), that "Mason" was apparently used, sometimes, at least, as an inclusive term for the more particular designations "Master" and "Fellows," it begins to look dimly as if an apprentice was taken and allowed or entered, and at the end of his term was made free by being admitted or accepted as a fellow or master, or alternatively, made a Mason. At York the "Old Rules" of 1725 speak only of a "Mason" or "Brother" being "made," there being no reference at all to apprentices.
Coming back to Scotland (17) we find the Statutes "ordeined" by the Lodge of Aberdeen, in 1670, giving the conditions under which an "Entering prenteise" is to be "reciaved." "Master meassons" are said to be "made," and apprentices at the end of their time are to "receave the fellowship." The last is also spoken of as getting his fellowship.
"Mother" Kilwinning in 1643 wrote into its records the clause of the Schaw Statutes relating to the passing of fellows. In 1646 four persons, one a Mason of Paisley, were accepted as "fellow brethren to the said trade"; the meetings being described as "Courts of the Mason trade of the lodge of Kilwinning." This entry probably relates to what we should call affiliation.. The next item is to the effect that five individuals, who are named, were received as "prenteisses to ye said craft."
At Glasgow, on the first day of the year 1613, John Stewart younger, apprentice to John Stewart elder, was "entered" by the Warden and Brethren, "conform to the acts and liberty of the Lodge," whatever that meant precisely to the clerk who wrote it. The earliest extant minute of the Lodge of Dunblane is dated January, 1696. In December of that year the members "ordained" a scale of fees to be paid by those wishing to join; "at their entrey six punds, and att their passing thrie punds Scots, with the ordinar dues." Twenty years later, in 1716, it was enacted that "there be no meassons or uthers entered and past by the members of this Lodge at one and the same time," excepting only "such gentlemen" who could not be present at a "second diet." Instead, those "entered" were to be "first reported prentises, and their passing ordered by the Lodge thereafter according to qualifications." Evidently the "entering" was generally done by a group of members of the lodge at their own convenience, as was apparently quite customary in Scotland at the period, and possibly in England, too.
Dec. 27, 1720, is the first of the minutes of the admissions of fellows of craft that contain the peculiar reference to the square and compass which for a number of years was regularly used by the Secretary of Dunlblane Lodge. It is worth quoting in full:
Compared John Gillespie, writer in Dunblane, who was entered on the 24 instant, and after examination was duely passt from the Square to the Compass, and from ane Entered Prentiee to a Fellow of Craft of the Lodge.
While the date of this is later than the formation of the Grand Lodge in London, yet it is hardly likely that the ripples created by that event could have had much effect in Scotland in the short interval of three years. For the present, however, we will pass on as this calls for further consideration later. Only it may be said that the phrase can hardly mean anything aside from some ceremonial to which it was a veiled reference.
The Lodge of Peebles seems to have been deliberately founded by the members of the "Honorable company of Masons" of that place, who took
. . . into their consideration the great loss they have hitherto sustained by want of a Lodge, and finding a sufficient number of Brethreen in this Burgh, did this day [Oet. 18 1716] erect a lodge amongst themselves within the said Burgh.
This makes one wonder just what the "great loss" was that they had sustained. It could hardly have been a business or financial one, as the Company or Gild should have been sufficient for such matters. It seems as if it might be a curious parallel to the "Accepcon" in the London Mason's Company. However that may be, in December the same year, 1716, William Brotherstanes was "decently and orderly" entered; while Alexander Veitch, an "enter'd prentise, made application" to the lodge and was "received." Minutes of later years up to 1725 speak of Apprentices being entered, and other persons being "received and admitted," (apparently in most cases non-operatives who were made fellows at once. But this is not absolutely certain in every case.) A peculiarity of these minutes is that we are frequently told that these "enterings" and "admissions" were "decently and orderly" performed, which can hardly refer to anything but some ceremonial.
The minute book of the Lodge at Haughfoot begins in December of 1702, but the first ten pages have been torn out, and it is strongly to be suspected that they contained, if not a ritual, at least ritual memoranda. In 1704 William Cairncross "gave in his petition" to be associated with the lodge, and was examined and found to be a "true entered Apprentice and Fellowcraft." This shortened form of the usual term "Fellow of Craft" was used also at Aberdeen, whence it was probably transplanted to London by Dr. Anderson, and thence, through the medium of the Book of Constitutions, it has spread over the whole Masonic world.
On St. John's Day, 1706, "John Scott, brother of Sir James Scott of Gala, was orderly admitted to the Society of Apprentice and Felllowcraft." A year later a similar rule to that of Dunblane was made. The "meeting" having come
. . . to a general resolution that in time coming they would not, except on special considerations, admitt to the Society both of apprentice and fellowcraft, at the same tyme, but that one year at least should intervene betwixt any being admitted apprentice and his being entered fellowcraft.
Here we have another of the puzzling variations in terminology. It is practically certain that in this exceptional lodge (which has been taken by many students as exceptional in the sense of being sui generis) there were two ceremonies used throughout its existence. But the term "enter" is used for the higher grade and "admission" for the lower, the exact opposite to what we have been coming to accept as the normal terminology of the period.
We come finally to the minutes of the Lodge of Aitchison's Haven. These begin in the year before the earliest extant minutes of Mary's Chapel at Edinburgh, and the first entry records that "Robert Widderspone was maid fellow of Craft" in the presence of "John Fender the Warden," and seven other fellows of craft. No apprentices are mentioned. This of course does not prove that none were present, especially as the Warden was one of those who signed the Schaw Statutes which insisted that two apprentices were required at the admission of fellows of craft.
The omission was remedied on later occasions, however, as on May 28, 1599, "Johne Low was maid fellow of Craft in ye presence of Johne Fender Warden for ye present," followed by the names of six others, who are said to be "all fellows of Craft," and then comes "also of enterit Drentis Richart Petticrief [and] James Petticrief." So that the lodge was formed of seven fellows with the two apprentices that, as we have seen, were so insistently required by the Schaw Statutes.
The second minute in the book, January 11, 1598, records that "Alexander Cubie was enterit prenteis to Georg Aytoune." Two years later, Jan. 2, 1600, we find Alexander Culbie chosen by "Andro Pattene" as one of his intenders, the said Andrew being "enterit prenteis to Johne Crafurd his maister," having paid twenty shillings for "his boukin," or fee for registration, and given gloves to his "admitteris," who included six fellows and four apprentices.
These minutes favor the term "maid fellow of craft" for the higher status, but while frequently using the term "enterit" in regard to apprentices, this is varied by the expression "buikit," booked or recorded. This definitely raises the question, which has already hovered in the background, as it were, more than once; was the "entering" of an apprentice anything more than formal registration in the lodge records, in the presence of its members as witnesses? For the present we leave it without attempting an answer, though it may be noted that in some places mention is made also of the "buiking," or paying the fee therefore when fellows were "maid."
It is evident that where men's professional or occupational status is affected records must be kept. And as we have already noted, in Scotland membership in a lodge was as important to a working stone mason then as membership in a Trade Union is at the present day to the skilled workman in such trades as are fully "unionized." It is this that accounts for the fact that Scottish lodges not only made records, but preserved them also. But further than this, it also accounts for their general character. They are concerned mainly with those things that affected the rights and seniority of the members of the lodge, and for this reason it is only incidentally, and as it were by accident, that they ever tell us anything about those traditions and customs in which we are chiefly interested, all of which gives us an additional reason for being very wary of the negative argument here.
It shows the difficulty of the subject that Gould quite overlooked the significance of the record concerning William Cairncross at Haughfoot, quoted above. The phraseology irresistibly suggests that he was examined not only as an apprentice, but also as a fellow craft. But this once granted implies that this lodge was not ritually exceptional, but that there was a real community between it and the lodge in which Cairncross was entered and accepted.
Our developing picture is now a little clearer; the lines are still vague and misty, but like a composite photograph certain features begin to stand out. The difference in status between apprentices and full Masons, i. e., Masters and Fellows, Which the Old Charges clearly indicated, seem, in Scotland, at least in the seventeenth century, to have been marked by certain formalities, generally referred to respectively, as entering, and admitting or receiving.
NOTES
(1) Gould, History, Vol. iii, p. 13; and Rylands, A. Q. C., Vol. xiv, p. 6, for Alnwick. Gould, op. cit., p. 23, for York; also Hughan Masonic Sketches and Reprints, pp. 34-35. We have not been able to refer to the reproduction of the Alnwick minutes published in 1896.
(2) Hughan, Op cit., p. 19.
(3) Gould, op. cit., iii, p. 10.
(4) THE BUILDER, 1928, pp. 135, 170, 299, 332, 333; and 1929, pp. 19? 36 and 68.
(5) Gould, History, vol. iii, Chap. xvi. The argument begins on page 10, is touched on in pages 12 and 13, taken up again at pages 29 and 30. From pages 48 to 56 is an outline of Scottish history and its bearing on the existence of the Mason's craft, concluded in pages 58 to 63. Pages 10, 29 and 30 should be read in conjunction with 62 and 63, so far as Haughfoot and Dunblane are concerned.
(6) THE BUILDER, 1928, p. 332.
(7) It is possible, however, that in his cryptic manner, Gould here only intended to convey the fact that nothing more than this was proven by the evidence.
(8) Gould, op. cit., vol. iii pp. 29, 30 and 36.
(9) Lyon Hist. Edin., p. 417.
(10) Gould, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 63.
(11) Ibid., vol. iii, p. 30. Compare also vol. ii, p. 51.
(12) Every institution must perforce adapt itself to the conditions of the society in which it exists. Thus we find that every organization of more than local scope will exhibit variations, and the wider it is spread the greater these variations will be. In Scotland the lodges retained the quasi-legal status of the gilds which it is possible that the English lodges had before the fourteenth century. And it is possible that in Scotland the lodges filled the place of gilds to some extent, as that form of organization arrived later in the northern kingdom than in England. The Statutes of Laborers in England undoubtedly had some effect on the general situation, although their frequent re- enactment proves that they were as difficult to enforce as some more recent laws of prohibitory character. But the law of Henry VI which definitely forbade the Masons "to confederate themselves in Chapters and Assemblies" would undoubtedly destroy any external authority that custom and usage may have given such organizations, and would tend to drive the lodges underground. This would quite naturally account for our finding so few traces of permanent lodges in England, and no records at all before the eighteenth century. Records are a constant source of danger to an illicit organization, and casual lodges would have no use for them in any ease.
(13) So late as 1764 such a revision seems to have been made. In the second edition of his History of the Lodge of Edinburgh (Chap. iv) Lyon gives the following excerpt from the minutes of the Old Lodge of Melrose, which remained independent till well on towards the end of the nineteenth century. The Melrose brethren, it seems, decided:
"That the Mason word be administered in a simple way and manner, free of everything sinful and superstitious, only word, sign and grip, and some simple questions to distinguish a Mason from another man, and all under a promise not to reveal it, under no less a penalty than to forfeit all right and title to every benefit belonging to the lodge, and to be held in abhorrence by every brother."
Such "reforms" might well have taken place in other lodges at an earlier date.
(14) A. Q. C. vol. x, p. 52.
(15) Gould, Hist., vol. iii, pp. 14-15. The Alnwick Orders are dated Sept. 29, 1701, the "Gen'll Head Meeting Day" of the Lodge. The 5th Order has already been quoted, BUILDER, May, p. 141. The other relevant passages are:
"9th. Item. There shall noe apprentice after he have served seaven years be admitted or accepted but upon the Feast of St. Michael....
"12th. Item. Thatt noe Fellow or Fellows within this Lodge shall att any time or times call or hold Assemblies to make any mason or masons free Not acquainting the Master of Wardens
"13th. Item. That noe rough Layers or any others thatt has nott served their time or [been] admitted, shall work within the lodge . . ."
We have here the term "accepted" equated with "admitted" and possibly with "make free" also.
(16) THE BUILDER, May, 1929, p. 131.
(17) It will be more convenient to give the references in the text altogether here, as it would otherwise entail much quite needless repetition. For Aberdeen, Miller, Notes on the Early History and Records of the Lodge, Aberdeen, pp. 61-63. Also Lyon, History of the Lodge of Edinburgh p. 423. The same chapter contains extracts from the records of Kilwinning, Glasgow Dunblane and Peebles. For Haughfoot, Yarker, A. Q. C., vol. xxvi, p. 16 - and for Aitchison's Haven, Wallace-James, Ibid., vol. xxiv, p. 30. See also Gould, op. cit., vol. iii.
(To be continued)
----o----
A Consideration of Some of the Difficulties of Squaring the Circle
By BRO. CHARLES H. MERZ Ohio
THIS paper is not intended as an attempt to set aside the commonly accepted ratio or any other, or to uphold the same; but it is written to set out, so far as opportunity permits, some of the difficulties attendant upon quadrature of the circle, and to show the rudiments of the complicated and tedious method commonly adopted of attempting the approximation of the true ratio between the diameter and the circumference.
The different methods of solving the problem of the quadrature of the circle are more than a hundred in number. The ratios of the circumference to the diameter are equally numerous. Some differences exceed eight hundredths of the circumference, while others vary as much as twenty-three hundredths.
In the mechanic arts the ratio of the diameter to the circumference is assumed to be as 7 to 22, which is accurate enough for many purposes, though it is claimed that the real ratio can never be exactly expressed in numbers. In ordinary mathematical work it is assumed to be as 1 to 3.14159215. One English mathematician has carried out the decimal to 607 places.
The ratio between the diameter and circumference is fundamental, and any error made in the beginning is carried into all the operations which depend upon it, and the same is true of any other possible errors that may occur in the additional operations to ascertain the relation between the circle and the square.
It is of interest to note that the Masonic apron is actually an ancient Egyptian mathematical problem, based upon the principles of the Operative Mason's Square. showing a quick and very nearly perfect manner of determining a squared circle, in which the peripheries of both square and circle are of precisely equal length. Correctly analyzed, it consists of two oblongs of 3 x 4 (at the top) and two oblongs of 4 x 5 (at the bottom).
These constitute a perfect square. Setting one leg of the compasses upon the intersection of the lines that divide the square and the free leg on A or B. we have a circle the circumference of which is equal to that of the square. Lines drawn from A and B to E will be of precisely the same length as the distance from E to F which is the vertical axis of the triangle E-C-D. The relation of this to the circle squaring problem is that A-E, B-E and F-E are the radii of a circle of almost equal perimeter to the whole square. In the square taken as the base and the triangle E-C-D as the vertical section thereof, we have the precise geometrical proportions of the Great Pyramid of Gizeh.
As there are comparatively few Masons who are familiar with that most admirable work written by the late Brother H. P. H. Bromwell, "Restorations of Masonic Geometry and Symbolry," I take this opportunity of presenting some of the facts stressed by him in this connection.
The circle, though in itself intractable by any mathematical method as far as actual precision is concerned nevertheless comes to the aid of mathematicians as the sole key to unlock the treasure house of trigonometry and expose its exhaustless stores.
In all the processes in which the circle, or any part thereof, is directly involved, the ratio between the diameter and the circumference is the fundamental truth to be first ascertained-for the diameter is what may be termed the measure of the circle (i. e., the surface thereof). For it is always known or ascertainable by direct measurements. And the circumference is that which must conform, according to some ascertained ratio, which, if correct, makes all correct which it affects; but, if erroneous, infuses the error into all the results, and there it remains constantly present.
As for instance, in the case of the velocity of the rim of a revolving wheel, or the length of an arc; but not in that of the length of a radius, or of the spoke of a wheel, or the sine of an angle, for these last may be ascertained without knowing the length of any circumference, or without any circle at all. Furthermore, all proportions between the circumference and the parts of a circle, as chords, segments, sectors, etc., remain unaffected; and in calculating the diameter of one circle that shall be of twice or thrice the surface of another of a certain diameter or circumference, no harm can arise from an error in the ratio, for the operation only applies to the proportions between certain parts of one figure, or the corresponding parts in two or more figures.
But when it is sought to ascertain the area or the length of the side of a square, hexagon, or other regular polygon, or the several sides of an irregular figure, which shall be equal to or otherwise proportionately greater or less than a circle of a given diameter, the error, if any, in the ratio between the diameter and the circumference, enters at once into the work, and remains and propagates itself in every subsequent operation founded upon or involved with it in most cases increasing as it proceeds. For, in finding the content or surface, the circumference must first be known; and finding an equal square, triangle, or other figure, depends on first knowing the contents of the circle. If the ratio depended on be too great or too small, the circumference, and consequently the area or surface therein contained will be too great or too small. Hence in seeking a circle which shall contain a given surface say, equal to a square of five on a side if the ratio should be too great, as 3.16, a diameter shorter than is correct must be assigned to the circle, in order to bring the surface within the requirement of the ratio, that is, of the square.
The several methods of computing the surface of a circle of given diameter, depend on the ratio. One method is to multiply the circumference by half the radius, or one-fourth the diameter, which is the same as to multiply the diameter by one-fourth the circumference. No doubt a correct mode, if the ratio be the true one. Another method is to multiply the square of the diameter (the square circumscribed about the circle) by one-fourth the ratio.
Still another method is to multiply the square of the radius by the ratio. By any one of these methods, the same result is obtained, whether the ratio is right or wrong and the result will be right if the circumference be right, i. e., if the ratio between the diameter and circumference, on which the latter is computed, be right; and as certainly wrong if there be error in the ratio assumed for the purpose.
The conclusions reached by ninety-eight different authors, most of them skilled in mathematical pursuits, have shown very positive but very different conclusions concerning this problem, already subjected to centuries of continued dispute. The different methods of finding the ratio are not less than forty-four, and the different ratios proposed, not less than seventy-two. The number in which the proportion between the diameter and the circumference is greater than the commonly accepted ratio is about fifty-eight. The number giving a lower ratio than the "orthodox" is sixteen, and the number of those which agree with the orthodox ratio is twenty-six. Of the whole number, one hundred and seven bear date in this century. Now every specific numerical value assigned must be wrong, except one; if any of them, by chance, should happen to be right.
The "orthodox" ratio depends for its validity on what Bromwell calls "the process of exhaustion," that is, in the sufficiency and correctness of the work in the arithmetical computations of the area of a regular polygon having a sufficient number of sides to render it substantially equivalent to a circle. No one of the modes of dealing with a series of numbers or fractions, or known dimensions, of some part of a circle, or other figure, by multiplication, division, etc., carries with itself its own demonstration. Had such been the case, there never would have been any controversy. On the principle that several doubtful calculations make one good one, one of two solutions or both are accepted because they agree, not because either is correct. Is it possible in any such case that any one can say, before seeing the result, that the operation to be pursued is actually its own test and must be correct, or that it can be referred to a veritable test? Some of the conclusions examined are manifestly false, while some others afford nothing, except the assertions of the author, to show that the result is a ratio of anything.
If we take a polygon of four sides (a perfect square) and successively double the number of sides making it a polygon of eight, of sixteen and then or thirty-two on so on, the sides will eventually become so numerous and so short that the figure is so nearly a circle that the difference may be deemed of no consequence. However, at the same time the content or surface of each polygon must be computed at every increase of the number of sides, by means of two proportional triangles, involving multiplication, division, addition, extraction of the square root, etc., and the surface of the last polygon computed is accepted as the surface of the circle in question.
As every regular polygon (square, hexagon, polygon) may be considered as composed of as many isosceles triangles (equal sided) as it has sides the side of the polygon being the base and the two equal sides of the triangle meeting and forming an apex at the center of the polygon the circle may be regarded as a polygon of an indefinite number of sides, and consequently composed of a like number of triangles, each having two equal and two very long sides and an exceedingly short base, which is the same as the side of the polygon. Such a polygon may be regarded as having a thousand million of equal sides, and consequently composed of as many equal sided triangles. If accurately measured, such a polygon would doubtless furnish a very close approximation to the measure of a circle having a radius equal to either of the two equal sides of any such triangle. But one with a less number of sides, say 30,000, with a slight error in the computation of each triangle, might offer a grossly defective result. But it might be much worse in case of a million sides, with an error in each.
As it appears from principles not dependent on any ratio between the diameter and circumference, the circumference of a circle whose diameter is one is necessarily equal in figures to the area of a circle whose diameter is two, and whoever succeeds in finding the surface of the latter circle, is thereby in possession of the number which shows the true circumference of the former. Hence, the computation is made by ascertaining the area of a circle having a diameter of two. To accomplish this, a polygon of four sides is circumscribed about the circle, and another of four sides the corresponding sides being made parallel is inscribed within it. The outer polygon is the same as the square of the diameter, that is, its surface is equal to four, while the inscribed polygon (or square) is necessarily one-half as much, equal to two; the side of the inscribed square being to the side of the circumscribed square as the side of any square is to the line of its own diagonal so that the two squares (polygons) are in proportion to each other as any two adjacent squares inscribed in any other circles for it can always be seen that the diameter of any circle is the same as the diagonal line of its inscribed square. The object in taking two polygons is to secure a convenient basis of measurement which would be lacking if only one were used. In doubling the number of sides it necessarily comes to pass every time except in the case of the two polygons of four sides each that the angles of the inscribed polygon present themselves to the middle of the sides of the exscribed polygon and vice versa. By this a mean proportional as to surface, between corresponding parts of the two polygons, is also presented in geometrical form, susceptible of being computed by ordinary mathematical rules. The beginning of this series of duplications of the number of sides may be seen in the accompanying figure.
The forming and doubling the number of sides of these polygons is easy enough and the process may be continued until the sides become so minute that no farther division is practicable, but however far carried it would go but little toward finality, which is only to be reached by the computations. These give the measurements and demand the utmost accuracy and here is where the trouble begins. The principal cause of difficulty is error, which attends the work from first to last.
In order to reach the point at which the operator may intend to stop say at a polygon of 32,768 sides (the number usually adopted) no less than twenty-seven complicated processes each made up of several partial or ancillary operations must be accomplished. These are each simple enough, but they are not separate and independent, so that any error, from omitted fractions or other causes, will only affect the particular calculation in which it may occur, and there stop, but they are cumulative, as will be seen from what follows:
First, a simple expression of the surface content of a corresponding part of each of the two original polygons one being 2, the other 4. Then a multiplication of these parts together and extraction of the square root of the product, leaving a remainder. Then following twenty-seven operations, including thirty-six multiplications, involving sixty- eight numbers, each containing an endless decimal fraction; also thirteen additions, each of two of the same numbers, each with its fraction, being very nearly equal to, and slightly exceeding, so many multiplications by two, the finding of thirteen quotients, and the extraction of thirteen additional square roots, each root and quotient leaving a remainder. The entire process being one unbroken series of computations, every one dependent upon all which precede it to the last. Any deficiency or excess in the first computation (which leaves a remainder) is thus multiplied and remultiplied no less than sixty times, by a factor not less than 2.8 (and reaching 3.31; or more as an upper limit, and thirteen times by two. And besides this we have the addition of two of the larger factors together thirteen times, making it equivalent altogether to eighty-six multiplications by two in a series, each multiplying the former product. And this all relates back to the first remainder, it being the first of twenty-six following in succession, each on an average through forty-three multiplications, making more than one thousand one hundred multiplications in all.
It is easy to form a square and a triangle equal in area to each other; and the same is true of any two figures bounded by right lines however different their forms, for their lines are subject to direct and equal measurement, and these being known, the included surfaces are easily dealt with. But not so with the circle. This remarkable figure has something about it almost mysterious. While it is that by which all right lined figures may be proven as to their forms, and in many cases even to their contents, yet to ascertain its own content, that is, to find an equal square or other rightlined figure, has been a special object of search and the ever a present stumbling block of mathematicians of all ages.
NOTE
It will be understood that the point raised in the article is theoretical rather than practical. All measurements are approximate, and in the ease of the circle and other curved figures we have a second approximation. The first one is the determination of the radius of the figure, and the second is that in the calculations to determine the ratio between the radius or diameter and the circumference. And though, as has been shown, any error in these calculations is a cumulative one, yet the process adopted puts a limit to the error. In subdividing the sides of the inscribed and exscribed polygons shown in the second figure, it will be seen that the perimeter of the former increases at every step, while the latter decreases. Eventually each becomes approximately coincident with the circle. Thus every step in the calculations must fall between these limits and whatever error there may be cannot be great enough to vitiate the result for any practical purpose. Ed.
----o----
American Army Lodges in the World War
Sea and Field Lodge No. 5, Overseas, at Beaune, France By BRO. CHARLES F. IRWIN, Associate Editor
TO enter into the story of this Field Lodge adequately, we are compelled to cover to some extend the entire field of the Educational Program within the American A.E.F. To most people the educational program of America within its military forces is a sealed story. And yet to those who participated in it, or who have in later years retraced the steps in the official literature of the U. S. A. and of the Y. M. C. A., the wonder of the story passes any limits that might ordinarily be established. After a thorough study of the official volumes published by the Y.M.C.A. as embodied especially in Chapter 34 of their "Service With Fighting Men," found in the second volume and covering some twenty-five pages, and after a similar study of the two volumes officially issued by the University at Befaune, together with an extensive correspondence with many of the men who were identified in this Educational Program, and modestly stating that I had myself some limited experience as a schoolman overseas, having one of the larger Post Schools with over 500 students and a Faculty of 35 instructors, I am in a position to appreciate the work the government set out to do and how well it was done.
Early in 1918, the Y.M.C.A. turned its attention to this problem. They secured Dr. Anson Phelps Stokes, Secretary of Yalta University, to draw up a comprehensive plan. Dr. Stokes arrived in France on Jan. 18, 1918, and made a thorough survey of the entire educational field. In February he submitted a report to the Chief Secretary of the Y. M. C. A. In his plan he made provision for teaching during the ante-Armistice period, and for teaching in the post-Armistice period. His plan was approved by General Pershing in a telegram dated Feb. 28, 1918, and by letter dated March 5, 1918.
It is of course impossible for me to go further into this part of the story. Suffice it to say that some 27,000 men were enrolled in the various divisional educational centers throughout the Army.
But in addition to this secondary school work, there was a provision made for men whose academic work had been interrupted baby entrance into the war. Also others who desired to pursue post-graduate advantages while in Europe. This was made easier by the fact that the British and French Educational leaders were most sympathetic and enthusiastic about our educational program. They threw open their Universities and Colleges to our troops. This was accepted by our command, and thousands of American soldiers attended various universities in the above countries. In some of these, Masonic Clubs were formed, and their stories will be told in our subsequent series on Clubs.
But even with these opportunities there were thousands of others whom the service desired to aid. Consequently it was decided by the Educational leaders within the A.E.F. to form and open an American University along American lines.
At Beaune, France, there had been established during the war a great Hospital Center, about two miles square, containing more than 200 buildings. This was chosen as the site of the new American University. Ten miles away was Allerey, another hospital camp. Surrounded by 600 acres of farm land, it offered an ideal site for an Agricultural College. Within one month after the plan was adopted, the hospital buildings were remodeled to suit educational purposes, and one hundred and seventy-five new ones were erected.
On Feb. 7, 1919, Colonel Ira L. Reeves, former President of Norwich University, was appointed the local representative of the General Staff of the A.E.F. He became the Superintendent and Commanding Officer of the new University, and finally its President.
In collecting the specialists for a Faculty, the A.E.F. was found to contain 2600 commissioned officers alone, who had been college professors, or who were equipped to teach in such a college. Consequently a faculty was selected, second to none on the continent or anywhere in our own country.
Students commenced to arrive on March 7, 1919. Soon 6000 of them were at work on a wide range of studies. When in full action the University at Beaune had 240 courses, in 36 departments, with a total class enrollment of 13,243.
Amid such a great assemblage of Americans of College and University standing, it was natural that members of the Fraternity of Freemasons were to be found in large numbers. Indeed, contemporaneously with the appearance of the advance troops to man and condition the center, the Craft came to the front. The first attempt to foregather appears in the history of the "American Masonic Club," which was formed on March 30, 1919, just 23 days after the first students appeared. Perhaps this record has never been surpassed in the history of the Craft. Their Roster printed at Dijon, France, 1919, displays the names of 458 members. Among the officers of this club we find the name of Col. Ira L. Reeves as Honorary President. He is a member of De Witt Clinton Lodge, No. 15, N. Y.
In the 1920 Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of New York, on page 193, in the report of P.G.M. Townsend Scudder on the work of the Overseas Masonic Mission, we find this reference to the institution of Sea and Field Lodge, No. 5, at Beaune:
I instituted Sea and Field Lodge, No. 5, at A. E. F. University at Beaune, with Bro. Mark E. Penney of New York as Wor. Master, which sat ten times at the Temple of the Lodge Reveil de la Cote d'Or, of Grand Lodge, No. 1, rue de la Loge, Beaune, and conferred the degrees on 64 candidates. Its first session was May 3, 1919 and its last July 4, 1919, at Brest. . .. of the Masons made overseas, to date . . . 8 (have dimitted) from No. 5 . . . the warrants have been surrendered to you and are in abeyance and the untransferred material, consolidated with that of Sea and Field Lodge. No. 1.
Bro. Mark E. Penney, the former Wor. Master of Sea and Field Lodge, No. 5, Overseas, made his final report to Bro. Townsend Scudder under date of April 19, 1920, as found in the 1920 Proceedings of New York, page 208, as follows:
"In submitting my report of Sea and Field Lodge, No. 5, Overseas, permit me to say at the beginning that the statements and discussions which follow are not offered as in any sense a justification, either of the request of the American Masons at Beaune for the greatest possible Masonic intimacy, or of your own action in granting one of the warrants issued by the Grand Master for the establishment of Sea and Field Lodge, No. 5, Overseas, at Beaune. The former, I venture to assert, needs no justification, and the latter is amply justified in the Grand Master's and your own desire to offer to the Masons of America a type of Masonic intercourse which, without the foresight of the Grand Master of New York, and magnanimous concern for the interests of the American soldier at home and overseas, would never have been achieved.
"Upon my arrival at Beaune I set myself to ascertain something of the status of Masonry in the camp, and to learn, if possible, the number of Masons assembled there. By personal inquiries I was soon able to gather a little group of sixteen officers and Y. M. C. A. Secretaries.
We met in one of the unused barracks, and it was decided to advertise all over the camp, a meeting of all the Masons to be called at an early date. Each member of the group offered his services to distribute the notices to a section of billets, and the result surpassed anything that could possibly have been predicted. The meeting was called to be held in the largest mess-hall in the camp, and when I arrived there, not even standing room was available inside the doors, and large numbers of Masons stood around outside, crowding the doors and windows. This condition was not merely an incident of Masonic activity at Beaune, but in the highest sense typical of what took place there until the camp broke up. The 'American Masonic Club' was formed at that meeting, with the Commander of the camp as honorary President. The prestige of the Club soon gave rise to a desire on the part of non-Masons to associate with us, and this in turn, quite naturally and inevitably, gave rise to a desire on the part of the Masons and non-Masons alike for a Masonic Lodge. "I sent a telegram to the chairman of the Masonic Mission at Paris, requesting a visit from him, and asking him if a Lodge would be possible. In response to that telegram R. W. Bro. W. C. Prime, a member of the Masonic Mission, paid us a visit, fortunately on the date of the regular meeting of the Club. We did not know of his coming until he was upon us, his letter of advice having miscarried, and in spite of the fact that no notice of his visit had been given, he was enthusiastically greeted by upwards of a thousand of Masons, whom he addressed in the evening.
"At this time there were estimated to be in the vicinity of fourteen thousand men in camp, more than half of whom were students and teachers in the University which had been created there by the American Expeditionary Forces. This is a clear indication of the type of men who were interested in Masonic intercourse. Representatives were there from all the learned professions, and among the students were many young men who had left their studies where they were preparing to become lawyers, doctors, etc., and some who expected to enter studies leading to these professions upon their return to America. These students, and the officer-instructors were not required to do camp duty except in emergency, and thus had ample time to devote to Masonic work. As to the exact number of Masons in camp it was impossible to make a census, owing to the conditions of camp life, and the changing personnel. But a conservative estimate placed the number between three thousand and four thousand. At one time we had on our Club Roster the names of over twelve hundred Masons, and that in the earlier days of the camp.
"It was generally understood at this time that the duration of the camp at Beaune would extend throughout the summer and autumn, and perhaps even longer, and the Commander of the camp, in a personal conversation with Bro. Prime, in my presence, made the statement that, so far as anyone could foresee, the camp would remain for an indefinite period. Whisperings were heard that a renewal of hostilities might become imminent, in which case the American Camp at Beaune would continue until the American armies should be withdrawn from Europe.
"As a result of this visit and Bro. Prime's report thereof, I received, some days later, a notification from the Masonic Mission at Paris that we were to receive a warrant for a Lodge. In due time, Bro. Merwin Lay came to the camp, instituted the Lodge and installed the officers. The Commander of the Camp and his Adjutant gladly consented to act as Senior and Junior Wardens respectively. The cosmopolitan character of the Lodge may be seen when I point out that ten states were represented among the officers, and among those who attended the meetings of the Lodge, I was told by the examining committee, that during the course of the Lodge meetings every State of the Union was represented.
"The granting of the warrant for a Masonic lodge at Beaune raised the question as to a suitable place in which to hold the meetings. The buildings of all army camps, and consequently those at Beaune, were flimsy structures, inadequately lighted and heated, cheaply and hurriedly built, and in no sense adapted for the purpose of holding Masonic lodge meetings. The Commander of the Camp assured me that everything possible would be done to make feasible the holding of the Lodge in the Camp, but after careful investigation, the situation was considered hopeless. Moreover, it would be extremely difficult to procure proper furniture and keep it from being destroyed, or defiled, when accessible to strangers and enemies. In my anxiety to find a suitable place for meeting, I consulted the Master of the French Masonic Lodge in the City of Beaune, and asked him where a suitable building might be found in the city for our purposes. He immediately offered us the use of the French Lodge rooms, their furniture and equipment, without any reservation whatsoever in regard to time and nature of their use. The spontaneity of his offer, his willingness to be of service to us, and his cooperation during our stay at Beaune, are in no small degree responsible for the success of our work there.
"The French Lodge at Beaune operates under the jurisdiction of the Grand Loge de France. It bears the suggestive title of 'Le Reveil de la Cote d'Or.' It has been for sixteen years under the guidance of Worshipful Master, or as he is called, Le Venerable, Louis Barbier, a man of broad sympathies and high intellectual attainments. He has a profound knowledge of Masonry in France, both as to its historical and philosophical expects. Through his efforts, the French Masonic Fraternity at Beaune occupies a status which is exceedingly gratifying to him, and which procured for us a welcome and a prestige socially and fraternally, which we could not otherwise have attained.
"In bringing this report to its conclusion, permit me to express the hope, in which I voice the desire of almost every Mason who had anything to do with our work at Beaune, that some means may be found whereby a closer relation may be brought about between the Grand Jurisdiction of which this French Lodge is a member, and that of American Masons in general, and those of the State of New York."
In the final settlement of Sea and Field Lodge, No. 5, we find that 52 members were transferred from the roster of the Lodge to that of the consolidated Sea and Field Lodge, No. 1. An appended list of the names of the members of this Lodge may be found in the Proceedings of New York, 1920, page 202, together with a tableau of the full staff of officers. For the benefit of the reader this latter is here printed together with the names and jurisdictions of the Lodges in each case.
W.M. Mark E. Penney, Konosioni No. 950, Syracuse, N. Y.
S.W. Col. Ira L. Reeves, DeWitt Clinton No. 15, Northfield, Vt.
J.W. Capt. Waldo P. Hair, Woodlawn Park No. 841, Chicago, Ill.
Treas. Lt. Terrence W. Gilbert, Rising Light No. 637, Belleville, N. Y.
Secy. Arch Paterson, A.E.C., Englewood No. 690, Chicago, Ill.
S.D. Joseph H. Ford, District of Columbia.
J.D. William H. Leet, Ohio.
S.M.C. Lt. I. Weinstein, Evergreen No. 51, Tacoma, Wash.
J.M.C. Maj. Spencer A. Merrill, West Point No. 877, N. Y.
S.S. Lt. E. T. Stretcher, Imperial No. 159 Portland, Ore.
J.S. Pvt. A. R. Davis, Lakeside No. 739, Chicago, Ill.
Marshal Maj. E. H. Whitehead, Cornerstone 247, Osmond, Nebr.
Chapl. Henry B. Monges, Durant No. 268, Berkeley, Calif.
Tiler James A. Davis, Flora No. 204, Flora, Ill.
O. of W. Lt. F. S. Wheeler, Burlington No. 100, Burlington, Vt.
There are several observations we wish to make regarding these New York Lodges, which illustrate the entire field of Masonic activity in the A. E. F. They touch largely upon the persistent question of French Masonry. And one of these observations concerns the difficulties which faced every one of the group of Masonic leaders when they contemplated the institution of a lodge in France. In some cases military red tape made it inadvisable to attempt to open or conduct Masonic meetings within military reservations. In other cases the inadequacy of location and buildings wherein to conduct the ceremonials of the Craft were met. In every one of the four overseas Lodges of New York the last resort was to the generosity of the native Masons. And without fail our American Craftsmen bear testimony to the unexcelled generosity and unflagging hospitality of our French brethren. Not only in the metropolitan Lodges in Paris, but also in the rural cities and sowns scattered throughout the country, the American Masons met with this high type of men. Their Lodge rooms were thrown open for our use without money and without price. There was no intrusion, and no attempt to secure entrance within our tiled bodies, except upon invitation extended by our own American Craftsmen. In every case the French Masons who appeared before our altars were men of faith and devotion to the highest and most ancient of the landmarks of the Fraternity. Only direct contact with the conditions in France under which Freemasonry must struggle for existence can prepare the American mind to draw conclusions as to the particular cast their indigenous Masonry shall take.
In the particular case of the Sea and Field Lodge at Beaune, the environment made for a high type of thinking and living. The results were happy. The American Military Lodge that found so brief a stay within the bounds of the Educational Center of Beaune drew to itself younger and older American Masons of the very strongest character. The larger proportion of our troops stationed at Beaune were there for the purpose of continuing the educational discipline which had been interrupted when our youth was called to the colors. These young soldiers were filled with the American characteristic ambition to take the fullest educational benefits offered them. And today scattered throughout the United States are men of the professions and of business who trace back to the days at Beaune much of their inspiration and their training.
The experiment at Beaune proves that a Republic based upon an enlightened intelligence has within itself a vital influence that dares to break through conventionality and to blaze new trails for the coming generations. This was a unique experiment among all nations. A great nation pausing with its allies while an Armistice stays the actual conflict turns its attention to the intellectual needs of its men in arms and out of its resources of men and material brings into being an educational center that ranks second to no old established institution in our own or any other land. The meetings of this Field Lodge were all held in the same Lodge room at Beaune with the exception of the last meeting it ever held. This communication was held at Brest on July 4, 1919, while the bulk of the students who had trained at Beaune awaited sailing orders for home.
Wearied of the delays and restless with the exuberance of young life, there appeared to Worshipful Penney and the other officers of the Lodge the advisability of gathering their members together, with other Masons, into a farewell meeting. Accordingly the notice was issued and a large body of Masons assembled. Bro. Prime in a recent letter to me calls attention to this unique meeting and praises it in highest terms.
Thus the roll of New York Lodges in military service during the World War has been called. There was a historical booklet issued by the American Masonic Club at Beaune which presents vividly and artistically the ability of our soldier artists of the Craft. The reproduction of the cover design will be found on a previous page.
The Warrant under which Sea and Field Lodge. No 5, at Beaune, operated was identical with those of the other Sea and Field Lodges. For the benefit of readers who have not had access to my former stories of these Sea and Field Lodges, it is reproduced here.
SIT LUX ET LUX FUIT. William S. Farmer, Grand Master.
I, William S. Farmer, Grand Master of Masons in the State of New York, do, by these presents, appoint, authorize and empower our Worthy Brother Mark E. Penney to be the Master, our Worthy Brother Ira L. Reeves to be the Senior Warden, our Worthy Brother Waldo P. Hair to be the Junior Warden, our Worthy Brother Terrence W. Gilbert to be the Treasurer, our Worthy Brother Arch Paterson to be the Secretary, our Worthy Brother Joseph H. Ford to be the Senior Deacon, and our Worthy Brother William H. Leet to be the Junior Deacon of a Sea and Field Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons, to be by virtue hereof, constituted, formed and held at Beaune, France, and elsewhere overseas as may be convenient and necessary, which Lodge shall be distinguished and known by the name and style of Sea and Field Lodge, No. 5, Overseas, at Beaune, France. The said Master is hereby authorized to appoint subordinate officers of said Lodge and said Lodge is authorized to adopt all such by-laws and regulations for the governance of its proceedings, and labor as may be necessary and requisite, subject to my approval and Subject as hereinafter set forth.
And further, the said Lodge is hereby invested with full power and authority to assemble on all proper and lawful occasions and to elect and confer the three degrees of Ancient Craft Masonry or any or either thereof upon candidates who have actually enlisted or been drafted or commissioned officers in the United States Forces in the present great war, on payment of Twenty Dollars; conforming in all respects and at all times to the provisions of the Book of Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of the State of New York and to the standard ritual prescribed thereby as also to do and perform all and every such acts and things pertaining to the Craft as have been and ought to be done for the honor and advantage thereof.
Membership or officership in said Lodge shall in nowise impair or affect existing membership or officership in a regular chartered or warranted Lodge
Said Lodge shall have a seal and shall have and keep all books required to be kept by regular Lodges in the State of New York the same and all records to be surrendered to the Grand Lodge on the termination of this Warrant.
This Warrant shall terminate at the pleasure of the Grand Master.
Given under my hand and Private Seal at the City of New York in the United States of America, this Fourteenth day of December in the year of our Lord, One thousand nine hundred and eighteen, and in the year of Masonry, Five thousand nine hundred and eighteen.
William S. Farmer
Grand Master.
----o----
MASONS' MARKS FROM AFGHANISTAN
