THE BUILDER October, 1926

Dr. George Oliver: A Warning

By BRO. GILBERT W DAYNES, England

AMONGST the Masonic writers of the 19th century there was one who
had during his life-time a tremendous following all over the world,
and even now his statements, although uncorroborated, are often
quoted as historical facts. This author was Dr. George Oliver.
During his Masonic career Dr. Oliver probably wrote more books upon
Freemasonry than any other brother has done. But, written in an
uncritical age, it behooves us to test the reliability of
statements made in those books by such outside evidence as may come
to our knowledge.

The Iowa Masonic Library has recently found, in a 19th century MS.
Ritual obtained with the Bower collection in 1882, a MS. of part of
a lecture delivered by Dr. George Oliver to the members of the
Witham Lodge, Lincoln, England, in 1863, about four years before
his death. This lecture is entitled "A Lecture on the Various
Rituals of Freemasonry from the 10th Century to the Present Time."
The MS. comprises only part of the lecture, and may have been
copied from one of the English Masonic magazines of the period.
After a few preliminary remarks, to whet the appetite of his
audience, Dr. Oliver states:

"During the last century several revisions of the Ritual took
place, each being an improvement on its predecessor and all based
on the primitive Masonic lecture which was drawn up in the 10th
Century and attached to the York Constitutions. This lecture to
which I shall invite your attention was in a doggerel rhyme, a kind
of composition which was very popular amongst our Saxon ancestors
in the time of Athelstan. About the latter end of the 14th Century
it was carefully translated from the Saxon for the use of the York
Grand Lodge, and the MS. of that date is now in the British
Museum."

This statement is certainly most entrancing. Is there, perchance,
some ancient Masonic manuscript hidden away in the British Museum,
with which Masonic students of today are unacquainted, but with
which Dr. Oliver was on familiar terms? Alas no; for on reading
further, and examining the extracts given by the Doctor from this
"lecture," the secret is solved. The MS. from which Dr. Oliver is
purporting to quote for the extracts are not really quotations but
merely a very modern version of that ancient Poem, perhaps
modernized by himself--is none other than the Regius MS.,
discovered by Mr. J. O. Halliwell Phillipps in 1839, and still to
be found in the British Museum under its catalogue reference, Bibl.
Reg. 17 A, i. But it is hard to recognize that MS. under Dr.
Oliver's description. There is no evidence to suggest that the poem
is Saxon in its origin, or that it was translated in its present
form from the Saxon, or that it was prepared for the use of the
York Grand Lodge. We have had the benefit of considerable study
upon the MS., and such evidence as there is points to the copy of
the Old Charges used by the author of the Regius Poem (circa 1390)
being later in date than the copy of the Old Charges used by the
copyist of the earliest prose version, the Cooke MS. (circa 1430).
It would therefore be consistent with this evidence to assume that
the Regulations were originally in prose and not in Saxon verse. We
now know that the compiler of the Regius Poem both collected and
transcribed from varied sources "but without taking the trouble to
attach any real thread of union to the collection or transcripts of
which his verses are made up." Of these sources two are 14th
century works: "Mirk's Instructions for a Parish Priest," and
"Urbanitatis." It will be found that the last hundred lines of the
Regius Poem agree very closely with the secondly mentioned MS.
Again, there is no authority for the statement as to the use of the
Regius Poem by the York Grand Lodge. There is a total absence to
any reference to York in the Poem. We do not know of any such Grand
Lodge at York at that time, and it is hardly to be supposed that
Dr. Oliver had access to information which is now no longer
available. May we not hazard a guess that the Doctor is
generalizing from the meeting at York in A. D. 926, about which
even to this day all we know is merely traditional ?

After several modernized, and altered, extracts from the Poem Dr.
Oliver says: "Thus did our ancient brethren lecture eight hundred
years ago." Is this true? Was the Poem a Ritual, or did it
constitute a lecture, to be used in lodges, in A. D. 1063 ? There
certainly is no tittle of evidence in support of this statement,
and I do not think we shall be considered unreasonable or
uncritical if we cast doubt upon its veracity. As Bro. R. F. Gould
has correctly observed, when commenting upon the Regius Poem and
the Cooke MS.:

"We know absolutely nothing of either of the MSS. last cited except
what can be gathered from their actual texts. This should be
carefully borne in mind in order that we may separate the colouring
of ardent imagination or inaccurate observation from what is
positively true or historically correct."

The poem is the only one of the Masonic MSS.-- about 100 in number-
-containing the Regulations of the Craft in verse. It does not
contain much of the historical matter, which is common to all the
others; but it has tacked on to it a considerable amount of
extraneous matter. In addition to the portions taken, as before
indicated, from "Mirk's Instructions for a Parish Priest" and
"Urbanitatis," there are some thirty-eight lines upon the Legend of
the Quatuor Coronati. If all those added portions had formed part
of the so-called Lecture, is it likely that not one of the hundred
odd copies of the Old Charges should have any reference to these
matters ? We know that every one of the Old Charges is silent on
these portions of the Regius Poem.

Dr. Oliver then goes on to quote "the decrees of the Order" as they
were "in the reign of Edward III., A. D. 1357." The quotation is
taken from the Second Edition of Anderson's Book of Constitutions,
published in 1738, but as the Doctor has not quoted correctly, and
as his doctor predecessor was notorious for his inaccuracies, I do
not propose to examine any further into this quotation.

Coming to more recent times, Dr. Oliver makes the following
statement:

"The first catechismal formula was introduced by Grand Master Sir
Christopher Wren about the year 1685 and was called an
Examination."

Again, Dr. Oliver quotes passages from what he terms "Sir
Christopher Wren's Ritual," and what do we find? The Examination,
said to have been introduced about 1685, is none other than "The
Grand Mystery of the Free Masons Discover'd," published in London
in 1724. Thus, instead of being a pre-Grand Lodge Ritual, which
would have been a valuable find, it is one of the earliest
so-called Exposures, which may or may not have reflected what took
place within the lodge at that date. It certainly had not the
imprimatur of the Grand Lodge, and it would be saying a great deal
for our credulity if we accepted the statement, made by Dr. Oliver,
that it was a Ritual introduced by Sir Christopher Wren, and, of
course, also put on one side our doubts as to the Grand Mastership
of Sir Christopher Wren. It is obvious that, so far as Sir
Christopher Wren is concerned, Dr. Oliver accepted with childlike
simplicity the statement of Dr. James Anderson, in the
Constitutions of 1738, that this worthy was elected Grand Master in
1685. I think we may also guess how Dr. Oliver arrived at the date
1685.

With the quotations last mentioned the MS. breaks off abruptly, and
with it my criticisms. I trust that I may not be thought too harsh
or severe upon Dr. Oliver and his statements, and be told that I am
merely being wise after the event, now having the benefit of the
researches of students who are living in a more critical age. I
have only tried to be fair, bearing in mind that historical
accuracy is what every Masonic student should strive to attain. I
would, however, be the first to admit that it is very helpful to
have the critical censorship of present day Masonic students, and
this indeed is the very point upon which I would lay stress. These
notes are written to warn students, who have not critically
examined the earlier writers, that they must not rely upon the
dicta of Oliver and his predecessors, but should test all
unsupported statements made by such writers in the light of present
knowledge. But especially should this be done if they would join
that band of Masonic historians, or seekers after truth, who
"prefer to follow where the facts tend rather than as the fancies
or wishes of others would lead them."
