January,1950
Contents
Facts About New Year's Day HISTORICAL NOTES ON THE MASONIC RITUAL
San Francisco Masonic Research Group THE GREAT PYRAMID OF GIZEH PROBLEM
ADDRESS OF WELCOME TO A NEWLY-MADE E A OUR BROTHER ON THE COVER
THE PHILALETHES SOCIETY NEWS TILER or TYLER
In Memoriam
Just Beyond the Hill
EVERY first of January is an imaginary milestone on the journey of human life; a resting place for thought and meditation, and a starting point for fresh exertion in completing our journey. The man who does not at least propose to himself to be better this year than last year, must be either very good or very bad. Even to will to be better is worth while, even if nothing more than acknowledgment of our need to be so, which is the first step toward improvement.
It has ever been customary among northern nations to see the old year out and the new year in, with the greatest merriment and conviviality. Mutual felicitations are extended for the coming year. Charles Lamb says; "Of all sounds of all bells, the most solemn and touching is the peal which rings out the old year. I never hear it without a gathering up of my mind to a concentration of all the images that have been diffused over the past 12 months; all I have done or suffered, performed or neglected, in that regretted time. I begin to know its worth, as when a person dies.
It takes on a personal color; nor was it a poetical flight when a contemporary exclaimed, 'I saw the skirts of the departing year'."
The festivities of New Year's Day are of very ancient origin. In England the head of the house assembled his family around a bowl of spiced ale, from which he drank their healths; he then passed the bowl to others that they might also drink. The expression exchanged was "Wass hael" (To your health). Hence the "wassail bowl" in subsequent celebrations. The poorer class of people carried the bowl adorned with ribbons, through the neighborhood, begging for contributions to fill the bowl with ale. In their compotations they sang songs suitable to the occasion. This custom was also observed in monasteries and private homes. In front of the abbot, at the head of the refectory table, was placed such a bowl, called "Coculum Caritatis" (Bowl of Charity).
New Year's Day is observed in Scotland with a heartiness nowhere surpassed. Every face is wreathed in smiles, and all hands are ready with a grasp of friendship. All stiffness arising from age, profession, or rank gives way. The soberest feel they are entitled to take some license on this day. Reunions of relatives take place over the festive board, and thus many family difficulties are obliterated.
The practice of making presents on this day is no doubt derived from the Romans. Both Suetonius and Tacitus mention it. Claudius prohibited the exchange of presents except on this day. Henry VII extorted New Year's gifts from his subjects. The usual gifts of the tenants in the country to their landlords was a capon. Gloves were a common New Year's gift. They were much more expensive then than now, and occasionally a sum of money was given instead, known as "glove money." Sir Thomas Moore, as lord chancellor, having decided a case in favor of a lady client, she presented him with some gold coins in a pair of gloves, on New Year's Day. He returned the gold, saying: "Dear Madam, since it is against good manners to refuse your New Year's gift, I am content to take your gloves, but, as for the 'lining' I utterly refuse it."
When pins were invented and brought into use at the beginning of the sixteenth century they were a New Year's gift very acceptable to ladies, and money given for the purchase of them called "pin money." During the reign of Queen Elizabeth the custom of making New Year's gifts to sovereigns was carried to extremes. Nichols records that on one occasion Queen Elizabeth was presented with the following gifts from grand officers of the state, peers and peeresses, bishops, knights and their ladies, gentlemen and gentlewomen, physicians, apothecaries, and others of lower grade, down to her Majesty's dustman: Sums of money, costly articles of ornament, caskets studded with precious stones, valuable necklaces, bracelets, gowns, embroidered mantles, smocks, petticoats, looking-glasses, fans, silk stockings, and many other articles.
Until recent years in France, parents bestowed portions on their children on this day, brothers and sisters exchanged gifts, and husbands made settlements on their wives. Carriages could be seen rolling through the streets with loads of bonbons, souvenirs, and other trinkets with which children could be bribed into good humor. In Paris, several days preceding January 1, the Rue des Lombards, where wholesale confectioners did business, was completely blocked by carts and wagons loaded with boxes of confectionaries to be sent to friends. It was nothing uncommon for a citizen with an income of $1500 to spend $100 for presents.
With Parisians the day begins at an early hour by an exchange of visits and bonbons. Nearest relatives are visited first, then those more remotely related, then friends and acquaintances. The effort to anticipate each other's calls occasions the most agreeable and whimsical situations among those who are proficient in polite attentions. In these visits the morning of New Year's Day is passed; a dinner is then given by some member of the family to all the rest, and the evening ends with cards, dancing, or some other form of amusement.
Happy New Year to you !
----o----
With all its alluring promise that some one else will guarantee for the rainy day, social security can never replaces the program that man's future welfare is, after all, a matter of individual responsibility.
----o----
HISTORICAL NOTES ON THE MASONIC RITUAL
By Robert J. Meekren, F.P.S.; Stanstead, Quebec, Canada
(The author reserves the right to republish this article in whole or in part)
CHAPTER III.
THE ANONYMOUS article we were considering in Chapter II of these sketches (December, 1949), has this to say of the Webb lectures:
"The verbal ritual" (whatever this may mean) "of Preston was introduced into this country by two English brothers who had been members of one of the principal lodges of instruction in London, and was by them communicated to Thomas Smith Webb."
Another version of the story says that Webb was taught the Preston Lectures by an English brother of the name of John Hanmer. Nothing has been discovered of the antecedents of this individual, though he was, apparently, a real person for he, or someone of the Fame name, turned up later in South Carolina where he appears as one of the petitioners for a charter for a new Lodge. It is said in the Addenda to the American edition of Gould's large History that John Hanmer possessed a certificate to the effect that he was well skilled in the "ancient work and lectures." This would imply that he was an Ancient Mason; as such he would have held the Modern system in abhorrence as heretical and anathema. Still more would he so have regarded Preston's lectures, for the latter out-Modernized the Moderns.
So it seems that we can take our choice between the named brother who was probably an Ancient and no Prestonian, and two anonymous brethren "who were members of one of the principal lodges of instruction." The author of this article evidently believed that as (according to his account) Preston's system was officially adopted it would be taught in all "lodges of instruction" in England. Unfortunately, except for Preston's own creation, the Chapter of Harodim, there were no lodges of instruction in London until after the Union. As this was in 1813, and Webb first published his Monitor in 1797, and had formulated and taught his system of Lectures before that, there is a serious inconsistency in the dates. Mackey says under Webb-Preston Work in the Encyclopedia (and this stands unchanged in the revision) that "it has long since been shown that the lectures of Webb were an abridgement and a very material modification of Preston." He does not tell us by whom it was shown, or when or where. I suspect it may have been Albert Pike (and this is only a guess) who in the interests of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite had a very low opinion of Webb and all his works, an attitude which is not obscurely reflected by Mackey, not only in the Encyclopedia but elsewhere in his works.
It seems probable that the fairy story of the Prestonian origin of the Webb work was built around a statement made in the Preface to the Monitor when published.
"The observations on the first three degrees are principally taken from Preston's Illustrations of Masonry with some necessary alterations. Mr. Preston's distribution of the first lecture into six, the second into four, and the third into twelve sections not being agreeable to the present mode of working; they are arranged in this work according to the general practice."
This was in 1797. In the second edition of 1808 the last sentence in the above has been changed to read: ". . . not being agreeable to the mode of working in America, they are differently arranged in this work." It appears that the author had learned in the interval that the mode of working in America was not universal.
Now Preston's Illustrations was a handbook of the same type as the Monitor. It contained such moralizations, explanations, exordiums, and eulogiums as have never been deemed secret, and which in consequence have always been freely published in full. The compilers of such works have always made free use of those of their predecessors. Webb followed the same course, but honestly and honorably acknowledged his indebtedness. And because he thus showed that he was acquainted with Preston's published work, which was well known everywhere and was open to the world at large to read, the conclusion was jumped at that he was equally familiar with, and equally indebted to, Preston's lectures, which could only be learned in the Chapter of Harodim, or from some graduate of that institution. Obviously this was a leap across a logical abyss, and it is most strange that it has not been seen to be such long ago.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, says the homely old proverb. We know substantially the form and substance of Webb's lectures, and from the Syllabus already mentioned an outline of Preston's system can be reconstructed. The former is obviously based, in much of it word for word, on the lectures of the Ancients. Those of Preston, so far as they show affinity to other forms, are of the Modern type. That one could be the source of the other is so improbable that it amounts to practical impossibility.
In any oral tradition there is a constant tendency to drop things out and finally to forget them. What Preston did by his own account was to hunt out such forgotten matters and incorporate them into his new arrangement, and then to moralize upon them at length. But in doing so, he modified the order very considerably, and it is quite likely that this had much to do with the fact that, outside the circle of his personal influence, his systems never "took." Webb apparently did very much the same thing, only he left the sequence as he found it, while he put most of the moralizing into the Monitor where it could be taken or left at the discretion of the Master of the Lodge. Whatever the reason, we find that Webb's standardization of the Ancient lectures was welcomed everywhere so far as can be judged. At least there is no record anywhere of any opposition to them. Presumably this was very largely due to the fact that the new standard system used the same language and had subjects arranged in the same order as was found in the more or less defective lectures previously in use in different Lodges.
But this gives rise to a question. How was it, when there were so many of the lodges that were warranted under the Grand Lodge of the Moderns that there was no disinclination upon their part to accept Webb's system? The answer to this is probably that in many, perhaps most cases, the lodges under the Modern regime had really been working according to the Ancient forms without realizing it. This may seem strange, and even incredible, yet there are many indications that point to it. After all it could easily have happened, granted the fact that there was no supervision whatsoever over the lodges in regard to the ritual they used; outside, of course, the simple and easily learned specific differences in the modes of recognition. In those days communications were slow and difficult. The usual way, when a group of Masons wished to obtain authorization to form a lodge, was to take advantage of some brother who was going to England to whom the petition and fees would be entrusted. He, on his arrival in London. would deliver them to the Grand Secretary, who later would return the warrant or charter in a similar manner. If a sea captain was the go-between, as was not unusual, he might deliver the petition on one voyage and bring back the authorizing document on a later one.
Now though the Grand Lodges were keen rivals and though at times the hostility between them rose to high pitch, there was, on the whole, singularly little ill feeling between the rank and file of the two organizations. Even in London itself, where naturally the mutual animosity was concentrated, we find in old minutes Ancient Masons visiting Modern lodges and vice versa, all in the greatest peace and harmony. In the country this amicable feeling was even more marked, while abroad - except in isolated cases - hostility scarcely existed. Cases indeed occurred where a petition for a charter or warrant was delivered to the wrong Grand Secretary, but the petitioners cared so little that they accepted the document when it came and went to work.
It very often happened, too, that some of the petitioners had been made in Modern lodges and some in Ancient. One set might have been in the majority, but the "brightest" and most capable Masons might have been in the other. In such a case the work known to these would naturally be followed, simply as the line of least resistance. Otherwise mixtures in various proportions would emerge, hybrid rituals. And why not? To them, except for the occasional stalwart, who to his knowledge could not abide heretical usages, "it was all good Masonry," and they were quite content. It was not only in America, and Canada, that this indifference to the type or form of the ritual used in a newly-formed lodge was manifested. Exactly the same kind of thing occurred in India and Africa, the West Indies and even in France. It results from all this that the external filiation of a lodge was a very uncertain indication of the ritual that was used, for this may have had, and in some instances certainly did have, a quite different genealogy.
But what was the nature of the differences between the two types? They were both good Masonry, that much can be safely accepted. Basically they could not have been utterly different in content. The same essentials were embodied in each, and here and there, in the more archaic passages, even close similarity in diction. To the outside observer they would appear to be merely variants of a common tradition. Just as strangers are often struck with family resemblance where the members of the family themselves can see only differences, so it was to the two parties to the feud between the Ancients and Moderns.
And yet there were differences, and differences of considerable magnitude, over and beyond the notorious transposition of words. This last, because it was clear-cut, easily stated in very few words, and was well-known to be due to deliberate action on the part of the senior Grand Lodge, became a fighting slogan of the Ancients. To them it was typical of what they believed to be other deliberate changes, for they not unnaturally supposed that all the differences were equally innovations; though as a matter of fact this was not true. But no one at that period had the necessary information to realize this, so that we cannot blame the Ancients for thus thinking about their opponents. On the whole, the Modern ritual was as legitimate a tradition as that of the Ancients, only it had come down by an entirely different line of descent.
Lawrence Dermott, who should have known if anyone did what the differences were, seeing that he was a member of a Modern lodge before he became the power behind the throne among the Ancients, makes a pregnant statement (in 1756) in his Ahiman Rezon. He says that the two organizations differed "exceedingly in makings, ceremonials, knowledge, Masonic language and installation." It is strange how little consideration has been given to this by those who have written upon the subject. It is not that it is not well-known, for it has been often quoted. I imagine that it has been taken as mere propaganda not worth seriously considering. This does Dermott an injustice. For one thing he was far too able a controversialist to make statements that could not be substantiated. None of his opponents ever called the truth of this accusation in question. Actually, what is here said is a considered and comprehensive setting forth of the heads under which differences existed. The facts, as we are able to reconstruct them, bear Dermott out at every point. As for example, in Modern lodges the installation of the Master of the Lodge consisted merely in his investment with the jewel of office by his predecessor, with such remarks as the latter deemed fitting. Among the Ancients it included admission to a tyled lodge of Past Masters, an obligation to secrecy and the communication of certain means by which he could be recognized as an installed Master. In the "making" or initiation, the ritual was different in every essential point, Entrance, Due Form and Communication.
How then are we to reconcile Dermott with Dr. Dalcho? In the first place it must be noted that the latter speaks only of one difference, that difference which, as I said above, was the controversial slogan of the Ancients. He does not say, nor does what he says imply, that this was the only difference. But if, as is beginning to be recognized by Masonic students, the Modern lodges in America, and even some of them in England, really worked what was to all intents an Ancient ritual, then the apparent discrepancy disappears. However, this is a question still under discussion, and to go into it even superficially would take far too much space.
It is obviously impossible to say much more of the points of difference given by Dermott, but on one of them, that of "Masonic language" one may venture to be somewhat more explicit. And as an example conveys a much more vivid impression than a bare statement, I adduce the following equivalent passage which will show the kind of difference that existed. and still exists as between English and American modes of working. The first is from a version of the Webb or Ancient lectures:
"Having been often tried, never denied and willing to be tried again."
Note the unconscious rhythm and the consonances of sounds, both sure marks of ancient oral tradition, and then compare the following:
"The regularity of my initiation, repeated trials with approbation, and a willingness at all times to undergo examination when properly called upon."
Or take this again, which is not from Webb but from an original Ancient version of about 1760:
"The sun to rule the day, the moon to govern the night and the Master Mason to govern his lodge."
and then compare this from a Modern lecture of ca. 1800:
"As it is by the blessed, divine influence of the Sun and Moon we as men are enabled to perform the duties of social life; so it is by the kind care and instruction of the Master, we as Masons are enabled to perform those duties he and the Craft require of us."
The difference between these passages is that between a tradition orally transmitted and a literary version of a like tradition, adorned with what at the period was considered fine writing. Here it is necessary to remark that an oral tradition is not the same thing as a standard form orally taught, that is, "from mouth to ear." In an oral tradition there is no standard but the tradition itself. It is a living thing, it grows, and yet remains essentially the same. As one after another repeats the formulas the words gradually come to be so placed in the sentences that they are easily articulated, which is often not the case in a written composition. The language is simple and direct, and compressed, yet it is apt to suggest and imply much more that is actually said. The first pair of examples given above show this very clearly. Other characteristics of an oral tradition are the naive mnemonics of alliterations, consonances and rhymes and a rhythm that at times almost rises to verse. There is also to be found a more conscious device to assist the memory, that of the dividing the matter into points and numbering them. All of these characteristics are to be found in the lectures.
But I most emphatically do not wish to be understood that everything in the English type of ritual has been paraphrased into ornate and pompous literary language; nor yet that there is nothing of the sort in the American work. As a matter of fact there is a good deal, but most of it clearly added to the original formulas and most of it is Monitorial. And of this a good deal, as is to be expected, is derived from Preston's Illustrations; although, as much that is found in Preston's work was taken from his predecessors, it is possible that some of this material came to America by other channels. We might say that the same process has affected each type of work, but that it has gone much further in the English, which was the Modern type, than in the American, which was Ancient. But the Modern type was based on an original oral tradition and its remains are not too difficult to pick out; but it was not the same tradition which lies under the Ancient forms. It is so often assumed that at some time, somewhere, by somebody the ritual was composed, resolved upon and adopted, and that all differences are due to degeneration and corrupt on of the original. A living oral tradition must produce variants by the very nature of its existence. Until this is realized there is no hope of really understanding how the ritual has come down to us or how it evolved into its existing forms.
----o----
San Francisco Masonic Research Group
Just prior to the holiday season of 1946, twelve Master Masons in the Bay Area, prompted by a desire for knowledge and a sincere desire to be of service to their fellow-men, organized the San Francisco (California) Masonic Research Group. In recognition of his efforts to bring about the organization Brother George H. Steinmetz was made the first president. Twelve Founders constitute the original membership: Elmo C. Eby; George R. Harvey; Lyman Jennings; Adolph Koshland; Solon C. Leonhaeuser; Carl R. Moore; Earle C. Payne; Charles R. Ratkovich; Dr. Malcolm A. Ross; Dr. Herbert H. Schultz; Harold S. Stein, and George H. Steinmetz.
An article of the By-Laws specifically states: "The purpose of this group shall be to study and improve themselves in Freemasonry .... prepare papers and lectures, and hold discussions and debates for the edification of the members."
The edification of its members, however, is not the whole end in view. The San Francisco Masonic Research Group seeks to stimulate interest and promote Masonic knowledge generally through speakers at Masonic meetings and by publishing and distributing papers presented at its meetings.
After three years, the Group's membership has increased and its interests have broadened and deepened. Excellent papers have been presented on a variety of subjects and lively discussion has been engendered.
Any Master Mason, living within the San Francisco Bay Area, otherwise qualified, who desires to improve his Masonic knowledge, may petition for membership and, if elected, may be admitted as either an Associate or Correspondent. Inquiries concerning the Group's activities or membership should be addressed to: Solon C. Leonhaeuser; 1382 Eighteenth Avenue; San Francisco 22, California.
The meetings are monthly, held on the first Thursday at 8 P.M., in the Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite Temple of the San Francisco Bodies No. 1, 1290 Sutter Street at Van Ness Avenue. An informal, no-host dinner at a nearby restaurant, precedes nearly all meetings.
Interested Master Masons may be admitted as visitors, at any meeting, when Masonically vouched for by a Member of the Group.
The current officers include: Harold S. Stein, President; Earl C. Payne (M.P.S.), First Vice-President; Lyman Jennings, Second Vice-President; Dr. Malcolm A. Ross, Treasurer; Solon C. Leonhaeuser, Secretary, and Dr. Herbert H. Schultz (M.P.S.), Sentinel
----o----
THE GREAT PYRAMID OF GIZEH PROBLEM
By Percy P. Barbour, M.P.S.; Georgetown, Colorado
(Introductory Note: - Through the courtesy of Brother Walter A. Quincke, F.P.S., I came into the possession of an article by Brother H. Olden, "The Great Pyramid and the Size of the Earth," published in the May, 1949, issue, of the "Masonic Journal of South Africa," edited by Brother William Moister, F.P.S., which is the immediate stimulus for the following text.
While it is not intended to be specially critical of Brother Olden's article, it is critical of Smyth's "Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid," from which so many such articles stem, however indirectly. If I were to criticize Brother Olden, I should first question his opening statement that the Pyramid was built by the Hyksos. The building of the Pyramid has generally been accredited to Cheops, the Greek form of the name Khufu, of the fourth dynasty and the Hyksos to the thirteenth dynasty several centuries later. (Breasted). There is a story of a cow herder, rather than a sheep herder, Gustaspes (Gu . . cow, German Kuh), one of a group of Aryan-language-speaking people (Japhetic) from Hur going to Egypt, taking over the government, and as there was no war he put the army to building the Pyramid. His name, contracted to Gupa by his friends, spelled Khufu by the Egyptian scribes, was altered to Cheops by the Greeks - almost its original form. - P. P. B.)
* * *
THE SOLUTION of the problem of the great Pyramid needs a new approach. Trying to prove the occurance of past events by positions in the passageways is becoming threadbare; as though the passages were the only features of the building. On the contrary, there is, without doubt, some meaning expressed in the position, thickness and sequence of the layers of which it is made.
If we would question the "pi" theory of its height, all we need to remember is that at the time of its proposal, the subject of "squaring the circle" was quite popular. So, anything approaching the numerical value of "pi" was considered the real thing; even to the extent of stating that the Pyramid was built by Divine command to incorporate in it a quantity which the builders could not have known because it was not discovered until recent times. However, if it had been the intent to use the ratio, it is likely that some such value as 22/7 was actually used.
Seeking to prove the divinity of Christ by designating some point in a passageway as representing the date of his birth lacks sound reasoning: nor is calling non-christians vile names logical argument.
Because the lengths, or sums of lengths, expressed in a certain unit of measure, resembled a figure which the investigator had in mind is not proof that the architect intended to express the investigator's figure. Some investigators have made just such assumptions and have then adjusted their measurements, even their units of measurement, to fit their preconceived notions. Some have also gone to the site to find corrobation of their hypotheses.
As an illustration, we may cite, one investigator who went to Jerusalem, spent several years there, and returned with a model of King Solomon's Temple which resembled a German Castle on the Rhine more than that described by eye-witnesses (?) in Kings and Chronicles. It is most surprising that his model is accepted as a true copy.
There is a fund of glamour attending the postprediction of calamities of which cult-writers have made extended use to bolster their theologies; some of them are dogmatic as though they were stating facts.
On the other hand, there is nothing in Geometry to excite one's emotions or avidity, and to many, even Masons, the subject is "dry as dust" and perhaps as engaging. Yet, whatever the designer of the Pyramid wished to express, whatever ideas, secrets or message, if any, he sought to preserve, had to be depicted by Geometry with lengths, areas, ratios or proportions and position. That he had something to transmit we may not doubt.
Some writers go so far as to involve the square root of "pi", a quantity not expressible by Geometry, whereas the square roots of two and five are easily shown by Geometry.
So, let's give the Pyramid builder a "break" and presume that he used quantities or values that he could produce and see by Geometry, since we do not know that he had a method of extracting the square root of an indeterminate quantity.
Among the thousands of lengths in, and involved in, the Great Pyramid would it not be surprising not to be able to find any, the first few figures of which reminded him of the orbit of Neptune or the Satelites of Jupiter? But the correspondence of a few figures does not prove that they were placed therein to depict Neptune or any other planet. It were better to consider them as coincidences rather than elements of design, even though it suppress the miraculous.
In proposing any theory regarding the Great Pyramid we ought to be logical and draw our conclusions last. So far, the procedure has been to make an hypothesis and then seek to substantiate it by finding those features which bear it out.
The Pyramid is composed of geometrical figures, triangles, squares and rectangles, primarily, with but three semi-circular depressions in the top of a wainscot of the Ante Chamber.
Now, as we are to begin with Geometry, let's consider some quite simple propositions. First, the base is, for general purposes, a square. Any deviation therefrom, in actual construction, we may allow as being made to stress some quantity; for instance, a difference in length of sides may be related to some other feature such as the height. However, we should bear in mind that the structure was designed as a whole; that is, there is to be found an intimacy or relationship in its various parts. The base or any horizontal section, assuming it to be a perfect square; in it we draw the diagonal and find it to be proportional to the square root or two. In a right triangle, the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides. In the square, the diagonal becomes the hypotenuse of a right triangle whose sides are equal, and if the sides are proportional to unity, then the square on the diagonal is proportional to two, since the square of unity is one squared.
Second, consider the King's Chamber, the principal room in the interior, not in size but owing to its polished granite surfaces; the only room in the Pyramid thus finished; it is almost exactly twice as long as wide. Its level floor has for us the same proportion; drawing its diagonal we find it to be proportional to the square root of five; that is, the diagonal of the floor is the hypotenuse of a right triangle, one side being proportional to unity and the other proportional to two; the square of unity is one and the square of two is four, their sum is five or the square on the diagonal. Thus the length of the diagonal of the floor is proportional to the square root of five.
The numerical value of square root of two is nearly 1.4142136 and the numerical value of square root of five is nearly 2.23606797, ten thousand times their sum is 36502.81 plus. Now, the sum of the lengths of the four base sides is reported as 36521.2 inches. No two of the sides are equal and none of them level. If they were level, at the altitude of the highest corner and the other corners remaining at their reported positions, the sum of the lengths would be nearly 50 inches less. A level surface through the highest corner is the largest one which will lie completely within the building; any lower one must intersect a projection outside the structure.
So that, with the unit of measure selected (by Smyth), neither his 36524.2, nor our 36502.81, can be a horizontal section entirely within the structure Both are idealized sections and, as Smyth states, there is some altitude within the limits (projected) where the sum of the four sides will equal the quantity specified. This is as true for one as for the other.
We should not mislead ourselves by pretending that the idealized section, or pyramid, is necessarily the true one; but it is made to minimize computations and to iron out unevennesses some of which are not known. And we will use it as though it were true.
From a Geometrical point of view, it is quite as logical to presume that the architect made use of the square roots of two and five, or incorporated them into the structure in one way or another, as it is to presume that he used the number of days in a hundred years and the ratio of circumference of a circle to its diameter. It is perhaps better to presume that he compromised by using quantities indicating a knowledge of both. Practically, the differences in length of east and west sides as well as the north and south sides of the base, which being equal, and one five-hundredth of the vertical height of the pyramid, is of far more significance, perhaps.
If we do not find the square root of five expressed in lengths, so nearly in numerical agreement in at least three instances, we might as well forget the matter; but the height of the west wainscot in the Ante Chamber is 111.8 inches or 50 times the square root of five; the length of the upward passageway is about 3355 inches or 1500 times square root of five; a peculiarly marked "line" or joint in the entrance passageway is about 2238 inches from the north (lower) end of Grand Gallery or 1000 times square root of five; also, the presumed length of the passageway from entrance to junction of passageways is close to 500 times square root of five. The correspondence of these lengths, as multiples of the square root of five, 50, 1500, 1000 and 500, can hardly be accidental.
The outward appearance of the Pyramid today is that of a pile of stones built in layers of different thicknesses, each thickness being square-cornered. These layers are peculiar in that they decrease in thickness, from the base upward to a certain height; then there is an abrupt increase of thickness with a series of diminishing thicknesses to another certain height, and the scheme is again repeated; this occurs eight times and there are thus seven major "bands" of layered stones of abrupt and marked increase of thickness.
There are also seven inward projecting "overlaps" in the walls of the Grand Gallery dividing them into eight panels. Is the number seven, or fifteen, the sum of seven and eight significant? Perhaps!
Except for the second "band," which marks the one fifth height, there appears to be no simple system in their occurance. If we divide the face, or part of it, say the 4/5 of it which is above the 34th course, into equal triangles, the heights of which are obtained by dividing the chosen height by the number of stones in the walls or roof, floor, layers in the walls, or ends, or by combinations of them, it is possible to derive the positions of the several courses.
To be more explicit, let us divide the height of that part of the face above the 34th course by 127 the total number of stones in the King's Chamber. This means dividing that area into 16129 equal triangles; the height of each triangle, let us say, is 46.51 inches.
As we build up rows of these triangles upon the 34th course we get strips of this thickness and at some point in the procedure of adding strips we find one which coincides with the height of some other course, more or less nearly. If we limit the deviation to about three inches we find 37 coincidences above and four below the 34th course. From this we say we have "developed" forty-one courses.
It is odd that nine of these strips above the 34th course brings us to the 43rd course, where there is the next abrupt increase in thickness, or the third "band." There are nine stones in the roof of the King's Chamber. Also, twenty-seven of these strips above the 34th course brings us to the 66th course or the bottom of the fourth "band." There are 27 stones in floor and roof, 27 in the north wall and 27 in the bottom layer of the walls of the King's Chamber.
There are 127 stone faces in the King's Chamber; 100 in the walls which are divided into five layers of equal thickness; 37 stones in the south wall; 27 in the north wall; 18 in the floor, divided into six strips, and 9 in the roof. Thus, there is a great number of combinations that may be made of them.
By subdividing the face, or part of it, into equal triangles, and using only twenty-one of the possible combinations of the number of stones in the King's Chamber as divisors of the upper four-fifths of the face, it is possible to derive the heights of all but two of the two hundred and three courses with a presumed thirteen more, within the limits prescribed, three inches.
Of course, we have assumed that the horizontal joints of the casing stones, none of which remain, were practically the heights of the present courses, and the computed face heights are based upon whole factors of the square root of the quantity, square root of five, plus one (nearly 1.7989, almost one tenth of i8), and these factors are so chosen as to give the same result as Smyth's "rough" measurement, within an inch. One half of the square root of five, plus one, is the famous Golden Section.
In fine, we may reasonably say that there exists an intimate, geometrical, if not systematic, relationship of the parts of the Great Pyramid.
Cum grano salis.
----o----
AN ADDRESS OF WELCOME TO A NEWLY-MADE ENTERED APPRENTICE MASON
By Maurice Benedictus, M.P.S.; Antwerp, Belgium
(Translated from the French by the late Leo Fischer F.P.S.)
ONE OF the perogatives of the office which I occupy this evening is to deliver to you the lecture in the Degree of Entered Apprentice, and to give you an explanation of the purposes and meaning of the ceremony which has taken place upon the occasion of your first step into the Craft.
Your emotions have been taxed since your first contact with this new and strange world which our Order is to you, and for this reason I shall be brief and will not tire you with lengthy dissertations of a historical or philosophical nature. Of course, you will not be spared these, as there will be plenty of them in the course of your Masonic life which, I hope, will be a long and active one. My present purpose is to give you an impulse of a lasting nature in the motives which have caused you to enter our ranks and I hope it will stay fresh in your memory and become the guiding force of the new structure which you are beginning on this memorable day.
You came of your own free will and accord, without constraint or outside pressure, to affiliate with a group of men and a society the particular form of which as it is today goes back very far into the history of the evolution of human thought. One of the numerous reasons for this is to be found in a deep sentiment, the need for perfectibility which we all feel at a given moment of our existence.
Permit me to dwell a few moments on the sense of the words "Need for Perfectibility." The last decades of our lives have unfortunately demonstrated to us that man can still be inhuman to mankind, that the progress of which we are so proud has largely been made in connection with work of destruction and negation such as the human race has never known before. To the superficial mind these facts constitute sufficient reasons for giving himself over to absolute pessimism, leading a selfish life, without any hope. This is not the way of the thinking of a Freemason, without abandoning himself to stupid optimism he knows or feels that real human destiny is not to be found thus; that in spite of all obstacles the flame of hope of a better world burns in the hearts of all free men. This flame may flicker, but it will never go out. From this, then, is derived one of your first obligations; which is to struggle with all the strength that is in you against that lassitude and despair of which there is so much in our present time. You have a right to ask how that struggle must be undertaken, because wherever you may look and whatever you may think, the forces of evil seem to overwhelm victoriously the efforts of those who are striving for a better future.
Freemasonry will teach you that, and that is why in the Degree of Entered Apprentice you represent a Rough Ashlar. The initial work to which you are assigned is that of smoothing the latter so that it may some day fit harmoniously into the building which generations of Freemasons strive to erect by strength, wisdom and beauty. This is the noblest work that a man can undertake, but it is a labor where nothing will be spared you, and I am intimately convinced of that because of my own personal experience.
As a first condition for doing your work successfully, you must bare your soul and see yourself as you really are, and sincerely lay aside qualities which you believe you possess. You must take into consideration the fact that your knowledge and experience of life, sometimes acquired with much trouble, are worth relatively little and will be of only scant value to you as you take the gavel and chisel which will hereafter be your working tools and daily companions during all the hours of the struggle which you have undertaken in order to shed more light and beauty upon your nature and the world. This work is one of the purest forms of altruism; it demands serious and constant effort, numerous sacrifices which do not exclude tears and blood. Our long and sad martyrology is too tangible a proof of this, and the names appearing on it and those that have been added recently, are men who, like you, have worked on the Rough Ashlar. You are thus in good company and will not shrink from this somber image. Remember that all those whom you see present here are living up to it within the full measure of their means; and they are ready to aid and encourage you. But know one thing that is essential: the initial effort must come from within yourself and you will receive the impulse from the study of our symbolism. You have, no doubt, chosen the hardest path, and I would be violating the first duty imposed upon me by the Craft if I told you the contrary. The work of Freemasonry is no sinecure; it is done in silence and has no end. But fear nothing; it procures intense joy and great satisfaction, and you will quickly gain the conviction that you now belong to a group of men who, without endeavoring to appear better than their fellows, have ideas of life and death that you find nowhere else.
These men of whom I am speaking to you and of whom you already know a certain number, are all human beings, with the qualities and defects of such We do not pretend to be better, and you must not believe that we are. You are going to meet here all sorts of men, and you will hear the most diverse opinion. Here the spiritualist discusses matters amiably with the materialist. In our world the extremes touch each other but seldom clash, because we have one thing in common, . . . the absolute respect for individual liberty, a respect which does not mean abdication to the opinion of others, but which teaches us to listen to the latter with tolerance, in the knowledge that it is sincere and in harmony with the sentiments and thoughts of the person uttering them.
If you can evaluate what I have just said, you will not exactly commit the error that is so human; you will not judge our Institution by its members. You will quickly realize, if that is what you desire, that Freemasonry, as far as the institution is concerned, is a splendid ideal which exercises a happy influence upon all of its members. This does not by any means exclude the possibility of imperfection because, as I have already told you and now repeat, we are neither supermen nor saints. If you should some day meet with disillusion, do not accuse the Order because one of its members fails to measure up to the image which you have formed of the perfect Freemason. Do not forget that we are all prone to err. The law of silence which governs your Degree of Entered Apprentice is not a vexatory measure, but is based on wisdom and prudence, for which we must be grateful to our illustrious forebears.
Now I must speak to you of some of our usages and customs, and I shall be brief. It is possible that upon your entry into the Order these may seem old-fashioned and even melodramatic to you. Before being too critical in that regard, however, go to the trouble of studying them carefully, and I am convinced that you will soon become an intelligent and understanding defender of our rituals, the somewhat archaic charm of which cannot but leave your sensibility indifferent. Reasonable sentiment plays an important part in our entire ceremonial, but never excludes pure reason. You will hear the same ritualistic phrases repeated thousands of times, and on certain evenings that repetition may appear monotonous to you; but be assured that there will be occasions and moments when you will find in those simple words a hidden profound meaning, and sometimes even a balm for secret deep wounds. Be careful, therefore, and do not criticize too easily the customs and usages which have withstood the test of time; realize that our rituals contain spiritual treasures that give satisfaction to any mind, whether it be that of a savant or of a simple person endowed with intelligence and kindness.
Do not conclude from what you have heard here that we are conformists or stubborn traditionalists; but consider that before changing anything that has served us well we must be certain that the innovation benefits the whole of our ceremonial which, under aspects that seem strange, forms a very harmonious whole.
It is time for me to close, and, in doing so, I cannot refrain from thinking of that great lesson in philosophy contained in the splendid sonnet of our illustrious fellow-citizen, Christophe Plantin, consecrated to the happiness of this world. I take from it the following lines on which I pray you to meditate:
"Adjust all one's plans to a just design,
Preserve the mind free and the judgment strong."
This is the task which awaits you. Take it up courageously and let me dedicate to you, on behalf of all the Brethren here present, and in my own personal name, this wish: May your Masonic life be a long, ardent and enthusiastic one; may it be useful to yourself and to all those dear to you, to the Order in general, and to this Worshipful Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons in particular!
----o----
Masonry is a succession of allegories, the vehicles of great lessons in morality and philosophy which you will find to constitute a great and harmonious system.
----o----
Dr. Granville Kimball Frisbie was born at Esquinunk, Pennsylvania, on February 11, 1904. Both of his parents were doctors of medicine. He attended Dickinson Seminary (now Lycoming College), at Williamsport, graduating in 1922, then entered Trinity College, at Hartfold, Connecticut, and later, Pennsylvania College for one year.
In 1923 he became a private in the United States Marine Corps, and on March 9, 1926, was commissioned a second lieutenant. He served for many years with the Marines, in Nicaragua, chasing the bandit Sandino through the hills. In 1938, he was retired on a Captain's grade with permanent physical disability. Since then, Brother Frisbie attended and graduated from an accredited Chiropractic College and practiced at Santa Monica, Calif., during the latter part of World War II. Moving to San Diego, in 1947, he now specializes in the treatment of chronic diseases, such as migraines, circulatory ailments, psoriasis, etc.
He has one son, Franklin Cole Frisbie, a second year student at Rennselaer Polytechnic Institute, at Troy, New York. Brother Frisbie's wife is a graduate of the University of Nebraska, class of 1929.
Our Brother was initiated June 6, 1928; 'passed' July 6, 1928, and raised to the Sublime Degree of Master Mason August 17, following, in Escambia Lodge No. 15, F. & A. M., Pensacola, Florida, as a courtesy for Port Royal Lodge No. 242, A.F.M., Port Royal, South Carolina, while he was a student aviator at the United States Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida, as a Lieutenant of the U.S. Marines. During 1947 he affiliated with S. W. Hackett Lodge No. 574, F. & A. M., San Diego, California, and in 1949 served as its Chaplain. His Masonic record includes membership in Shehawken Chapter No. 258, R.A.M, Hancock, N. Y.; Ivanhoe Commandery No. 46, K.T., Gardner, Massachusetts; Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite, Valley of Los Angeles, Orient of California. On June 4, 1947, he affiliated with the San Diego Bodies of the A. A. Scottish Rite, now taking part in the dramatic work of eight degrees. On May 12, 1936, he, with a number of other brethren, organized Rabboni Chapter, R.A.M., and was appointed its High Priest on the same date. He also organized Beaufort Council, R. & S.M., both bodies at Port Royal, South Carolina, and under dispensation of the Grand Chapter and Grand Council, respectively, of the aforementioned State.
Brother Frisbie was recommended for membership in the Philalethes Society by Brother James K. Remick, M.P.S., and we are happy, indeed, to present his portrait on the cover page of this issue of "Philalethes."- L.E.W.
The Philalethes - January, 1950; Volume 5, Number 1. - Walter A. Quincke, F.P.S., Editor-in-Chief. The official publication of the Philalethes Society; 274 South Burlington Ave., Los Angeles 4, California, where all communications should be directed. Publication schedule: Eight (8) issues per year or volume: January ; February; March; May (April-May); July (June-July); September (August-September); November (October-November), and December. Annual subscription, in the U.S.A., $3.00; elsewhere, $4.00, payable in advance.
----o----
NEW MEMBERS
Ralph S. Davis; Oak Park, Illinois (Recommended by Wm. H. Knutz, M.P.S.)
Edward J. Franta; Langdon, North Dakota (Vouched for by Brother O.I. DeVold, Master of Lebanon Lodge No. 34, A.F. & A.M. )
Duncan R. Harrison; Port Arthur (Ont.), Canada Recommended by Charles E. Holmes, F.P.S.)
P. B. Morgan; Vermilion, Ohio (Recommended by J. Fairbairn Smith, F.P.S.)
Jesse J. Todd; Valley Mills, Texas (Recommended by Rogers Kelley, M.P.S.)
* * *
Recent visitors at the home of President Walter A. Quincke, F.P.S., included: George R. Harvey, F.P.S., of Berkeley, California; James R. Malott, F.P.S,. of Globe, Arizona; Arch R. Curtis, M.P.S., of Wichita, Kansas, and Mrs Curtis.
----o----
There is no might like the might of Truth, and once the temple of Freemasonry is made to stand in the sunlight where all men can see its beauty, it will command the homage of all who love their race.
----o----
To attain the truth, and to serve our fellow-man, our country, and mankind, is the noblest destiny of man.
----o----
The Greeks fixed the date of the establishment of the Mysteries of Eleusis at the year 1423 B.C.
----o----
There is no book of which so little is known as the Bible.
----o----
By William T. Corbusier, M.P.S.
Long Beach, California
"So he drove out the man, and he placed at the east of tale Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the wary of tee tree of life." - Gen. 4, 24.
THUS DID the Lord conceal from man forever, the secrets of life. What was His purpose ? It seems to us that He replaced the original knowledge, or the Word, with curiosity - that ever-burning desire to surge ahead in the search for Light and Truth. Satisfied, man dies, but as long as the search continues he grows and lives.
Dr. Albert Mackey states that "Tyler" is the "old and now obsolete spelling of the word," but a survey of Masonic publications all over the country places the use of Tiler and Tyler on about equal basis. However, the spelling of the word is of little consequence but the office, one of utmost importance, and like those of Master and Wardens "owes its existence, not to any conventional regulations but to the very landmarks of the Order." The word is derived from the operative art - "finishes and covers a building with roof (or tiles)," and so when a Lodge is duly assembled, the Tyler closes the door and covers it from intrusion.
But the office of the Tiler extends far, far beyond these mere physical requirements. The California ceremony of installation cautions the Tiler in no uncertain words:
"As the sword is placed in the hands of the Tiler, to enable him to effectually guard against the approach of cowans and eavesdroppers, and suffer none to pass or repass, but such as are duly qualified, so should it admonish us to set a guard over our thoughts, a watch at our lips, and post a sentinel over our actions; thereby preventing the approach of every unworthy thought and deed, and preserving consciences void of offense toward God and man."
And so the Tiler accepts the responsibility from all of us to "hele," "conceal" and "tile"; words of the same meaning with the single purpose to cherish and protect that which is precious. This charge is the poetic form and mixes symbol with implement, but could the responsibilities of the office be more inclusive and demanding. It places the office of Tiler as the most important in the Lodge when assembled. Often, too little consideration is given to the appointment to this office. A Tiler should be a brother of pleasing and gracious personality. He should be well versed in the ceremonies and etiquette of the Fraternity and practice them to the letter. In his room, decorum and quiet should reign at all times, for there under his guidance, the "first impressions" are received. Visitors judge the Lodge by their reception at the threshold, and regardless of the fine quality of the "work" or excellence of the "refreshments," that first impression goes with them when the meeting is closed. And so, how important it is that the filer should always have a sentinel posted over his every action.
In the Tiler's room the visitor is challenged and examined as to his rights to enter the Lodge. Formerly an oath was administered by the Tiler and it was therefore called the Tiler's Oath. Still administered, by a committee nominally appointed by the Master, it is the Tiler's duty to satisfy himself that the visitor is indeed a Master Mason, speaking the same language and able to pronounce the word aright.
"The Book of Constitutions guarded by the Tiler's Sword" and "The Sword Pointing to a Naked Heart" are not the same words, nor is the symbology the same. Mackey, under "Sword-Tiler's," does not clarify the symbology, for he states: "In modern times the implement used by the Tiler is of the ordinary form. This is incorrect - up to a comparatively recent period it was wavy in shape - made in allusion to the flaming sword which was placed at the East of the Garden of Eden" etc. And the symbology is further mixed by the statement: "without scabbard, ever ready in defense."
Symbolically the Tiler's Sword is not an implement of defense, nor is the Tiler a defender. They are both "keepers" or preservers of Truth - the one, physically because of the things entrusted to his care and the other because behind its dazzling blade of light lie the great secrets of life everlasting. Man is always confused and blinded by the light of Truth and it is only after long and intimate contact that his inner eyes can penetrate the protecting veil to the beauties of the hidden "way of the tree of life."
Yours is a great responsibility, brother Tiler. The sword which is placed in your hands is not a plaything; it is a constant reminder of the duties you are expected to perform, and it should never be handled carelessly. If its symbolic meanings are clear to you, you will never grasp its blade, for that flaming part can be touched only by the heart which has been purified by its light. You will note that it was placed into your hands, not one hand. Here again we have the poetic form, for hands means in your care or keeping. ln the Holy Writings we find Paul, writing to the Christians at Ephesus, calling it "The Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God." And again in the Apocalypse - "I will fight against them with the sword of my mouth." These are the sword of the Tiler by which he weighs in the balance every applicant for admission to the Lodge when at work, and permits only those who are properly clad (mentally, as well as physically), and vouched for, to enter. How great, then, is his responsibility to know all the laws, rules and regulations appertaining to every Degree.
At ceremonies of installation we see the sword handled in every conceivable manner. The Master of Ceremonies grasps it by the blade, places it over his arm and at once destroys the symbology. The Tiler takes it and probably gives a military salute (or something similar), and he further destroys the symbology. A sword should never be handled by the blade. That, at best, would be an act of surrender or challenge and not of presentation. Foils may be offered over the arm, for that is a challenge, but swords - NEVER!
Even when a vanquished foe "surrenders" his sword, it is delivered in the scabbard, if at all, historical inaccuracies notwithstanding to the contrary. When an officer is "stripped" he salutes with his sword, returns it to the scabbard, unfastens it from the belt and surrenders the whole thing. No one touches the blade. In this practice, even to the handling of the conventional sword, lies the deeper symbology of the Tiler's Sword.
Tiler or Tyler, either is correct my brother, if you are !
----o----
The duty of the Mason is to endeavor to make man think better of his neighbor; to quiet, rather than to aggravate difficulties; to bring together those who are estranged; to keep friends from becoming foes, and to persuade foes to become friends. To do this, he must control his own passion.
----o----
"He walked through life and left his impress there;
He still lives on in ways we cannot know.
His love of life and living is not lost
His Spirit carries on in those he loved
And reaches out to touch humanity -
A heritage continuing through the years."
WALTER JOSEPH YOUNG, M.P.S.
Brother Walter J. (Tommy) Young, whose Masonic zeal gave rise to the hope that he would develop into a most active worker in the cause of the Philalethes Society, was called to the Grand Lodge Above a few months after his election to membership in our Society.
Our Brother was born at Denver, Colorado, August 4, 1899, and died after a short illness on October 28, 1949.
He was initiated an Entered Apprentice January 10, 1944; passed to a Fellow Craft on February 14 1944, and was raised to the Sublime Degree of Master Mason on February 28, 1944, in University Lodge No. 394, F. & A.M., Los Angeles, California. He was a member of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, Southern Jurisdiction; Correspondence Circle of Quatuor Coronati Lodge No. 2076, London, England; president, Flying Wing Acacia Club, and editor of University "Jolly Fellow," published monthly by University Lodge No. 394.
At the time of his death he was special officer for Northrop Aircraft Corporation, Hawthorne. On December 2, 1934, he married Flora Marsh, who survives him.
Masonic funeral services for our Brother were held at 2 p.m., October 31, 1949, in Pierce Brothers Chapel, 720 West Washington Boulevard, under the auspices of University Lodge No. 394, F. & A. M., of Los Angeles, California, Elmer Leroy Cannon, Master, and his remains were laid to rest in Inglewood Park Cemetery. The Philalethes Society was represented by Brother Walter A. Quincke, F.P.S.
(Signed) ALLISTER J. McKOWEN
Secretary
"The Philalethes Society"
----o----
By William Moister, F.P.S.; Johannesburg, South Africa
Editor, "South Africa Masonic Journal & World"
(The following was suggested by a long road journey through a part of South Africa. The traveler is met by a seemingly endless succession of hills, with no sign of approach to his destination, until, at last when it would seem that the interminable road cannot possibly lead anywhere, a hill is topped and below there appear the spire or tower of the village church, clusters of trees and scattered houses, or, if night has fallen, the twinkling lights of the streets or homes. So it is with many of our hopes and aspirations in life - realization is ever just a little farther on - to-morrow - next week - next month - next year, or "Just Beyond the Hill." - W.M.)
The pilgrim sallied bravely forth, with back to rising sun;
His pack seemed light, as was his heart, as journey was begun.
The road was steep, but undismayed, he climbed with right good will,
For were not joy, and love, and HOME - just beyond the hill?
The sun grew higher and its rays fell on the pilgrim's road;
Its warmth was grateful to his heart as manfully he strode.
The day wore on towards the noon, the sun rose higher still,
But heat was nought, for was not HOME - ,just beyond the hill?
'Tis noon - the rood now crossed a stream, a pleasant rippling brook;
The pilgrim loved his weary feet and rested in a nook
All overhung with verdant boughs, and drank the water, till
Refreshed, he rose again to seek his HOME beyond the hill.
And now Meridian has passed and western sun he faced.
The pack he bore grew burdensome, yet gallantly he paced
The heated road which steeply rose and thought, with gladsome thrill:
My journey's end must surely be just beyond the hill.
The sinking sun hod disappeared behind the distant crest;
The hard and never ending road stretched out toward the west.
His heavy pack grew heavier, but on he journeyed still
To reach the HOME which must be there - just beyond the hill.
The shades of night were closing in as near the crest he stopped.
Being, brightly clad, appeared - the pilgrim almost dropped
With terror and astonishment, until he came quite near
And saw a countenance benign which drove away his fear.
"Fear not," the stranger said - and then he gently touched the pack
The pilgrim bore a featherweight now rested on his back.
"Oh, tell me, Sir," the pilgrim said, "pray, tell me if you will,
Shall I find happiness and HOME - just beyond the hill?"
The stranger took his hand and said, "Come - I will lead you on,
And you shall find the HOME you seek when this long day is done."
They walked together up the slope, hand clasped in hand until
They reached the summit and looked down, just beyond the hill.
The sun had gone - the night was dark, and nothing could be seen
Except the stranger's radiant form and countenance serene.
"And now, my friend," the stranger said, "I must from you deport,"
And saying thus, he laid his hand upon the pilgrim's heart.
The moon arose and cast her light upon a silent figure
Which lay recumbent by the road in death's repose and rigour;
But Peace now rested on the face of him so cold and still -
The wanderer reached HOME at last - ,just beyond the hill.