be it is when the sun enters Cancer, that the sun entering libra is the antumnal equinox, and that it is mid-winter when the sun enters Capricornus. Certainly this is making the sun to perform the circle, and not the earth. Tell an astronomer that the vernal equinox is when the earth enters libra, or that it is autumnal equinox when the earth enters Aries, and he will laugh at your heterodoxical ideas, and at the same time will admit what you say is correct. Let any one now attempt to follow up Galeleo's proposed reformation, and what will be the result. There is now no existing Grand "chief of enlightened men," no power that could compel a recantation, so he would be allowed to promulgate his doctrine unmolested. So an English map maker might take it into his head to place a locomotive engine in the place of Aries, and a steamboat instead of old fashioned Argo Navis, but such ridiculous innovations, such laughable conceits would probably not be sanctioned even by any modern European astronomer, certainly not by any Asiatic.

There is a passage in the book of Joshua considered as recording a wondrous miracle, when in fact, astronomically, it refers to nothing more than the ordinary course of nature interpretable by of nature interpretable by means of the Masonic laws-the passage is that in which Joshua, meaning "the Lord the Saviour," commands the sun to stand still on Gibeon, and the moon in the valley of Ajalon* Daily does the sun momentarily stand still, that is, neither rising nor falling in the midst of heaven, and that is at high noon-this is well known to all mariners! At the annual high noon at the solstice of summer, the sun actually stands still, or is silent in its motion, during about a whole day, and this any nautical almanack will prove.

Reading the statement of Joshua, it becomes questionable whether the writer could have pointed out the position of Ajalon on the earth, it certainly could not be in the Holy Land, because every portion thereof is north of the equator; so when the sun stood still in the midst of heaven in the north during the day, the queen of heaven, the moon, must have stood still, if in Ajalon, during s whole night in the southern hemisphere under the equator. There can be no doubt about the command of the man Joshua, or Hercules, or Hiram, being for the sun to stand still upon Gibeon, which means a hill or cup or that which is lifted up."

* Joshua 10, 13 and 14.

The peak of Mont Mænalus, and the cup of Centaurus denote the autumnal equinox, and these are in the astronomical libra which sign is apportioned to the "rebels" or Amorites. These are by the Masonic laws delivered up before the children of Israel the gemini at 106-thus uniting the autumnal equinox with the summer solstice.

It is mere matter of opinion as to whether the command was that the moon should stand still in Agalon, certain it is that the next verse tells us the moon only "stayed." In that same verse it is reasserted about the sun standing still, and hastening not to go down about a whole day. The sun standing still in the midst of heaven, or at high noon if it remained so about a whole day would be motionless for (say) twelve hours. It would require eight hours of summer from sunrise to the high noon, and eight hours more to sun set, so this extraordinary day would be of 40 hours duration. As explained astronomically the sun stands still about a whole day at the solstice, and hasteneth not to go down the descent for a time from the colure being almost imperceptible. Sir William Drummond, says, "Ajalon signifies a ram, the allusion to Aries in the zodiac, he says, can hardly be mistaken. But wherefore did Joshua command the sun to stand still in the vault of heaven, and the moon in the sign Aries. Ought he not to have commanded the earth to stand still rather than the sun,"* Sir William little thought how such a question would puzzle astronomers; he little dreamt he was upholding the Galeleo reformation. Astronomers can see precisely where the sun is, but they cannot see where they are themselves, and that is the reason why the apparent motion of the sun was adopted for all astronomical pur

poses.

Cruden differs from Sir William Drummond as to the interpretation of Ajalon, which, Cruden says, means, "a chain, otherwise strength, or stag." The strength and stag imply Hercules, and the stag or deer, Capricornus, opposite Cancer. The moon never stands still, but at both the equinoxes the moon does stay, or apparently is retarded on her course on rising. And this is owing to her orbit being nearly parallel with the horizon. When the sun is in Libra, and the earth in Aries, then the moon at her full, or in her virgin state, would, as regards the sun, be in Aries. The word Ajalon means "chain, &c."

* Edepus Judiacus p. 236.

138. The brilliant, without discretion, or mirach, is covered with her girdle or zone, and had Andromeda retained her zone, her character would not have suffered as it has done in more modern times. Aries is equinoxical and Andromeda the equinoxical moon.

From our globe the solstices (or the sun on the meridian of the equator) are the equinoxes of the northern and southern hemispheres, and thus is it that Libra or Tishree of autumn, is united to the northern summer solstice: and Aries of the vernal equinox united to the winter solstice. So there is the authority for the sun standing still in the midst of heaven at the solstice in the tropic sign Cancer on the Gemini at 106, with the autumnal sign Libra or Tishree lifted up with Gibeon, &c., to 106 and opposite the winter solstice of the south, with the moon of equinoxical Aries, brought down to 286. Joshua does not say it was the full moon that stayed; indeed it could not possibly be so, because Easter is always the full moon (see Common Prayer Book), and the Easter full moon would be in Libra, or say Gibeon, whereas

From the earth, the sun and all the planets are in conjunction in the Gemini, and as de facto the sun is in the Gemini, the moon and earth are in Sagittarius (Ajalon as explained). It is generally considered that the moon was at her full when she stayed, but if so, she would be between the earth and the sign Sagittarius and in that case the planets would not be in conjunction. It is very unusual to represent the new moon at the autumnal equinox, and the writer says, "There was no day like that before or after it." Perhaps some of our learned contributors, Mr. Editor-Bro. Buchan, for instance, for he knows everything and can instruct everybody-perhaps he (W.P.B.) will so far oblige as to tell your readers when the next conjunction of the planets will take place. To save trouble, if he will make the calculations to a minute of a degree, it will be sufficiently satisfactory. After W.P.B. so favours the world, with his opinions relative to astronomical matters, will indeed deserve attention, but not until then.

MASONIC NOTES AND QUERIES,

ITALIAN SECRET SOCIETIES.

A new work published at Milan, by G. de Castro, under the title of Il Mondo Segreto, gives an account of the modern secret societies engrafted on Masonry. -NOTA.

NE SUTOR ULTRA CREPIDAM (p. 430). Under this title "Argive" seeks to evade the facts as to Rhodocanakis, or Rhodocapacki.

The marriage of Queen Victoria to Prince Albert has nothing to do with the matter. Queen Maud, Queen Mary I., Mary Queen of Scots, Queen Mary 1., Queen Anne, the Princess Sophia of Hanover, and Queen Victoria transmit the Crown of England, because it is what is called a "female fief," capable of transmission by females.

The case of France, for instance, is the reverse, as it has always been a male fief.

Bro. Yarker will therefore have the kindness yet to explain how the marriage of Theodora Palæologina, so long unbeard of, can convey the title and prerogatives of the Emperors of Constantinople.

I repeat the whole of the questions. As Bro.

Yarker is the historian of Bro, Rhodocanakis, he ought to be in the position to answer these simple questions, and he is a man of too much sincerity and ability to be misrepresented by " Argive."

It is a very dangerous thing, under such circumstances, to impute ignorance to adversaries. "Argive" has attempted to delude your readers by two impositions; the one is the citation of the English succession, when it is the question of succession which is challenged, and the other is the quotation of Greek philological points, which have nothing to do with the matter. This may puzzle your readers, or some sutor who cobbles up such concoctions as those in question; but it will not satisfy scholars that in the Byzantine period the present people called Rhodocanacki had their names transmitted from Rhodos Anax, as having been Emperors of Rhodes.-HIS

TORICUS.

MASONIC CREDULITY.

Our learned writer, Bro. John Yarker, P.M., has landed himself and us in a controversy in the pages of Notes and Queries, which is not proceeding satisfactorily or complimentarily for the Craft. Mr. W. Pinkerton, after handling the Queen Elizabeth story and other matters, including the famous MS. of Henry VI., observes,-"I have conducted many antiquarian researches, but I candidly must say that I never have met with such disgusting frauds as have been practised during the last one hundred and fifty years by the Freemasons." Mr. Pinkerton promises in his next communication, "a complete exposure of the fabulous assertions respecting Freemasonry and the Stuarts."

These subjects are now likely to undergo a fiery ordeal, from which it is to be expected they will not escape, nor will ridicule be spared on those who have propagated these fables and those who have believed them.-S.R.

THE YORK MASONS-ADOPTED MASONS.

Mr. W. Pinkerton, who attacks a number of Masonic fabrications in Notes and Queries, states his belief that, besides the Free and Accepted Masons founded in 1717, there was an older society in England, generally called the Adopted Masons. He says the Adopted Masons immediately assumed the legend [Query. In what meaning does he use the word. Is it simply the legend or title, Free and Accepted Masons? invented by the Free and Accepted Masons, but presuming on their antiquity did not join their lodges. He evidently believes these Adopted Masons were the York Masons.

These questions arise :-What authority is there for the title and pre-existence of Adopted Masons in the 17th century? Is it true that the independent lodges constituted the York rite or organization? It appears almost certain that there were before 1717 lodges besides the four in London, as the Warrington Lodge, for instance. What became of these lodges? It is possible that some of them enrolled themselves under Drake's concoction of the York Grand Lodge.-S.R.

MR. KAVANAGH, M.P.

I observed Bro. Hughan stating that Mr. Kavanagh, "the extraordinary M.P.," had been initiated in some Irish lodge. I am very glad to hear of this, and should like to know when, and where, and in what lodge he was made?-W.P.B.

MYSTERIES AND MYSTERIES (p. 421).

While I am obliged to Bro. "Reitam" for his able assistance in disposing of these wonderful "Masonic Celestial Mysteries," I dissent from the remark that "We find the Sun worship to be the primal basis of all the worships and mysteries of antiquity," for with the Jews and other Semitic races such was not the case; they worshipped the Great Architect of the Universe, i.e., the Creator Himself, not the thing created. Their idea was there is no God but Jehovah. Again, I think it to be a lowering of our Master Mason degree to make H.A. a mere representation of the Sun or of any other portion of these so-called ancient mysteries; although it has received a partially antique dress, yet the spirit in it, as I have always seen it worked, seems to me to point to something different, which something enables it to merit the title of "sublime."-W.P.B.

FREEMASONRY AMONG THE RED INDIANS (p. 409).

Nothing is easier; the Indians were mixed up in the American War of Independence at the end of last century; consequently, what was to hinder them getting it from either the French, Americans, or the English, and, having once got it about that time, what should prevent them retaining it? There were also other ways by which they may have got it.—

W.P.B.

TRADE PROCESSIONS.

In the 16th century processions we see the Masons mixed up with, and simply marching among, the other trades; and 1554, second to the smiths, as per page

428, May 29th ante; whereas, in the 18th century, speculative Masonry gave the Masons a lift, and, as per page 404, we find them now by themselves and at the head of the poll. Of course among them at the latter date are now all sorts of men, classes, professions, and trades, under the name of "Freemasons." This admixture may perhaps partly account for Hiram, a brassfounder or metal worker, being raised to the dignity of an architect, and even called the Architect of the Temple; whereas, as per 1st Chron., xxviii., 11th to 19th, King David left the plans to Solomon. Again, we find another metal-worker, viz., Tubal-Cain, a "smith," holding one of the highest positions among the Masons! which starts the query, Was this done on purpose by the 18th century manufacturers of speculative Masonry, so as to please certain of the other trades and thereby disarm their opposition ?-W. P. BUCHAN.

HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY.

How is it that we have so little reliable of Masonic history from A.D. 1603 to 1717? while this was the period of Inigo Jones, of the great fire of London, and of Sir Christopher Wren, and when, as is said, Kings Charles II. and William III. where initiated, only we do not know where! Then how did the Masons with their secret light fall into the mistake of calling the Composite-which is only a variety of the Corinthian-a separate order of architecture? and so on. Perhaps when Bro. Hughan writes his articles, which he alludes to at page 322, on "Operative and speculative Freemasonry before A.D. 1716," he may kindly throw a ray of light, if possible, upon these and other points in this hitherto dark Masonic period.-W.P.B.

THE TEMPLARS AND FREEMASONRY.

Despite the very able remarks of " Historicus,” I yet think there can be little doubt but that there really did exist some link between the Knights Templar and the operative Order of Freemasons. If you turn to Rymer's Foedera, and carefully read the account there given, and the acts relating to the seizure and suppression of the Templar Order, you cannot fail to be struck with the uniform witness borne to the "secret reception " into the Order, at which none but the Knights could be present, and which always took place at night.

In the depositions before the Commission at Paris, some facts seem to come out very plainly. First, that there was a "secreta receptio; " secondly, that there were certain trials of courage and constancy introduced which gradually became the subject of abuse and were the ground of those exaggerated charges which were made against the Order and led to its downfall.

More than one witness attributes to the Grand Master, William of Beaujeu, the introduction of these innovations. Hugo de Narsac, for instance, the 205th witness, declares as follows." Un abus ajouté à un cérémonial innocent, à donné lieu à l'interpellation de renier Dieu faite au nouveau frère, c'était une épreuve de l'obéissance illimitée."

The 35th witness relates his reception "avec des circonstances," says the editor of the "Procès des Templiers,"" qui ressemblent à celles de la Franc

Maçonnerie."

"Instances repétées pour l'admission exhortation à refléchir, avertissement sur les fatigues les privations les dangers, Renvoi itératif à la reflexion solitaire appel par trois fois," &c.

It is no doubt very difficult now, owing to the lapse of time, to prove what was really the "secreta receptio" of the Knights Templar, but there is a great deal in the theory, and not to be determined by any mere general disclaimer, that it was based on the secret ritual of the operative Order, which there is evidence to prove was known to, and more or less directed by the Monastic Orders. In Notes and Queries, some years back, there appeared a remarkable communication from the American Consul, who had had access to the archives of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem at Malta, in which he said, no one but a Freemason could understand the archives.-A MASONIC STUDent.

TRADES' SECRETS (pp. 384, 362, 348, & 388).

Bro. Thomas Cameron, born in 1796, who is at present the Tyler of the St. Mungo Lodge, No. 27, informs me that he served his apprenticeship to the shoemaking in Glasgow, but at that time he heard nothing of any trade secrets among the Glasgow shoemakers, though he did hear of such in other trades, such as the blacksmiths (his brother was a smith). Yet, no sooner had he gone to Rothesay, than he had to get himself made a St. Crispin, or "brothered," as he expresses it; he was a journeyman then, and about 24 years old; there was another shoemaker "brothered" with him. The attendance of brethren upon the occasion was large; and they not only "punished" all the funds, but even something extra, in fact, many of them got "glorious fou," and rried on the " spree" for a day or two after.

Bro. Cameron took an obligation and received a word, grip, and sign; he tells me that after the apprentices in Rothesay were bound they had to be soon thereafter "brothered," said brothering being an old custom.

I have other information to get, which I shall give so soon as I can spare the necessary time to look after it.-W. P. BUCHAN.

HOPE'S ESSAY ON ARCHITECTURE.

I can quite understand that my good Brother Buchan finds Hope too old-fashioned in his ideas for him, the more so as Mr. Hope's theory-he being a non-Mason, is utterly destructive of that very remarkable one, to say the least of it, which Bro. Buchan is so zealously advocating just now. I have read, I suspect, more works on the subject than Bro. Buchan, though I am greatly obliged to him for his fraternal

advice.-A MASONIC STUDENT.

MARK JEWELS IN CRAFT LODGES.

A junior brother of this lodge, who has somewhere obtained the Mark degree, maintains that he is entitled to wear a Mark jewel in a Craft Lodge. I maintain that, looking at the Book of Constitutions, he has no such right. Please to favour with your reply as to which is correct in your next.-AN OLD P.M.

[The Grand Lodge of England does not recognise the Mark degree; consequently it is not legal to wear the jewels of that degree in a Craft lodge. In Scotland (and in Ireland, we believe) the Mark degree is recognised, forming part of the Royal Arch. There it is right and proper to wear the jewels in Craft lodges.-ED. F.M.]

CORRESPONDENCE.

The Editor is not responsible for the opinions expressed by Correspondents

THE POPE AND THE 1717 THEORY.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE FREEMASONS' MAGAZINE AND MASONIC MIRROR,

Dear Sir and Brother,-Amongst one of the earliest promulgators of the 1717 theory, I find his Holiness Pope Clement XII. (Cardinal Lorenzo Corsini). He is described by Professor Arnold, B.A., of the Dublin R.C. University, as "a dillettante in the fine arts and a lover of show and magnificence, his personal bearing being gentle and noble. He died in 1740, aged 88." In A.D. 1738 this pontiff issued a bull against the then lately-formed society of Freemasons. In this bull the Pope says:

"We have learned, and public rumour does not permit us to doubt the truth of the report, that a certain society has been formed, under the name of Freemasons, into which persons of all religions and all sects are indiscriminately admitted." If the above be a fair translation of the Pope's words, it evidently means that this "certain society" had been recently formed, and with a lot of other data all pointing to the same idea, I am bound to assert that, however I may differ from his Holiness upon some points, I yet unhesitatingly affirm that regarding the period of the institution of speculative Freemasonry, Pope Clement XII., for the last 131 years, has all along been telling the truth, while the great mass of pseudoMasonic historians have been retailing falsehoods, or something similar. In fact, this Papal bull of 1738

has all along been a standing protest against the unhistorical notiors and foolish dreams of our wouldbe Masonic teachers, and the fact of the above quotation being recorded by Bro. Dr. Mackey in his Lexicon affords a curious instance of " seeing and not perceiving." Gentlemen were admitted into the old operative Masonic societies before 1717; but the question is-What were they admitted into? To which, of course, the answer is-They were admitted into an operative Mason's society. Then another question arises-Did they then and there receive the doctrines and degrees of speculative Freemasonry? To which the answer is-They did not receive any such doctrines and degrees before 1717, for until 1717 Freemasonry did not exist as an exponent of the doctrines and ideas of speculative Masonry. Consequently, operative Masonry, with its practices and ideas, was something different from speculative Freemasonry and its practices and ideas. Judaism existed before the time of Christ, and Christ was a Jew. However, Christ instituted Christianity; consequently, although there are ideas common to both Judaism and Christianity, yet Christianity is not so old as Judaism. Again, Mahomedanism has ideas common to both Christianity and Judaism, yet it was not instituted until the time of Mahomet. So with speculative Freemasonry, although there are some ideas in it common to both it and operative Masonry, yet it is not therefore so old as operative Masonry. No, for just as Christ instituted Christianity, or Mahomet originated Mahomedanism, so did Messrs. Desaguliers & Co. originate and institute speculative Freemasonry about A.D. 1717.

Yours fraternally,

W. P. BUCHAN.

CONSTANTINIAN ORDER.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE FREEMASONS' MAGAZINE AND MASONIC MIRROR.

Dear Sir and Brother, So obvious are the replies to the questions put to me by "Historicus," that it is with considerable hesitation that I venture to occupy your space. The modern custom of Royal Houses is so well known, that, by way of reply to the first question propounded, it may be as well to adduce a more ancient example, and that taken from the Conquest of Constantinople by the Crusaders.

When Philip I. de Courtenay, the first Titular French Emperor of Constantinople (R. 1272-85) [who was only child of Baldwin II. de Courtenay (R. 1237-1272), the sixth and last French Emperor of Constantinople] died in the year A.D. 1285, his only child, Catherine de Courtenay, was recognised as Titular Empress, and on her marriage in 1301 with Charles of France, Count de Valois, third son of Philip III. le Hardi, King of France, and of Isabella of Arragon, she transmitted to him, and being his wife shared, the title of Titular Emperor of Constantinople; on her death it passed in, 1308, to their only child, Catherine de Valois, who transmitted it again on her marriage (A.D. 1313) to her husband, Philip II., of Sicily, Prince of Tarentum, whose recognised right to the title was inherited again by her on his death in 1332, and on her death in 1346, by her eldest son Robert II., who prior to this was qualified-"Prince of Achaia and of Tarentum,

Despot of Romania, and Count of Cephalonia and Zante," and who enjoyed the title of Emperor of Constantinople from the year 1346 to 1364, when dying without issue he was succeeded by his younger brother, Philip III. (R. 1364-74), who also dying childless the title passed to his sister Marguerite's son, James des Baux, Duke d'Andrie, sixth and last Titular French Emperor of Constantinople.

In the same way, Theodora Palaeologina being the only child and heiress of Theodorus Palaeologus (by his wife Exdoxia Comnena, see Notes and Queries, 3rd S. VII., p. 403 & 506), sixth Titular Emperor of the Byzantine Empire (of a race expelled by a foreign usurping government, which remains still the worst in the whole world, forced upon a people who have never mingled or ever will), she succeeded to the title and transmitted it to her descendants. Even bad she died unmarried, the title of Titular Emperor would have been inherited by the head of the House of Rhodocanaki as the next heir to the dignity after her family; indeed, so peculiarly strong are the rights of that House in this respect, that we might, in an imaginary way, dispose similarly of a score of claims by alliance, and revert to their oldest that of descent from the Constantinian House of Ducas. "Historicus" might just as appropriately ask me why Queen Victoria, being a female, could inherit the British Throne or transmit it to our newly made brother, Albert Edward Prince of Wales; or, again, why Queen Isabella of Spain conveyed a few weeks ago the succession of Titular King of Spain, to the Prince of Asturias and his descendants.

In reply to the second question put to me by "Historicus," as to the derivation of the first part of the name of Rhodocanakis from Rhodoc; I must refer him to Byzantine coins and inscriptions of the period, where he can ascertain for himself that the letter s was always written as c; and as to the second part, Anaks, the Greek letter, (in Latin and English, X), was written then usually with two letters-K and S. The same occurs with the letter v, which was then written-P. and S. All this was clearly enough shown in the article. The words Anaks (“Avaš) and Vasileus (Baoiλeús) have both the same meaning, as can be seen by opening any Greek Lexicon. "Historicus" is well aware that the word Emperor is derived from the Latin, Imperator, the Greek equivalent in later times being Autocrator (AUTOKрáтоp). In England there are scores of names, whose derivations are well established, which have been spelt in a dozen different ways.

Lastly, there is not any special history of the Kings of Rhodes, of the family of Rhodocanakis, but the various events of their history are scattered over the pages of the Byzantine historians and of those of Western Europe who wrote on that Empire. My brother who gives himself the title of "Historicus, ought surely to be well acquainted with the works of the Byzantine historians (Corpus Scriptorum Historiæ Byzantine), published in Paris, 1644-1711. 36 vols., in folio: Venice, 1722-33, in folio; and Bohn, 1828-55, in 8vo., together with the rest of the writers of the Middle Ages. If, however, "Historicus " insists upon having the title of every work necessary to a thorough elucidation of the subject, I will even take the trouble to send on to you for publication a list of a couple of hundred books