1887 
 
CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
MASONIC ORIGINES, 
 
 BY 
 
 ALBERT PIKE. 
 
 Published by the Supreme Council of the 33d Degree, 
 
 for the Southern Jurisdiction of the 
 
 United States. 
 
 Second Edition. 
 
 WASHINGTON : 
 
 1887. 
 
311 
 
 i^t^a. 
 
MASONIC ORIGINES. 
 
 A Masonic Degree is a rank and dignity with which one is, by 
 legal authority, invested ; the investiture consisting in a ceremony 
 of initiation or reception, longer or shorter, scenic, spectacular, 
 or instructive, or with scenic pomp, and instruction intermingled ; 
 in administering to him certain vows or obligations ; and in the 
 putting him in possession of certain modes of recognition, con- 
 sisting generally of signs, words, and grips or 'tokens'. 
 
 A 'Kite' is an aggregation and succession of any number of 
 Degrees, given by one or more Bodies, but always by the author- 
 ity of a single Supreme Government. 
 
 Of most of the Degrees styled ' Masonic,' the time and the 
 manner of origin are unknown to us. They have either been 
 made by individuals, who were their authors and composers, 
 or by Committees of Bodies. The earliest were undoubtedly 
 framed and set on foot by individuals, themselves makers of them, 
 or for whom they were made by others. 
 
 Except the first possessor or possessors, no one can ever obtain 
 legal investiture with any Degree, unless by receiving it from 
 him or them, or from a person or persons or a Body, having power 
 derived from him or them, and so as if immediately from him or 
 them; by assuming the required vows or obligations; and by 
 being, as if by such first possessor or possessors, entrusted with 
 the arcana or modes of recognition, and the oral explanations of 
 the Symbols employed. 
 
 A Rite might consist of a single Degree ; but whether of one 
 or more, the first possessor or possessors of the Degree or System, 
 or his or their successors, have the right to make or to adopt Con- 
 stitutions, Institutes, Statutes, or Regulations, which shall be the 
 
Organic or Supreme Law of the Degree or Rite, providing a 
 system of government for it and for its administration ; providing 
 for the creation of Bodies, for fees, dues and revenues, and for 
 a judicial system ; with other legislation needed for its successful 
 propagation and well-being. By this legislation every one already 
 of, or afterwards becoming a member of the Rite, is bound, 
 being in law a party to it and one of the makers of it ; and no 
 man can be of the Degree or Rite, and repudiate or set at 
 nought its fundamental law. If he does that, he cuts himself 
 off from it. 
 
 However, wherever and whenever drafted or made, such Con- 
 stitutions, Institutes, &c., become the law of the Rite by being 
 adopted by the first possessors of it; and this adoption makes 
 them none the less obligatory, even if their real origin be mythical, 
 or if they purport untruly to have had a more ancient and special 
 origin. 
 
 For, as no one can ever be lawfully invested with the Degree 
 or Degrees of the Rite, without swearing allegiance to its Supreme 
 Power and obedience to these Constitutions, no one claiming to 
 be so invested can ever be at liberty to deny their authenticity 
 or impeach them. 
 
 And, evidently, no one can ever claim any rights or powers, 
 titles or dignities, created by such Constitutions or provided for 
 by them only, if he denies their authenticity. To do so is simply 
 cheatery; in French, mpercherie; cozenage, rascality. 
 
 Degrees and Rites have been invented and created as the means 
 of organization of associations for various purposes ; for mutual 
 assistance and relief ; for the prosecution of special studies; for 
 the purposes of social, political or religious reforms; or merely 
 for notoriety, show, pomp, and to obtain for their possessors a 
 factitious dignity and supposititious self-importance; and even 
 for mere jollification and vulgar burlesque. 
 
 The benefits intended to be so secured cannot rightfully belong 
 to any person except those who, paying the prices for the Degree 
 or Degrees fixed by the law of the Degree or Rite, have received 
 It or them at the hands or by the authorization of a lawful and 
 legitimate Body or Ofiicer of the Rite, having the supreme power 
 derived from the first possessors; and except those who, by 
 assuming the required obligations, have become entitled to, and 
 have been put in possession of, the arcana and modes of recogni- 
 
tion— belonging to each Degree. To endeavor to procure for 
 one's self those benefits, whether pecuniary, or of consideration 
 and dignity, or of relief or assistance, in any other way, is plain 
 dishonesty and peculation : and for any one not legally in pos- 
 session of Degrees to take money for conferring them, is the 
 obtaining of money under false pretences. One who does it 
 is well styled in French an escroe. 
 
 No Body can possess or own Degrees, nor get title, (as the 
 Grand Orient of France used to pretend to do,) by purchase 
 and cession, of Degrees, if it be composed wholly or in part of 
 persons who have not been invested with them ; nor can continue 
 to be owners or possessors of Degrees which it rejects, repudiates, 
 and refuses to work, or forbids its subordinate Bodies to work. 
 Those who are only invested with a lower Degree cannot confer 
 upon others a higher one. A Body of Apprentices cannot make 
 Fellow-Crafts, nor a Body of Fellow-Crafts make Master-Masons, 
 nor could Cemeau's Consistory of 32d8 make 33ds. It needs no 
 argument to prove that no one can give a Degree to another, 
 unless he has it himself. 
 
 Nor can a Body, wholly or in part composed of Master-Masons, 
 legislate for or control Bodies of Eoyal-Arch Masons, or those of 
 the higher Degrees of another or the same Rite. 
 
 These are self-evident axioms, and fundamental principles of 
 Masonic Law and of common sense. Keep them in mind. 
 
 The primary or earliest Rite of Free-Masonry was the Sym- 
 bolic, commonly known as the 'Blue' Masonry, consisting at first 
 of no 'Degrees,' properly so called. When the First or Second 
 Degree was invented and adopted, or by whom or how, is not 
 known. It is only known that until about a certain date there 
 were no Degrees, and that abovi 1723,. perhaps as late as 1725, 
 the Third was adopted. The three were invented and came into 
 use before there was any other organization than that of the 
 Blue Lodges. The Third Degree, at least, belonged to the 
 English Free-Masonry, and could be legally acquired from it 
 
 only. 
 
 In regard to the fundamental law of the English Masonry, as 
 embodied in what are known as Anderson's "Constitutions of the 
 Free-Masons," they were first published at London in 1723, " con- 
 taining the History, Charges, Regulations, &c., of that Most 
 
Ancient and Eight Worshipful Fraternity," dedicated by J. F. 
 Desaguliers, Deputy of the Duke of Wharton, Right Worshipful 
 Grand Master, to the Duke of Montagu, Ex-Grand Master. 
 
 The whole purported to be " collected from their general rec- 
 ords, and their faithful traditions of many ages." The History 
 stated that King Athelstan (about A. D. 930) " encourag'd 
 many Masons from France," who " brought with them the Charges 
 and Regulations of the Lodges preserv'd since the Roman times, 
 who also prevail'd with the King to improve the Constitution of 
 the .English Lodges according to the foreign model :" and that 
 "Prince Edwin, the said King's youngest son, summoned all the 
 Masons in the Realm to meet him in a Congregation at York, 
 who came and composed a General Lodge, of which he was 
 Grand Master; and having brought with them all the writings 
 and records extant, some in Greek, some in Latin, some in 
 French, and other languages, from the contents thereof that 
 Assembly did frame the Constitution and Charges of an English 
 Lodge." Also, " that those Charges and Laws of Free-Masons 
 have been seen and perused by our late Sovereign, King Henry 
 VL, and by the Lords of his honorable Council, who haveallow'd 
 them, and said that they be right good and reasonable to be 
 holden, as they have been drawn out and collected from the 
 records of ancient times." 
 
 The "Charges" are thus intituled: "The Charges of a Free- 
 Mason, extracted from the ancient records of Lodges beyond sea, and 
 of those in England, Scotland and Ireland, for the use of the 
 Lodges in London." 
 
 And the Regulations: "General Regulations, compiled first 
 by Mr. George Payne, Anno 1720, when he was Grand Master, 
 and approved by the Grand Lodge on St. John Baptist's Day, 
 
 Anno 1721," &c " and now by the command of our 
 
 said Right Worshipful Grand Master Montagu, the author of this 
 book has compar'd them with and reduc'd them to the Ancient 
 Records and immemorial usages of the Fraternity, and digested 
 them into this new method, with several proper explications, for 
 the use of the Lodges in and about London and Westminster." 
 
 In Article 39 of these Regulations it is stated that the approval 
 and consent of the majority of all the Brethren present must be 
 " solemnly desir'd " to make new Regulations binding, " as it was 
 desir'd and obtain'd for these Regulations, when propos'd by the 
 
Grand Lodge, to about 150 Brethren, on St. John Baptist's Day, 
 1721." 
 
 The "approbation" of the whole, by the Grand Master, Dep- 
 uty Grand Master and Grand Wardens, and the Masters and 
 Wardens of twenty particular Lodges, (among whom was ' ' XVII. , 
 James Anderson, A. M. , the author of this Book, Master,") 
 recited, that the Free-Masons of England had twice thought it 
 necessary to correct their Constitutions, Charges and Eegulations ; 
 first, in the reign of King Athelstan, the Saxon, and, long after, 
 in the reign of King Edward IV., the Norman: that the old 
 Constitutions in England had been much interpolated, mangled, 
 and miserably corrupted : that the late Grand Master, the Duke 
 of Montagu, had " order'd the author to peruse, correct and 
 digest, into a new and better method, the History, Charges and 
 Regulations of the Ancient Fraternity ; " and that he had, ac- 
 cordingly, "examin'd several copies from Italy and Scotland, and 
 sundry parts of England, and from thence, (tho' in many things 
 erroneous,) and from several other ancient Records of Masons," he 
 had "drawn forth the above written new Constitutions, with the 
 Charges and General Regulations." 
 
 Every one now knows that no such " History, Charges and 
 Regulations" had come from Italy ; that the Charges were not 
 "extracted from the Ancient Records of Lodges beyond Seas," 
 because there were no other such Lodges ; that the whole account 
 of Constitutions adopted by a Grand Lodge at York, of which 
 Prince Edwin was Grand Master, and of the adoption of Consti- 
 tutions in the times of Henry VI. and of Edward IV. , was fabu- 
 lous. No one knows anything about the real origines of the 
 Charges or Regulations, except that the former, at least, were 
 known and used in Scotland before they were in England ; and, 
 in short, it is no longer denied that the whole account of the sources 
 from which both were derived is a fiction, — in plain words, an 
 impudent congeries of lies. 
 
 But being ' drawn out ' by Anderson, they were adopted by 
 the Grand Lodge, and by that became obligatory, being in no 
 wise vitiated by the false statements as to the antiquity of the 
 sources from which they were derived, any more than the laws 
 of Numa Pompilius were, because, to give them greater sanctity, 
 he pretended that they were dictated to him by the Nymph 
 Egeria ; or those of Minos, who claimed for them a divine origin. 
 
The m-igines of Nations and of ancient Churches, Societies and 
 Associations are alike enshrouded in the obscurity of the Past. 
 What is really known in regard to the origin of Kome ? Nothing. 
 Niebuhr long ago exploded the accepted fictions in regard to 
 Romulus and Remus. What is known as to the origin and the 
 adoption tof statutes and rules by any one of all the many Guilds 
 of England ? Nothing. And so nothing is known as to the real 
 origin of the Constitutions of Symbolic Masonry. Who knows 
 by what authority the ' Ancient Landmarks ' were established ? 
 No one. History and tradition are alike mute on the subject. 
 
 The next Rite that made its appearance in Masonry was that 
 of Perfection or H6r6dom, in France, composed of the Blue 
 Degrees and 22 others, the 18th being the ' Rose Croix,' and the 
 25th the ' Prince of the Royal Secret.' Of the authors or origins, 
 or separate working, before the organization of the Rite, of any 
 except two or three of the twenty-two Degrees, no information 
 whatever has come down to us ; and little reliance is to be placed 
 on what has been told in regard to even those two or three. The 
 twenty-five Degrees had. been organized into a Rite before 1762. 
 One by one they had been invented, worked, communicated by 
 the inventors to others, and at last, how and by whom nobody 
 knows, had been arranged and aggregated into a system, called 
 a Rite, which afterwards appeared before the world, and then or 
 at a later time had Regulations purpmiing to have been framed 
 by nine Commissioners, assembled at Berlin or Bordeaux in 1762. 
 Whether there ever was any such assembly ; whether, if there 
 was, it met in 1762, and at which place ; who the Commissioners 
 were, how appointed and empowered ; and how, when, where 
 and by what Body these Regulations were adopted, nothing what- 
 ever is or ever has been known. 
 
 But tJw Rite was an actuality. It certainly existed before 1762, 
 and continued to exist, accepting these Regulations as the law of 
 its being ; and no man has, since 1762, become a regular and 
 lawful Mason of that Rite, except under the authority of those 
 Regulations; which, if they were made in 1762, existed in manu- 
 script only for seventy years, before being for the first time 
 printed and published at Paris in 1832. I have manuscript 
 Rituals of it as old as the beginning of the present century. The 
 Rite belonged to those who invented it and set it to work: they 
 
had the right to adopt regulations for it, and they and their suc- 
 cessors alone had and have the power to confer its Degrees — as 
 Degrees of that Rite. 
 
 The Grand Orient of France took the 18th of that Rite, the 
 Rose Croix, made three others out of some of its Degrees below 
 the 18th, added these four to the Blue Degrees, and so created 
 the French Rite or Bit Modeme. It was the inventor and maker 
 of that Rite, and, as such, had the exclusive right to propagate, 
 administer, and govern it. Nobody has ever disputed that. 
 
 The Templar Degree made its appearance in England, brought, 
 it is supposed, from France, and worked in England as the first 
 of seven Degrees, of which the 7th was the Kadosh. All these 
 were given by the Blue Lodges. In Scotland, one Lodge would 
 sell to another, for a pound or two, the right to confer the Tem- 
 plar Degree. In England, the Lodges conferred it, and afterwards 
 the falsely called ' Grand ' Lodge at York chartered an Encamp- 
 ment at Manchester, composed of artizaus, which conferred the 
 Templar Degree for seven and sixpence. Then Dunckerly took 
 possession of it, assumed to be its Chief, and made it an 'Order,' 
 with a new organization. Who knows any thing about the origin 
 of the Degree, by whom and when and where it was invented and 
 first worked ? No man on earth. It is supposed to have originated 
 in France ; but no one knows that, nor has any one ever seen a 
 French Ritual of a Templar Degree like ours or like the English 
 Degree ; nor is such a Degree spoken of, as ever having existed 
 in France, by any French Masonic writer. 
 
 Certain persons established an Encampment in Pennsylvania. 
 By what authority, who they were, where they were invested 
 with the Degree, by what Ritual they worked, no body knows or 
 ever will know. Then Encampments appeared in New England. 
 Where the makers of them were invested with the Degree, or 
 whether they had it at all, no one knows ; but as they adopted a 
 ceremony totally different from those of the English, Scottish, 
 and Irish Encampments, the presumption is that they had never 
 been legally invested with the Degree by the rightful possessors 
 of it ; because, if they had, they would have been furnished 
 with Rituals whereby to establish Bodies, and would have had no 
 power or right to reject these and make new ones for themselves, 
 with nothing whatever in them that even savours of or remotely 
 resembles the ancient real Templar ceremony of reception into 
 2 
 
10 
 
 the Order, or the present Ritual of any foreign Teraplarism, how- 
 ever creditable the American Ritual may be to the inventor of it. 
 
 So the Royal Arch Degree appeared in England, no body 
 knows at what date, or by whom invented. The Degree of Mark 
 Master appeared also, when, by whom made or introduced, no 
 one knows. In England there grew up Chapters of Royal Arch 
 and Mark Lodges, — Mark Masonry and Royal Arch Masonry 
 having no connection there with each other. 
 
 But in the West Indies, before 1795, the Mark Master, Past 
 Master, and Royal Arch Degrees, were worked in the Island of 
 Santo Domingo, as composing one system, with Rituals trans- 
 lated from the English ; and it was required that a person should 
 have the Royal Master and Super-Excellent Master Degrees be- 
 fore he could receive the Royal Arch. The Degree of Master 
 Mark Mason, with a Ritual totally different from the West Indian 
 one, and totally different from our present one, was about the 
 same time worked at Charleston : and by and by the Degree of 
 Select Master appeared and was given with that of Royal Master. 
 
 Who knows the origin or author or time of origin of the Mark 
 Master or Master Mark Mason Degree ; of the Past Master De- 
 gree ; of the English Royal Arch ; of the Royal Master ; of the 
 Select Master; of the Super-Excellent Master? No one. But 
 Bodies of these Degrees were organized : a Rite consisting of the 
 Mark Master, Past Master, Most Excellent Master, (known to 
 have been made in the United States,) and Royal Arch, was or- 
 ganized, with Chapters, Grand Chapters of States, and a General 
 Grand Chapter of the United States ; and a Rite consisting of 
 the Royal and Select Master, and in some States of the Supers 
 Excellent Master Degrees, was also organized, with Councils, 
 Grand Councils, and, finally, and very lately, a National Grand 
 Council. 
 
 And those who had possession of the Templar Degree in New 
 England made the Red Cross Degree out of two Degrees of the 
 Rite of Perfection, and organized it and the Templar Degree 
 into another Rite, with Encampments or Commanderies, Grand 
 Encampments or Grand Commanderies, and a Grand Encamp- 
 ment of the United States. 
 
 Who knows anything in regard to the origin of the two De- 
 grees out of which the Red Cross was made ? No one. When, 
 how, by whom they were made, no one knows. 
 
11 
 
 But, to one thing all agree : that to the Bodies of each of these 
 Rites, the Rite as orgauized, and as administered by them, exclu- 
 sively belongs ; and if the Degrees of either are given by any 
 other authority, the recipient is a spurious Royal Arch, a spurious 
 Templar, a spurious Select Master; and that any one who, not 
 being regularly invested with either of the Degrees, should un- 
 dertake to give it, and establish Bodies of it, would be a fraudu- 
 lent impostor and a knave, no better than a sneak-thief. 
 
 And though a Negro Lodge, Chapter, or Commandery may 
 give precisely the same Degrees in all respects, by identically the 
 regular Rituals, one so receiving either is held, every where in 
 the United States, to be no Master Mason, no Royal Arch Mason, 
 no Knight Templar, not having the Degrees from the legitimate 
 authority. 
 
 In 1801 another Masonic Rite made its appearance at Charlesr 
 ton, in South Carolina, composed of the 25 Degrees of the Rite 
 of Perfection, and eight others added to them, and claiming to 
 have been organized at Berlin in 1786. It had, in manuscript, 
 its Grand Constitutions written in French, purporting to have 
 been made at Berlin, in Prussia, in a Supreme Council of the 
 33d Degree, duly and legally established and constituted there 
 on the 1st of May, 1786, at which Council was present the King 
 of Prussia, Frederic the Great, Sovereign Grand Commander. 
 In 1802, the Supreme Council of the 83d Degree for the United 
 States of America announced to the world, by formal manifesto, 
 its establishment on the 31st of May, 1801. Since then it has 
 had continuous existence under its Constitutions to the present 
 day, with periods of inactivity ; sometimes, perhaps, with na 
 subordinate Bodies, never with many, until after 1855. All this 
 was but natural for such a Body, Supreme Power of such a Rite, 
 and in such a country, which, having a special Masonry of its 
 own, regarded the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite as intru- 
 sive. It has never had less than three members, and was but 
 once, sixty and more years ago, reduced to that; and, by its or- 
 ganic law, three constitute a Supreme Council, as three Master- 
 Masons constitute a Lodge. 
 
 In 1814, it created the Supreme Council for the Northern 
 Jurisdiction of the United States at New York, and itself took 
 the title of the Supreme Council for the Southern Jurisdiction. 
 
12 
 
 There are now some twenty-four Supreme Councils of this Rite 
 iu the world, all of which, with the exception of two or three, 
 have been created by authority, either immediate or transmitted, 
 from that established at Charleston in 1801. It is more widely 
 diffused than any other Rite of Masonry in the world, and, in its 
 higher Degrees, many times more so than either the Royal Arch 
 or Templar Rite, which are confined to English-speaking countries ; 
 and the two Supreme Councils of the United States have of their 
 Obedience over two hundred different Bodies. 
 
 By the same law that obtains as to the other Rites, this Rite 
 belonged to those who formed, organized and established it. 
 Whether its Constitutions were framed and adopted at Berlin or 
 not, they were valid as its fundamental law, because they were 
 accepted, adopted and promulgated as such law in 1801. 
 
 This Rite was and is called the Ancient and Accepted Scottish 
 Rite; and no oiher Rite under that name or with all the same 
 Degrees has ever made its appearance. No man has ever regu- 
 larly received its Degrees, since the adoption of the Constitutions, 
 without swearing to obey them as the supreme law of the Rite : 
 and it is not possible that a Body of any Degree can be a Body 
 of this Rite, if it denies the authority of its Grand Constitutions. 
 
 The Rite exists and is active, with its Organic Law* and its 
 Governing Bodies, precisely as the other Rites exist and are 
 active : and its origin and the origin of its Constitutions, like the 
 origin of all other Rites, is not historically known to us with 
 certainty. If there was a Supreme Council at Berlin, no record 
 of its sessions remains. If there were written minutes of those 
 of the Supreme Council at Charleston for half a century, they 
 have been destroyed or lost. There was not anciently any law 
 that required the minutes of a Body to be recorded in books ; 
 and they were universally kept on loose sheets or paper-rolls, 
 when kept at all. 
 
 So the early records or minutes of Templarism in England, 
 the 'records' of the 'immemorial Encampments,' if they kept 
 any, have utterly disappeared, like those of the Bodies of the 
 Rite of Perfection in France, and those of the old Blue Lodges 
 in France and England, Scotland and Ireland. No man of this 
 or the last generation has seen the minutes of any of these early 
 Lodges, of the Grand Lodge of France for a score or two of years 
 after its establishment, of any Encampment of Templars before 
 
13 
 
 the time of Dunckerly. I have been endeavouring in vain to 
 find the minutes of the proceedings of the Grand Orient of 
 France, from 1807 to 1815. When did the Grand Lodge of 
 England begin to keep its minutes? and who has seen those 
 from 1717 to 1723? Where are the oldest minutes of "the old 
 Grand Lodge at York? " Who has seen the earliest minutes of 
 Dermott's Grand Lodge? Where is the book that contains the 
 record of its sessions during the first years of its existence? The 
 keeping of formal records was not an essential characteristic of 
 Masonry in the old days ; and the ancient history of Blue Masonry 
 is, therefore, more mythical than that of Etruria or Rome. 
 
 Fortunately, it is no longer considered necessary to resort to 
 fictions, impudent and ridiculous, to support the claim to legiti- 
 macy of any Degree or Rite of Free-Masonry. Nothing, in re- 
 ligion or history or mythology, has ever equalled the riotous 
 exuberance of fiction in which the earlier Masonic writers in 
 England revelled, in regard to the Blue or Symbolic Masonry; 
 and multitudes of Masons religiously believe these impudent 
 fictions yet. They sufficed at the time when they were invented, 
 but they are unnecessary and exploded now. 
 
 One Joseph Cemeau came, in 1806 or 1807, from the Island of 
 Cuba to New York, which was within the Jurisdiction of the 
 Supreme Council of the United States at Charleston. He was 
 a Prince of the Royal Secret, of the 25th Degree of the Rite of 
 Perfection, made such in 1806, at Baracoa in Cuba, and also 
 made Deputy Inspector for the northern part of that Island, by 
 Mathieu Dupotet, an Inspector of the Rite of Perfection, by au- 
 thority transmitted from Etienne Morin ; and he was no more. 
 It is admitted by his Historiographer, Folger, that he did not, at 
 first, pretend to have been invested with any other Degrees than 
 the twenty-five of the Rite of Perfection. Afterwards he falsely 
 pretended to have the additional Degrees of the Ancient and 
 Accepted Scottish Rite, and the Templar Degree, and he 
 trafficked in all, and in one called 'Aaron's Band,' and so plyed 
 a somewhat profitable trade in these shoddy and bogus com- 
 modities. Whatever he may or may not have been, and what- 
 ever 'authority or commission or inherent prerogative he may 
 have had, he invaded the jurisdiction of a lawful and regular 
 Supreme Council of the United States, was a trespasser, intruder 
 and interloper, a disturber of the Masonic peace, without the 
 
14 
 
 slightest power to give a Degree or establish a Body of the An- 
 cient and Accepted Scottish Rite. All that he did was, on that 
 ground alone, merely null and void. 
 
 This person established in New York, without any authority 
 to do so, even under his Patent from Dupotet, a "Sovereign 
 Grand Consistory" of Princes of the Eoyal Secret, of the 25th 
 Degree, of the Ancient and Primitive Rite of Heredom, but 
 calling it of the 32d, whose members from time to time se- 
 lected some of themselves and rewarded them with what they 
 called the 33d Degree, which gave them no powers, but was a 
 mere naked decoration, and therefore not the 83d Degree estab- 
 lished by the Grand Constitutions of the Ancient and Accepted 
 Scottish Rite; and these 33ds, so made, were in the aggregate 
 styled a Supreme Council, a merely ornamental group, which 
 had no powers at all ; all powers of government and administra- 
 tion, of legislation and judicial decision, belonging to the Princes 
 of the Royal Secret in Grand Consistory. 
 
 All the 32ds in the world could not make a 33d of the Ancient 
 and Accepted Scottish Rite. Nor could there be a Supreme 
 Council of that Rite without powers, a mere nominis umbra. 
 
 And if Cerneau had actually been a 33d and had had power 
 to create a Supreme Council, his action, investing a Grand Con- 
 sistory with supreme powers, and providing for a nominal -Su- 
 preme Council with none, would have been utterly irregular, in • 
 gross violation of the Constitutions of the Rite, and absolutely 
 null and void. 
 
 Undoubtedly, if he had had competent authority, he could 
 have established Bodies of the Rite of Perfection in twenty-five 
 Degrees in New York, and the Supreme Council at Charleston 
 could have had nothing to say against it ; for its Rite had not 
 swallowed or extinguished that of Perfection, nor obtained any 
 exclusive title to its twenty-five Degrees. But the whole of 
 Cerneau's action was a mere impudent inposture and fraud. 
 Nothing could have been more brazenly fraudulent than his 
 styling the Degree of Prince of the Royal Secret of the Rite of 
 Heredom or Perfection, the 'Thirty-second' Degree; for that Rite 
 consisted of twenty-five Degrees and no more ; and he never had 
 any Thirty-second Degree, or any other Degree above the 25th 
 of that Rite. He was simply an audacious knave and impostor, 
 earning money by dealing in stolen wares under false pretences ;. 
 
15 
 
 as he was in giving the Degree of Knight Templar, which also 
 he never Had. It is now boldly asserted that he had a commis- 
 sion from the Grand Orient of France, which is an audacious 
 lie; for no man has ever seen such a commission; and he covM 
 not have had one, because, until 1815, the Grand Orient of 
 France never controlled the Degrees above the 18th. 
 
 Undoubtedly, he might have made himself the author of a 
 new Rite, by inventing or procuring some one to invent for him 
 eight Degrees, in addition to those possessed by him, and calling 
 the last the 33d, and making a Body of it the Supreme Power 
 of the Rite. 
 
 But he could neither appropriate the names borne by Degrees 
 of the same numbers, in the Ancient and Accepted Rite, nor 
 claim and pretend that the Degrees of his invention were identi- 
 cal with those; nor give to his Rite the name of " Ancient and 
 Accepted Scottish Rite," nor pretend and claim that it was the 
 same as that practiced by the Supreme Councils at Charleston, 
 of France, and others, under the Grand Constitutions purporting 
 to have been made in 1786, without being guilty of imposture 
 and rascality, and of obtaining money under false pretences. 
 All such performances are what in the French language are styled 
 escroquerie' and frvprnnerie. 
 
 When any Rite has become established, those who obtain its 
 Degrees pay for them, sometimes very considerable sums. By 
 being invested with these Degrees, by the possession of the means 
 of recognition, (only to be honestly obtained by paying for them, 
 and only by paying the person or Body entitled by the Cotistitu- 
 tions of the Rite to receive the fee,) and by becoming a member 
 of the Order, Society, or Association, a person obtains valuable 
 rights and privileges, — the right to be defended in danger and 
 aided in adversity, the privilege of finding Brothers wherever 
 the Order exists, a joint ownership in the property of the Lodge 
 or other Body to which he belongs, titles and decorations which, 
 if he pays for them and obtains them honestly, he has a right to 
 be proud of, and the right to letters, if he travels, making him 
 favourably known to distinguished persons in other countries. 
 
 Now, if any one not legally invested with the Degrees of the 
 Rite or Order, and having no authority derived from the founders 
 to give its Degrees and establish Bodies of it, comes into its Juris- 
 diction and gives what are, or what he pretends are, its Degrees, 
 
16 
 
 and establishes Bodies of it, the persons invested with his gew- 
 gaws are not lawfully in possession of them, and the bodies that 
 he creates are spurious, and he is a rogue, even worse than a 
 thief, for so obtaining money by false pretences and selling what 
 does not belong to him — a knave of the scurviest sort ; a poor, 
 contemptible, impudent impostor and sharper. 
 
 One can scarcely conceive of a more disreputable or dirty 
 occupation. The pretended authority of the bilk who practices 
 it rests on lies. He must sustain himself by continual lying, 
 entrap the unwary by lying, make decent men parties to fraud 
 by lying, sell his stolen or shoddy wares by the aid of lies, must 
 lie from the rising of the suu until the going down thereof, must 
 live in an atmosphere of lies, be saturated with mendacity, be- 
 come a walking fraud, filch money from men's pockets by lies, 
 cheat, cozen, pilfer by lies, and be equally without conscience or 
 shame. 
 
 "Lafowrherie ajouie h, malignite au memonge." 
 
 If the axioms, which need no demonstration, that Degrees 
 belong to those who make, compose, or compile them, and who 
 do not sell or abandon their right of proprietorship over them, 
 and that Rites belong to those who organize and establish them, 
 and are the first workers of them, were not true, or could be 
 changed into lies, or cease to govern in Masonry, there would no 
 longer be any clandestine or irregular Masons, or spurious Bodies, 
 or any Masonic legitimacy : a man receiving the Blue Degrees 
 in a Negro Lodge, or by reading a book, would be as good a 
 Mason as anyone; and anybody who pleased could give Degrees 
 and establish Lodges and Grand Lodges, Chapters, Comman- 
 deries, Councils and Consistories; and all Masonry would be 
 destroyed. 
 
 For, when an Apprentice is asked, what makes him a Mason, 
 he answers, "My obligation ;" and if a man who never took the 
 obligation of a Degree to the real owner and lawful possessor of 
 it, still has the Degree and can give it and create Bodies of it, 
 the whole bottom of Masonry has dropped out. If he actually, 
 but surreptitiously, has obtained a knowledge of the whole Ritual 
 of the Degree, it is a baser act on his part to use for profit what 
 has been basely obtained, than it is to make a Degree and repre- 
 sent it to be and sell it for a regular Degree of a regular Rite, 
 
17 
 
 ■when it is not that at all. For, in the latter case, he only steals 
 the name of the Degree ; and, in the former, he steals that and 
 the substance of it together. 
 
 It is time that some things should be called by the right names. 
 Theft is nothing less than theft, whatever it be that a man steals. 
 The man who, without having lawful and regular investiture 
 with a Degree, claims to possess it, is an impostor, and, there- 
 fore, a knave. For him to give it for money, is cozenage : to 
 establish spurious or irregular Bodies is sheer rascality : and for 
 men not ignorant and misled, to endeavour to get the right to 
 enjoy the benefits and privileges, of any Eite, for sums far smaller 
 than those pay who obtain it at the hands of regular Bodies, and 
 without taking the proper obligations to the regular possessors, 
 hoping thereby to share in what is not their own, is dishonesty 
 and indecency. 
 
 Bro. •. William J. Hughan, of Torquay in England, has noticed 
 in the London Free-Mason the pamphlet. "Masonic Origines." I 
 am indebted to him for pointing out an error into which I had 
 fallen, which I have corrected in this edition. 
 
 I copy the followiug paragraph from his notice : 
 
 "He asks (1), 'when did the Grand Lodge of England begin 
 to keep its n)inutes?' I reply, from 1723; and their chief records 
 are to be found in the History of Free-Masonry, by Bro.-. Gould, 
 being copies of the Original records still preserved at Free-Masons' 
 Hall, which many of us have seen and handled." 
 
 No doubt; but the Grand Lodge was established in 1716, 
 according to Anderson ; and what I was commenting on was the 
 absence of records or minutes of the organization of Bodies, of 
 their 'origines,' and of their earliest proceedings. None at all are 
 to be found of the mganizatim of the Grand Lodge of England, 
 in the shape of authenticated minutes; and we have no record of what 
 it did for six or seven years. 
 
 Speaking of " the great Masonic event of the eighteenth cent- 
 uj.y,_the Assembly of 1717, — out of which sprang the Grand Lodge 
 of England, the Mother of Grand Lodges," Bro.-. Gould says: 
 
18 
 
 " UnfortunaMy, the mimites of Grand Lodge only commence on June 
 24, 1723. 
 
 "For the history, therefore, of the first six years of the new 
 regvme, we are mainly dependent on the account given by Dr. 
 Anderson in the ' Constitutions' of 1738, nothing whatever relating 
 to the proceedings of the Grand Lodge, except the ' General Regulations' 
 of 1121, having been inserted in the earlier edition of 1723." 4 
 GoiM, 279. 
 
 Anderson says that after the rebellion was over in 1716, the 
 four old Lodges (which had no names or numbers, being desig- 
 nated only by the ale-houses or taverns where they met), with 
 some old Brothers, met at the Apple Tree Tavern, and "consti- 
 tuted themselves a Grand Lodge ^ro tempore in due form," and 
 "revived the Quarterly Communication of the officers of Lodges 
 (cail'd the Grand Lodge)," and resolved to hold the Annual 
 Assembly and Feast, and then to chuse a Grand Master from 
 among themselves, until they should have the honour of a noble 
 Brother at their head." 4 GouM, 279, 280. The date of this 
 meeting is not given. 
 
 But the Assembly and Feast (annual) were held afterwards, 
 on St. John Baptist's day, 1717, at the Goose and Gridiron Ale- 
 house, when Antony Sayer, Gentleman, was elected Grand Master 
 of Masons, and Jacob Laraball, a Carpenter, «nd Captain Joseph 
 Elliott, Grand Wardens. The Grand Master " commanded the 
 Masters and Wardens of Lodges to meet the Grand Officers every 
 quarter in communication." This was the Grand Lodge, which did 
 not elect the Grand Master and Grand Wardens. 
 
 George Payne was elected Grand Master of Masons, at the 
 Assembly and Feast, 24 June, 1718, and a city Carpenter and a 
 Stonecutter, Grand Wardens ; Desaguliers, at the Assembly and 
 Feast, 24 June, 1719; and George Payne a second time, at those 
 on 24 June, 1720. 
 
 Then, at the Quarterly Communication, or Grand Lodge in 
 ample form, on St. John Evangelist's day, 1720, the selection of 
 the Grand Master was provided for, to be made by the Grand 
 Lodge, on the nomination of the actual Grand Master; and the 
 power of appointing the Deputy and the Grand Wardens was 
 given to the Grand Master "according to antient custom, when 
 noble Brothers were Grand Masters." 4 Gould, 281. 
 
 These statements and others that follow, in regard to the As- 
 semblies and Feasts and the Grand Lodge, were published by 
 
19 
 
 Anderson in 1738; and Gould admits "that the history of the 
 Grand Lodge, from 1717 to 1723, as narrated by Anderson, is, 
 to say the least, very unsatisfactorily attested." 4 Gmild, 292. 
 And in a note he shows that the information which Anderson 
 furnishes was derived from hearsay, as he was not affiliated in 
 English Masonry until after the election as Grand Master of the 
 Duke of Montagu, in 1721. 
 
 I add here, as illustrating what I have said in regard to un- 
 certainty as to the origins of Bodies, what Bro.'. Gould says in 
 regard to two ancient Lodges, each older than the Grand Lodge 
 of England : 
 
 "Between the years 1710 and 1748, the Alnwick records, ^ 
 not wholly wanting, contain at best very trivial entries." 4 Gould 
 267. 
 
 Do any minutes of it show anything in regard to its organiza- 
 tion and first meeting ? 
 
 "The earliest entry in the minute-book of Swalwell Lodge is 
 of September 29, 1725." 
 
 Does this, or anything afterwards, show anything in regard to 
 its origin or early history ? 
 
 But I have looked into Bro."- Gould's History for those " chief 
 records" which are to be found therein, being "copies of the 
 Original Records;" and this is what I have found : 
 
 The earliest proceedings recorded in the minutes of the Grand 
 Lodge of England are of 24 June, 1723, given by Gould, Vol. 
 IV, pp. 373-375. There were present the Duke of Wharton, 
 Grand Master, Dr. Desaguliers, Dep. ■. Gr. ■. Master, and the two 
 Gr.'. Wardens. 
 
 After the minutes of this meeting, those of the Quarterly 
 Communication of November 25 are given. The two extracts 
 cover three quarto pages. Then follows Anderson's statement of 
 what was done on the day of that Quarterly Communication. 
 
 Then are given certain questions settled on the 19th of Feb- 
 ruary, 1724, and the 28th of April of the same year; and ex- 
 tracts and quotations from the records or minutes of the following 
 dates: November 21, 1724; May 20, 1725, and November 27, 
 1725, each distinguished by its brevity; December 19, 1727, and 
 St. John's Day, Christmas, same year — the former only naming 
 the Lodges represented, and the latter being a resolution of 3| 
 lines; November 26, 1728; August 28, 1730; December in the 
 
20 
 
 same year; December 15, 1730; March 17, 1731, certain reso- 
 lutions; June, 1731; December 13, 1733, two brief resolutions; 
 February 24, 1735; March 31, 1735; with brief references and 
 extracts down to March 25, 1754. 
 
 Gould has perhaps extracted all that is of any importance 
 from the early records ; and it is very certain that they contain 
 nothing at all in regard to the origin and first organization of the 
 Grand Lodge of England ; and that, if any minutes of its ses- 
 sions for six or seven years were kept, which does not appear, they 
 are lost. 
 
 I hardly think that I can agree with my Brother Hughan, that 
 "the chief records" of the Grand Lodge of England are given by 
 Bro. •. Gould. He may have extracted all that he considered of 
 Value historically; but he has not given us the records themselves. 
 There may be much in them that would be of very great value 
 otherwise than historically, as showing the progress of innovation, 
 as well in the way of depravation as of improvement. A great 
 many shining lights in Masonry would be benefited by a larger 
 knowledge of what the old Masonry really was. 
 
 I have said to Brother Hughan that to refer Masons to the 
 costly history of Bro.-. Gould for the minutes and records of the 
 Grand Lodges is idle. Not one Mason in a thousand in the 
 United States will ever even see the work ; and a smaller number 
 will own it. I have asked him why such minutes as remain 
 cannot be published, complete, entire, and just as they are, in such 
 shape that they can be accessible at small cost to Masons gen- 
 erally. I should prefer to judge for myself whether Brother 
 Gould has given us the chief records or not. Let us go to the 
 sources of history, and hear what the old Bodies themselves have 
 said about their origins and doings. 
 
 I do not understand that the few persons who ' revived ' Ma- 
 sonry in England, in 1716 and 1717, had any commission to do 
 so from the four old Lodges to which they belonged ; that these 
 Lodges were working at all until afterwards ; and that the mak- 
 ing of the Grand Lodge was the act of these Lodges as organized 
 Bodies. Where is the proch verbal of the organization of the 
 Grand Lodge? Nowhere. What if it did begin to record its 
 doings in 1723? Do the minutes then commenced give any in- 
 formation as to its originesi No. These continue all in the 
 clouds. 
 
21 
 
 The four old Lodges are only nominum umbrce, ' the shades of 
 names.' They are wholly impersonal to us. We know nothing 
 of their previous life ; and the whole story sounds like a myth. 
 
 Bro. ■. Hughan next says, quoting my words : 
 
 (2.) "Where were any minutes of the 'old Grand Lodge at 
 York,' if there was such a Body?" "I reply," he says, "they 
 are still at York, from the year 1712, as respects the old Lodge, 
 and from 1725 as a Grand Lodge ; . . . and all from 1712 
 to'1730, and others, are exactly reproduced in Gould's justly cel- 
 ebrated history." 
 
 Let us see exactly what they are. 
 
 There is a roll of parchment in existence, containing minutes 
 of "ajsriuafe Lodge," and occasionally of " a general Lodge" at 
 York, the first entry being of March 19, 1712, and the last of 
 May 4, 1730. Persons were "sworne and admitted" and "ad- 
 mitted and sworne" "into the Honourable Society and Fraternity 
 of Free-Masons, as well at a general Lodge, as at a private one." 
 The first entry begins: "March the 19, 1712, at a private Lodge 
 held at the house of James Boreham ;" and notes the swearing 
 and admission of six persons, and nothing more. It is signed by 
 "Geo. Bowes, Esq., Dep. President." 
 
 Up to December 27, 1725, there are minutes of 19 private 
 Lodges, one of ' a Lodge,' one of ' a new Lodge,' one of ' an ad- 
 journment of a Lodge,' two of ' general Lodges,' and two of ' St. 
 John's Lodges,' which were general ones, as the ' new Lodge,' ' a 
 Lodge,' and 'adjournment of a Lodge' were not. We thus have 
 fmir general Lodges only, in more than thirteen years, and no 
 ' Orand Lodge' meniioned. And these brief minutes, as well as of 
 the general Lodges as of the private ones, contain literally m)thing 
 except mention of the swearing and admission of members. Most 
 of the entries are not signed at all ; some of those of private 
 Lodges are signed by George Bowes, Dep. President; one of a 
 general Lodge by Sir Walter Hawksworth, President; and one 
 of a St. John's Lodge by Charles Fairfax, Dep. President. 4 
 GmM, 271/. 
 
 On the 27th December, 1725, a minute shows that the ' Society' 
 went in procession to Merchants' Hall, had the Grand Feast, 
 and elected a Grand Master, Deputy, Wardens, Treasurer and 
 Clerk. This is not signed by any one ; nor is any subsequent 
 entry signed by any officer until that of June 24, 1729. 
 
22 
 
 Then follow thirteen entries of two lines each of the swearing 
 and admission of members at private Lodges; one of June 24, 
 1726, of like admission, at a general Lodge, and one of June 24, 
 1729, of like admission, 'at St. John's Lodge held at y° Starr in 
 Stonegate.' The last also records the election of a Grand Master, 
 Deputy Grand Master and Grand Wardens, and the appointment 
 of a Committee ' to assist in regulating the state of the Lodge, and 
 redressing from time to time any inconveniences that may arise.'' 
 
 And the last entry is of May 4, 1730, at a private Lodge at 
 Mr. Ceiling's, being the sign of y° White Swann in Petergate, 
 York, at which it was ordered by the Dep. Masf then present, 
 that if thenceforth any officer of the Lodge should be absent 
 from the company at the monthly Lodges, he should be fined a 
 shilling for each omission. This was signed by the Dep. Gr. Master, 
 and the preceding entry by the newly elected Grand Master. 
 
 On the 6th of July, 1726, there is an entry in regard to a 
 person who had "presumed to call a Lodge and make Masons 
 without the consent of the Grand Master or Deputy :" beginning 
 "Whereas it has been certify" to me," and declaring that "I do, 
 with the consent of the Grand Master, and the approbation of 
 the whole Lodge," expel him from the Society : with provisions 
 in regard to the other persons concerned in the irregularity, and 
 for others who might in like manner afterwards offend. But 
 who "I" was, does not appear. 
 
 How the Grand Lodge was formed, and when, these minutes 
 do not show. In fact, they do not contain the name "Grand 
 Lodge." They chronicle a meeting of "a general Lodge" on 
 the 24th of June, 1713; one on the 24th of June, 1714; ohe 
 on Christmas, 1716, "held there by the Hon"' Society and 
 Company of Free-Masons, in the City of York ;" one on Christ- 
 mas, 1721: and, after the election of a Grand Master by "the 
 Society," December 27, 1725, a general Lodge, on the 24th 
 June, 1726; and at St. John's Lodge, 24th June, 1729, the 
 election of a Grand Master, Deputy Grand Master, and Grand 
 Wardens, and the appointment, by the Grand Master, of seven 
 persons, one 'Dr.' and six 'Mr's,' "to assist in regulating the 
 state of the Lodge, and redressing from time to time any incon- 
 veniences that may arise." 
 
 Evidently, as Gould admits, this so-called "Grand Lodge was 
 without any chartered subordinates,'' and the same persons met 
 
23 
 
 as a general Lodge and as a private Lodge. The general Lodges 
 "were held on the Festival days, in June and December, and 
 there were regular monthly meetings." The private Lodges 
 apparently were distinct from these, and additional to the ordi- 
 nary assemblies; and, Gould adds, "it may well be, were con- 
 vened exclusively for ' makings.' " IV, 406. 
 
 As thirty-six of the entries are of these "private" (or occa- 
 sional) Lodges, and only seven of general Lodges and St. John 
 Lodges, these minutes to which Bro. •. Hughan refers me give us 
 mighty little information about " the Grand Lodge of York," 
 except that it was not, in any sense of the word, a Grand Lodge, 
 and that it had nothing to do. Its origines are not even hinted at. 
 
 Bro. *. Hughan further quotes : 
 
 (3.) " Who has seen the minutes of Dermott's Grand Lodge? 
 Where is the book that contains a record of its sessions during 
 the first twenty-five years of its existence?" I reply, he says, 
 "Several of us have seen the minutes and registers /rom their 
 origin in 1751-2, as they are in the archives of the United 
 Grand Lodge from 1751-2 to 1813, and their main characteristics 
 are faithfully exhibited in Gould's History." 
 
 "From their origin," but not from the origin of the Grand 
 Lodge. What is known as to that? I did not know that there 
 were any early records of it, and am glad to be better informed. 
 
 The minutes of the Grand Lodge of the "Ancients" date 
 from the election of Laurence Dermott as Grand Secretary, 
 which took place in Grand Committee at the Griffin Tavern, 
 "Mr. Hagarty" in the chair, on the 5th of February, 1752, 
 present the officers of Nos. 2 to 10. It is, therefore, as Gould 
 says, impossible to say how far, as an organized body, the exist- 
 ence of the Ancients should be carried back. A note to the 
 minutes of September 14, 1752, states that a General Assembly 
 was held on the 17th of July, 1751, when the Masters of six 
 Lodges were present. Moreover, the note says that Dermott 
 never received any copy or manuscript of the former Transac- 
 tions from his predecessor; "nor does Laurence Dermott," he 
 says, "the present Secretary, think that Bro.-. Morgan did keep 
 any book of Transactions — though there is no certainty that he 
 did not." 
 
 It is to be hoped that Dermott's minutes will some time be pub- 
 lished, unmutilated. Keeping hid away from the general eye ma- 
 
24 
 
 terials for Masonic History is a custom that ought to become ob- 
 selete. The demand of intelligent Masons to-day is for more light. 
 
 Upon the subject of the obscurity of Masonic Origines, I add 
 this from Gould, in regard to the Grand Lodge of Ireland. It 
 is Ihe oldest extant minute : 
 
 Gould V, 28. Minutes of the Grand Lodge of Munster, 1726. 
 
 " At an assembly and meeting of the Grand Lodge for the 
 Province of Munster, at the house of M'. Herbert Phaire, in 
 Cork, on St. John's Day, being the 27th day of December, A°° 
 D". 1726. The Hon"' James O'Brien, Esq", by unanimous con- 
 sent, elected Grand Master for the ensueing yeare." . . 
 
 It was also entered thus, on the 27th of December, 1727 : 
 
 " Several Lodges within the Province had neglected to pay 
 their attendance." 
 
 How long these 'several Lodges' had existed, how they began 
 to exist, and when they formed a Grand Lodge of Munster, are 
 matters as to which history tells us nothing whatever. 
 
 In regard to the Grand Lodge of JEngland, we have no min- 
 utes or records of either of ' the four old Lodges,' by members of 
 which, and other Brethren, the Grand Lodge of England is said 
 to have been formed. Nothing is known in regard to most of 
 these Brethren; and but for information given by Dermott, we 
 should not have their names. The age of these four old Lodges 
 before the revival is pre-historic; All that preceded that event 
 is, as far as they 3,re cOtocerne"d,- wrapped in the impenetrable 
 darkness of oblivion. 
 
 Thus the criticisms of Bro. ■- Hughan do not touch the princi- 
 pal matter treated of in the ' Masonic Origines,' i. e. , the total 
 absence of original minutes and records, or of authentic evidence 
 in regard to beginnings of Masonic Bodies and Grand Bodies in 
 general. He has not succeeded in throwing much light on the 
 origin of two of the English Grand Lodges. 
 
 Perhaps he can tell me where are to be found the minutes of 
 the formation and earliest proceedings of the Grand Lodge of 
 the Royal Order of Scotland at Edinburgh? 
 
 Or the date of the inventioa and first working of its two De- 
 grees, and of the Mark Degree ? 
 
GAYLAMOUNT 
 
 PAMPHLET BINDER 
 
 Mafwtaetuntfbr 
 
 •AYUMtD BROS. Inc. 
 
 SyioeuM, H.Y. 
 
 Stockton, Calif . 
 
 Cornell University Library 
 HS397 .P63 1887 
 
 Masonic orig nes. 
 
 3 1924 030 280 196 
 olln,anx 
 
 ^ LIBRARYANNEX 
 
 APR 29|'86 NOV 
 
 12 
 
 ASHEX 
 
 ^no 
 
 m 
 
 23233B 
 
A 
 
 Lll 
 
 0^