Jump to content

Talk:Masonic manuscripts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Manuscript dates

[edit]

as I have also put in the 'History of Freemasonry' talk section Regius is now thought to date from the early 15th century not 1390, also the kirkwall scroll is usually accepted as dating from the second half of the 18th century, by most scholars except for andrew(?) sinclair whose book on the subject is predicated on it being considerably older. bamboodragon 1:21 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, comparing the dates, "early 15th century" would make Regius 1400-1450, as opposed to 1390, and 1785 is in the latter half of the 18th century (1750-1800). And? MSJapan 01:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the 'consensus' for the date of 1390 is a consensus amongst who? and yes obviously 1785 is in the 2nd half of the 18th century but is it really much older? the idea that it is of great antiquity is questionable bamboodragon 01:57 19/3/2007

You are walking on thin ice. MSJ does NOT like to be corrected. PGNormand 16:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of a Manuscript

[edit]

The word Manuscript means a document written by hand as defined in Wikipedia. For documents on freemasonry this only relates to the Old Charges, i.e. de medieval documents.Pvosta 17:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More manuscripts...

[edit]

I came across a reference someplace with a lot more old documents, but I have to find it again. Just a heads-up for possible expansion. MSJapan 21:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply add a section on "The Gothic Constitutions," of which the Cook MS. is the first and oldest. See Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia. PGNormand 16:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sloane

[edit]

I believe that there are two manuscripts from the collection of Sir Hans Sloane, Bart. One is believed to be the charge given Elias Ashmole.

J. J. in PA 00:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schaw Statutes

[edit]

The 1st and 2nd Schaw Statutes (by William Schaw) and the 1st and 2nd St.Clair 'charters' (two letters) should certainly be placed within this article. I will try to find some time to do it myself. TheBourtreehillian (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson Constitution of 1723 and the stupid atheist

[edit]

In the Anderson Constitution of 1723 the first sentence reads A Mason is obliged by his Tenure, to obey the moral law; and if he rightly understands the Art, he will never be a stupid Atheist nor an irreligious Libertine.

Would the following reference to the book of Jonh Weemes be of use to clarifiy the meaning of the term stupid atheist:

A stupid atheist is one of four categories of atheists as mentioned in the book of John Weemes Treatise of the Foure Degenerate Sonnes, pp. 5 to 7, London, 1636, the others being the contradicting, physical and sceptical atheist. Hyperion008 (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it need to be clarified, and what relevance does Weemes' definition have to Freemasonry? MSJapan (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The meaning of sutpid atheist would be put into the perspective it had in the time when the Consitution of freemasonry was written by Anderson. The meaning of this seems te be lost for modern readers. Hyperion008 (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the other categories of atheists aren't mentioned in Anderson, using Weemes could imply that a Mason can be one of the other three types of atheists, and that isn't the case. It has always been very clear that any kind of atheist cannot be a Mason. Therefore, I think that using Weemes' definition would cloud the issue as opposed to clarifying it. MSJapan (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halliwell quote.

[edit]

After two reversions, it seems sensible to start a discussion. Perhaps the original contributor could explain the relevance of the citation to this part of the article. The Halliwell MS itself does not contain any approximation to the word Freemason. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutions

[edit]

As stated some years ago by Pvosta, the printed constitutions are not manuscripts and have no real place here. Anderson's history was supposed to summarise the old constitutions, and could be covered in brief as the successor of these venerable documents. Dermott's stuff had nothing to do with them, and is already covered in Ahiman Rezon. UGLE, maybe a sentence in Anderson as modern descendant? There is other stuff to go in (see new intro). Any comments before I start? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, and I agree that this is not a repository of every document in existence; it is specifically for manuscripts, although I do like the historical continuity item. MSJapan (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring

[edit]

The article is now restructured round classes of MS. I've tried to stick to significant original documents, and provide a logical structure for future additions. The Scottish minutes probably need expansion, and the Kirkwall scroll needs updating. The section on minutes in general could do with more substance, and is currently a bit of a place marker. Anything else for the to-do list? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Masonic manuscripts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Masonic manuscripts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Masonic_manuscripts&oldid=1208853618"