Note:  This material was scanned into text files for the sole purpose of convenient electronic research. This material is NOT intended as a reproduction of the original volumes. However close the material is to becoming a reproduced work, it should ONLY be regarded as a textual reference.  Scanned at Phoenixmasonry by Ralph W. Omholt, PM in May 2007.

 

GOULD’S HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY

THROUGHOUT THE WORLD

 

VOLUME 1

 

 

CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS                                          NEW YORK

 

REVISED BY DUDLEY WRIGHT

 

EDITOR OF THE MASONIC NEWS

 

THIS EDITION IN SIX VOLUMES EMBRACES NOT ONLY AN INVESTIGATION OF RECORDS OF THE ORGANIZATIONS OF THE FRATERNITY IN ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, IRELAND, THE BRITISH COLONIES, EUROPE, ASIA, AFRICA AND SOUTH AMERICA, BUT INCLUDES ADDITIONAL MATERIAL ESPECIALLY PREPARED ON EUROPE, ASIA, AND AFRICA, ALSO CONTRIBUTIONS BY DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE FRATERNITY COVERING EACH OF THE FORTY‑EIGHT STATES, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE POSSESSIONS OF THE

 

UNITED STATES

 

THE PROVINCES OF CANADA AND THE

 

COUNTRIES OF LATIN AMERICA

 

UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF

 

MELVIN M. JOHNSON

 

Past Grand Muter of Masons in Massachusetts, and M \ P\ Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council, 33° for the Northern Masonic Jurisdiction of the United States

 

AND

 

J. EDWARD ALLEN

 

Foreign Correspondent and Reviewer Grand Lodge, Grand Chapter, Grand Council, Grand Commandery of North Carolina and the Grand Encampment K. T. of the United States

 

ILLUSTRATED

 

FOREWORD

 

GOULD was the Thucydides of Masonic history. The Masonic histories before his day belong on the shelves with books of mythology and fairy tales. Gould also inspired real historical research and study. Vast stores of information have been uncovered since his time which correct some errors made by Gould, and add tremendously to the real story of the past of Freemasonry. Moreover, much has transpired since then. All this requires the present revision.

 

Outside of its own membership, Freemasonry is to‑day little understood and much misunderstood. At the outset, let us get a clear idea of what Freemasonry is, of its purposes, and a few of its major accomplishments.

 

Freemasonry is a charitable, benevolent, educational, and religious secret society, adhering to its own peculiar Ancient Landmarks. Its methods of recognition and of symbolic instruction are secret and thereby a test of membership is provided, though a Brother be travelling in foreign countries and among those who would otherwise be strangers.

 

It is religious in that it teaches monotheism, the Volume of the Sacred Law is open upon its Altars whenever a Lodge is in Session, worship of God is ever a part of its ceremonial, and to its neophytes and Brethren alike are constantly addressed lessons of morality; yet it is not theological nor does it attempt to displace or rival the church. Masonry is not a religion; it is the handmaid of religion.

 

It is educational in that it teaches a perfect system of morality, based upon the Sacred Law, by a prescribed ceremonial; and it also provides libraries and opportunities for study therein.

 

It is benevolent in that it teaches relief of the poor and distressed as a duty and exemplifies that duty by relief of sick and distressed Brethren, by caring for the widows and orphans of the Brethren, by maintaining homes for aged and distressed Brethren and their dependents, and by many other altruistic endeavours.

 

It is charitable in that none of its income inures to the benefit of any individual, but all is devoted to the improvement and promotion of the happiness of mankind.

 

It is a social organisation only so far as it furnishes additional inducement that men may forgather in numbers, thereby providing more material for its primary work of training, of worship, and of charity.

 

The sole dogma (i.e., arbitrary dictum) of Freemasonry is the Landmark of Belief in God. No neophyte ever has been or ever will be permitted participation in the mysteries of legitimate and recognized Freemasonry until he has vii viii FOREWORD solemnly asserted his trust in God. Beyond that, we inquire and require nothing of sectarianism or religious belief.

 

Freemasonry's idea of God is universal. Each may interpret that idea in the terms of his own creed. The requirement is solely a belief in one Supreme Being whom we sometimes call the Great Architect of the Universe. Upon this, the enlightened religious of all ages have been able to agree. It is proclaimed not only in the New Testament of the Christian, but in the Pentateuch of the Hebrew, in the Koran of the Islamite, in the Avesta of the Magians of Persia, in the Book of Kings of the Chinese, in the Sutras of the Buddhist, and even in the Vedas of the Hindu.

 

 "Father of all! in every age, In every clime adored, By Saint, by Savage, and by Sage, Jehovah, Jove, or Lord!" Freemasonry has probably been the greatest single influence toward establishing the doctrine of liberty of conscience. In the midst of sectarian antagonism, our Fraternity's first Grand Lodge was organised in 1717, by four Lodges then existing within the "Bills of Mortality" of London, England. It almost immediately reached out, planting new Lodges and successfully establishing systematised Grand Lodge control over all Lodges, including those which had theretofore met "according to the old customs"; that is to say, without Charter or Warrant but by the authority inherent in members of the Craft who, finding themselves together in a locality, met and Worked.

 

In 1723, the Constitutions of this Mother Grand Lodge of the World were published. These declared "Concerning God and religion.. Though in ancient Times Masons were charg'd in every Country to be of the Religion of that Country or Nation, whatever it was, yet 'tis now thought more expedient only to oblige them to that Religion in which all Men agree, leaving their particular Opinions to themselves." These Constitutions further declared "No private Piques or Quarrels must be brought within the Door of the Lodge, far less any Quarrels about Religion, or Nations, or State Policy, we being only, as Masons, of the Catholick Religion above‑mention'd; we are also of all Nations, Tongues, Kindreds, and Languages, and are resolv'd against all Politicks, as what never yet conduc'd to the Welfare of the Lodge, nor ever will." Proselyting has its place in the world, but not in the halls of Masonry. Sectarian missionary spirit and its exercise have been of incalculable value to the human race. However much we should give it our support as individuals or as members of other societies, it has no place within this Fraternity. In our Lodge Rooms, upon the single bond of belief in Deity, we may thus "conciliate true friendship" among men of every country, sect and opinion.

 

No authoritative spokesman of legitimate and recognised Freemasonry has FOREWORD ix ever engaged in a campaign against or antagonised any religion. (Distinguish, here, between religion and a church in politics.) Freemasonry never has been, is not now, and never will be a party to the reviling of any faith, creed, theology, or method of worship.

 

The Bull of Pope Clement XII in 1738, and other later Papal Bulls and Edicts, one as recent as 1884, have scathingly denounced Freemasons and Freemasonry. Of the reasons assigned, two are based on fact; one, that Freemasonry is tolerant of all religious creeds; the other, that oaths of secrecy are demanded. All other reasons given are incorrect; so wrong, indeed, that we of the Craft wonder how it was possible that any one could have been persuaded to proclaim or even believe them.

 

Many members of the Roman Catholic Church have held Masonic membership and office. Until they were ordered out of our Fraternity, one‑half of the Masons in Ireland were of that faith. A Papal Nuncio, as a Freemason, laid the corner‑stone of the great altar of the Parisian Church of St. Sulpice (1733). Some eminent Catholics have held the highest possible office in the gift of the Craft, that of Most Worshipful Grand Master (e.g. the Duke of Norfolk, 1730 31; Anthony Brown, Viscount Montacute, 1732‑33; Benedict Barnewall, Viscount Kingsland, Ireland 1733‑34; Robert Edward, Lord Petre, 1772‑77). If that Church sees fit to bar its members from belonging to our Fraternity, it has a perfect right to do so. It is the sole judge of the qualifications of its own members. Freemasonry, however, does not bar an applicant for its Degrees because he is a member of that or of any other church. Whether or not he can be true both to his Church and to the Fraternity is a question the applicant's conscience must determine. Belief in his sincerity and fitness will be determined by the ballot box.

 

No discussion of the creed of any Church is permitted within the tiled Lodge Room, and the attitude of Freemasonry toward any and all sects and denominations, toward any form of the honest worship of God, is not one of antagonism but of respect.

 

If within the power of Freemasons to prevent it, no sect, atheistic, agnostic or supremely religious, will be permitted to dominate, dictate or control civil government. Freemasonry has never attempted to do this, and would not if it had the power.

 

Our Fraternity asks no man to carry Freemasonry as an institution into his civic life, to vote as a Mason either in the ballot box or in legislative halls, to perform executive duties as a Mason, or to adjudicate as a Mason. Freemasonry has no fear of the practises, policies or acts of any man whose character is sound. Its ambition is to aid in implanting and nurturing ideals of equality, charity, justice, morality, liberty, and fraternity in the hearts and minds of men. It concerns itself with principles and not with policies. It builds character, not faction. Freemasonry will join hands not only with its friends but with its enemies‑though no God‑fearing, liberty‑loving man should be its enemy‑to establish and perpetuate in all nations where it has a foothold l FOREWORD the spirit of this ringing message of our Bro. George Washington, " I have often expressed my sentiments, that every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience. " When no Roman Catholic in England was allowed civil or military rights, or even to worship according to the ceremonies of his own religion, Freemasonry joined hands with the Catholic Committee in persuading England to grant them the rights of citizenship and to worship God according to the dictates of their consciences. One of the greatest leaders in this movement was the Seventh Lord Petre, Grand Master of Masons in England and the leading member of the Catholic Committee.

 

In Colonial America, Freemasonry was the most important inter‑colonial network‑indeed, almost the only thing which the Colonies had in common, save hatred, not of the British people but of the British Crown of that day. Freemasonry exercised a greater influence upon the establishment and development of the fundamental principles of this land of ours than any other single institution.

 

Neither general historians nor the members of our Fraternity have realised how much that civilisation of which we are a part owes to Freemasonry. Its intangible accomplishments can never be measured. The dollars which it has spent in charity are tangible, as is its numerical strength; but numbers and dollars are not the criteria by which to estimate the value or accomplishments of Freemasonry.

 

It is the inculcation in the hearts and minds of men of those basic and immutable principles of human conduct, upon which all social compacts rest and a departure from which inevitably brings chaos, that organised Masonry seeks accomplishment. Worship of God cannot be measured in volts, morality in gallons, friendship in pounds, love in dollars, or altruism in inches; yet these are vastly more essential to the peace and happiness of man than material things which have three dimensions, or than energy and motion capable of statistical tabulation. Indeed, the preservation of civilisation depends upon a true reflection of these qualities of mind and soul. No statistician can possibly measure the results of such endeavour. It is through these good works that Freemasonry desires to be known rather than by compilations and formulas.

 

Down through the years, not only here but in many other lands, Freemasonry has been instilling and cultivating ideals‑ideals of worship of God, of liberty of conscience, of truth, equality, charity, liberty, justice, morality, and fraternity, in the hearts and minds of men.

 

Based always upon the sure foundation of the worship of God, the greatest of these in its effects upon human contacts is fraternity ‑ call it brotherly love, the second great commandment or the Golden Rule, if you will.

 

Our charitable, benevolent, educational, and religious Fraternity has for its main purpose to‑day the propagation of this one and only cement or bond FOREWORD xi of human society which is local, national and international. Without it, the centrifugal forces of disorder, destruction, iconoclasm, hate, jealousy, and envy, ever active, would send our whirling civilisation flying into atoms.

 

Love, as the basis of national and international relations, has never yet been tried. Power, might, and authority, physical and financial and even ecclesiastical, have been tried and have failed. Here, then, is the great secret of Freemasonry‑a secret only because the world will not heed it. Striving onward, day by day, in the midst of what sometimes seems to threaten a return to chaos, our Fraternity persists in cultivating and disseminating these ideals, these landmarks of civilisation, and in reaching forward to that millennial day when love shall rule the world.

 

Then shall there be no more need of Declarations of Independence. Rather, shall there be Declarations of Dependence of man upon his fellowmen, of city upon its contacting communities, of State upon its neighbour States, of nation upon its sister nations. To preserve and broaden such ideals, Freemasonry at the end of centuries, confidently looks forward into the centuries which are to come. Our backs are to the past; our faces to the future. Ahead lies our duty ‑our opportunity.

 

These are the ideals and an indication of the accomplishments of the greatest Fraternity the world has ever known. Such a Fraternity should have its history recorded in order that its own members, as well as the profane, may know the part which it has played, is playing, and should play in a world which more than ever needs its wholesome influence. This is my purpose in sharing in the compilation of this history.

 

MELVIN M. JOHNSON.

 

 

 

CONTENTS

 

VOLUME I

 

CHAPTER ONE

 

INTRODUCTION ‑ THE ANCIENT MYSTERIES ‑ THE ESSENES ‑ THE ROMAN

 COLLEGIA ‑ THE CULDEES

 

CHAPTER TWO

 

THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS

 

CHAPTER THREE

 

THE STONEMASONS (STEINMETZEN) OF GERMANY 64

 

CHAPTER FOUR

 

THE CRAFT GUILDS CORPS D'ETAT) OF FRANCE

 

CHAPTER FIVE

THE COMPANIONAGE, OR LES COMPAGNONS DU TOUR DE FRANCE

 

CHAPTER SIX

 

MEDIEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY 120

 

CHAPTER SEVEN

 

MASONS' MARKS 142

 

CHAPTER EIGHT

 

THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS

 

CHAPTER NINE

 

APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS 202

 

CHAPTER TEN

 

THE QUATUOR CORONATI 221 xlll 24 86 99 154 xiv

 

CONTENTS

 

CHAPTER ELEVEN

 

THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON

 

CHAPTER TWELVE

 

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY ‑ ENGLAND, I PAGE 24I 159

 

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

 

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY ‑ ENGLAND, II 307

 

 

ILLUSTRATIONS

VOLUME I

 

George Washington as Master of Alexandria Lodge, No. 22 ‑ (Colour) Frontispiece PACING PAGE Seals and Tokens of Continental Guilds, I 68 Seals and Tokens of Continental Guilds, II 78 Arms of Masons, Carpenters, etc., I 86 (Compagnons.) A Procession of the Fellow Craft ioo A Series of Fifteen English and French Freemasonry Prints of 1745‑1757 1809‑1812‑ inserted between pages‑ 12‑o and 12.1 Masons' Marks, I 146 Masons' Marks, II 148 Masons' Marks, III 150 Arms of Masons, Carpenters, etc., II 2‑44 Frontispiece to Anderson's Book of Constitutions, 1723 2.62 A Masonic Sesqui‑centenary Celebrated by Loyal Lodge at Barnstaple, North Devon, September 24, 1933 310 An Interior View of the Guildhall, During the Masonic Sesqui‑centenary Celebration at Barnstaple, North Devon, September 24, 1933 32.0 Presidents of the United States, Members of the Masonic Fraternity George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, James K. Polk, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, James A. Garfield, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, William H. Taft, Warren G. Harding, and Franklin D. Roosevelt At end of volume The Iron Worker and King Solomon 8 I 1 GOULD'S HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY THROUGHOUT THE WORLD VOLUME I i A HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY THROUGHOUT THE WORLD VOL. I

 

 

CHAPTER I

 

INTRODUCTION‑THE ANCIENT MYSTERIES‑THE ESSENES‑THE ROMAN COLLEGIA‑THE CULDEES

 

UP to a comparatively recent period, the History and Antiquities of Freemasonry were involved in a cloud of darkness and uncertainty. Treated as a rule with a thinly veiled contempt by men of letters, the subject was, in a great measure, abandoned to writers with whom enthusiasm supplied the place of learning, whose principal qualification for their task was membership of the Fraternity. On the other hand, however, it must fairly be stated that the few literati who wrote upon this uncongenial theme evinced an amount of credulity which, to say the least, was commensurate with their learning and, by laying their imaginations under contribution for the facts which were essential to the theories they advanced, confirmed the pre‑existing belief that all Masonic history is untrue. Thus Hallam, in his Middle Ages (18 5 6, vol. iii, p. 3 5 9), wrote: "The curious subject of Freemasonry has been treated of only by panegyrists or calumniators, both equally mendacious." The vagaries of this latter class have been pleasantly characterized as "the sprightly and vivacious accounts of the modern Masonic annalists, who display in their histories a haughty independence of facts, and make up for the scarcity of evidence by a surprising fecundity of invention. `Speculative Masonry,' as they call it, seems to have favoured them with a large portion of her airy materials and with ladders, scaffolding and bricks of air, they have run up their historical structures with wonderful ease." Thus wrote Dr. (afterwards Bishop) Armstrong, of Grahamstown, in The Christian Kemembrancer, July 1 847. The critical reader is indeed apt to lament that leaders of the creationist school have not followed the example of Aristotle, whose " wisdom and integrity " Lord Bacon in The Advancement of Learning commends, in having " cast all prodigious narrations which he thought worthy the recording into one book, that such whereupon observation and rule was to be built, should not be mingled or weakened with matter of doubtful credit." In this connexion may be cited Pitt Taylor's original edition of Professor Greenleaf's Law of Evidence. The various American Law Reports quoted therein are lettered A, B, C, D, in accordance with the relative estimation in which they were held by the profession. Some classification of this kind would be of great assistance to the student of Masonic antiquities.

 

I z

THE ANTIQUITIES OF FREEMASONRY

 

A new and more critical school has, however, at length arisen, which, while doing much to place the subject on a sound historical basis, has yet left something to be desired.

 

The publication of a General History of Freemasonry, by J. G. Findel (of Leipsic) in 1861 (Geschichte der Freimaurerei), marks a distinct era in the progress of Masonic literature. No universal history of the Masonic Craft (at all worthy of the name) had previously been compiled and the dictum of the Chevalier de Bonneville was generally acquiesced in, " That the span of ten men's lives was too short a period for the execution of so formidable an undertaking." The second (and revised) English edition of this work was published by Kenning in 1869.

 

Findel's work is a highly meritorious compilation and reflects great credit upon his industry. The writings of all previous Masonic authors appear to have been consulted, but the value of his history would have been much enhanced by a more frequent reference to authorities. He seems, indeed, to labour under a complete incapacity to distinguish between the relative degrees of value of the authorities he is attempting to analyse; but, putting all demerits on one side, his History of Freemasonry forms a very solid contribution to our stock of Masonic facts and, from his faculty of lucid condensation, has brought, for the first time within popular comprehension, the entire subject to the elucidation of which its scope is directed. Prehistoric Masonry is dealt with very briefly, but this branch of archaeological research has been taken up by G. F. Fort (Early History and Antiquities of Freemasonry, 1876), who, in an interesting volume of 481 pages, devoted entirely to the "Antiquities" of the Society, discusses very ably and clearly the legendary or traditionary history of the Fraternity.

 

The design of the present work is to embody in a single publication the legendary and the authentic histories of the Craft. The introductory portion will cover the ground already occupied by Fort and then will be traversed the field of research over which Findel has travelled. The differences from these writers will be material, both as regards the facts they accept and the inferences they have drawn and the record of occurrences will necessarily vary somewhat from theirs, whilst the general conclusions will be as novel as it is hoped they may prove to be well founded.

 

At the outset it may be remarked that the actual History of Freemasonry can only, in strictness, be deemed to commence from the period when the chaos of mythical traditions is succeeded by the era of Lodge records. This epoch cannot be very readily determined. The circumstances of the Lodges, even in North and South Britain, were dissimilar. In Scotland the veritable proceedings of Lodges for the year 15 99, as entered at the time in their minute‑books, are still extant. In England there are no Lodge minutes ranging back even into the seventeenth century and the records of but a single Lodge (Alnwick) between 1700 and the date of formation of the first Grand Lodge (1717). For the sake of convenience, therefore, the mythico‑historical period of Freemasonry will be held to have extended to 1717 and the special circumstances which distinguish the early Masonry of Scotland THE ANTIQUITIES OF FREEMASONRY 3 from that of its sister kingdom will, to the extent that may be requisite, be further considered when the histories of the British Grand Lodges are separately treated.

 

The period, therefore, antedating the era of Grand Lodges (1717), will be examined in the introductory part of this work.

 

In dealing with what Fort has happily styled the "Antiquities of Freemasonry," whilst discussing, at some point or other, all or nearly all the subjects this writer has so dexterously handled, the method of treatment adopted will, nevertheless, vary very much from the system he has followed.

 

In the progress of the inquiry it will be necessary to examine the leading theories with regard to the origin of Freemasonry that have seemed tenable to the learned. These will be subdivided into two classes, the one being properly introductory to the general bulk of evidence that will be adduced in the chapters which next follow ; and the other, claiming attention at a later stage, just before we part company with the " Antiquities " and emerge from the cloud‑land of legend and tradition into the domain of authentic history.

 

The sources to which the mysteries of Freemasonry have been ascribed by individual theorists are too numerous to be particularized, although some of the more curious will be briefly reviewed.

 

Two theories or hypotheses stand out in bold relief‑the conjectural origin of Freemasonry as disclosed in the pages of the Parentalia (or Memoirs of the Family of the Wrens, 1750, p. 306) and its more recent derivation from the customs of the German Steinmetzen (Fallon, Winzer, Findel, Steinbrenner and Fort). Each of these speculations has had its day. From 1750 until the publication of Findel's History (1861), the theory of "travelling Masons " ‑ ascribed to Wren‑held possession of our encyclopxdias. The German supposition has since prevailed, but an attempt will be made to show that it rests upon no more solid foundation of fact than the hypothesis it displaced.

 

In successive chapters will be discussed the various matters or subjects germane to the general inquiry whilst, in a final examination, the relation of one topic to another, with the conclusions that may rightly be drawn from the scope and tenor of the entire evidence, will be duly presented.

 

It has been well said, "that we must despair of ever being able to reach the fountain‑head of streams which have been running and increasing from the beginning of time. All that we can aspire to do is only to trace their course backward, as far as possible, on these charts that now remain of the distant countries whence they were first perceived to flow" (Brand's Popular Antiquities, 1849, vol. i, p. ix). It has also to be borne in mind that as all trustworthy history must necessarily be a work of compilation, the imagination of the writer must be held in subjection. He can but use and shape his materials and these unavoidably will take a somewhat fragmentary form.

 

Past events leave relics behind them more certainly than future events cast shadows before them. From the records that have come down to us, an endeavour will be made to present, as far as possible, the leading features of the real Antiquities 4 THE ANTIQUITIES OF FREEMASONRY of Freemasonry, that every reader may test the soundness of the general conclusions by an examination of the evidence upon which they are based. It must ever be recollected that " a large proportion of the general opinions of mankind are derived merely from authority and are entertained without any distinct understanding of the evidence on which they rest, or the argumentative grounds by which they are supported" (Sir G. C. Lewis : On the Influence of Authority in Matters of Opinion, p. 7). Lord Arundell of Wardour says (Tradition, principally with reference to Mythology and the Lazy of Nations, 1872, p. 13 9) : " Knowledge in many departments is becoming more and more the traditions of experts and must be taken by the outside world on faith." From this reproach, it will not be contended that the Freemasons of our own day merit an exemption, but the stigma, if such it be, under which they rest must assuredly be deemed to attach with even greater force to the inaccurate historians by whom they have been misled. It is true, no doubt, that the historian has no rules as to exclusion of evidence or incompetency of witnesses. In his court every document may be read, every statement may be heard. But, in proportion as he admits all evidence indiscriminately, he must exercise discrimination in judging of its effect. (See Lewis : Methods of Observation and Reasoning in Politics, vol. i, p. 196.) There is, indeed, no doubt that long habit, combined with a happy talent, may enable a person to discern the truth where it is invisible to ordinary minds possessing no special advantages. In order, however, that the truth so perceived should recommend itself to the convictions of others, it is a necessary condition that it should admit of proof which they can understand. (See Lewis: An Inquiry into the Credibility of the Early Roman History, vol. i, p. 14.) Much of the early history of Freemasonry is so interspersed with fable and romance that, however anxious we may be to deal tenderly with long‑cherished legends and traditions, some, at least, of these familiar superstitions‑unless we choose to violate every canon of historical criticism‑must be allowed to pass quietly into oblivion. The following mode of determining the authenticity of the Legends of the Saints, without dishonouring the authority of the Church or disturbng the faith of her children, suggests indeed one way out of the difficulty : " Les legendes sont dans 1'ordre historique ce que les reliques des saints sont dans le culte. 11 y a des reliques authentiques et des legendes certaines, des reliques evidemment fausses et des legendes evidemment fabuleuses, enfin des reliques douteuses et des legendes seulement probables et vraisemblables. Pour les legendes comme pour les reliques l'Eglise consacre ce qui est certain, proscrit le fableux et permet le douteux sans le consacrer " (Cours. d'Hist. Eccl., par l'Abbe Blanc, P. 5 52). In dealing with this subject, it is difficult‑indeed, almost impossible‑to lay down any fixed rules for our guidance. All the authorities seem hopelessly at variance. Gibbon states, " the Germans, in the days of Tacitus, were unacquainted with the use of letters. . . . Without that artificial help, the human memory ever dissipates or corrupts the ideas entrusted to her charge." " To this," says Lord Arundell (op. cit., pp. 120, 12 i), " I reply, that, although records are valuable for the attesta‑ THE ANTIQUITIES OF FREEMASONRY 5 tion, they are not guarantees for the fidelity of tradition. When mankind trusts mainly to tradition, the faculties by which it is sustained will be more strongly developed and the adaptation of societyfor its transmission more exactly conformed." Yet, if we turn to one of the greatest masters of historical criticism, the comforting assurance of Lord Arundell is seriously assailed. " A tradition," says Sir George Lewis, " should be proved by authentic evidence to be not of subsequent growth, but to be founded on a contemporary recollection of the fact recorded. A historical event may be handed down by oral tradition, as well as by a contemporary written record ; but, in that case, satisfactory proof must be given that the tradition is derived from contemporary witnesses " (On the Influence of Authority, etc., p. go).

 

The principle just enunciated is, however, demurred to by another high authority, whose words have a special bearing upon the point under consideration. The learned author of The Language and Literature of Ancient Greece observes : " We have without hesitation repudiated the hypercritical doctrine of a modern school of classical antiquaries that, in no case whatever, is the reality of any event or person to be admitted unless it can be authenticated by contemporaneous written evidence. If this dogmatical rule be valid at all, it must be valid to the extent of a condemnation of nearly the whole primitive annals of Greece down to the first rise of authentic history about the epoch of the Persian War. The more rational principle of research is, that the historical critic is entitled to test the truth or falsehood of national tradition by the standard of speculative historical probability. The general grounds of such speculative argument in favour of an element of truth in oral tradition admit of being ranged under the following heads First, The comparative recency of the age in which the event transmitted is supposed to have taken place and the proportionally limited number of stages through which the tradition has passed. Secondly, The inherent probability of the event and, more especially, the existence of any such close connexion in the ratio of cause and effect between it and some other more recent and better attested event, as might warrant the inference, even apart from the tradition on the subject, that the one was the consequence of the other. Thirdly, The presumption that, although the event itself may not have enjoyed the benefit of written transmission, the art of writing was, at the period from which the tradition dates, sufficiently prevalent to check, in regard to the more prominent vicissitudes of national history, the licence in which the popular organs of tradition in a totally illiterate age are apt to indulge " (W. Mute, A Critical History of the Language and Literature of Ancient Greece, 1853, vol. iv, pp. 317, 318).

 

The principle to be observed in inquiries of this character appears, indeed, up to a certain point, to have been best laid down by Dr. Isaac Taylor, who says " A notion may weigh against a notion, or one hypothesis may be left to contend with another ; but an hypothesis can never be permitted, even in the slightest degree, to counterbalance either actual facts, or direct inferences from such facts. This preference of facts and of direct inductions to hypotheses, however ingenious or specious they may be, is the great law of modern science, which none but dreamers attempt to violate. Now, the rules of criticism and the laws of historical evidence 6 THE ANTIQUITIES OF FREEMASONRY are as much matters of science as any other rules or laws derived by careful induction from a mass of facts " (The Process of Historical Proof, 18z8, p.3). In another part of this work (p. z62) the author says : " Our part is to scrutinize as carefully as we can the validity of the proofs ; not to weigh the probability of the factsa task to which we can scarcely ever be competent." The last branch of this definition carries us a little farther than we can safely go.

 

In the main, however, whilst carefully discarding the plainly fabulous narrations with which the Masonic system is encumbered, the view to which Schlegel has given expression is, perhaps, the one it would be well to adopt. He says : " I have laid it down as an invariable maxim to follow historical tradition and to hold fast by that clue, even when many things in the testimony and declarations of tradition appear strange and almost inexplicable, or at least enigmatical ; for as soon as, in the investigations of ancient history, we let slip that thread of Ariadne, we can find no outlet from the labyrinth of fanciful theories and the chaos of clashing opinions " (Philosophy of History, 183 S, vol. i, p. 29).

 

"The origin and source whence first sprang the institution of Freemasonry," says Dr. Mackey, " has given rise to more difference of opinion and discussion among Masonic scholars than any other topic in the literature of the institution." Indeed, were the books collected in which separate theories have been advanced, the dimensions of an ordinary library would be insufficient for their reception. For the most part, it may be stated that each commentator (as observed by Horace Walpole in the case of Stonehenge) has attributed to his theme that kind of antiquity of which he himself was most fond. Of Stonehenge it has been asserted " that nearly every prominent historical personage from the Devil to the Druids have at one time or another been credited with its erection‑the latter, however, enjoying the suffrages of the archeologists." Both the Devil and the Druids have had a large share ascribed to them in the institution of Freemasonry. In India, even at the present day, the Masonic Hall, or other place of meeting for the Lodges, is familiarly known as the "Shaitan" Bungalow, or Devil's house, whilst the Druidical theory of Masonic ancestry, although long since abandoned as untenable, was devoutly believed in by a large number of Masonic writers, whose works are even yet in demand.

 

The most fanciful representative of this school appears to have been Cleland, though Godfrey Higgins treads closely at his heels. The former, writing in 1766, presents a singular argument, which slightly abridged is as follows : "Considering that the May (May‑pole) was eminently the great sign of Druidism, as the Cross was of Christianity, is there anything forced or far‑fetched in the conjecture that the adherents to Druidism should take the name of Men of the May or Mays‑sons ? " This is by no means an unfair specimen of the conjectural etymology which has been lavishly resorted to in searching for the derivation of the word Mason. Dr. Mackey, after citing many derivations of this word, proceeds : " But all of these fanciful etymologies, which would have terrified Bopp, Grimm, Muller, or any other student of linguistic relations, forcibly remind us of the French epigrammist, THE ANTIQUITIES OF FREEMASONRY 7 who admitted that alphina came from equus, but that in so coming it had very considerably changed its route " (Encyclopadia of Freemasonry, p. 489). All known languages appear to have been consulted, with the natural result of enveloping the whole matter in confusion, the speculations of the learned (amongst whom figures Lessing, one of the first literary characters of his age) being honourably distinguished by their greater freedom of exposition. It is generally assumed that, in the ancient oriental tongues, the few primitive words must needs bear many different significations and the numerous derivatives be infinitely equivocal. Hence anything may be made of names, by turning them to oriental sounds, so as to suit every system past, present, and to come. "And when anyone is at a loss," says Warburton, " in this game of crambo, which can never happen but by being duller than ordinary, the kindred dialects of the Chaldee and Arabic lie always ready to make up their deficiencies " (Divine Legation, vol. ii, p. zzo, where he also says: "I have heard of an old humorist and a great dealer in etymologies, who boasted that he not only knew whence words came, but whither they were going ").

 

The connexion of the Druids with the Freemasons has, like many other learned hypotheses, both history and antiquity obstinately bent against it; but not more so, however, than its supporters are against history and antiquity, as from the researches of recent writers may be readily demonstrated. The whole question has been thoroughly discussed in Dudley Wright's Druidism, The Ancient Faith of Britain, where a full bibliography will also be found. Clinch, with a great parade of learning, has endeavoured to identify Freemasonry with the system of Pythagoras and, for the purpose of comparison, cites no fewer than fifteen particular features or points of resemblance which are to be found, he says, in the ancient and in the modern institutions. "Let the Freemasons," he continues, " if they please, call Hiram, King of Tyre, an architect, and tell each other, in bad rhymes, that they are the descendants of those who constructed the temple of Solomon. To me, however, the opinion which seems decisive is, that the sect has penetrated into Europe by means of the gypsies." See "Essay on the Origin of Freemasonry " in Anthologia Hibernica, vol. iii, pp. 34,178, 279, and 421. W. Simson, in his History of the Gypsies, 1865, pp. 456,457, says : "Not only have they had a language peculiar to themselves, but signs as exclusively theirs as are those of the Freemasons. The distinction consists in this people having blood, language, a cast of mind and signs, peculiar to itself." The learned author of Ernst and Falk and Nathan der W>eise, Gottfried Ephraim Lessing, was of opinion that the Masonic institution had its origin in a secret association of Templars, long existent in London, which was shaped into its present form by Sir Christopher Wren. That the society is, in some way or other, a continuation of that of the Templars has been widely credited. The Abbe Barruel supported this theory in Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism, translated by the Hon. Robert Clifford (2d edit., 1798). Edmund Burke wrote to Barruel, May 1, 1797, on the publication of his first volume, expressing an admiration of the work which posterity has failed to ratify. He says: "The whole of the wonderful 8 THE ANTIQUITIES OF FREEMASONRY narrative is supported by documents and proofs (?) with the most juridical regularity and exactness." This theory has endured to the present day (see Frost's Secret Societies of the European Revolution, 1876, vol. i, p. 22) and, more recently, found an eloquent exponent in E. T. Carson, of Cincinnati, U.S.A. Notwithstanding the entire absence of historical corroboration, it has been adopted by many writers of ability and has exercised no inconsiderable influence in the fabrication of what are termed "High Degrees" and in the invention of Continental Rites. The subject will be discussed more fully in a later chapter of the present work.

 

Nicholai, a learned bookseller of Berlin, advanced, in 1782, a singular hypothesis in I>ersuch fiber die Beschuldigungen. French and English translations respectively of the appendix to this work (which contains Nicholai's Essay on the Origin of Freemasonry) will be found in Thory's Acta Latomorum and in the Freemasons' Quarterly Review, 1853, p. 649. His belief was that Lord Bacon, influenced by the writings of Andrea, the alleged founder of the Rosicrucians and of his English disciple, Robert Fludd, gave to the world his New Atlantis, a beautiful apologue in which are to be found many ideas of a Masonic character. John Valentine Andrea was born in 1586 and died in 16 S4. The most important of his works (or of those ascribed to his pen) are the Fama Fraternitatis and the Chemical Marriage (Chemische Hockeit), published circa 1614 and 1616 respectively. It has been stated " that Fludd must be considered as the immediate father of Freemasonry, as Andrea was its remote father ! " (Freemasons' Magazine, April 18 5 8).

 

A ship which had been detained at Peru for one whole year, sails for China and Japan by the South Sea. In stress of weather the weary mariners gladly make the haven of a port of a fair city, which they find inhabited by Christians. They are brought to the strangers' house, the revenue of which is abundant; thirty‑seven years having elapsed since the arrival of similar visitors. The governor informs them "of the erection and institution, 1900 years ago, of an order or society by King Solamena, the noblest foundation that ever was upon the earth and the lanthorn of the kingdom." It was dedicated to the study of the works and creatures of God and appears to have been indifferently described as "Solomon's House," or "The College of the Six Days' Works." During the stay of the visitors at this city (in the Island of Bensalem), one of the fathers of "Solomon's House " came there and the historiographer of the party had the honour of an interview, to whom the patriarch, in the Spanish tongue, gave a full relation of the state of the " College." " Firstly," he said, " I will set forth unto you the end of our foundation ; secondly, the preparation or instruments we have for our works ; thirdly, the several employments and functions whereto our fellows are assigned ; and fourthly, the ordinances and rites which we observe." The society was formed of fellows or brethren ; and novices or apprentices. All took an oath of secrecy, " for the concealing of those things which we think fit to keep secret ; though some of those we do reveal sometimes to the State and some not." The narrative breaks off abruptly with the words, " The rest was not perfected." THE ANTIQUITIES OF FREEMASONRY 9 According to the latest of Baconian commentators, Spedding, " the story of Solomon's House is nothing more than a vision of the practical results which Lord Bacon anticipated from the study of natural history, diligently and systematically carried on through successive generations." See "The New Atlantis" in Spedding's Bacon, vol. iii, p. 129. The work seems to have been written in 1624 and was first published in 1627.

 

It will be seen from the foregoing abstract, in which every detail that can possibly interest the Masonic reader has been included, that the theory advanced by Nicholai rests upon a very slender, not to say forced, analogy. A better argument, if, indeed, one inconclusive chain of reasoning can be termed better or worse than another, whose links are alike defective, might be fashioned on the same lines, in favour of a Templar origin of Freemasonry.

 

The view about to be presented seems to have escaped the research of Dr. Mackey, whose admirable Encyclopa,dia seems to contain the substance of nearly everything of a Masonic character that has yet been printed. For this reason and, also, because it has been favourably regarded by Dr. Armstrong, who, otherwise, has a very poor opinion of all possible claims that can be urged in support of Masonic antiquity, the hypothesis will fit in very well with the observations that have preceded it and it will terminate the " short studies " on the origin of our society.

 

Dr. Armstrong says : " The order of the Temple was called `the knighthood of the Temple of Solomon,' not in allusion to the first temple built by Solomon, but to their hospital or residence at Jerusalem, which was so called to distinguish it from the temple erected on the site of that destroyed by Titus. Now, when we find a body said to be derived from the Templars, leaving, amongst the plumage with which the modern society has clumsily adorned itself, so much mention of the Temple of Solomon, there seems some sort of a ground for believing in the supposed connexion ! The Hospitallers of St. John, once the rivals, became the successors of the Templars and absorbed a large portion of their revenues at the time of their suppression. This would account for the connexion between the Freemasons and the order of St. John." See The Christian Remembrancer, July .1847, pp. I5‑.17. The authorities mainly relied upon by Dr. Armstrong are William of Tyre and James of Vitry (Bishop of Acre) : " Est prxterea," says the latter, " Hierosolymis Templum aliud immensx quantitatis et amplitudinis, a quo fratres militia, Templi, Templarii nominantur, quod Templum Salomonis nuncupatur, forsitan ad distinctionem alterius quod specialiter Templum Domini appellatur " (cited in Addison's History of the Knights Templar, 1842, p. 1o).

 

Passing from the fanciful speculations which, at different times, have exercised the minds of individual theorists, or have long since been given up as untenable, we may examine those derivations which have been accepted by our more trustworthy Masonic teachers and, by their long‑sustained vitality, claim at least our respectful consideration. By this, however, is not implied that those beliefs which have retained the greatest number of adherents are necessarily the most worthy of acceptance. In historical inquiry finality can have no place, and there is no greater i 10 THE ANTIQUITIES OF FREEMASONRY error than to conclude " that of former opinions, after variety and examination, the best hath still prevailed and suppressed the rest." " As if the multitude," says Lord Bacon, " or the wisest for the multitude's sake, were not ready to give passage rather to that which is popular and superficial than to that which is substantial and profound ; for the truth is, that time seemeth to be of the nature of a river or stream, which carrieth down to us that which is light and blown up and sinketh and drowneth that which is weighty and solid" (Advancement of Learning). This idea seems to have been happily paraphrased by Elias Ashmole in his Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum (1652, Proleg.).

 

Before, however, commencing an analysis a few general observations will not be out of place. Krause, in Die drei Aeltesten Kunsturkunden, writes When we find in any nation or age social efforts resembling in aim and organiza tion those of the Freemasons, we are by no means justified in tracing any closer connexion between them than such as human nature everywhere and in all ages, is known to have in common, unless it can be historically proved that an actual relationship exists.

 

Likewise, Von Humboldt, in his Researches (1844, vol. i, p. ii), says A small number of nations far distant from each other, the Etruscans, the Egyptians, the people of Thibet and the Aztecs, exhibit striking analogies in their buildings, their religious institutions, their division of time, their cycles of regenera tion and their mystic notions. It is the duty of the historian to point out these analogies, which are as difficult to explain as the relations that exist between the Sanscrit, the Persian, the Greek and the languages of German origin ; but, in attempting to generalize ideas, we should learn to stop at the point where precise data are wanting.

 

The explanation, however, which Von Humboldt withheld, had long previously been suggested by Warburton (Divine Legation, 1837, vol. ii, pp. 203, 221), who dwells with characteristic force upon " the old inveterate error that a similitude of customs and manners amongst the various tribes of mankind most remote from one another, must needs arise from some communication, whereas human nature, without any other help, will, in the same circumstances, always exhibit the same appearance " ; and, in another passage of his famous work, he speaks " of the general conformity which is commonly ascribed to imitation, when, in truth, its source is in our own common nature and the similar circumstances in which the partakers of it are generally found." Even in cases where an historical connexion is capable of demonstration, we must bear in mind that it may assume a Protean form. It is one thing when an institution flourishes through being constantly renewed by the addition of new members, its sphere of action and regulations undergoing, at the same time, repeated changes ; and another thing when, from a pre‑existing institution, an entirely new one takes its rise. It is also different when a newly formed institution takes for its model the views, sphere of action and the social forms of one which has long since come to an end.

 

 I2 THE ANCIENT MYSTERIES having been the model of all later imitations. If, then, Freemasonry in its existing form is regarded as a mere assimilation of the Mysteries, attention should be directed chiefly to the bewitching dreams of the Grecian mythologists which, enhanced by the attractions of poetry and romance, would, naturally, influence the minds of those " men of letters " who, it is asserted, " in the year 1646 " rearranged the forms for the reception of Masonic candidates,‑in preference to the degenerate or corrupted mysteries of a subsequent era. This is a deduction arising from the admission into a Warrington Lodge in 1645 of Elias Ashmole and Colonel Mainwaring, of which Lodge wealthy landowners in the neighbourhood were also members. See England's Masonic Pioneers, by Dudley Wright, pp. 12‑47; and Sandy's Short View of the History of Freemasonry (1829), p. 5 2.

 

On the other hand, if Freemasonry is regarded as the direct descendant, or as a survival of the Mysteries, the peculiarities of the Mithraic worship‑the latest form of paganism which lingered amidst the disjecta membra of the old Roman Empire‑will mainly claim notice. It is almost certain, therefore, that if a set of philosophers in the seventeenth century ransacked antiquity in order to discover a model for their newly‑born Freemasonry, the " Mysteries properly so called" furnished them with the object of their search. Also, that if, without break of continuity, the forms of the Mysteries are now possessed by Freemasons, their origin must be looked for in the rites of Mithraism.

 

The first and original Mysteries appear to have been those of Isis and Osiris in Egypt and it has been conjectured that they were established in Greece somewhere about 1400 B.c., during the sovereignty of Erectheus. The allegorical history of Osiris the Egyptians deemed the most solemn mystery of their religion. Herodotus always mentions it with great caution. It was the record of the misfortunes which had happened to one whose name he never ventures to utter ; and his cautious behaviour with regard to everything connected with Osiris shows that he had been initiated into the mysteries and was fearful of divulging any of the secrets he had solemnly bound himself to keep. Of the ceremonies performed at the initiation into the Egyptian mysteries, we must ever remain ignorant, and Sir Gardner Wilkinson expressly states " that our only means of forming any opinions respecting them are to be derived from our imperfect acquaintance with those of Greece, which were doubtless imitative of the rites practised in Egypt." See Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, 1878, vol. iii, pp. 3 8o, 3 87 ; Herodotus, vol. ii, p. 171.

 

The most celebrated of the Ancient Mysteries were the Orphic, the Bacchic, or Dionysiac, the Eleusinian, the Samothracian, the Cabiric and the Mithraic. The Mysteries were known in Greece as mysteria, teletai and orgia. The last term originally signified sacrifices only, accompanied, of course, by certain ceremonies, but it was afterwards applied especially to the ceremonies observed in the worship of Dionysius and, at a still later period, to Mysteries in general.

 

The Eleusinian were probably a part of the old Pelasgian religion, also those of the Cabiri, celebrated more especially in Thrace. All nations of antiquity THE ANCIENT MYSTERIES 13 appear to have been desirous of concealing some parts of their religious worship from the multitude, in order to render them the more venerated and, in the present case, an additional motive was to veil its celebration from the gaze of their Hellenic conquerors, as the Walpurgis Nights were adopted by the Saxons in Germany, in order to hide their pagan ceremonies from their Christian masters.

 

This practice of concealing rites and ceremonies from the uninitiated was a feature of the worship of the Early Church and it has persisted, to the present day, in some Oriental forms of Christian worship.

 

The Eleusinian were the holiest in Greece and, throughout every particular of those forms in which its Mysteries were concealed, may be discerned the evidences that they were the emblems or, rather, the machinery, of a great system‑a system at once mystical, philosophical and ethical. They were supposed to have been founded by Demeter, Eumolpus, Musxus, or Erectheus, the last named of whom is said to have brought them from Egypt. The story of Demeter is related by Diodorus Siculus and is also referred to by Isocrates. This version of their foundation was the one generally accepted by the ancients. All accounts, however, concur in stating that they originated when Athens was beginning to make progress in agriculture. When Eleusis was conquered by Athens, the inhabitants of the former district surrendered everything but the privilege of conducting the Mysteries. Ample details of the ceremonies observed at Eleusis will be found in The Eleusinian Mysteries and Rites by Dudley Wright.

 

The Mysteries, by the name of whatever god they might be called, were invariably of a mixed nature, beginning in sorrow and ending in joy. They sometimes described the allegorical death and subsequent revivification of the Deity, in whose honour they were celebrated ; whilst, at others, they represented the wanderings of a person in great distress on account of the loss, either of a husband, a lover, a son, or a daughter. It admits of very little doubt that the Mysteries, by whatever name they were called, were all in substance the same.

 

We are informed by Julius Firmicus that, in the nocturnal celebration of the Bacchic rites, a statue was laid out upon a couch as if dead and bewailed with the bitterest lamentations. When a sufficient space of time had been consumed in all the mock solemnity of woe, lights were introduced and the hierophant, having anointed the aspirants, slowly chanted the following distich Courage, ye Mystx, lo, our God is safe, And all our troubles speedily shall end.

 

And the epoptce now passed from the darkness of Tartarus to the divine splendour of Elysium.

 

Lucius, describing his initiation into the Mysteries of Isis, says : " Perhaps, inquisitive reader, you will very anxiously ask me what was then said and done ? I would tell you if it could be lawfully told. I approached to the confines of death and, having trod on the threshold of Proserpine, at midnight I saw the sun shining with a splendid light." He then goes on to say, " that his head was decorously 14 THE ANCIENT MYSTERIES encircled with a crown, the shining leaves of the palm tree projecting from it like rays of light, and that he celebrated the most joyful day of his initiation by delightful, pleasant and facetious banquets." In all the Mysteries there were Degrees or grades. Similar gradations occurred among the Pythagoreans. It was an old maxim of this sect, that everything was not to be told to everybody. It is said that they had common meals, resembling the Spartan syssitia, at which they met in companies of ten and, by some authorities, they were divided into three classes, Acustici, Mathematici, and Physici. It also appears that they had some secret conventional symbols, by which members of the Fraternity could recognize each other, even if they had never met before. See under " Pythagoras " in Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography.

 

That, in all the Mysteries, the initiated possessed secret signs of recognition, is free from doubt. In the Golden Ass of Apuleius, Lucius, the hero of the story, after many vicissitudes, regains his human shape and is initiated into the Mysteries of Isis ; he finds, however, that it is expected of him to be also instructed in those " of the great God and supreme father of the gods, the invincible Osiris." In a dream he perceives one of the officiating priests, of whom he thus speaks : " He also walked gently with a limping step, the ankle bone of his left foot being a little bent, in order that he might afford me some sign by which I might know him " (Taylor's ed., bk. xi, p. 287). In another work (Apologia) the author of the Metamorphosis says : " If any one happens to be present who has been initiated into the same rites as myself, if he will give me the sign, he shall then be at liberty to hear what it is that I keep with so much care." Plautus, too, alludes to this custom in one of his plays (Miles Gloriosus, iv. z), when he says Cedo Signum, harunc si es Baccharum.

 

It has been alleged, but on very insufficient authority, that the Dionysian architects, also said to have been a fraternity of priest and lay architects of Dionysus or Bacchus, present in their internal as well as external procedure the most perfect resemblance to the Society of Freemasons (see Lawrie, History of Freemasonry, 1804, p. 31 ; and Robison's Proofs of a Conspiracy, 1797, p. zo). They seem, says Woodford (in Kenning's Cyclopaedia, p. 163), to have granted honorary membership and admitted speculative members, as we term them ; and it has been asserted that they had grades and secret signs of recognition. The chief interest in their history, however, arises from the claim that has been advanced for their having employed in their ceremonial observances many of the implements which are now used by Freemasons for a similar purpose. In the oldest of the Chinese classics, which embraces a period reaching from the twenty‑fourth to the seventh century before Christ, we meet with distinct allusions to the symbolism of the mason's art. But " even if we begin," says H. A. Giles (Freemasonry in China, p. 4), " where the `Book of History' ends, we find curious Masonic expressions to have been in use ‑at any rate in the written language‑more than seven hundred years before the Christian era ; that is to say, only about a couple of hundred years after the death THE ANCIENT MYSTERIES 15 of King Solomon himself. But, inasmuch as there are no grounds whatever for impugning the authentic character of that work, as connected with periods much more remote, this would give to speculative Masonry a far higher antiquity than has ever yet been claimed." In a famous canonical work, called The Great Learning, which Dr. Legge (The Chinese Classics, vol. i, Proleg., p. 27) says may safely be referred to the fifth century before our era, we read that a man should abstain from doing unto others what he would not they should do unto him ; " and this," adds the writer, " is called the principle of acting on the square." Giles also quotes from Confucius, 481 B.c. and from his great follower, Mencius, who flourished nearly two hundred years later. In the writings of the last‑named philosopher, it is taught that men should apply the square and compasses figuratively to their lives and the level and the marking‑line besides, if they would walk in the straight and even paths of wisdom and keep themselves within the bounds of honour and virtue. In Book VI of his philosophy we find these words A master mason, in teaching his apprentices, makes use of the compasses and the square. Ye who are engaged in the pursuit of wisdom must also make use of the compasses and the square.

 

The origin, rites and meaning of the worship of Mithras are extremely obscure. The authorities differ as to the exact period of its introduction into Rome ; Von Hammer (Mithraica, 1833, p. 21), placing it at 68 B.c., whilst, by other historians, a later date has been assigned. It speedily, however, became so popular as, with the earlier‑imported Serapis worship, to have entirely usurped the place of the ancient Hellenic and Italian deities. In fact, during the second and third centuries of the Empire, Serapis and Mithras may be said to have become the sole objects of worship, even in the remotest corners of the Roman world. " There is very good reason to believe," says King (The Gnostics and their Remains, p. 47), " that, as in the East, the worship of Serapis was, at first, combined with Christianity and gradually merged into it with an entire change of name, not substance, carrying with it many of its ancient notions and rites ; so, in the West, a similar influence was exerted by the Mithraic religion. There is no record of their final overthrow and many have supposed that the faith in " Median Mithras " survived into comparatively modern times in heretical and semi‑pagan forms of Gnosticism ; although, as Elton points out (Origins of English History, p. 3 S 1), we must assume that its authority was destroyed or confined to the country districts when the pagan worships were finally forbidden by law.

 

By authors who attempt to prove that all secret fraternities form but the successive links of one unbroken chain, it is alleged that the esoteric doctrines which in Egypt, in Persia, and in Greece preserved the speculations of the wise from the ears and tongues of illiterate multitude, passed, with slight modifications, into the possession of the early Christian heretics ; from the Gnostic schools of Syria and Egypt to their successors the Manichxans ; and that from these through 16 THE ESSENES the Paulicians, Albigenses and Templars, they have been bequeathed to the modern Freemasons.

 

According to Mackey, an instance of the transmutation of Gnostic talismans into Masonic symbols, by a gradual transmission through alchemy, Rosicrucianism and medixval architecture, is afforded by a plate in the A.Zoth Philosophorum of Basil Valentine, the Hermetic philosopher, who flourished in the seventeenth century. This plate, which is hermetic in its design, but is full of Masonic symbolism, represents a winged globe inscribed with a triangle within a square and on it reposes a dragon. On the latter stands a human figure of two hands and two heads, surrounded by the sun, the moon and five stars, representing the seven planets. One of the heads is that of a male, the other of a female. The hand attached to the male part of the figure holds the compasses, that to the female a square. The square and compasses thus distributed appear to have convinced Dr. Mackey (see his Encyclopaedia, under article " Talisman ") that originally a phallic meaning was attached to these symbols, as there was to the point within the circle, which in this plate also appears in the centre of the globe. " The compasses held by the male figure would represent the male generative principle and the square held by the female, the female productive principle. The subsequent interpretation given to the combined square and compasses was the transmutation from the hermetic talisman to the Masonic symbol." II. THE ESSENES " The problem of the Essenes," says De Quincey (Essay on Secret Societies), " is the most important and, from its mysteriousness, the most interesting, but the most difficult of all known historic problems." The current information upon this remarkable sect, to be found in ecclesiastical histories and encyclopxdias, is derived from the short notices of Philo, Pliny, Josephus, Solinus, Porphyry, Eusebius and Epiphanius. Of these seven witnesses, the first and third were Jewish philosophers ; the second, fourth, and fifth, heathen writers ; and the last two, Christian church historians. The Masonic student is referred to C. D. Ginsburg's The Essenes : their History and Doctrines, 18 64, also to the series of articles which appeared in vols. lxi and lxii of The Freemason, i9zi and 1922.

 

According to Creuzer (Symbolik, vol. iv, p. 433), the Colleges of Essenes and Megabyzx at Ephesus, the Orphics of Thrace and the Curetes of Crete are all branches of one antique and common religion ; and that originally Asiatic. King (The Gnostics and their Remains, pp. i‑3, 17 z) says, " the priests of the Ephesian Diana were called Essenes, or Hessenes‑from the Arabic Hassan, pure‑in virtue of the strict chastity they were sworn to observe during the twelvemonth they held that office. Such ascetism is entirely an Indian institution, was developed fully in the sect flourishing under the same name around the Dead Sea and springing from the same root as the mysterious religion at Ephesus." Krause (Dei drei Aeltesten Kunsturkunden, bk. i, pt. i, p. i 17) finds in the THE ESSENES 17 earliest Masonic ritual, which he dates at A.D. 926 (from being mentioned in the York Constitutions of that year), evidence of customs " obviously taken from the usages of the Roman Colleges and other sources, that individually agree with the customs and doctrines of the Essenes, Stoics and the Soofees of Persia." This writer draws especial attention to the " agreement of the brotherhood of the Essenes with the chief doctrines which the Culdees associated with the three great lights of the Lodge (ibid., p. I I7). He then observes " that though coincidences, without any actual connexion, are of little value, yet, if it can be historically proved that the one society knew of the other, the case is altered." Having, then, clearly established (at least to his own satisfaction) that the Culdees were the authors of the 926 Constitutions, he next argues that they knew of and copied in many respects the Essenes and Therapeutx ; after which he cites Philo in order to establish that the three fundamental doctrines of the Essenes were Love of God, Love of Virtue and Love of Mankind.

 

These he compares with the phases of moral conduct, symbolized in Masonic Lodges by the Bible, square and compasses ; and, as he assumes that the " Three Great Lights " have always been the same and argues all through his book that Freemasonry has inherited its tenets or philosophy from the Culdees, the doctrinal parallel which he has drawn of the two religious systems becomes, from his point of view, of the highest interest. Connecting in turn the Essenes with the Soofees of Persia, Krause still further lengthens the Masonic pedigree.

 

Although the Soofee tenets are involved in mystery, they had secrets and mysteries for every gradation, which were never revealed to the profane. (See Malcolm's History of Persia, 1829, vol. ii, p. 281.) But there seems reason to believe that their doctrine " involved the grand idea of one universal creed, which could be secretly held under any profession of an outward faith ; and, in fact, took virtually the same view of religious systems as that in which the ancient philosophers had regarded such matters " (King, The Gnostics and their Remains, p. 185).

 

" Traces of the Soofee doctrine," says Sir John Malcolm, " exist, in some shape or other, in every region of the world. It is to be found in the most splendid theories of the ancient schools of Greece and of the modern philosophers of Europe. It is the dream of the most ignorant and of the most learned " (op. Cit., vol. ii, p. 267) It remains to be noticed that, by one writer, the introduction of Essenism into Britain has been actually described and the argumentative grounds on which this speculation is based afford, perhaps, not an unfair specimen of the ordinary reasoning which has linked the principles of this ancient sect with those of more modern institutions. Algernon Herbert (Britannia after the Romans, 1836, vol. i, pp. 120‑5 ; vol. ii, pp. 75‑92) contends that St. Germanus, on his visits to England, for the purpose of extirpating the Pelagian heresy, found that the doctrines which Pelagius had imbibed from the Origenists were, as far as they went, agreeable to those Britons among whom the notions of Druidism still lingered, or were beginning to revive ; but they had been framed by him in the form and character of a Christian sect and did not include the heathenish portion of Origenism, though I 18 THE ROMAN COLLEGIA the latter was so far identical with Druidism, that both were modifications of Pythagorism.

 

The description of the Essenes given in Lawrie's History of Freemasonry, 1804 (PP‑ 33‑9) has been followed for the most part in later Masonic works. It was based mainly on Basnage's History of the Jews, bk. ii. Of this last writer Dr. Ginsburg says, he mistook the character of the Essenes and confounds the brotherhood with the Therapeut e, hence asserting that " they borrowed several superstitions from the Egyptians, among whom they retired " (p. 66).

 

III. THE ROMAN COLLEGIA The leading authorities for this section are Heineccius, De Collegiis et Corporibvs Opificvm, Opera omnia, Geneva, 1766, vol. ii, pp. 368‑418 ; J. F. Massman, Libellus Aurarius, Leipsic, 1840, pp. 74‑85 ; Smith, Diet. of Antiquities, titles, " Collegium," " Societas," " Universitas " ; H. C. Coote, The Romans of Britain, 1878, pp. 383‑413. The precision observed by Massman is very remarkable‑no fewer than forty‑five footnotes appearing on a single page (78).

 

The Roman " colleges " were designated by the name either of collegium or corpus, between which there was no legal distinction and corporations were as frequently described by one title as by the other. A classification of these bodies will the better enable us in any subsequent investigation to consider the features which they possessed in common. They may be grouped in four leading divisions (a) Religious bodies, such as the College of Priests and the Vestal Virgins.

 

(b) Associations of official persons, such as those who were employed in administration, e.g. the body of Scribce, who were employed in all branches of administration.

 

(c) Corporations for trade and commerce, as Fabri (workmen in iron or other hard materials), Pistores (bakers), Navicularii, etc., the members of which had a common profession, trade, or craft upon which their union was based, although every man worked on his own account.

 

(d) Associations, called Sodalitates, Sodalitia, Collegia Sodalitia, which resembled modern clubs. In their origin they were friendly leagues or unions for feasting together, but, in course of time, many of them became political associations ; but from this it must not be concluded that their true nature really varied. They were associations not included in any other class that has been enumerated ; and they differed in their character according to the times. In periods of commotion they became the central points of political factions. Sometimes the public places were crowded by the Sodalitia and Decuriati and the Senate was at last compelled to propose a lex which should subject to the penalties of Vis (see Smith's Dictionary, p. 1 zoo, tit. " Vis ") those who would not disperse. This was followed by a general dissolution of collegia, according to some writers, but the dissolution only extended to mischievous associations.

 

 THE ROMAN COLLEGIA z9 There were also in the Imperial period the Collegia tenuiorum, or associations of poor people, but they were allowed to meet only once a month and they paid monthly contributions. A man could only belong to one of them. Slaves could belong to such a collegium, with the permission of their masters.

 

The following were their general characteristics i. The collegium (or societas), which corresponded with the hetaria of the Greeks, was composed of collega or sodales (companions). The term originally expressed the notion of several persons being voluntarily bound together for some common office or purpose, but ultimately came to signify a body of persons and the tie uniting them.

 

z. A lawfully constituted " college" was legitimum‑an unlawful one, illicitum. The distinction is not clearly laid down. Some of these institutions were established by especial laws and others, no doubt, were formed by the voluntary association of individuals under the provisions of some general legal authority.

 

3. No college could consist of fewer than three members. So indispensable was this rule that the expression tres faciunt collegium‑" three make a college"became a maxim of the civil law.

 

4. In its constitution the college was divided into decurice and centuricz‑bodies of ten and a hundred men ; and it was presided over by a magister and by decuriones ‑a master and wardens.

 

S . Amongst other officers there were a treasurer, sub‑treasurer, secretary and archivist.

 

6. In their corporate capacity the sodales could hold property. They had a common chest, a common cult, a meeting‑house and a common table.

 

7. To each candidate, on his admission, was administered an oath peculiar to the college. Palgrave, in Rise and Progress of the English Commonwealth, says that peculiar religious rites were also practised, perhaps with a veil of secrecy ; and those forms of worship constituted an additional bond of union. When a new member was received, he was said‑co‑optari and the old members were said, with respect to him, recipere in collegium.

 

8. Dues and subscriptions were imposed to meet the expenses of the college.

 

9. The sodales supported their poor and buried their deceased brethren. The latter were publicly interred in a common sepulchre or columbarium, all the survivors being present. Members were not liable for the debts of their college, but the property of the college itself could be seized. They could sue or be sued by their syndicus or actor.

 

io. Each college celebrated its natal day‑a day called cares, cognationis‑and two other days, called, severally, dies violarum and dies rose (see Coote, The Romans in Britain, p. 388).

 

i i. The sodales called and regarded themselves as fratres. "For amongst them," says Coote, " existed the dear bond of relationship which, though artificial, was that close alliance which a common sentiment can make. This it was which, in defiance of blood, they called cara cognatio." This bond of connexion the civil 20 THE CULDEES law ratified and extended ; for, allowing the assumption of kinship, it imposed on the sodales another duty in addition to those already taken, by compelling any one of them to accept the guardianship of the child of a deceased colleague. The fratres arvales formed a college of twelve persons, deriving their name from offering sacrifices for the fertility of the fields, the victim (hostia ambarvalis) that was slain on the occasion being led three times round the cornfield before the sickle was put to the corn. This ceremony was also called a lustratio or purification. Krause says, " that although the college did not especially call one another ` brother,' yet the appellation does occur and that the college was formed on the model of a family " (Die drei Kunsturkunden der Freimaurerbruderschaft, vol. ii, pt. ii, p. 166).

 

Although no rules are extant of any of the trade colleges of the Romans, some of those in use among the colleges Cultorum Dei have descended to us. Of one of these last‑mentioned corporations the rules or by‑laws are given by Coote, who next cites corresponding regulations of three guilds (or, as he prefers to style them, Colleges) established in London, Cambridge and Exeter respectively, composed of gentlemen or persons unconnected with trade ; and, having carefully compared the rules of the British guilds with those of the college of cultores dei already quoted, their resemblances are placed in formal juxtaposition and he adds, " These coincidences, which cannot be attributed to imitation or mere copying, demonstrate the absolute identity of the gild of England with the collegium of Rome and of Roman Britain " (The Romans in Britain, pp. 390‑413).

 

Stieglitz, in his History of Architecture, divides the influence of the early colleges or corporations upon British and Continental Masonry respectively. In England, he thinks it possible that the colleges may have influenced the Brotherhood in their external development, but he records a tradition that at the time the Lombards were in possession of Northern Italy, from the sixth to the seventh century, the Byzantine builders formed themselves into guilds and associations and that, on account of having received from the Popes the privilege of living according to their own laws and ordinances, they were called Freemasons. If, indeed, any direct continuation of the Collegia can be shown, it must be through the guilds or fraternities of Britain or of Southern France. The Roman Law remained in force in Southern France throughout all vicissitudes of government and, at the Revolution, it consolidated its authority by superseding the Feudal law of the North, in Pays Costumier.

 

IV. THE CULDEES Dr. J. Lanigaw, in his Ecclesiastical History of Ireland (1822, vol. iv, p. 295), has declared that " if ever subjects plain and easy in themselves have been distorted, misrepresented and corrupted through ignorance and religious prejudice, the [Culdeel question merits a distinguished place among them." Yet, although the simplicity of the inquiry in its original bearings, when unweighted with " the obstruction of ingenious theory, professional prejudice and ecclesiastical pre‑ THE CULDEES 21 dilections," has also been deposed to by the highest living authority among Irish antiquaries (Dr. W. Reeves of Armagh, author of The Culdees of the British Islands as they appear in History, 1864), the labours of over fifty writers who have taken up the subject, including those of Dr. Reeves himself, attest by their many points of divergence the substantial difficulties of the investigation.

 

Great stress has been laid by Dr. Reeves on the " national error " of supposing the Culdees to have been a peculiar order, who derived their origin from St. Columba ; or, in other words, that they were " Columbites," in the same sense that we speak of " Benedictines " and he contends that, though after the lapse of centuries Culdees were found in churches which St. Columba or his disciples founded, still their name was in no way distinctive, being, in the first instance, an epithet of asceticism and afterwards that of irregularity.

 

Many learned men have believed that there was some connexion between the Culdees and the Roman collegia, or the esoteric teaching of Phcenician or Eastern confraternities. This belief, indeed, has mainly arisen from the profound speculations of Krause, whose conclusions have been too hastily adopted by many German writers of distinction, whence they have in turn penetrated to this country (see Kunsturkunden, bk. i, pt. ii, p. 3 5 8 ; bk. ii, pt. i, p. 468).

 

In his laboured Inquiry into the Origin of all Languages, Nations and Religions, Higgins, the industrious author of the Anacalypsis, finds room for many allusions to Freemasonry. According to his view, the Essenes, the Druids and the Culdees were all Freemasons in progressive stages of development. Higgins says : " I request my reader to think upon the Culidei or Culdees in the crypt of the Cathedral of York, at Ripon and in Scotland and Ireland‑that these Culdees or Chaldeans were masons, mathematici, builders of the Temple of Solomon ; and that the country where Ellis found access to the temple in South India (referring to the statement that this member of the Madras Civil Service, in the capacity of a Free mason, had actually passed himself into the sacred part, or adytum, of one of the Indian temples, Anacalypsis, 1836, vol. i, p. 767) was called Colida and Uria; that the religion of Abraham's descendants was that of Ras ; that Masonry in that country is called Raj or Mystery ; that we have also found the Colida and most other of these matters on the Jumna, a thousand miles distant in North India and, when he has considered all these matters, as it is clear that one must have bor rowed from the other, let him determine the question‑Did York and Scotland borrow from the Jumna and Carnatic, or the Jumna and Carnatic from them ? " In another work Higgins says : " The Culdees were the last remains of the Druids, who had been converted to Christianity before the Roman Church got any footing in Britain. They were Pythagoreans, Druidical monks, probably Essenes and this accounts for their easily embracing Christianity ; for the Essenes were as nearly Christians as possible " (The Celtic Druids, the Priests of the Nations who Emigrated from India, 1829, p. zos). Higgins is in error in his statement that the Druids were converted to Christianity before the Roman Church got any footing in Britain. There is abundant historical, even epistolary, evidence to the contrary.

 

 22 THE CULDEES The most remarkable, however, of all theories connecting the Culdees with the Freemasons was advanced by the Hon. Algernon Herbert in 1844 and has been characterized by Dr. Reeves " as a strange combination of originality and learning, joined to wild theory and sweeping assertion " (see British Magazine, vol. xxvi, pp. 1‑13). According to this writer, under the shell of orthodoxy, Culdeism con tained a heterodox kernel, which consisted of secret rites and the practice of human sacrifice.

 

" Taking the question," he says, " as against the Culdees to be whether or not they had secret mysteries inconsistent with the orthodoxy of their outward profession, we may approach it in two ways‑the external, or testimony directly bearing on the fact of their having such secrets ; and the internal, or indications of specific evils appearing in the course of their history. The first mode resolves itself into this question : Are they charged with having secrets ? They are, both by ancients and moderns, although the fact of their being so is neither notorious nor prominent." We are next informed that " they made their appearance in the Continent under Colman or Columban in A.D. 589. Whilst in Burgundy, the courtiers of the king inflamed him against the man of God and urged him to go and examine into his religion. The king accordingly went to the monastery of Luxeuil and demanded of the holy abbot why he departed from the manners of the rest of the province and 2vhy access within the more secret enclosure was not permitted to all Christians 1 He also went on to say that if Columban wished the royal support, all persons must be admitted into all places. The man of God replied, If you come hither for the purpose of destroying the ccenobia of the servants of God and casting a stain on the regular discipline, know that your kingdom will entirely fall and perish." " From this statement it appears that the early Culdees excluded strangers from their septa secretioria in such a manner as was unknown in Burgundy and dissonant from the mores comprovinciales, sufficing to raise up doubts of their religion, and ` cast a stain upon their rule' ; and that Columban neither denied, nor explained, nor in any way modified the circumstances complained of. He might have denied the peculiarity of his system and shown that the Gallican or comprovincial usages permitted it ; or he might have maintained its general expediency, whilst inviting the most searching investigation of his secret places, things and practices, by a commission of holy bishops, or other suitable persons : he might, in some way, have sought his own compurgation and exposed his calumniators, but he did not. All this amounts to the substance of the proposition sought for‑viz. that their system was actually censured of old, not for this or that evil, but for the secrecy which may (if abused) cloak any evil whatsoever." In the view of the same writer, " the most remarkable incident to Culdeism is the idea of human sacrifice " ; and the legend of St. Oran is subjected to minute criticism. " Poor Oran," he says, " was overwhelmed, and an end for ever put to his prating." In Donald Mackintosh's Collection of Gaelic Proverbs occurs one which reads : " Earth ! Earth 1 on the mouth of Oran, that he may not blab more." Hence we learn that the mysteries of early Culdeism, as known to those who had THE CULDEES 23 penetrated into the septa secretioria, contained an acknowledgment of the falsehood of the Christian religion as outwardly taught by the Culdees. The founder suppressed those dangerous avowals. But on what grounds ? Solely because the blabbing of secrets, so manifestly true as Oran's resurrection might seem to make them, was impolitic. Double doctrine, maintained by organic secrecy (and that secrecy vindicated by murder), is as clearly set forth in the traditions of Columba as any sovereign Prince of Heredom could ever have desired it to be in the mysteries framed " first at Icolmkill." Herbert here quotes from a French Masonic work, in which, what is spoken of as the eighteenth Degree is declared to have been established " first at Icolmkill " and afterwards at Kilwinning (see British Magazine, vol. xxvi, p. 12).

 

Herbert further contends that the stories and proverbs he has adduced show that some such ideas were once connected with Culdeism. But if, subsequently to Adamnan and Bede, no such opinions prevailed either in books or in vulgar estimation, these legends must date from anterior times and from the very beginning. " When general charges exist against a body and are believed by many, any given tale to their prejudice may be false and of recent invention. But, if no such general opinion prevails, or hath prevailed at any known time, specific tales or proverbs involving that opinion must flow from the fountain head. This latter proposition is the more certain when the things said of the parties are not said against them. But the legend of St. Oran was evidently not commemorated to their prejudice. No inferences were drawn from it, the consequences which it involves were not evolved and the reputation which it tends to fix upon them did not adhere to them." CHAPTER II THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS THE ancient documents handed down from the operative masons in Great Britain and Germany respectively‑all generically described under the misleading title of " Constitutions "‑require to be examined carefully and described separately. The so‑called " Constitutions," peculiar to England and Scotland, contain legends or traditional history, which are not to be found in the regulations or working statutes of the latter country, nor do they appear in the Ordinances of the Craft either in France or Germany. The only point of identity between the English and German Constitutions in the shape of legend or tradition is the reference to the " Four Holy Crowned Martyrs," but as they are only mentioned in one of the English versions and then merely in that portion of the MS. devoted to religious duties, the thread that connects them is a very slender one indeed. It will be found that, as a general rule, early documents of the guilds or crafts commence with .an invocation of saintly patronage and the " Holy Martyrs " were not monopolized in this respect by the masons of Germany, as they were the assumed patrons of numerous other fraternities. Nor can it be maintained, with any show of reason, that the slender thread of union already cited at all warrants the conclusion that the English Masons derived the legend of the " Quatuor Coronati " from their German Brethren. The British Constitutions, or " Old Charges," have indeed neither predecessors nor rivals and their peculiar characteristics will be found, in truth, amply to warrant the detailed examination which follows.

 

By no other craft in Great Britain has documentary evidence been furnished of its having claimed at any time a legendary or traditional history. Oral testimony of any real antiquity is also wanting when it is sought to maintain that the British Freemasons are not singular in the preservation of their old legends. The amusing pretensions of certain benefit societies do not affect the claim, for no " traditions " of these associations can be traced historically to a period sufficiently remote to prove their independent origin ; the probability being that they are all modern adaptations of Masonic traditions and customs.

 

In saying " no other craft," the French Compagnons are excluded from consideration. They were afterwards members of all crafts, though, in the first instance, the association was confined to the masons and carpenters. Not that the " Compagnons " were without legendary histories, but they now possess no early writings with which we can compare the " Old Charges of British Freemasons," as the " Constitutions " under examination have been aptly termed by W. J. Hughan, the Masonic author whose labours have been the longest sustained in this branch of archaeological research.

 

24 THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS 25 The legends peculiar to the Compagnonage have been lightly passed over by Masonic and other historians. This is in a great measure to be accounted for, no doubt, by the absence of any literature bearing on the subject until a comparatively recent date. Authors of repute have merely alluded to this obscure subject in the most casual way and, virtually, the customs and legends of this association were quite unknown to the outer world, until the appearance of a small work in 1841, by Agricol Perdiguier, entitled Le Livre du Compagnonage. The leading features of the Compagnonage are given by Dr. Mackey in his Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, pp. I79‑8I (Philadelphia, 1874). The subject is also discussed, though at less length, by Woodford and Kenneth R. H. Mackenzie, in the excellent Cyclopeedias for which they are responsible.

 

Perdiguier, who was a Compagnon, writes of the organization as a Freemason would of Freemasonry, i.e. without disclosing aught of an esoteric character ; but the legends and customs are carefully described. The analogies between distinctive portions of the English and French legends occur too frequently and are too strongly marked to be accidental. If, then, we may assume that certain legends were afloat in early days of the Compagnonage, anterior to the date of our earliest British Constitution‑the " Halliwell," circa 139o‑the following is the result In the fourteenth century there is, on the one hand, an organization (the Compagnons) in full activity, though without manuscript Constitutions, or legends, which has endured to this day. On the other hand, there is documentary evidence satisfactorily proving that the legendary history of the English Masons was not only enshrined in tradition, but was embalmed in their records. Yet we have little or no evidence of the activity of English Masons in their Lodges at so early a period, beyond what is inferentially supplied by the testimony of these Old Charges or Constitutions, which form the subject of the present investigation.

 

On the‑whole, it may reasonably be concluded that the Compagnons of the Middle Ages preserved legends of their own which were not derived from the Freemasons (or Masons) ; and the latter, doubtless, assembled in Lodges, although Acts of Parliament and other historical records are provokingly silent upon the point.

 

But if the legends of the Compagnonage were not derivative, can the same be said of those which have been preserved by the Masons ? The points of similarity are so varied and distinct, that if it be conceded that the present legends of the two bodies have been faithfully transmitted from their ancestors of the Middle Ages, the inference is irresistible, either that the Masons borrowed from the Compagnons, or that the traditions of both associations are inherited from a common original.

 

At no previous period have equal facilities been afforded for a study of these " Old Charges of British Freemasons," either as respects their particular character, or their relations to the Compagnonage and other organizations, Masonic or otherwise. Until the middle of the nineteenth century barely ten copies were known to be in existence, but since i 86o (chiefly through the zeal of W. J. Hughan, who published the result of his labours in 1872 and the patient and discriminative 26 THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS research of the Rev. A. F. A. Woodford) more than double that number have been brought to light. Many extracts from manuscripts, which were missing, have now been noted and all references to such documents, for the last two hundred years, have been duly arranged and their precise nature estimated.

 

Without an exception, all these " Old Charges " have been carefully collated and their points of agreement and divergence as far as possible extracted, in order that their value as ancient Masonic chronicles may accurately be gauged. One at least of these MSS., possibly two, date before the introduction of the printing press. Of the remainder, some twenty were in circulation amongst the Masonic Lodges prior to the last century, the majority being over two hundred years old and all being copies of still older documents.

 

No two of the MSS. are exactly alike, though there is a substantial agreement between them all and evidently they had a common origin, just as they were designed to serve a common purpose. As it is probable that each Lodge, prior to the last century, had one of these " Old Charges " amongst its effects, which was read to an apprentice on his introduction to the Craft, it is almost certain that additional scrolls still await discovery, the only wonder being, that considering how numerous the Lodges must have been, so few have yet been traced. Possibly, however, the " several very valuable manuscripts concerning the Fraternity (particularly one written by Nicholas Stone, the warden of Inigo Jones), too hastily burned by some scrupulous brothers " (this statement of Dr. Anderson must be accepted with reserve), mainly consisted of forms of the " Old Charges." When and how the first of these documents was compiled, or by whom, it is impossible now to decide, for we possess no autographic versions of the Masonic Constitutions.

 

It will be desirable to furnish something like a detailed account of the copies extant and, in order to do so, Hughan's Old Charges (which, singular to state, contains the only collection ever published of these ancient Constitutions) has been consulted ; also the remarkable preface to that work, by the Rev. A. F. A. Woodford. Since the issue of this volume in 1872, additional MSS. have been discovered ; so, for the sake of perspicuity and general convenience, they will all be considered seriatim, according to their actual or supposed age, each being indicated by a number for facility of reference, which number has been prefixed to their popular titles. An alphabetical classification was adopted by Hughan, but these transcripts are now so numerous, that no single alphabet would suffice for the purpose.

 

As many of these old MSS. are undated, their age is partly a matter of conjecture ; but it may be assumed that the periods of origin herein assigned approximate closely to the actual dates. Preference has been given to the testimony of such independent paleographical authorities as Edward A. Bond (late principal librarian of the British Museum) and other non‑Masonic " experts," to the possibly interested opinions of those connected with the Fraternity and the antiquity of these or any other documents relating to Freemasonry has not been overstated. Whilst anxious, however, to disconnect such ancient writings from modern adaptations and erroneous interpretations, there is no minimizing of appreciation of their importance and value, THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS 27 as the repertories of time‑honoured traditions and regulations. Even regarded in this light alone, these old legends and traditions, these bygone usages and regulations of the operative guilds, thus happily preserved, have and always must have for all thoughtful Freemasons, the deepest value and the most lasting interest.

 

The classification adopted consists of three divisions, which will include all the versions, viz. (A) originals ; (B) late transcripts ; (C) printed copies, extracts, or references. An asterisk denotes that the date is an approximation.

 

(A) MS. VERSIONS OF THE "OLD CHARGES" 1. " HALLIWELL." *14th Century. British Museum (Bib. Reg., 17A I).

 

Early History of Freemasonry in England, by J. O. Halliwell, Esq., F.R.S., London, 1840 and 1844 ; Dr. C. W. Asher, Hamburg, 1842, and other reprints. Masonic Magazine, London, 1874, etc. (modernized). A small MS. on vellum, about 5 inches by 4 inches, bound in russia, having thereon G. R. II, 1757 and the royal arms. It formerly belonged to Charles Theyer, a noted collector of the seventeenth century and is No. 146 in his catalogue, as described in Bernard's Manuscribtorum Anglite (p. 200, col. 2). Soon afterwards it was placed in the Old Royal Library, founded by King Henry VII, for the princes of the blood royal, comprising nearly 12,000 volumes, the munificent gift of His Majesty George II to the nation, A.D. 1757. In A Catalogue of the Manuscripts of the King's Library (London, 1734), by David Casley (deputy‑librarian of the Cottonian Library), the MS. is erroneously entitled A Poem of Moral Duties and it was not until April 18, 1839, that its chief contents were made known in a very suggestive paper by Halliwell (Phillips), " On the Introduction of Freemasonry into England," read before the Society of Antiquaries, which will be found in the Proceedings of that body, session 1838‑9. See Archceologia, vol. xxviii, p. 444. Casley, who was considered an accurate judge of the age of MSS., ascribed it to the fourteenth century and the learned editor of the poem considers it was written not later than the latter part of that century. E. A. Bond places it at the middle of the fifteenth century ; Dr. Kloss between 1427 and 1445. Halliwell believes he is right in stating " that this is the earliest document yet brought to light connected with the progress of Freemasonry in Great Britain " and, apart from " Fabric Rolls " and similar records, he is doubtless justified in making the claim. The Rev. A. F. A. Woodford says : " The poem is of high antiquity. . . . If ever Pars Oculi turns up, an old poem, now missing, from which John Myre borrowed his poem, a portion of which is found in the Masonic poem (and Myre wrote in 1420), we shall probably find that it is Norman‑French, or Latin originally " (The Freemason, November 18 79).

 

2. " COOKE." *15th Century. British Museum (Addl. MSS. 23,198).

 

Published by R. Spencer, London, 1861 and edited by Matthew Cooke, hence its title. It was purchased from a Mrs. Caroline Baker, October 14, 1859, for the National Collection and its original cover of wood remains, with the rough twine connecting the vellum sheets, apparently as sewn some four hundred years ago. In size it resembles its senior (MS. 1) ; the reproduction by Spencer, excepting the facsimile at the beginning, being an amplification of the original.

 

Bond's estimate is, " Early 15th Century " and there seems to be no reason z8 THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS to differ from him, although some authorities have sought to refer it to the latter part of that century, because there are several references in the MS. to the Policronicon. It has been too hastily assumed that Caxton's celebrated work of A.D. 1482 is the one thus alluded to (Findel makes this erroneous statement and others have copied from him), the fact being lost sight of, that, whilst the first typographical edition was not issued until that year, the compilation itself, from certain old Latin chronicles, is supposed to have been arranged by Roger, a Benedictine monk of St. Werburgh's Abbey, in Chester, early in the previous century. It was soon afterwards enlarged by Ranulph Higden of the same monastery, styled a Polycronicon, or Universal History and was brought down to his own time. He died about A.D. 13 6o. The earliest edition is believed to have been issued in 1342 and numerous Latin transcripts were in circulation, as well as a translation in English prose, by John de Trevisa (chaplain to the Earl of Berkeley) during the same century. There will be occasion to refer to these later on, but there is no evidence whatever of any printed work being alluded to in this quaint chronicle (MS. z). Findel terms it the " Cooke‑Baker document," simply on the ground that Dr. Rawlinson, about 1730, spoke of a MS. being in the possession of a Mr. Baker, but the latter was in the form of a Roll, whereas the Cooke MS. never was ; hence such a title is both misleading and improper.

 

 3. " LANSDOWNE." *16th Century. British Museum (No. 98, Art. 48).

 

Published in Freemasons' Magazine (February z4, 18 5 8) and Hughan's Old Charges (p. 31), but not in the Freemasons' Magazine, 1794, as stated by M. Cooke and other writers, neither is it dated 156o as Fort asserts. Bond sets it down at about 16oo and by all authorities it is considered to be of a very early date, probably of the middle or latter half of the sixteenth century, as these " Free Masons Orders and Constitutions " are believed to have been part of the collectioh made by Lord Burghley (Secretary of State, temp. Edward VI and Lord High Treasurer, temp.

 

Elizabeth), who died A.D. 15 98.

 

The MS. is contained on the inner sides of three sheets and a half of stout paper, 11 inches by 15, making in all seven folios, many of the principal words being in large letters of an ornamental character (see Hughan's Masonic Sketches, part z, p. z1). Sims (MS. Department of the British Museum) does not consider these " Orders " ever formed a Roll, though there are indications of the sheets having been stitched together at the top and paper or vellum was used for additional protection. It has evidently " seen service" and is entitled to the third place in order of actual transcription. The catalogue of the Lansdowne MSS., A.D. 1812, fol. 19o, has the following note on the contents of this document‑" No. 48. A very foolish legendary account of the original of the order of Freemasonry," in the handwriting, it is said, of Sir Henry Ellis. The Lansdowne MSS. are so called in honour of the Marquess of Lansdowne. On his death the MSS., consisting of 1,245 vols., were purchased in 1807 by a Parliamentary grant of 04,925.

 

 4. " GRAND LODGE." A.D. 15 83. Grand Lodge of England.

 

First published by Hughan in his Old Charges. This roll of parchment (9 feet in length and 5 inches in breadth) was purchased by the Board of General Purposes, THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS 29 for the Library and Museum, in 1839, for the sum of Cz5, from Miss Siddall, the granddaughter of Thomas Dunckerley's second wife. At the time of purchase it was declared to be " dated 25th December 1183, in the twenty‑ninth year of Henry II ; and that this date is nearly correct may be inferred from the writing, which is the court hand of that time." After describing its character, the same writer asserts that it contains " the ancient Charges as agreed on at the Grand Lodge, held at York A.D. (about) 926." This appears to have been too much even for the Rev. Dr. Oliver to accept for, on the Roll being shown to him, he placed it as late as the time of Elizabeth, in this respect differing from the writer of the article (see Freemasons' Quarterly Review, 1842, p. 149). A careful examination of the manuscript itself, however, reveals the fact that the date is " Scriptum anno domini 1583, Die Decembris 250." In early days, figures were not always traced with mathematical precision and the mistake in reading five for one may be accounted for in many ways. On the reverse of the scroll occurs the first verse of the 1st chapter of John (" Whose sacred and universal law I will endeavour to observe, so help me God "), in Dunckerley's handwriting (it is said), so that it may be easily surmised what use he made of the Roll as an ardent Royal Arch Mason.

 

 5. "York, No. i." *17th Century. The York Lodge, No. 236, York.

 

Published in Hughan's Old Charges and Masonic Magazine (August 1873). In an inventory of the effects of the Grand Lodge of All England (extinct), held at York, six copies of the Old Charges were catalogued, five of which are now carefully treasured by the York Lodge. They were numbered one to six without respect to their relative antiquity for, though the first is certainly the oldest, the second is the junior of the series. The senior is thus described in the Inventory of A.D. 1779 ‑" No. i. A parchment roll in three slips, containing the Constitutions of Masonry and, by an endorsement, appears to have been found in Pontefract Castle at the demolition and given to the Grand Lodge by Brother Drake " (1736). It was used as a roll, measuring about 7 feet in length and 5 inches in width. Francis Drake, F.R.S., was a native of Pontefract, of which place both his father and grandfather had been in turn the vicar. His great‑grandfather, prior to his ordination, was a Royalist officer and his diary of the siege was published some years ago by the Surtees Society. The history of this MS. and that of the last on the inventory, after the Grand Lodge at York died out, has been a singular one. They had been lost sight of by the York Brethren for several years. Hughan, whose sight was preternaturally keen when Masonic MSS. were being searched for, at last identified the " wanderers " at Freemasons' Hall, London, through their description in the inventory and,.having announced his discovery to the members of the York Lodge, who had become possessed of the bulk of the archives formerly appertaining to the Grand Lodge of that city, they made application to the then Grand Master, the Earl of Zetland, for the two Rolls. He willingly acceded to the petition and they were restored to the custody of their rightful owners in 1877. During its absence from York this MS. was transcribed (circa 1830) and a second copy afterwards made by Robert Lemon, Deputy‑Keeper of State Papers (in consequence of some imperfection in the first one), which was presented to H.R.H. the Duke of Sussex, the then Grand Master. When the rolls were examined by Hughan the two transcripts were tied up with them, also a letter from Lemon, dated September 9, 1830, suggesting a 30 THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS collation of the original Roll with the one owned by the Lodge of Antiquity. The date of the MS. is partly determined from internal evidence, partly from a consideration of the date when Pontefract Castle surrendered to the Parliamentary Forces (March 25, 1649). The demolition began during the following month. The Roll seems to have formed the text for at least three of the other York MSS. It is mentioned in Hargrove's History of York as being in the possession of the Lodge, to which it was given by Francis Drake.

 

6&7‑ "WILSON, Nos. i & z." *17th Century. Thirlestane House, Cheltenham.

 

Published in Masonic Magazine, 1876 and in Kenning's Archa'ological Library, 1879. The earliest known reference to this MS. occurs in the " Manifesto of the Right Worshipful Lodge of Antiquity, 1778," as follows : " O. MS. [meaning Original MS.] in the hands of Mr. Wilson, of Broomhead, near Sheffield, Yorkshire, written in the reign of K. Henry VIII." This Manifesto is published in extenso in Hughan's Masonic Sketches, pp. 1oz‑8. Until, however, fifty years ago, all attempts to trace the actual MS. resulted in failure. A clue being at length obtained, the Rev. A. F. A. Woodford (and others assisting) ultimately succeeded in obtaining an exact transcript. The search elicited the fact that there existed " a duplicate copy. Both seem about the same age and are verbatim et literatim " (see The Freemason, July z6, 1879). They were sold to Sir Thomas Phillips (a great collector of MSS.) by Wilson and were afterwards in the possession of his son‑in‑law, the Rev. J. E. A. Fenwick, of Cheltenham, who kindly permitted a transcript to be made. The MSS. are written on vellum and certain words are rubricated. By some authorities, their origin is placed early in the seventeenth century, although Woodford, whose opinion is entitled to great weight, considers that the sixteenth century would be a more correct estimate.

 

8. " INIGO JONES." A.D. 1607. The Rev. A. F. A. Woodford, London.

 

Published only in the Masonic Magazine, July 1881. Its right to the above title is based upon the claim made in the document itself, which was sold November 12, 1879, by Puttick & Simpson. The cataloguer described it as " The ancient Constitutions of the Free and Accepted Masons. A very curious folio manuscript, ornamented title and drawing by Inigo Jones, old red morocco, gilt leaves, dated 1607." Woodford subsequently became its fortunate possessor and, as usual with him, lost no time in making the Craft acquainted with its contents. He mentions that " it is a curious and valuable MS. per se, not only on account of its special verbiage, but because it possesses a frontispiece of masons at work, with the words ` Inigo Jones delin' (not fecit as incorrectly printed in the Masonic Magazine, July 1881) at the bottom. It is also highly ornamented throughout, both in the capital letters and with ` finials.' It may be regarded as almost certain that it did belong to Inigo Jones. It is of date 1607." Woodford also states that he considers " it a peculiarly interesting MS. in that it differs from all known transcripts in many points and agrees with no one copy extant." The validity of these claims is open to remark, but the subject will again be referred to later on. Its importance has been rather under than over stated ; for this, one of the latest " discoveries," is certainly to be classed amongst the most valuable of existing versions of the manuscript Constitutions.

 

 THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS 31 9. "WOOD." A.D. 16io. The Rev. A. F. A. Woodford, London.

 

Published only in the Masonic Magazine, June 1881. For the acquisition of this scroll in 1879, the Craft has again to thank the fortunate owner and discoverer of the " Inigo Jones " MS. Wood, from whom it was obtained, is unable to furnish particulars of its history, beyond that the MS. had been in his possession for about twenty years. " It belonged to a family who died out many years ago and is of great age " (see The Freemason, February z, 1880). In editing the manuscript, Woodford informs us that it is " written on parchment (or vellum), with partially illuminated letters here and there.. The ` Finis de Tabula,' at the end of the Index (for it has also an index), is, according to some authorities, most archaic and may refer to an original two hundred years older. It therefore deserves careful noting and perusal." It is entitled The Constitution of Masonrye. Wherein is briefly declared the first foundation of divers Sciences and principally the Science of Masonrye. With divers good Rules, Orders and Precepts, necessary to be observed of all Masons." Then follow the first verse of Psalm cxxvii and the declaration " Newlye Translated by J. Whitestones for John Sargensonne, 16io." If, as Woodford suggests, No. 9 was copied from another MS. of the fifteenth century, which is not at all unlikely, the term " Translated " may be simply an equivalent for modernized.

 

10. " YORK, No. 3." A.D. 163o. At York A.D. 1779.

 

The MS. third in order on the " Inventory " at York of A.D. 1779 (already alluded to) has not been traced of late years. We know that it was a version of the Constitutions by the description " No. 3. A parchment Roll of Charges on Masonry, 1630 " ; and it is just possible that No. 41 may have been this document. At all events, it is not No. 15, though some plausible reasons have been advanced in favour of this view, because that Roll bears no date and, apparently, was not transcribed until fifty years later than No. 1o.

 

I I. " HARLEIAN, 1942." *17th Century. British Museum.

 

An incomplete copy was published in the Freemasons' Quarterly Review of 1836 (p. z88), by Henry Phillips (of the Moira Lodge, now No. 92). Another transcript was printed in Hughan's Old Charges. Bond (Freemasons' Magazine, July 10, 1869), in reply to W. P. Buchan (of Glasgow), respecting the ages of the Masonic MSS. in the British Museum, stated that " he could speak without any hesitation as to the general period of their date " and he ascribed the present MS. to the " beginning of the seventeenth century " ; the document next following in this series being, he considered, half a century later in point of time. There cannot, however, be much difference between them as to the dates of transcription, but it is probable that No. 12 was copied from a much older text.

 

There are only two versions of the Old Charges in the vast collection made towards the end of the seventeenth century by Robert Harley (afterwards Earl of Oxford and Mortimer), viz. in vols. 1942 and 20S4. The collection consisted of some 1o,ooo vols. of MSS. and more than 16,ooo original rolls, charters, etc. In the Catalogue Bibliothecee Harleiana, of A.D. 18o8, the number 1942 is thus described : " A very thin book in 4to, wherein I find‑1. The harangue to be made 1 32 THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS at the admittance of a new member into the Society or Fellowship of the Freemasons ; 2. The articles to be observed by the several members of that Society ; 3. The new articles and form of the oath to be taken at admission. Whether this be a copie of that old book mentioned by Dr. Plot in his Staffordshire I cannot say." No. i i contains The New Articles (z6 to 31), which are not in any other known MS., also the " Apprentice Charge," peculiar to a few versions only (the latter being entirely omitted by Phillips in his transcript of the MS.). These two specialities and, particularly, the clauses 26 to 31, constitute a text of great importance and will again be referred to.

 

12. " HARLEIAN, 2054." *17th Century. British Museum.

 

Published in Hughan's Masonic Sketches and Masonic Magarine, 1873. The official catalogue describes vol. 2054 as " A Book in folio consisting of many Tracts and loose papers by the second Randle Holme and others . . . and the third Randle Holme's account of the Principal Matters contained in this Book." In it are " Charters of the joyners, carvers and turners ; weavers, bakers, wrights, carpenters, slaters and sawyers ; beer brewers, mercers and ironmongers ; saddlers, drapers," being various guilds or companies of Chester. There is no original record of these in the British Museum, but the MSS. were transcribed by the second and third Randle Holme, sometimes dated and at other times not, from records, for the most part written, it is supposed, before 16oo.

 

The Holmes of Chester were evidently enthusiastic students of heraldry, and three generations were represented in the persons of the grandfather, father and son‑all bearing the Christian name of Randle‑at the Herald's Office, as deputy to the College of Arms for Cheshire and other counties. The first Randle Holme died 1654‑5, the second in 1649 and the third in 1699‑1700 (born 1627). The second Holme is stated to have died A.D. 1659, but, according to W. H. Rylands (Masonic Magazine, January 1882), his death occurred in 1649 (1 Charles II, i.e. computing the reign from the death of Charles I). Now, if No. 12 is in the hand‑writing of the third Randle Holme, Clearly A.D. 1650 is quite early enough for the transcription, as it is believed to have been copied by that diligent antiquary. The original, however, from which it was taken was evidently much older ; but, having classified the MSS. according to the periods of their transcription, rather than the presumed age of their original texts, in strictness this document should be numbered after No. 13, though, for the sake of convenience, the " Harleian " (11 and 12) have been coupled with the " Sloane " MSS. (13 and 14).

 

No. 12 is written on four leaves of paper, containing six and a half pages of close writing in a very cramped hand. The water‑mark is indistinct and undated. After the recital of the Old Charges, entitled the Freemasons' Orders and Constitutions, is a copy of a remarkable obligation to " keep secret " certain " words and signes of a free mason," etc. and likewise a register of the fees paid (varying from five shillings to twenty) " for to be a free mason," by twenty‑seven persons whose names appear. We have here the earliest known mention of words and signer (see Masonic Sketches, pt. 2, p. 46 and Masonic Magazine, January and February 1882). As Hughan states, they are apparently not connected with the Old Charges, as forming an integral part of this version, though they were most probably used by one and the same body.

 

 THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS 33 13. " SLOANE, 3848." A.D. 1646. British Museum.

 

Published in the Old Charges (also Masonic Magazine, 1873) and named by Hughan as the probable text for 1 z and 14. This may have been the case as regards the latter, but not, possibly, as to the former. There is an undated water‑mark in the paper, which is of no importance, the conclusion of the MS. being " Finis p. me Edwardu Sankey, decimo sexto die Octobris Anno Domini, 1646." Fort draws attention to the fact that it was written on the same day and year that Elias Ashmole, the celebrated antiquary, was initiated as a Freemason at Warrington. Rylands has proved (Masonic Magazine, December 1881 ; see also Wright's England's Masonic Pioneers, p. 31) that Richard Sankey and his family for generations before him, were landowners in Warrington and that, in the Warrington registers, is the entry, " Edward, son to Richard Sankey, Gent., Bapt. 3rd February 1621‑2," so it is quite within the limits of probability that the same Edward Sankey transcribed No 13 for use at the initiation of Ashmole and Colonel Mainwaring on October 16, 1646.

 

14. " SLOANE, 3323." A.D. 1659. British Museum.

 

Published in Hughan's Masonic Sketches. It is signed and dated " H ec scripta fuerunt p. me Thomam Martin, 1659." The entire collection of 50,000 vols., printed books and MSS., conditionally bequeathed by Sir Hans Sloane was secured by Act of Parliament in 175 3 for the use of the nation, to all posterity, at the nominal cost of ú20,000. Sir Hans Sloane has labelled this volume " Loose papers of mine concerning curiosities." The part endorsed " Freemasons " is written on six leaves of paper (5 inches by 4) and is briefer than usual in the historical narrative. The writing is small and neat. Its text presents a variation from the ordinary form, which will be noticed hereafter.

 

15. " BUCHANAN." *17th Century. Freemasons' Hall, London.

 

Published for the first time in this work and adopted as a type of the ordinary MSS. This parchment roll was presented to the Grand Lodge of England by George Buchanan, Whitby, March 3, 188o; and, in proposing a vote of thanks to the donor, the Earl of Carnarvon, Pro Grand Master, stated that " he had no doubt it would be very much to the satisfaction of Grand Lodge, if other members were found as generous as Brother Buchanan." As respects its age, Buchanan's opinion that it is of the latter part of the seventeenth century‑say from 166o to 168o‑appears, after a careful examination of the MS., to be well founded. Its history may thus briefly be summarized. The scroll was found with the papers of the late Henry Belcher, an antiquary, who was a partner with the father of Buchanan (solicitor). Belcher was a friend of Blanchard, who, according to Hargrove, was the last Grand Secretary under the Northern organization and from whom he obtained some of the effects of the then extinct Grand Lodge of All England (York). For this reason it has been sought to identify No. 15 with the missing MS. of the York Inventory, but Hughan has clearly set aside the claim, having cited the fact that "York MS. No. 3 " was dated A.D. 1630 (see Nos. 1o and 41).

 

 34 THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS 16. " KILWINNING." *17th Century. Mother Kilwinning Lodge, Scotland.

 

Published in Hughan's Masonic Sketches (Part 2) and Lyon's History of the Lodge of Edinburgh, 1873, pp. 108‑11. In glancing at the minutes of the Lodge of Edinburgh for the years 1675 to 1678, D. Murray Lyon, the Scottish Masonic historiographer, was struck with the similarity which the handwriting bore to that in which the Kilwinning copy of the " Narration of the Founding of the Craft of Masonry is written " ; and, upon closer examination, he felt convinced that in both cases " the caligraphy was the same," the writer having been the clerk of the former Lodge (see Lyon, op. cit., p. 107): Lyon, however, is not justified in stating that this document is entitled to prominence because of its being the only one in which the term Free Mason occurs in a MS. of the seventeenth century or earlier ; as Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 15, and others, contain precisely the same expression, whilst in some, " True Mason " and " Free Mason " are both used. As will be noticed more fully hereafter, all the Scottish versions are evidently of English origin. Lyon, in his History of Lodge No. 1, Scotland, states that " in the early part of the last century it was a custom of the Lodge of Kilwinning to sell to Lodges receiving its charters, written copies of this document (MS. 16), which was termed the old buik " (p. .107). The " Kilwinning " version is very similar to No. 4, but differs considerably from the " Melrose " text.

 

17. " ATCHESON HAVEN." A.D. 1666. Grand Lodge of Scotland.

 

The " Musselburgh " or " Atcheson Haven " MS. was published in the History of Freemasonry and the Grand Lodge of Scotland (zd edit., 1859), by W. A. Lawrie ; but, having been slightly altered and modernized, a correct transcript of the original in Freemasons' Hall, Edinburgh, was printed by Lyon in his History of No. 1, Scotland. " Ane Narratione of the finding out of the craft of Masonrie and by whom it heth been cherished," is engrossed in the earliest known minutebook of this old Lodge and bears date A.D. 1666.

 

18. " ABERDEEN." A.D. 1670. Ancient Lodge at Aberdeen.

 

Published in Voice of Masonry, Chicago, U.S.A. (December 1874). After the " Laws and Statutes " of the old Lodge at Aberdeen, A.D. 1670 (the earliest preserved), comes the " Measson Charter," as it is called and then the general laws, list of members, etc., etc., all beginning in 1670, when the " mark book " was commenced.

 

As the records of this remarkable Lodge will again be considered, they need scarcely be particularized further in this place. It may be stated, in brief, that its ancient members " ordained likeways that the Measson Charter be read at the entering of every Entered Apprentice and the whole Laws of this Book. Ye shall find the charter in the hinder end of this Book‑Farewell." This transcript does not seem to have been made from any complete standard text, as it breaks off abruptly at clause 9 of the " General Charges" (vide MS. 15). It is curious, on perusing the copy, to find that, whilst the clerk was content to acknowledge the English origin of the text, by inserting the clause True leidgeman to the King of England, he gratified his national proclivities by making the " First Charge " to read " true man to God and to the holy kirk." THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS 35 19. "MELROSE, No. 2." A.D. 1674. Old Lodge at Melrose, Scotland.

 

Published in Masonic Magazine (January i88o). For the discovery of this important MS. in 1879, the Craft is indebted to W. Fred. Vernon, of Kelso. Notwithstanding the number of Masonic pilgrimages to Melrose and the diligent searches instituted from time to time, this copy of the "Old Charges" eluded detection until the date mentioned. Apparently, there was no allusion to this version until 1879, though its existence had been suspected by Hughan, who made frequent inquiries on the subject and induced friends to search for a copy, but without success, until Vernon's visit, when the latter kindly furnished him with an exact transcript, afterwards published as before stated. It has been contended that this MS. is similar to the other Scottish versions, and that it is most probably a copy of No. 16 (see The Freemason, October 18, 1879). The facts, however, are, that, in many portions, it varies considerably from the other Scottish MSS. and the document is of far greater value than the other three (Nos. 16, 17, and 18) already described. One can almost positively declare it to be a transcript of an extinct MS. Of A.D. 15 81 (Melrose No. 1), or even earlier, as the conclusion is a certificate from a " master freemason," in favour, apparently, of the lawful service by his apprentice. The copyist has likewise certified the days and date of his transcription, viz. " Extracted by me, A. M., upon the 1, 2, 3, and 4 dayes of December, anno MDCL.

 

IIII." Vernon, in his sketch of the old Melrose Lodge, suggests the clue to the name of the transcriber, viz. Andro Mein, who wrote also a copy of the " Mutuall Agreemint Betwixt the Maisonis of the Lodge of Melros," of the year 1675, which still exists. The family of the Meins supported the Craft for many generations and, in 1695, out of twelve signatures attached to a resolution of the Lodge, no fewer than eight were those of members distinguished by that patronymic.

 

20. "HOPE." *17th Century. Lodge of Hope, Bradford, Yorkshire.

 

Published in Hughan's Old Charges, pp. 5 8‑63. The transcript thus printed was a copy kindly supplied by the Rev. A. F. A. Woodford and compared with the original parchment scroll by William W. Barlow, who, as the then Master of the Lodge, consented to its publication. It is slightly imperfect in the Apprentice Charge and, in its present state, is about six feet in length, the deficiencies being easily supplied by comparison with MS. 25, which it resembles. Its title is, " The Constitutions, articles which are to be observed and fulfilled by all those who are made free by the Rt. Wor'. M‑. Fellowes and Brethren of Free Masons at any Lodge or assemblie." 21. "YORK, No. 5." *17th Century. York Lodge at York.

 

Published in Masonic Magazine, August 1881, from a transcript made by William Cowling and Ralph Davison. It bears neither date nor signature, but seems to have been written about A.D. 1670. The roll of paper is 71‑ feet by 8 inches and must have been still longer originally, as the first portion of the introduction is wanting at the present time. Its text is that of MS. 5 and was described in 1779 as " Part of another Paper Roll of Charges on Masonry." 36 THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS 22. "YORK, No. 6." *17th Century. The York Lodge.

 

Published in Masonic Magazine, March i88o. It is described in the York Inventory as " a parchment Roll of Charges, whereof the bottom part is awanting," which description occasioned its identification by Hughan as being in the custody of the Grand Lodge of England, to which reference has already been made. It is strange that the part missing was found with the Roll and appears to have been cut off designedly from the original. The severed portion, when applied to the remainder of the scroll, clearly establishes, if further proof was necessary (see Old Charges, p. 13), that it is the roll so long missing from York ; but it is now scarcely probable that its history in the interim will be cleared up. In the Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of England, March 4, 1840, there is an intimation that " Bro. White, the Grand Secretary, had presented to the library a valuable and interesting collection of Masonic works, consisting of 63 printed volumes, also an ancient manuscript." If the latter was a copy of the Old Charges, it must have been this particular MS. or No. S, as the origin of No. 4 has been clearly established. There were but three MSS. in Grand Lodge until the advent of No. 15 and at present Nos. 4 and 15 are the only representatives of their class at Freemasons' Hall. It is considered to be of a little later date than No. 21 and is a very indifferent copy of one of the earlier York Rolls, its imperfection being increased by the careless tracing of an indistinct text by a transcriber. According to Hughan, the conclusion is unique, viz., " Doe all as you would bee done unto and I beseech you att every meeting and Assembly you pray heartily for all Christians‑Farewell." 23. "ANTIQUITY." A.D. 1686. Lodge of Antiquity, London.

 

Published in Hughan's Old Charges from a transcript of the original, certified by E. Jackson Barron, who also furnished an interesting account of the scroll, which is of parchment (9 feet by I I inches) and headed by an engraving of the Royal Arms after the fashion usual in deeds of the period. The date of the engraving is fixed by the initials at the top " I z R " (James II, King) and under are emblazoned in separate shields the arms of the City of London and the Masons' Company. Then follows the injunction, " Fear God and keep his Commandments, for this is the whole duty of man." The invocation beginning, " In the name of the Great and Holy God," is in that respect different from the majority of the MSS. which commence, " The might of the Father of Heaven." The word " Cratches " (cratch = " a rack for hay or straw "‑Bailey. In the Breeches Bible, published a century before this MS., cratch is printed instead of " manger " in Luke ii, 16) occurs before the recital of the General Charges, which Preston quotes as `t Crafties," but there is no doubt of the word being as stated, whatever meaning was intended to be conveyed by the term. Preston also makes an unwarrantable addition to the conclusion of the fifteen articles, by inserting, " At the installment of master " (see Illustrations of Masonry, 1788, pp. 100‑3), not to be found in the original. The final sentences are very suggestive, viz. " William Bray, Free‑man of London and Free‑mason. Written by Robert Padgett, clearke to the Worshipful Society of the Free Masons of the City of London, in the second yeare of the Raigne of our most Gracious Soveraign Lord, King James the Second of England, etc., Annoq. Domini, 1686." According to Kenning's Masonic Cyclopiedia, Robert Padgett did not belong to, nor is his name to be found on the books of the Masons' Company THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS 37 24. " SUPREME COUNCIL, No. 1." A.D. 1686. Duke Street, St. James's, London.

 

Not yet published. The Roll was met with in Wales and acquired by Colonel Shadwell H. Clerke, who, in 1879, placed it in Hughan's hands for transcription (The Freemason, October 11, 1879) and afterwards presented it to the Supreme Council, 3 30, London, for their extensive Masonic Library. The Old Charges are written on two parchment skins, sewn together and headed with an ornate illumination, the arms of London and the Masons' Company (in two ovals) and the inscription " J. 2d R. 1686," the date being the same as that of its partner and predecessor, No. 23. The text seems to be that of the Dowland version (MS. 39), slightly modernised.

 

 25. "YORK, No. 4." A.D. 1693. The York Lodge.

 

Published in Hughan's Masonic Sketches. It is written on a large roll of paper, slightly mutilated and endorsed, " Brother Geo. Walker of Wetherby, to the Grand Lodge of York, 1777, No. 4, 1693 " ; the date is further certified by, " These be the Constitucions of the noble and famous History, called Masonry, made and now in practice by the best Masters and Fellowes for directing and guideing all that use the said Craft, scripted p. me vicesimo tertio die Octobris, anno Regni regis et Regina Gulielmy et Marie quinto annoque Domini 1693‑Mark Kypling." The following singular record is at the foot of the Roll " The names of the Lodg.

 

William Simpson Cristopher Thompson Anthony Horsman Cristopher Gill Mr. Isaac Brent, Lodg Ward," making, with the copyist five members and the Warden of the Lodge‑six names in all.

 

The text of No. 25 is not only valuable, from its containing the Apprentice Charge, which is absent from the other York MSS., but especially so, from the anomalous instructions which are preliminary to the " Charges," viz. " The one of the elders takeing the Booke and that bee or shee that is to bee made mason, shall lay their hands thereon and the charge shall be given." The possibility of females having been admitted as Freemasons and duly obligated, as in ordinary instances has been a fruitful topic of inquiry and discussion since the publication of this Roll in 1871 ; and, so far as a settlement of the point is concerned, we are no nearer to it now than we were then, because we cannot be certain that the insertion of " shee," instead of they, was not a clerical error (which is the opinion of Hughan, Lyon and Dr. Mackey). More, however, on this topic hereafter. Findel is unfortunate in his suggestion that " the contents are almost exactly like those of the so‑called York Constitution," the fact being that they are quite dissimilar. (See Findel's History of Freemasonry, p. 34. He also cites Krause in confirmation.) 26. " ALNWICK." A.D. 1701. Alnwick.

 

Published in American edition of Hughan's Masonic Sketches, etc., 1871 and in his Old Charges, 1872 ; also Masonic Magazine, February 1874. "The Masons' Constitutions " (as they are termed) are written on the first twelve pages preceding 3 8 THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS the records of the " Company and Fellowship of Freemasons of a Lodge held at Alnwicke," the first Minute of which begins 29th September 1701, " being the Generall head meeting Day," when several " orders to be observed " were agreed to. Evidently a recital of the " Old Charges " was considered as a necessary prerequisite to the rules and so they were entered accordingly. The folio volume belonged to Edwin Thew Turnbull of Alnwick, who lent the whole of the records, including the MS., to Hughan for perusal and for publication, if considered desirable. A sketch of the old Lodge by Hughan was given in The Freemason, January 21, 1871 and reprinted in the Masonic Magazine, February 1874, also in other publications. The Latin sentences at the end of No. 26 have been discovered by the Rev. A. F. A. Woodford in a little work of 1618, but they are not of any Masonic importance.

 

27. "YORK, No. 2." A.D. 1704. The York Lodge.

 

Published in Hughan's Masonic Sketches, pp. 79‑88. It is the junior of the York Rolls, written on parchment (6o by 71 inches) and is entitled " The Constitutions of Masonrie, 1704," the certificate being " Script nono Die Septembris Anno Regni Dome Nre Anne Regina nunc Angl., etc., Tertio. Annoq. Dom. 1704 " ; but there is no signature. The heading, however, may indicate the name of the scribe, " An Annagrame on the name of Masonrie. Robert Preston to his friend Daniel Moult, upon the Art of Masonrie, as followeth." It is singular that No. 5 has a similar " Anagraime," only given by William Kay " to his friend Robt. Preston." Findel, on his visit to York, failed to decipher this anagram, which is now reproduced Much might be said of the noble art, A Craft that is worth esteeming in each part ; S undry nations, nobles and their kings also, 0 h how they sought its worth to know, N imrod and Solomon the wisest of all men, Reason saw to love this science, then I 'll say no more, lest by my shallow verses I E ndeavouring to praise, should blemish Masonrie.

 

This poem on the Craft, forming the prologue to two copies of the Old Charges, is certainly old as a composition, whatever may be said of its merits, for it probably dates from the sixteenth century. As seen, by reference to the above, it was made to do duty in 1704, just as it was used in its prototype (No. i of the York series), about a century earlier, with a few trifling alterations in the orthography.

 

28. " SCARBOROUGH." A.D. 1705. Grand Lodge of Canada.

 

Published in Mirror and Keystone, Philadelphia, 186o ; The Craftsman, Hamilton, Ontario, February 1874; and Masonic Magazine, September 1879. It was published in 186o by Leon Hyneman, as editor of the Mirror and Keystone, August 22, 186o, but had been quite lost sight of until Jacob Norton of Boston, U.S.A., made inquiries respecting the original, which was owned by the Rev. J. Wilton Kerr of Clinton, Canada. Unfortunately it had been lent and mislaid ; but, after a search, it was traced and generously placed in the hands of T. B. Harris, Grand Secretary THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS 39 of Canada, for that Grand Lodge. A verbatim transcript was published shortly afterwards, by the editor of The Craftsman, whose appeal for its recovery (in connexion with the earnest endeavours of Jacob Norton) was so successful. Hughan has forcibly observed, " Such a result illustrates what may yet be done in the tracing of further MSS. if other Brethren displayed equal earnestness and persistence " (Masonic Magazine, 1879, p. 104). The value of this version is really greater on account of the endorsement, than for the text of the MS. itself, the former being of special importance (as also the concluding record of No. z5). Moreover, the date of the Minute partly determines the age of the document, the antiquity claimed by the Rev. J. Wilton Kerr being the first decade of the sixteenth century. The record reads thus :‑" We .ò.ò. That att a private lodge held att Scarbrough in the County of York, the tenth day of July 1705, before William Thompson, Esq., P'sident of the said Lodge and severall others Brethren Free Masons, the severall p'sons whose names are herevnto subscribed were then admitted into the said Fraternity. Ed. Thompson, Jo. Tempest, Robt. Johnson, Tho. Lister, Samuel W. Buck, Richard Hudson." The editor of The Craftsman, who has carefully scrutinized the MS., says, "unhesitatingly the year is 1705 " and so did Leon Hyneman ; but Kerr maintains that it is 1505. On internal evidence the editor of The Craftsman says " that there is reason to believe that the figure has been altered, a microscopic examination showing a difference in the colour of the ink between that part of the figure which makes a good seven and that part which has been added, if the seven has been transformed into a five. It is a very awkward and unsymmetrical five as it stands ; remove the part supposed to be added and a very good seven remains." Hughan accepts the year as 1705 and considers that the copy of the Old Charges was probably made for that meeting and subsequent ones intended to be held, the admissions being recorded on the blank side with the signatures of the initiates. The newly initiated members signed the record of their admission in the early proceedings of the old Lodge at York (see Masonic Sketches, part 1, p. 40). There are several Thompsons entered as members in those records, but not a " William " Thompson, the President in 1705 being Sir George Tempest.

 

29. " PAPWORTH." *A.D. 1714. Wyatt Papworth, London.

 

Published in Hughan's Old Charges, pp. 75‑9. The document was originally in the form of a Roll, written on pages of foolscap size, which were joined continuously. Afterwards, probably for convenience, the pages were again separated and made into a book of twenty‑four folios. The water‑mark consists of a crown and the letters " G.R." above, so that it could not have been written before 1714. It was purchased by Wyatt Papworth from a London bookseller ; and, as it lacked the conclusion of the ordinary MSS. (Rules 16 to 18 inclusive as in No. 15), that gentleman has supplied the omission from No. 39, which it closely resembles. The motto at the beginning of the Roll is, " In God is all our Trust," the previous MS. (No. z8) having a similar one on its seal (" In the Lord is all our Trust ").

 

30. "GATESHEAD." *A.D. 173o. Lodge of Industry, Gateshead.

 

Published in Masonic Magazine, September 1875, with an article (continued from the August number) by the Rev. A. F. A. Woodford, explanatory of the early history of the Lodge of Industry, Gateshead. We here find a very late instance of 40 THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS a Lodge utilizing the Old Charges, presumably for reading to the initiates. Their occurrence at so advanced a period of the eighteenth century, as a portion of the laws of the Craft, is doubtless owing to the Lodge having been mainly an operative one and independent of the Grand Lodge until 173 5. The general and special clauses, which closely resemble those of No. 15, are entitled " Orders of Antiquity " and consist of some twenty‑one rules, being numbered accordingly. They were written about A.D. 1730, the oldest Minutes being bound up with a copy of the Constitutions of A.D. 1723. The Apprentice Orders were entered a little later and, as Woodford says, " in their present form are unique." They begin by reminding the apprentices about to be " charged," that, " as you are Contracted and Bound to one of our Brethren, we are here assembled together with one accord to declare unto you the Laudable Dutys appertaining unto those yt are apprentices ; " and then recite an epitomized history of the Craft from the Tower of Babylon to the royal Solomon, the remainder corresponding with similar clauses in Nos. 11, zo, 25 and 37, though exceeding them in length ; then comes the parting counsel to the neophytes, that they should " behave one to another gentlely, Friendily, Lovingly and Brotherly ; not churlishly, presumptuously and forwardly ; but so that all your works (words ?) and actions may redound to the Glory of God, the good report of the Fellowship and Company. So help you God. Amen." In all probability, these " Orders of Antiquity" reproduce a much older version, now missing.

 

 31. " RAWLINSON." *A.D. 1730. Bodleian Library, Oxford.

 

Published in Freemasons' Magazine, March and April 18 5 5 and Masonic Magazine, September 1876. The original has not been traced, the note in the Scrap Book being to the effect, " Copied from an old MS. in the possession of Dr. Rawlinson," by which we know that Richard Rawlinson, LL.D., F.R.S., who was an enthusiastic Masonic collector, possessed an ancient version, from which this transcript was made about 1730. The termination is unusual, for, instead of " the contents of this Booke," or some such form, the words substituted are the holy contents of this Roll.

 

(B) LATE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE " OLD CHARGES " 32. (MS. 8) " SPENCER." A.D. 1726. Grand Lodge of Massachusetts.

 

Published in the Old Constitutions, by R. Spencer, 1871. This seems to be in the main a copy of No. 8, or, at all events, of one very like it. Five years before the discovery of No. 8, the Rev. A. F. A. Woodford suggested that this document was a copy of an older MS. and not a transcript of No. 47. It would seem, therefore, that the surmise of 1872 was realized in 1879, as many points of resemblance plainly indicate No. 8 as the original of Nos. 3 2 and 47. It is the only version that resembles No. 8, though there are printed copies that generally agree, which, as they are evidently taken from Nos. 8 or 32, need not be quoted as extra versions. The MS. was purchased in July 1875, at the sale of Richard Spencer's valuable Masonic library, for Enoch Terry Carson, of Cincinnati, the well‑known Masonic bibliographer. It is beautifully written, in imitation of the copper‑plate style, in a small book, the size of the early issues of Cole's Constitutions and was probably the text from which those editions were engraved. It may have been actually a THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS 41 copy of No. 8, not necessarily exact ; and if so, the Inigo Jones MS. is the only document of its kind now known. Some authorities set up No. 37. as an independent version. Colour is lent to the supposition by the style in which the MS. is written, which is highly suggestive of its being intended as a model for the art of the engraver.

 

33. (MS. z) " WOODFORD." A.D. 1728. The Rev. A. F. A. Woodford, London. 34. (MS. 2) " SUPREME COUNCIL, No. 2." A.D. 1728. Duke Street, London.

 

These MSS. are certainly copies of No. 2 and are little gems of caligraphy. The first was purchased some years ago by the Rev. A. F. A. Woodford from Kerslake, bookseller, Bristol and contains the arms plate of " William Cowper, Esq., Clerk to the Parliaments " [Grand Secretary, 1723] and the inscription, " This is a very ancient record of Masonry, w`h was copy'd for me by Wm Reid, Secretary to the Grand Lodge, 17z8‑Ld Coleraine, Grd. Master, Al. Choke Depy ; Nat. Blackesby and Jo. Higmore, Gd Wardens." The second is in the library of the Supreme Council, 3 3', London and, in a pencil note, is termed, Lord Coleraine MS. In date, size and style it resembles the former and was probably a transcript made for Lord Coleraine, Grand Master, 1727‑8. Bound in morocco gilt, or otherwise attractively habilitated, Nos. 32, 33 and 34 form a handsome trio.

 

35. (MS. 18) " MELROSE No. 3." A.D. 1762. Old Lodge at Melrose.

 

This is simply a transcript of No. 18 and is thus referred to in the Records " Given out this day, the old Rights of the Lodge contained in a long Roll to be extracted by Nichol Bowr and Thomas Marr and they are to be allowed for their trouble " (see Masonic Magazine, May 188o). The copy is still preserved by the Lodge and was probably in common use, the older Roll being reserved for important occasions. A similar practice now obtains in the York Lodge, where to ordinary visitors are exhibited copies of the ancient documents‑a precautionary measure which cannot be too highly commended‑and, doubtless, affords ample satisfaction to all who have not made the subject a special study.

 

36. (MS. 13) " TUNNAH." *A.D. 1828. W. J. Hughan, Truro.

 

The transcript, which resembles No. 13, was once the property of John Tunnah, of Bolton, for many years Provincial Grand Secretary of East Lancashire ; and, on his decease, was presented by his partner, James Newton, to a fellow Masonic student, W. J. Hughan. The water‑mark in the paper is of the year 1828. There are a variety of notes on the manuscript, one being, " This may be a copy of the old MS. said to have been in the possession of Nics Stone, a sculptor under Inigo Jones, which was destroyed with many others, 1720 (vide Preston, p. 217) " ; and another, " The Parchment MS. may be the original Charter of Constitution and Obligation sent from the Grand Lodge (or Lodge of Antiquity), when the Lodge at Bolton was constituted, A.D.‑,varied according to circumstances of the time " ‑to all of which the answer must be‑Yes 1 it may be ! 37. "WREN." A.D. 185 z. The Rev. A. F. A. Woodford, London.

 

Published in Masonic Magazine, December 1879. It is endorsed " Copy from an ancient parchment Roll, written in old Norman English about the date of 16oo and said to be a true copy of the original found amongst the papers of Sir Christopher 42 THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS Wren, who built St. Paul's Cathedral, London. This parchment roll belonged to the late Rev. Mr. Crane, a very learned divine and zealous Mason, for many years Provincial Grand Secretary, when Sir Robert S. Cotton [father of the late Lord Combermere, afterwards Provincial Grand Master] was the Provincial Grand Master for Cheshire." Signed " Bro. S. Browne, Secretary and Treasurer of the ` Cestrian,' 615, Chester A. L., 4852, December 4th." It was purchased, with other papers from the latter, by W. R. Bainbridge, of Liverpool, prior to S. Browne leaving for North Wales, where he died ; and its name has also been known as the " Browne " or "Crane" MS.; but, as the endorsement is particular in mentioning its origin, the title selected is the preferable one, especially as every item is useful as a means of possible identification. The MS. begins with the concluding part of the Euclid Charges and apparently did so from the first, the folios being numbered consecutively as if complete (see The Freemason, March 6, 1880). The conclusion is in Latin, signed Vera copia, &c., J. L. Higsom. Possibly the Latin sentences were inserted in the original of this MS., as in No. 26, to exhibit the linguistic abilities of the scribe‑certainly not for the information of the Craftsmen, to whom all such recitals must have been even less edifying than they would be to operative masons of the present day.

 

 (C) PRINTED COPIES, EXTRACTS, OR REFERENCES 38. "DERMOTT." *16th Century. G. L. Minutes (Ancients). 42. " MORGAN." *17th Century. G. L. Minutes (Ancients).

 

The only allusion to versions of the Constitutions in the records of the Ancients occurs in a minute of December 6, 175 2, viz.: " The Grand Secretary desired to know whether there was any other books or manuscripts more than had been delivered to him upon the 2d of Feb. 175 2. To which several of the Brethren answered that they did not know of any. Others said, they knew Mr. Morgan had a roll of parchment of prodigious length which contained some historical matters relative to the ancient Craft, which parchment they did suppose he had taken abroad with him. It was further said, that many manuscripts were lost amongst the Lodges lately modernized, where a vestige of the Ancient Craft was not suffered to be revived or practized ; and that it was for this reason so many of them withdrew from Lodges (under the modern sanction) to support the true ancient system. .ò.‑. The Grand Secretary produced a very old manuscript, written or copied by one Bramhall, of Canterbury, in the reign of King Henry the Seventh, which was presented to Br. Dermott (in 1748) by one of the descendants of the Writer. On perusal, it proved to contain the whole matter in the fore‑mentioned parchment, as well as other matters not in that parchment." It may fairly be assumed that these two Rolls are rightly placed in the present series, being in all probability copies of the Old Charges. Laurence Dermott was the Grand Secretary alluded to, his predecessor being John Morgan. The documents still await discovery.

 

 3 9 " DOwL.AND." *17th Century.

 

Published in Gentleman's Magazine, March 31, 1815 and Hughan's Old Charges. The original of this copy is also missing; and though, in 1872, Hughan expressed the hope "that after careful comparison, it will be traced to one of the MSS. extant," THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS 43 the expectation has not yet been realized. James Dowland, who forwarded it to the editor of the Gentleman's Magazine for publication in 1815, thus described the document, " For the gratification of your readers, I send you a curious address respecting Freemasonry, which not long since came into my possession. It is written on a long roll of parchment, in a very clear hand, apparently early in the seventeenth century and, very probably, is copied from a MS. of earlier date." Woodford styles it " that most ancient form of the Constitution " and places it at " about 15 00," or, rather, as representing a MS. of that period (see Preface to Old Charges, p. xi). Of course Dowland's estimate may have been an erroneous one, as nothing is really known as to his paleographical qualifications ; still, in present circumstances, one can but accept the period assigned by him, because of whatever date the original or autographic version may have been, the Dowland Scroll and the other Old Charges (properly so termed) that have come down to us, are but later copies of types differing more or less from those circulated in the first instance. The estimate furnished by Findel is of a very unsatisfactory character, viz.: " With this document most of the manuscripts known to us agree, excepting only in a few unessential and unimportant particulars, as, for example, a scroll of the Lodge of Hope, at Bradford ; also one in York, of the year 1704 ; the Lansdowne Manuscript ; one of Lawrie's," etc. (History of Freemasonry, pp. 32, 33). As Dowland's text is of the ordinary kind, it will readily be seen that the differences are neither few nor unimportant.

 

 40. " DR. PLOT." *17th Century.

 

Published in Natural History of Staffordshire (c. viii, pp. 316‑18) 1686. Dr. Robert Plot, Keeper of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, in a rather sarcastic manner, examines the claims of the " Society of Freemasons " to antiquity in his noted Natural History of A.D. 1686 and alludes particularly to the " large parchment volum they have amongst them, containing the History and Rules of the craft of masonry. Which is there deduced, not only from sacred writ, but profane story, particularly that it was brought into England by St Amphibal and first communicated to St Alban, who set down the Charges of masonry and was made paymaster and Governor of the King's works and gave them charges and manners as St Amphibal had taught him. Which were after confirmed by King Athelstan, whose youngest son Edwyn loved well masonry, took upon him the charges and learned the manners and obtained for them of his father, a free‑Charter. Whereupon he caused them to assemble at York and to bring all the old Books of their craft and out of them ordained such charges and manners, as they then thought fit ; which charges on the said Schrole or Parchment volum, are in part declared ; and thus was the craft of masonry grounded and confirmed in England. It is also there declared that these charges and manners were after perused and approved by King Hen. 6. and his council, both as to Masters and Fellows of this right Worshipfull craft." It is impossible to decide as to the date of the " Schrole of parchment," so the latest estimate that can be fixed has been inserted : no existing MS. agrees exactly with these references or extracts from the " parchment volum." 41. " HARGROVE." *17th Century.

 

The extract from a MS. not now known, which was said to be at York A.D. 1818, in Hargrove's History of that city (vol. ii, pp. 475‑8o), does not agree 1 44 THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS with any existing MS., either at York or elsewhere, for which reason Hughan, in his Old Charg es, gives a portion of the quotation, the remainder being, " And when this Assembly was gathered together, they made a cry, that all masons, both old and young, that had any writeinge or understanding of the charges that were before in the land, or in any other land, that they should bring them forth ; and when they were secured and examined, there was found some in French, some in Greek, some in English and some in other languages ; and he commanded a booke thereof to be made and that it should be read and told when any Mason should be made and to give his charge ; and, from that time to this, Masons have kept and observed this form." The only living member of the extinct Grand Lodge, when this work was written, was Blanchard, proprietor of the York Chronicle. The author (Hargrove) states :‑" About the year 1787, the meetings of this (Grand) Lodge were discontinued, and the only member now remaining is Mr. Blanchard, to whom the writer is indebted for information on the subject. He was a member many years and being Grand Secretary, all the books and papers which belonged to the Lodge are still in his possession " (ibid., p. 476. See also No. 15). In the extract the " Royal Edwin " is spoken of as " a Great Protector " for the Craft and it is also recorded that " When the ancient Mysterie of Masonrie had been depressed in England by reason of great warrs, through diverse nations, then Athelston, our worthye king, did bring the land to rest and peace." In some respects the language of the extract agrees more nearly with the quotation from an old MS. noted in Dr. Anderson's Constitutions, than with any of the existing texts.

 

 42. See Ante. No. 38.

 

 43. " MASONS' Co." *17th Century.

 

In the Edinburgh Review," April 1839, p. 103, is an interesting article by Sir Francis Palgrave, wherein mention is made of an inventory of the contents of the chest of the London (Masons') Company, " which not very long since contained (i.e. shortly before 1839), a Book wrote on parchment and bound or sticht in parchment, containing an 113 annals of the antiquity, rise and progress of the art and mystery of Masonry." Sir F. Palgrave adds : " But this document is now not to be found." 44. (MS. I I) "ROBERTS." *17th Century.

 

The library of the late Richard Spencer contained several rare Masonic works, some being unique copies. No. 24o at the " Spencer‑Sale " was published in 1722 at the moderate price of sixpence. The only copy known was purchased at this sale on behalf of R. F. Bower, of Keokuk, Iowa, who had one of the finest Masonic libraries in the world, consisting of some thousands of volumes of books, pamphlets, MSS. and medals. The price paid for it was L8 ios. The valuable works and MSS. at the sale were mainly divided by competition between him and his friend Carson, the eminent Masonic bibliographer. How many the edition consisted of (hundreds or thousands) it is not possible to say, but in the catalogue it is described as " unique, the public museums have been searched in vain." It was republished in Spencer's edition of the Old Constitutions, 1871, also separately by that indefatigable Masonic collector and student. Its title (" Printed and sold by J. Roberts in Warwick‑Lane, MDCC.

 

II.") is " THE THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS 45 OLD CONSTITUTIONS Belonging to the ANCIENT and HONOURABLE SOCIETY of Free and accepted MASONS Taken from a Manuscript wrote above Five Hundred Years Since." The claim for its great antiquity was scarcely commensurate with the modest price asked for a copy of the publication in 1722 and was not justified.

 

As the first printed pamphlet for general sale on Freemasonry and, typographically, one of the best issued, it has a special value quite apart from its alleged age and, particularly, as it preceded the first Book of Constitutions of the premier Grand Lodge by one year. The preface is chiefly an apology for the existence of the Society of Freemasons, in which it is stated that " none of the Persons of Honour who have lately grac'd the Society with their Presence, have yet seen any Reason to be asham'd of them, or to withdraw their Protection from them," therefore, it seems probable that the tract was edited by some one who was at least well acquainted with, if not a member of, the Fraternity. The conclusion also suggests the aim of the publisher, viz. " It has yet seen the World but in Fragments, but is now put together as a Thing of too much Significancy to pass our Observation and which will effectually vindicate the Ancient Society of Freemasons from all that has or can be said against them." The writer does not inform us of what the " fragments " consisted, unless, indeed, he refers to a portion of the legendary history not peculiar to the society.

 

The " Roberts " version is undoubtedly a reproduction, or a counterpart, of No. 11, not only because there is not another MS. which so resembles it, but also because the differences are so trivial in the text and the additions so evidently of an editorial character, that the proofs of such an origin are irrefragable. Woodford and Hughan both concur in this view. The 13th rule of No. 11 is omitted (apparently a clerical error), but is supplied in No. 44 (it is, however, common to most MSS. and will be generally recognizable in No. 15, Clause 2, of the Special Charges). The 21st rule of the one is divided into two in the other and, after the 26th, (the whole of the rules being numbered consecutively from the first), the obligation is inserted in No. 44, as well as at the end, the latter only being in No. ii. Then, again, the ten separate rules entitled " This Charge belongeth to Apprentices," which immediately follow in the former, come after " The New Articles " in the latter, but it only denotes a variation in the order and does not effect the contents. The " New Articles," which are undated and undescribed in No. 11, are in No. 44 entitled " Additional Orders and Constitutions made and agreed upon at a General Assembly held at . . . , on the Eighth Day of December 1663." Had he been placed in a " witness box," the editor of the " Roberts MS." might have found a difficulty in producing authority for his statement, that the original document was written " more than five hundred years since " ; indeed, he himself dates a portion of it in the seventeenth century. Clause VI, " That no person shall be accepted a Freemason, unless he be one and twenty years old, or more," is manifestly a modern innovation. The Constitutions of 1722 are said to have contained allusions to several " High Degrees of Freemasonry," but the statement is wholly incorrect, as Hughan had a letter from the owner of this pamphlet and publisher of the first reproduction (Richard Spencer of London), explicitly denying the assertion.

 

45. (MS. 12) "BRISCOE." *17th Century.

 

" Sam. Briscoe, at the Bell Savage on Ludgate Hill," was the publisher of another version, the editor of which was less pretentious in his claim than his 46 THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS immediate predecessor ; for in 1724 he only assumed the original to be " of near 300 years Translation into the English." R. F. Bower of Keokuk, U.S.A., had one of the pamphlets and other copies have been mentioned. The first and second editions (1724‑5) are represented in the British Museum. " A Masonic Student " (The Freemason, March 29, 1873) says he " does not attach much value to such works as Briscoe's pamphlet . . . many of the observances are purely imaginary, meant, in fact, as a ` skit' upon the order, resembling Dean Swift's more humorous, but equally idle, attack on Freemasonry." These well‑deserved strictures are fulminated against the compilation under review, wherein is narrated in a somewhat facetious manner, " An Accidental Discovery of the Ceremonies made use of in the several Lodges, upon the admittance of a Brother as a Free and Accepted Mason." The printed copy of the " Old Charges " is substantially founded on No. 12 ; the reasons for which view have been partially given by Hughan in The Freemason, April 5, 1873. It does not appear to have been again reprinted in full until October 1873, in the Masonic Magazine and in the Freemason's Chronicle, 1876.

 

46. "BAKER." *17th Century.

 

As it is well to register all references to the Old Charges, this is inserted in the enumeration. It occurs in a foot‑note by Dr. Rawlinson, in the copy of his MS. in explanation of the legend of King Athelstan having caused " a Roll or Book to be made, which declared how this Science was first invented ; . . . which Roll or Book he Commanded to be read and plainly recited when a man was to be made a Free Mason, that he might fully understand what Articles, Rules and Orders he laid himself under, well and truly keep and observe to the utmost of his power " (see Masonic Magazine, 1876, p. 1oz), as follows : " One of these Rolls I have seen in the possession of Mr. Baker, a carpenter in Moorfields." 47. (MSS. 8 & 32) " COLE." *17th Century.

 

As it is probable that No. 32, the original of Benjamin Cole's engraved editions of 172.8‑9 and 1731, was derived from No. 8, it is but fair to class the present number as a representative at least of a seventeenth‑century version ; and, of all reproductions, it was the finest issued in the 18th century. The whole of the interesting little book was printed from engraved plates, dedicated in 1728‑9 to the Right Hon. the Lord Kingston, Grand Master and, though not dated, the dedication is sufficient to fix the period of its advent. The second edition was dedicated in 1731 to Lord Lovel, Grand Master. Ordinary editions were published in 1751, etc. ; but it was not until 1869 that a facsimile of the engraved series was issued, when Hughan made it an attractive feature of his first literary venture‑the Constitutions of the Freemasons. Dr. Kloss is incorrect in classing this version with No. 45, in his Bibliographic der Freimaurer, p. 125 48. (MSS. 8 & 32) " DODD." *17th Century.

 

Spencer thinks that from one or two differences " and minor alterations in portions of the text, the printer, or editor, had never seen Cole's book " ; but Hughan is of opinion that the one is a reproduction of the other, with simply a few fanciful changes, for which an example had been set by Masonic historians of the period. Carson, for whom it was purchased at the Spencer‑Sale, concurs in THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS 47 this view and adds‑" therefore it appears to me that Cole's Editions, 1728‑31‑5 I, etc. and the Spencer manuscript now in my collection, with the present reprint, are substantially, though not identically, one and the same Constitutions" (see Introduction to the third reprint by the Masonic Archxological Society of Cincinnati, 1876). Two copies are known to be in the United States, viz., the one herein described and another owned by R. F. Bower. Spencer knew of three in all. It has been faithfully reproduced by E. T. Carson (1876) for the first time, the original being a small quarto of twenty pages. The title is " The Beginning and first Foundation of the most worthy Craft of Masonry, with the Charges thereunto belonging " and it is said to be " By a Deceas'd Brother, for the Benefit of his Widow " ! It was " Printed for Mrs. Dodd, at the Peacock without Temple Bar, MDCC.

 

XIX (Price Six‑pence)." No statement is made as to its origin or age, but there is no doubt of its being a copy of Nos. 8 or 32, or a reprint of No.'47, engraved edition, the original of the two last being a seventeenth‑century version.

 

49. HARRIS. The Bedford Lodge, London.

 

From the minutes of the Bedford Lodge, No. 157, we learn that in January 18o9, its then secretary, " Bro. Harris," was thanked " for his present of ancient manuscripts, in parchment, containing the original Charges and part of the lectures on Craft Masonry." 5 0. " BATTY LANGLEY." 18th Century.

 

Published in the Builder's Compleat Assistant, 3 d edition, 1738. Batty Langley, a prolific writer, published his Practical Geometry in 1726, which he dedicated to Lord Paisley, as " the Head of a most Ancient and Honourable Society " and subscribed himself " your most devoted servant." In 1736 appeared his Ancient Masonry, Both in the Theory and Practice, dedicated to Francis, Duke of Lorraine and forty British noblemen ; also " to all others the Right Hon. and Right Worshipful Masters of Masonry, by their humble servant and affectionate brother, B. Langley." These words seem to establish the fact that the Builder's Compleat Assistant, of which only the third edition is available in the library of the British Museum, must have originally appeared after 1726, when Langley was not a Freemason and to found an inference that it was published some few years at least before the second edition of the Book of Constitutions. The Masonic legend, which is given with some fullness, is called " The Introduction of Geometry" and, amongst famous " Geometers," are named " Nimrod, Abraham, Euclid, Hiram, Grecus," etc. The sources of information open to Langley at the time of writing were MSS. 44, 45, and 47 in this series and Anderson's Constitutions of A.D. 1723. As Edwin is styled the son of Athelstan, No. 47, which calls him brother, could not have been referred to. No. 44 recites the Edwin legend, but leaves out his name ; whilst No. 45 uses the word son, but spells the name in such a manner as to defy identification. On the whole, it is fairly clear that Langley must have followed Dr. Anderson (1723), who plainly designates Edwin as the son of Athelstan. It may be added, that the two legends are in general agreement. Without being of any special value, per se, the fact of the legendary history of the Craft being given at such length by a practical architect and builder, taken into consideration with the dedication of his work on Ancient Masonry to a number of " Freemasons " of exalted rank, afford additional I 48 THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS evidence, if such be required, of the close and intimate connexion which continued to exist between operative and speculative Masonry for many years after the establishment of the Grand Lodge of England.

 

s i. "KRAUSE." *18th Century.

 

The so‑called " York MS. Of A.D. 9z6 " has been invested with much more importance and antiquity than it deserves, for it is quite possible that even the eighteenth century is too early a date to assign for its compilation. It was first announced in 18o8, through a German version having been issued by Herr Schneider, of Altenburg, from a Latin translation said to be certified by " Stonehouse, York, January 4, 18o6 " (of whom no trace can be found) ; and, in 181o, this German re‑translation was printed by Dr. Krause in Die drei Aeltesten Kunsturkunden der Freimaurer Briiderschaft. An English version was presented to Hughan by Woodford for insertion in the Old Charges of British Freemasons ; but neither of these experts believes it to be of any real antiquity. Dr. George Kloss denied its genuineness, " and contended that the Latin translation, which was certified by Stonehouse, had been prepared before i 8o6 and that, in preparing it, an ancient manuscript had been remodelled on the same basis as the 173 8 edition of Anderson's Constitutions, because the term ` Noachida' is employed in both, but is found nowhere else." Findel visited England, by desire of the German Union of Freemasons, thoroughly to investigate the matter ; the historian, however, failed to find aught to confirm its claims to antiquity and returned to Germany with a stronger belief than ever as to its being neither a York Charter, nor of the year 9z6 ; and, in fact, he " brings it down to a much more modern date " (see his History of Freemasonry, p. 89). The character and history of this MS. will be considered in a separate chapter.

 

Mere partial reprints of any one of the MSS. have been omitted from the foregoing list. There are many of these, acknowledged or otherwise, each of which takes its text from one or more of the versions described. There are also numerous regulations of the Craft, from an early date, which, in many respects, contain points of agreement with the MS. Constitutions, particularly those of Scottish origin. These will be duly considered in their regular order.

 

If the Old Charges are grouped according to their texts‑their several dates of compilation having already been considered‑it will be found that only five divisions will be requisite.

 

(D) " HALLIWELL " MS. (NO. i) On November 1, 13 8 8, Richard II made an order for returns from the guilds and the crafts (i.e. " Mysteries ") and, in all probability, the material thus brought to light, as the result of a thorough examination of the effects of the various guilds, crafts and brotherhoods, was utilized by the priest‑poet in this manner and, in the exercise of his spiritual functions, he added sundry instructions for the guidance of the Fraternity in their religious observances and general behaviour. It must be remembered that the first laws of all nations were composed in verse and sung (see Goguet, Origin des Lois, vol. i, p. 29). Palgrave, in his History of the Anglo‑Saxons (1867,.P‑ 128) tells us that Aldheim, Bishop of Sherborne, could find no mode of THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS 49 commanding the attention of his townsmen so efficacious as that of standing on the bridge and singing a ballad which he had composed. " The harp was handed round at their festivals ; and he who could not join in the glee was considered as unfit for respectable company." As to the exact age of this MS. the point is immaterial, as ten, twenty, or a few more years after 1389 will accord with the judgments passed upon its caligraphy ; whilst, even if the estimate of Dr. Kloss (1427‑3S) is accepted, it will still remain the oldest representative of the " Charges " peculiar to the Freemasons.

 

The following epitome of the various articles and points will serve to illustrate the stamp of laws in operation during the fourteenth century. Their general similarity to those of later periods cannot fail to strike the most casual reader.

 

FIFTEEN POINTS FOR THE CRAFTSMEN I. " Most love wel God, and holy churche, and his mayster and felows." 2. Work truly for " huyres apon werk and halydays." 3. Apprentices to keep " their mayster cownsel " in chamber and " yn logge." 4. " No mon to hys craft be false," and apprentices to " have the same lawe. " 5 . Masons to accept their pay meekly from the master, and not to strive, 6. But to seek in all ways " that they stonde wel yn Goddes lawe." 7. Respect the chastity of his master's wife, and " his felows concubyne." 8. Be a true mediator " To his mayster and felows fre," and act fairly to all. 9. As steward to pay well, and truly " To mon or to wommon, whether be be." io. Disobedient Masons dealt with by the Assembly, the Law, and forswear the craft.

 

II. Masons to help one another by instructing those deficient in knowledge and skill.

 

I z. The decisions of the Assembly to be respected, or imprisonment may follow. 13. " He schal swere never to be no thef," and never to succour any of " fals craft." 14. Be true " to hys lyge Lord the Kynge," and be sworn to keep all these points. 15. And obey the Assembly on pain of having to forsake the craft, and be imprisoned.

 

I. 2.

 

34.

 

6. 7.

 

 9.

 

I0. II. 12.

 

131415 FIFTEEN ARTICLES FOR THE " MAYSTER MASON " He must be " stedefast, trusty, and trve," and upright as a judge.

 

" Most ben at the generale congregacyon," to know where it " schal be holde." Take apprentices for seven years " Hys craft to lurne, that ys profytable." ò No bondemon prentys make . . . Chef yn the logge he were y‑take." ò The prentes be of lawful blod," and " have hys lymes hole." " To take of the Lord for hyse prentyse, also muche as hys felows." ò Schal no thef " accept, " lest hyt wolde turne the craft to schame." " Any mon of crafte, be not also perfyt, he may hym change." " No werke he undurtake, but he conne bothe hyt ende and make." ò Ther schal no mayster supplante other, but be as systur and brother." He ought to be " bothe fayr and fre," and " techyt by hys mychth." " Schal not hys felows werk deprave," but " hyt amende." His apprentice " he hym teche," in all the requisite particulars. So " that he, withynne hys terme, of hym dyvers poyntes may lurne." Finally, do nothing that " wolde turne the craft to schame." 1 50 THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS (E) " COOKE " MS. (NO. 2) The expression of thankfulness to " God our Glorious Fader " (not to the Trinity, as in the ordinary forms), which introduces the historical narration in No. 2, differs somewhat from the extract which is given by Halliwell, as Norton has pointed out, so much so, indeed, as to lead some readers to suppose that the excerpt was taken from an entirely distinct MS. As the phraseology of No. 2, however, more closely resembles it than that of any other existing version and, as it is scarcely possible that any MS. Constitution has " disappeared " since the publication of the first edition of Halliwell's work in 1840, it may fairly be assumed that the quotation is given by that well‑known antiquary without the exercise of his usual care and exactitude. No. 2 is much more like the ordinary MSS. than its senior and hence will be found to contain nearly all the legend of the usual " Charges," as in No. 15, though not always in quite such an orderly fashion, for, at line 644, the historical introduction is begun anew respecting Euclid and other celebrities.

 

(F) MSS. 11, 19, 20, 25, 30, & 37 The " Harleian 1942 " (11 in this series) might well claim a separate examination, containing, as it does, the " New Articles," in the possession of which it stands alone ; but, in order to avoid a numerous classification, six MSS. are now selected for criticism, which present, as a common feature, what is known as the " Apprentice Charges," or additional rules for the apprentices, not in the ordinary clauses, as set out in No. 15.

 

The " New Articles " are undated and run as follows " HARLEIAN MS.," No. 1942 (11) 26. " Noe person (of what degree soever) bee accepted a free mason, unless hee shall have a lodge of five free masons ; at least, whereof one to bee a master, or warden, of that limitt, or devision wherein such Lodge shalbee kept, and another of the trade of Free Masonry." 27. " That no p'son shal bee accepted a Free Mason, but such as are of able body, honest parentage, good reputacon, and observes of the Laws of the Land." z8. " That noe p'son hereafter bee accepted free mason, nor shalbee admitted into any Lodge or assembly untill hee hath brought a certificate of the time of adoption from the Lodge yt accepted him, unto the Master of that Limit, and devision, where such Lodge was kept, which sayd Master shall enrole the same in parchm't in a role to bee kept for that purpose, to give an acct of all such acceptions at every General Assembly." z9. " That every person whoe now is Free Mason, shall bring to the Master a note of the time of his acception to the end the same may bee enroll'd in such priority of place of the p'son shall deserve, and to ye end the whole company and fellows may the better know each other." 30. " That for the future the sayd Society, Company, and fraternity of Free Masons, shalbee regulated and governed by one Master, and Assembly, and Wardens, as ye said Company shall think fit to chose, at every yearely generall assembly." 31. " That noe~~'son shalbee accepted a Free Mason, or know the secrets of the said Society, until hee hath first taken the oath of secrecy hereafter following THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS 51 'I, A. B., Doe in the presence of Almighty God, and my Fellowes, and Brethren here present, promise and declare, that I will not at any time hereafter, by any Act or circumstance whatsoever, Directly or Indirectly, publish, discover, reveale, or make knowne any of the secrets, priviledges, or Counsells, of the Fraternity or Fellowship of Free Masonry, which at this time, or anytime hereafter, shalbee made knowne unto mee soe helpe mee God, and the holy contents of this booke.' " The additional regulations already noted are variously entitled the Apprentices' Orders (3o), the Future Charges (37), and the Apprentice Charge (zo and 25), but are not distinguished by any title in No. II, simply succeeding the New Articles, and are numbered I to io, the fifth rule being absent. The text of the " York No. 4 " (z5) has been selected to contribute this section of the laws.

 

" THE APPRENTICE CHARGE" (25) I. " That he shall be true to God and the holy Church, the prince his Mr and dame whome he shall serve." 2. " And that he shall not steale nor peke away his Mr or dames goods, nor absent himselfe from their service, nor goe from them about his own pleasure by day or by night without their Licence." 3. " And that he do not commit adultry or fornication in his Master's house with his wife, daughter, or servant, or any other." 4. " And that he shall keepe councell in all things spoken in Lodg or Chamber by any Masons, fellows, or fremasons." 5. " And that he shall not hold any disobedient argument against any fremason, nor disclose any secret whereby any difference may arise amongst any Masons, or fellowes, or apprentices, but Reverently to behave himselfe to all fremasons being sworne brethren to his Mr.,, 6. "And not to use any carding, diceing, or any other unlawfull games." 7. " Nor haunt Taverns or alehouses there to waste any mans goods, without Licence of his said Mr or some other fremason." 8. " And that he shall not commit adultry in any mans house where he shall worke or be tabled." 9. " And that he shall not purloyn nor steale the goods of any p'son, nor willingly suffer harme or shame or consent thereto, during his said apprentisshyp either to his Mr or dame, or any other fremason. But to withstand the same to the utmost of his power, and thereof to informe his said Mr or some other fremason, with all convenient speed that may bee." The extra rules of the following MS. differ so materially from those we ordinarily find in documents of a like class, that a brief summary of these regulations becomes essential.

 

" MELROSE MS." (I9) I. A " Frie Masone " not to take more than three apprentices in his lifetime. z. To obtain consent of " ye set Lodge," of " all his masters and Fellows." 3. Apprentices (" lawfully taken "), after serving their time, " ought not to be named losses," but " to be named frie men, if they have their Mrs Discharge." 4. " All others not lawfully taken are to be namit loses." I 52 THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS 5. Apprentices to furnish essays to prove their skill, before being made " frie masons." 6. Masters and Fellows only to engage " Losses " when regular Masons cannot be had.

 

7. Not to let " Losses " know " ye priviledge of y░ compass, square, levell, and ye plumb rule." 8. " Plumming " to be set " Losses," and " let them work between ym wt a Tyne." 9. " Frie Masons " on coming to labour ought to displace such " Losses " (or cowans).

 

io. If lawful members cannot be given work, they must be furnished with money.

 

i i. If apprentices " doe run away and are found," their lawful Mr must be informed.

 

i z. " We do swear, so God us helpe, and holy dome, and by the contents of this book," etc.

 

This MS. (iv) is the oldest, virtually, of the four Scottish versions (i6 to i9 inclusive), of which all but the Atcheson Haven (i7) contain the important clause " treu to ye King of England," as in the second of the General Charges of our English copies. This is the more noticeable, if we bear in mind that the Melrose version is clearly a transcript of one of A.D. 15 8 t, or earlier ; also that No. 17, whilst it omits " England," has still the clause " true to the king," the addendum either being purposely omitted, or simply left out through non‑existence in the text copied from, some even of the English versions not containing the complete sentence. It would not, perhaps, be possible to have more convincing proof of the English origin of these Scottish versions of the Old Charges. The historian of the Lodge of Edinburgh, D. Murray Lyon, commenting upon the " Kilwinning " MS. (16), says emphatically, " that it was a production of the sister kingdom is evident from its containing a charge in which `every man that is a mason,' is taken bound to be ` liedgeman to the king of England' and also from that part of the legend which refers to the introduction and spread of masonry in Britain being confined to the rehearsal of the patronage extended to the craft by English kings." It may, indeed, positively be affirmed that every form or version of the Masonic documents, which it is the design of this chapter to classify and describe, had its origin in South Britain.

 

Another peculiarity of the Melrose text is its addition to the third of the special charges, viz. " Also that no Mr nor fellow supplant on other of his mark," which clause is not to be found elsewhere (though quite in accordance with the Schaw Statutes, of A.D. 1598) and, as already intimated, it varies so much from the other Scottish forms, that, as a version, it should not be classed with them, save as respects locality and common features of agreement. In Scotland it is as notably sui generic as No. 8 (including 32 and copies) is in England, both being curious examples of departure from what might fairly be termed the accepted text.

 

The oldest of the York MSS. (No. 5 of this series) reads teneat Librum ut ille vell illi, etc., but in No. z 5 a translation is given of the customary Latin instructions, in which ille veil illi appears as hee or shee ; illi (they), having through error or design been set aside for illa (she). Taking the testimony of all the other MSS., the translation should read he or they, but, as a matter of fact, in No. 25 it reads he THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS 5 3 or she. Mackey, Hughan and Lyon believe the latter is a faulty translation and nothing more ; but there are others (including the Rev. A. F. A. Woodford) who accept this document as evidence of the admission of females into Masonic fellowship, especially as so many of the old guilds were composed of women as well as men (see Introduction to Smith's Guilds, p. xxx). Not one out of a hundred but recruited their ranks from both sexes ; and even in guilds under the management of priests, such as the Brotherhood of Corpus Christi of York, begun 1408, lay members were allowed (of some honest craft), without regard to sex, if " of good fame and conversation," the payments and privileges being the same for the " brethren and sisteren." Women " were sworne upon a book " in the same manner as the men. In 1348 the general assembly of the Grocers' Company, held at Ringed Hall, Thames Street, agreed to certain " new points," one being in favour of the admission of female members (see Herbert's Companies of London, vol. i, pp. 306, 423 ; vol. ii, pp. 44, 68z).

 

It may, indeed, be suggested that women were admitted into craft guilds in cases where such membership was not obviously unfit or unsuitable ; but the mason's handicraft being so ill‑adapted for female exercise, the balance of probability leans strongly against their ever having been admitted to full membership in the Masonic body. To this it may be replied, that the trade of a carpenter was not more favourable to the employment of women than that of a mason. Yet in the carpenters' guild of Norwich, founded A.D. 137 S, " In the name of ye fader and sone and holi gost and of oure ladi seinte marie, cristes moder and al yo holi cumpayne of heuene " the ordinances were agreed to for " ye bretherin and sistrin " (see Smith's Guilds, p. 37). The charter of the Carpenters' Company of London describes the company to consist of " the brethren and sisters of freemen of the said mystery " and the records of this Fraternity attest that " on August 5, 1679, Rebecca Gyles, spinster, sometime servant to Rebecca Cooper, a free servant of the company, was admitted to the freedome, haveing served her said Mistres faithfully a terme of seaven years " (E. B. Jupp, History of the Carpenters' Company, 1848, p. 161). The " Gild of the Peltyers " (Furriers), of A.D. 1376, also made provision for female membership and the records of craft guilds in numerous cities might be cited in corroboration of this usage. Still, there is no direct testimony as to the admission of females into Masonic Lodges or assemblies at any time, though they were sometimes allowed partially to reap the benefit, as widows, of a deceased husband's business, if they had a Freemason to help them. The records of Mary's Chapel Lodge, under date of AJ?ril 17, 1683, furnish an instance of the legality of a female occupying the position of " dame," or " mistress," in a Masonic sense, but from the minute of the Lodge it will be observed that it was only to a very limited extent that the widows of master masons could benefit by the privilege (see Lyon's History of the Lodge of Edinburgh, p. 1z2). On this point Lyon observes : " In the case of female members of Scottish Incorporations, `the freedom of craft' carried with it no right to a voice in the administration of affairs. The city of Lichfield was anciently governed by a Guild and Guild‑Master. King Henry II and Anne his Queen ; Henry VII and his Queen ; and many other illustrious names, were enrolled as members, the Guild comprising brothers and sisters, but the rules provided for the Brothers only, choosing the Master and Wardens annually (Rev. T. Harwood, F.S.A., History of Lichfield, 18o6, p. 319). Neither was their presence required at enrolment, although their entry‑money was double that of members' sons." 54 THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS Lyon thinks that the reference in certain clauses of the MS. of 1693 (25) " to an entered apprentice's obligation to protect the interests of his ` master or dame,' i.e. mistress, clearly indicates that at that time it was lawful for females, in the capacity of employers, to execute mason‑work." On the whole, we must accept the clause in question, either as an error or fancy of the translator or copyist ; but it is certainly very singular that there is no record of females having belonged to Masonic guilds or companies, though they were connected with those of other crafts, such as the saddlers and spurriers, carpenters, peltyers (furriers), calendrers and tailors.

 

 (G) " INIGO JONES" & "SPENCER" (8 & 3 z. Also Reproductions) This text obviously formed the basis, in part, of Dr. Anderson's Constitutions. Its chief importance is derived from the additional clauses in the legendary history, rather than from any changes in the language of that part which is to be found in the ordinary versions. Mere arbitrary alterations of the copyist only demand notice as possible means of identification in tracing families of MSS. Of these many examples are found in copies not otherwise of any importance whatever, whilst some are so plainly errors of transcription that any arguments based upon them are of little, if indeed of any value, e.g. in No. 8, the conclusion runs, " So Help you God, and the Itallidom," for " your holy‑dome " (halidom‑Saxon, " holy judgment "‑whence the ancient oath, " By my halidom "). Fort has some interesting observations upon the usual finale of the " Old Charges " and thinks that the word " holy‑dome " is evidently derived from the old form of administering an oath upon the shrine in which the sacred relics of some martyred saint were enclosed, the receptacle of the bones being ordinarily constructed in the form of a house (domus), so that the elision was easy from holi‑domus to holi‑dome (see his Antiquities of Freemasonry, pp. 171, 292, 404). Without impugning the correct ness of this view in reference to a very early period of guild life, its applicability to the Old Charges from the fifteenth century must be contested strongly, for the form in which the concluding charge is generally given suggests only the solemnity of the obligation about to be taken, " So healpe you God and your halydome and by this booke in yor hands unto yr. power." On the admission of the Masonic apprentices, according to the direct or indirect testimony of the several versions and of the prevailing custom in later times, they were " sworn " on the Bible, not " on the holidom," as were those of the Tailors' Guild of Norwich (fourteenth century) and there is nothing resembling the ordinance of the " Smiths " of Chesterfield (of the same era) in the Masonic Constitutions, the former requiring all the brethren to be bound " by touch of relics " as a pledge of their fidelity (see Smith's Guilds, p. 170).

 

That a change was effected in the manner of administering the obligation, may be inferred from a reference to " The Oaths to be Taken," by the " Fraternyte of Synt John the Babtyste of Taylors " (Exeter), for the words holy dome, and by this boke, have been crossed out by a later hand, and the holy contentes of this boke substituted, which corresponds with MS. I I and others. It is in the text of No. 8, the prototype of No. 32 and its reproductions, that Prince Edwin is spoken of as " Brother to King Athelstane," all the other forms either describing him as a son, or maintaining a discreet silence as to the relationship. The historical narrative is also chronologically arranged and the years of many of the events are inserted, THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS 5 5 which is unusual in these documents. The omission of the name of Charles Martel is noteworthy, also that of Naymus Grecus, but otherwise the text, as stated, is more remarkable for the additions to, rather than the deviations from, the ordinary versions.

 

(H) ORDINARY VERSIONS Under this description may be ranged all the MSS. not included in the four divisions preceding (D to G), excepting only such as are merely reproductions which naturally belong to the same class as their originals, whether or not the connexion has been noted. This division includes a majority of the transcripts, which are thus grouped together, because whilst each MS. contains some peculiarity of its own, there is a substantial agreement between them all. The recital of the legend is, generally speaking, similar ; also the various Charges, whilst the differences being nominal are virtually referable to the transforming influences of time and circumstances. In all, the Apprentice Charge and the New Articles are wanting, whilst they contain none of those clauses which, in the previous division (G), confer a special value on the text for purposes of comparison with the early editions of the Grand Lodge Constitutions. Attention having been already directed to the special differences in the MSS. of other types (D to G), the reproduction of an ordinary version will give the general reader a fair conception of the prevailing characteristics of the different Old Charges. For this purpose the text of the following Roll has been selected.

 

The prose Constitution, which will now be given in its entirety, is a fair specimen of the others ; all these scrolls being much alike and, indeed, differing only in minor details. In making a selection for purposes of illustration and reference, a document of the seventeenth century, which combines the chief points of agreement between the Old Charges and has not hitherto been printed, has been selected. It was transcribed by W. J. Hughan from Buchanan's copy and collated with the original in the library of Grand Lodge.

 

 THE " BUCHANAN MS." (15) I.‑O Lord God Father of Heaven with the wisdom of the glorious Sonn through the grace and goodness of the Holy Ghost three persons in one Godhead Bee with us att our begining And give us grace soe to governe us in our Lives here that wee may come to his heavenly bliss that never shall have ending Amen.

 

II. Good Brethren and Fellowes our purppose is to tell you how and in what manner this worthy craft of Masonry was begun And afterwards how it was upholden maynetained by many worthy Kings and Princes and other worthy men And also to them that bee here we shall declare the charges that belongeth to every Free Mason to Keppe for it is a science that is worthy to be kept for a worthy craft and vertuous science for it is one of the seven Liberall Sciences : And these be the names of them. The First is Grammar : that teacheth a man to speake truly and to write truly : The Second is Rhethorick and that teacheth a man to speake faire and in subtill termes The third is Dialectica that teacheth a man to decerne and know truth from falsehood : The fourth is Arrithmetike And it teacheth a man to reckon and count all numbers : The fifth is Geometrye and it teacheth a man to mete and measure the Earth and all other things of which is masonry The sixth is musicke and it teacheth the Crafte of Songe and voice of tongue orggann harpe and Trumpett. The Seventh is Astronomye and teacheth a man to know the course of the Sunne Moone and Stars : These be the seven sciences which are all found by one science which is Geometrye.

 

1 56 THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS III. Thus may you prove that all the sciences of the world were found by this science of geometrye and grounded thereon for it teacheth mete and measure ponderation and weight of all manner of kind of the earth for there is noe man that worketh in any craft but hee worketh by some mete or measure nor any man that buyeth or selleth but he may use mete measure or weight and belongeth to Geometrye and these Marchants and Craft of Geometrye doe find all other of the six sciences Especially the plowemen and tiller of the ground for all manner of corne and grayne vynes plants and setters of other fruits For Grammar nor Musicke neither Astronomye nor any of the other six sciences can find mete measure or weight without Geometrye wherefore that science may well be called the most worthyest of all sciences which findeth mete and measure to all the Rest IV. If you aske how this Science began I shall you tell : before the flood of Noah there was a man called Lamech : as you may find in the fourth Chapter of Genisis, whoe had two wives, the name of the one was Adah : and the name of the other was Zillah : by his first wife Adah hee had two sonnes the name of the Elder was Jaball : and the other was called Juball : and by his other wife Zillah hee had a sonne called Tuball and a daughter called Naamah : These foure children found the begining of all the Crafts in the world : And the Eldest sonne Jaball found the Craft of Geometrye and hee parted flocks of sheepe and lands in the field and first built a house of stoone and timber as is noted in the Chapter aforesaid : and his brother Juball found the Craft of Musicke songe of tongue harpe organn and Trumpett : And the third brother Tuball found the Smith's Craft to worke in Gold Silver Brasse Copper Iron and Steele and the Daughter Naamah found the Craft of Weaveing : and these children knew that God would take vengeance for sinns either by fire, water, wherefore they did write the sciences they had found in two pillars of stone that they might be found after God had taken vengeance for sine the one was Marble and would not burne with fire : the other was Laterus and it would not droune in water.

 

V. There resteth more to tell you how the stones were found that the Sciences were written in after the said flood the great Hermarynes that was Tusses his Sonne the which was the sonne of Sem the sonne of Noah the same Hermarynes was afterwards called Hermes the father of wise men : he found one of the two pillars of stone and hee found the sciences written therin and he taught them to other men.

 

VI. And at the makeing of the Tower of Babilon there masonrye was much made of: the Kinge of Babilon that height Nemorth and Nemorth himself was a Mason : and loved well the Craft as is said with Masters of Histories and when the Citie of Neneve and other Cities of the East Asia should bee made this Nemorth Kinge of Babilon sent thither 6o masons art the desire of the Kinge of Neneve his cousin and when they went forth hee gave them a charge in this manner that they should be true each of them to other and that they should love truly together soe that hee might have worshipp for his sending of them to his cousin the Kinge of Neneve And further hee gave them two charges as concerning their science And they were the first charge that ever any Mason had of his worke or Crafte.

 

VII. Moreover when Abraham and Sarah his wife went into Egypt hee taught the seven sciences to the Egyptians And hee had a worthy scholler whose name was Euclid which learned very well and became Master of all the seven sciences And in his Dais it befell that Lords and Great men of those quarters and Dominions had soe many sonnes some by their wives and some by other women for those Countries bee hott of Generation and they had not competent goods and hands to maintayne their children which made much care And the Kinge of that Land considering theire poverty called his counsell together and caused a Parliment to be houlden the greatest of his intent was to know how they should maintayne their children and they could not find any way unlesse it were by cunning and good science whereupon he let a proclamation bee made through his Realme if there were any that could teach an informe them in any good Cuning art or science hee should come unto them and bee very well contented for his paynes and travell : after this proclamation made came this worthy Clarke Eclid and said unto the Kinge and his Nobles if you will betake THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS S7 your children unto my government I will teach them the seven Liberall Sciences whereby they may live honestly and like gentlemen upon this condition that you will grant mee a Comisson to have rule and power over them according as science ought to be ruled and upon this Covenant I shall take care and charge of them : the Kinge and his counsel granted the same and sealled the Comisson and then this worthy Docter tooke to him those Lordes sonnes and taught them the science of Geometric in practise for to worke all manner of worthy workes that should bellong to building of Temples Churches Castles mannors Towers houses and all manner of buildings And he gave them a charge.

 

VIII. The First was that they should bee true to the Kinge and Lords they served.

 

IX. And that they should love well together And be true each one to other.

 

X. And to call each other his fellowe or else his brother And not servant nor knave nor any other foule name.

 

XI. And that they should deserve theire pay of the Lord or Master they should serve XII. And that they should ordaine the wisest of them to bee the Master of their Lords worke And that neither Lord nor man of Great Linage or Riches or for favour should make and ordaine such a one to beare Rule and be governour of theire worke that hath but small knowledge or understanding in the science whereby the owner of the worke should bee evil served and you ashamed of your worke‑manshipp.

 

XIII. And alsoe that they should call the governour of the worke master whilest they wrought with him.

 

XIV. And many other charges that are to long to tell : and to all the charges hee made them to sweare the . . . great oath which men used in that time XV. And hee ordered for them reasonable wages that they might live with honesty.

 

XVI. And alsoe that they should come and assemble themselves together once every yeare That they might take advice and councell together how they might worke best to serve theire Lord and Master for his proffitt an theire owne creditt and honestie And to Correct amongst themselves him or them that erred and trespassed And thus was the Craft or science of Geometric grounded there XVII. And this worthy Master gave it the name of Geometric And now it is called Masonrie.

 

XVIII. Sith the time when the children of Israell were come into the land of behest that is now called amongst us the land of Cannaan the countrie of Jerusalem, Kinge David began the Temple which is called Templum Dominum and is now called with us the Temple of Jerusalem and the same Kinge David loved Masons well and cherished them and gave good paiement unto them and gave them charges in manner as hee had in Egipt by Euclid and other charges more as you shall heare afterwards And after the Decease of Kinge David Solomon sonne unto the said King finnished the Temple that his father had begunn and hee sent after masons of divers towns and countries and gathered them together soe that he had 24,000 Masons and iooo of them were ordayned Masters and governours of his worke.

 

XIX. And there was another Kinge of another Land which was called Huram and hee loved Kinge Solomon well and hee gave him timber for his worke and hee had a sonn named Aymon and hee was master of Geometric and the chiefest master of all his masons and Governour of all his graven and carved worke and of all manner of other masonrie that belonge unto the Temple and all this witnesseth the Fourth booke of the Kings in the Bible .

 

. And this same Kinge Solomon confirmed both charges and manners that his father had given to masons and soe was this worthy craft or science of Masonrie confirmed in the Countrie of Jerusalem and in many other Countries and Kingdoms glorious Craftsmen about full wide into divers countries some because of learning more knowledge and skill in the Craft and some to teach others and soe it befell that there was a curious mason whose name was Mamon [Naymus] Grecus that had been att the building of Solomon's Temple And hee came into France and there he taught the Craft of Masonrie to men in France.

 

I 5 8 THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS .

 

I. And there was a man in France named Carolus Martill came to this Mamon Grecus aforesaid and learned of him the craft of Masonrie well hee tooke upon the charges And afterwards by the grace of God hee was elected Kinge of France and where hee was in his estate hee tooke many Masons and helpe to make men masons that were none before and sett them on worke and gave them good wages and confirmed to them a Charter to hould theire Assemblie from yeare to yeare where the would and cherished the much and thus came the Craft of Masonrie into France.

 

.

 

II. England stood att that time void from any charge of Masonrie untill the time of Saint Albons and in his time the Kinge of England being a pajan walled the Towne about that is now called Saint Albons and Saint Albons was a worthy Knight and chiefe steward with the King and the governance of the Realme and alsoe of the making of the Towne walls and hee loved masons well and cherrished them right much and hee made theire pay right good standing as the Realme did then for he gave them two shillings and sixpence a weeke and three‑pence for thiere nonesynches and before that time throughout this Land A Mason took but a pennie a day and his meate until Saint Albons did amend it and hee gave to them a charter which hee obtained of the Kinge and his Councill for to hold a general councell and hee gave it the name of an Assemblie And hee being a Mason himself thereat hee was hee helped to make Masons and gave to them the charges as you shall heare Afterwards.

 

.

 

III. Right soone after the decease of Saint Albons there came men of divers nations to wart against the Realme of England soe that the Rule of good Masonrie was destroyed untill the Time of King Athelston in his dayes hee was a worthy Kinge in England and brought this Land to rest and peace and builded many great buildings of Abbey's and castles and divers other great buildings And hee loved masons well.

 

.

 

IV. And hee had a sonn named Edwin and hee loved masons much more then his father did and hee was a great practizer in Geometric and came himselfe to comune and talke much with masons and to learn of them the Craft and afterwards for the love hee had to Masons and to the craft hee was made a mason himselfe.

 

.

 

V. And hee obtained of his father the Kinge a Charter and a Comission to hould every year once an Assembly where they would within the Realme of England that they might correct faults errors and trespasses if that any there were comitted and done concerning the craft of Masonrie.

 

.

 

VI. And hee with other Masons held an Assemblie at Yorke and there hee made Masons and gave them a Charge and comanded that rule to be houlden and kept ever after and hee made an ordinance that it should be renewed from Kinge to Kinge.

 

.

 

VII. And when the assemblie were gathered together hee caused a crie to be made after this manner that all old Masons and younge that had any writeings or understandings of the charges and manners that were made before in this Land or in any other that they should show them forth and there were found some in Greeke some in Latine and some in French and some in English and some in other Languages and the meaning of them were all one.

 

.

 

VIII. And hee caused a booke to be made thereof : And how the Craft was found and hee comanded that it should be read or told when any free mason should bee made for to give him his charge. And from that day untill this time Masonrie hath bene much made on and kept and that from time to time as well as men might governe it.

 

.

 

IX. And furthermore att divers Assemblies there hath bene put and ordained certaine charges by the best advised Masters and Fellowes.

 

.

 

X. The manner of taking an oath att the making of free Masons Tunc unus ex Seniorebus teneat librum ut illi vel ille ponant vel ponat manus supra librum tunc precepta debeant legi.

 

.

 

XI. Every man that is a Mason take heed right wisely to these charges if you find yourselves guiltie of any of these that you may amend of your errors against god and principally they that be charged for it is a great perrill to forswears themselves upon a booke.

 

 THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS 59 (General Charges) .

 

XII. (r.) The charges are that you shall bee true men to God and his holy church : that you use noe heresie nor errors in your understanding to distract mens teacheings.

 

(z.) And Alsoe that you bee true men to the Kinge without any treason or falshood and that you shall know noe treason or falshood but you shall amend it or else give notice thereof to the Kinge and Councell or other officers thereof.

 

(3.) And alsoe you shall be true each one to other that is to say to every Master and Fellow of the Craft of Masonrie that be free masons allowed and doe you to them as you would that they should doe to you.

 

(4.) And Alsoe that every free Mason Keepe councill truly of the secret and of the Craft and all other Councell that ought to bee Kept by way of Masonrie.

 

(5.) And Alsoe that noe Mason shall be a Theife or accesary to a theife as farr forth as you shall know.

 

(6.) And Alsoe you shall be true men to the Lord and Master you serve and truly see to his profitt and advantage.

 

(7.) And Alsoe you shall call Masons your fellowes or brethren and noe other foule name nor take your fellowes wife violently nor desire his daughter ungodly nor his servant in villanie.

 

(8.) And Alsoe that you truly pay for your table and for your meate and drinke where you goe to table.

 

(9.) And Alsoe you shall doe noe villanie in the house in which you table whereby you may be ashamed.

 

These are the Charges in generall that belong to all free masons to keepe both Masters and Fellows.

 

.

 

XIII. These bee the Charges singular for every Master and Fellowe as followeth (Special Charges) (z.) First that noe Mason take upon him noe Lord's worke nor other mens worke unlesse hee know himselfe able and skilfull to performe it soe as the Craft have noe slander nor disworshipp but that the Lord and owner of the worke may bee well and truly served.

 

(z.) And Alsoe that noe Master nor Fellow take noe worke but that hee take it reasonably soe that the Lord may bee truly served with his owne goods and the Master may live honestly and pay his fellowes truly as manners aske of the Craft.

 

(3.) And Alsoe that noe Master nor Fellow shall suplant any other man of his worke that is to say if hee have taken of a Lord or Master that you put him not out unlesse hee bee unable n knowledge to finish that worke.

 

(4.) And Alsoe that noe Master nor Fellow take any Apprentice to bee allowed to bee his Apprentice any longer then seven years and the apprentice to bee able of birth and limbs as hee ought to bee (5.) And Alsoe that noe Master nor Fellow shall take any allowance to bee allowed to make any Free Mason without the consent of Sixe or Five att the least of his Fellowes and that they bee free borne and of Good Kindred and not a bondman and that hee have his right limbs as a man ought to have.

 

(6.) And Alsoe that noe Master nor Fellow put any Lordes woke to taske that is wont to goc journey.

 

(7.) And Alsoe that noe Master shall give noe pay to his Fellowes but as hee may deserve soe as they may not bee Deceived by false workmen.

 

(8.) And Alsoe that noe Fellow slander another behind his backe whereby hee may loose his good name and his worldly goods.

 

(9.) And Alsoe that noe fellow within the Lodge or without the Lodge missweare one another ungodly without any just cause.

 

 6o THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS (io.) And Alsoe that every one reverence his fellow elder and put him to worshipp.

 

(i i.) And Alsoe that noe Mason play att Cards or Dice or any other game whereby they should be slandered.

 

(12.) And Alsoe noe Mason shall bee a Comon Ribald in Lechary to make the Craft slandered.

 

(i3.) And Alsoe that noe fellow shall goe into the towne in the night thereas is a Lodge of Fellowes without some Fellowes that may beare him witnesse that hee was in a honest place.

 

(i4.) And Alsoe that every Master and Fellow shall come to the Assembly if it be within seven miles about him if hee have warning or else to stand to the award of Master and Fellowes.

 

(15.) And Alsoe every Master and Fellow if hee have trespassed shall stand att the award of the Masters and Fellowes to make the accord if hee may, and if hee may not accord then to goe to the Common Law.

 

(i6.) And Alsoe that noe mason make mould nor square nor noe Rule to any lyer within the Lodge nor without the Lodge how to mould stones without noe mould of his own making.

 

(17.) And Alsoe that every Mason shall receive and cherrish every strange Mason when they come to theire Country and set them to worke as the manner is that is to say if hee have mould stones in the place hee shall sett them or him a fornight at least on worke and give him his pay and if hee have noe stones for him bee shall refresh him with money to the next Lodge.

 

(18.) And Alsoe you shall every mason serve truly the Lord for his pay and truly finish his worke bee it Taske or journey if you may have your pay as you ought to have.

 

.

 

XIV. These charges that you have received you shall well and truly keepe not discloseing the secresy of our Lodge to man woman nor child : Sticke nor stone : thing moveable nor immoveable soe God you helpe and his holy Doome, Amen. . . . Finis.

 

 The Introductory Prayer or Invocation of the Buchanan MS. differs from the generality of these supplications, but is after the manner of No. 17, although, in other respects, the MSS. are not identical. It is curious, however, that as regards the radius within which attendance at the assembly was obligatory, this is the only version which specifies seven miles, three others having five (1z, zo, and z9), two having ten (ii and 31), one alone forty (19) and the remainder fifty miles. The distinctive feature of No. 15 is its obligation, which, if a fair representation of the pledge given by the newly admitted Brethren, is certainly destructive of any theories in favour of female membership, which are based upon No. 25. There are many copies of the oaths imposed by craft guilds, but few of those in use among the masons are of an entirely trustworthy character. Assuming those appended to the Old Charges to be fairly correct, there would seem to have been no particular set form for the purpose, the three samples extant not agreeing with one another as to the verbiage, albeit the intention is clear enough throughout the whole. The titles of the MSS. vary, some being very suggestive, e.g. " The Freemasons Orders and Constitutions " (1 z) ; " Here Begineth the True Order of Masonrie " (3) ; " A discourse : hade : before : A : meeting : of Meassones " (18) ; " The Booke of Constitutions " (6),‑besides others already recorded. The earliest known extracts or references to the Old Charges are to be found in Dr. Plot's History of Staffordshire, A.D. 1686 (40) and The Constitutions of the Freemasons, by the Rev. James Anderson, M.A. (afterwards D.D.), of A.D. 1723. The first complete typographical reproduction of a copy of these Old Charges was " Printed and sold by J. Roberts in Warwick Lane, MDCC.

 

II " (44). This handsome little tract was THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS 61 evidently edited by one who was either a Freemason or favourably disposed towards the Society, as the preface is laudatory of the aims of the Fraternity and is the first distinctly Masonic work known that was issued for general sale. The pamphlet (which was never authorized) appeared one year earlier than the premier Book of Constitutions. The resolution to empower " Bro. James Anderson, A.M., to digest the old Gothic Constitutions, in a new and better method " was agreed to by the Grand Lodge, held September 29, 1721 and, on December 27 following, " 14 learned Brothers " were appointed to examine the manuscript, who reported favourably on March z5, 1722, when the Grand Master was desired " to order it to be printed." The New Book of Constitutions was submitted in print to the members, January I7, 1723 (3) and again approved, with the addition of " the ancient manner of Constituting a Lodge," from which it may be inferred that the work could not have appeared before 1723 (the year stated on the title page), as the additional matter is to be found in the copies extant, paged consecutively with the former portion and followed by some twenty more pages. The General Regulations inserted in this work were first compiled by George Payne in 1720 and approved in 1721. They were subjected to revision by Dr. Anderson.

 

The Roberts version (44) appears to have been based upon the text of No. II, so that if the latter was not known to Dr. Anderson, early last century, he was doubtless familiar with the former, but whether before or after the preparation of his work cannot now be determined. The first extract is said to be made from " a certain Record of Freemasons written in the Reign of King Edward IV " (about A.D. 1475) and is in exact conformity with no MS. extant, though in some respects it resembles the quotation of Hargrove (41) and others, as it alludes to King Athelstan and his youngest son, Prince Edwin ; so far, many MSS. confirm this excerpt. None, however, sanction the statement that the Prince summoned the masons at York in " a General Lodge of which he was Grand Master " (p. 33), neither do they recite aught about the " Laws of the Freemasons having been seen and perused by our late sovereign King Henry VI." Possibly the latter information was obtained from Dr. Plot, but the former is well known to have been an unwarrantable and pernicious interpolation. The second extract is almost word for word with the concluding sentences of No. z, except that the verbiage is modernized and, as it is known that such a version was exhibited to the Grand Lodge in 1721, by Grand Master Payne, there need be no hesitation in accepting the Cooke MS. as the document from which Dr. Anderson quoted. It is not so easy to decide as to the first excerpt, especially so far as it seems to be actually taken from some old MS., for such particulars are to be found in the majority of the scrolls. The subject was new to Dr. Anderson in ‑1721‑3, but in 1738 there were many sources available from which a rational history and resume of the ancient Regulations might have been compiled and he had special facilities for acquiring the facts upon which such a history ought to have been founded. The result of Dr. Anderson's researches, as seen in the ‑1738 edition, is very far from satisfactory and tests the credulity of his readers even more than the previous one of 1723. Since the publication of 62 THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS the latter, various reproductions of MS. Constitutions had appeared and, including the one before alluded to (which may not have been known to Dr. Anderson before 1723), there were in circulation the following : Roberts (44), Briscoe (45), and Cole (47), virtually representing the text of Nos. ii, 12 and 8 in this series respectively. It is quite clear that Dr. Anderson had more MSS. before him in the preparation of the 1738 than he had for that of the 1723 edition and there is so much to confirm this view that it only requires examination to be adopted. The historical introduction is much fuller in the former and varies considerably from the earlier issue ; e.g. the Edwin legend is altered and reads that he was the King's brother (not son), a variation only to be found in the Inigo Jones text (8) and which was engraved in the Cole MS. (47). His imagination developing (1738), the word general was altered before Lodge for Grand by the editor and the year added, which has led the so‑called York Constitution to be dated A.D. 926. The concluding paragraph of the 1723 edition is separated from the Edwin legend in the 1738 issue and, after a few minor changes, is added to the second extract already noticed, which was from quite a distinct MS., as Dr. Anderson himself declares, accompanied at page 71 by the declaration‑" The Constitutions were now meliorated, for an old record imports, ` that in the glorious reign of King Edward III,' " etc., about which the first publication is silent. Moreover, the reproduction of this second extract is but partial, as a portion is omitted and other sentences are so altered as to make them read like modern Constitutions, the title Grand Master being interpolated and the qualification, " if a brother," inserted respecting the attendance " of the Sheriff, or the Mayor, or the Alderman " ; also the word Congregation is turned into Chapter I Two extracts are printed, which are not in the earlier publication ; the one preceding, the other following, those before mentioned. The first agrees with the Cole MS. and recites the St. Alban legend, both terming that Saint " the Proto‑Martyr," only the value of the quotation is seriously diminished by Dr. Anderson again adding the modern title of Grand Master. The last citation from the old MSS. is to be found at p. 101 and is based upon No. ii, or its typographical representative, the Roberts MS. (44). The Additional Orders are those selected for insertion in the second edition of the Grand Lodge Constitutions (173 8), which are undated in the original text (11) ; but are said in No. 44 to have been agreed to " at a General Assembly, held at . . . on the Eighth Day of December 1663." Dr. Anderson was evidently not so careful in his statements as Roberts, for he supplies the names of the Grand Master, Deputy Grand Master and Grand Wardens, present on the occasion (of frees, by the way, then unknown) and alters the day to the Feast of St. John the Evangelist 1663, doubtless to bring it into conformity with modern usage. The text of No. 11 should be consulted at p. 5 6 and compared with that supplied by Dr. Anderson, when it will readily be seen that the learned Divine has changed the 5th Rule (No. 30 in MS. 11) so as to read " one Grand Master," in lieu of " one Master " and has appropriated the 6th Rule of the Roberts MS. (not in No. 11), though he has discreetly omitted the 7th, and the Obligation. Preston follows in THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS 63 Anderson's footsteps and is, therefore, entitled to no greater credence than the authority upon whom he relies.

 

A modern arrangement entitled " The CHARGES of a FREEMASON, extracted from the ancient RECORDS of LODGES beyond sea and of those in England, Scotland, and Ireland, for the use of the Lodges in London : To be read at the making of NEW BRETHREN, or when the MASTER shall order it," prefaces " The General Regulations," printed A.D. 1723. Although Dr. Anderson presented an " improved " (?) version in 1738, it was not liked and, in subsequent editions, that of 1723 was reverted to and, indeed, is substantially the same as those Charges which have been circulated with the " Regulations for the Government of the Craft " of the United Grand Lodge of England, from 1815 to the present date.

 

Additional confirmation of the Inigo Jones text having been adopted in part by Dr. Anderson, or at least that of the Cole MS. (which is virtually the same), will be found by comparing the 1738 Constitutions with either of those MSS. so far as respects " The History of Masonry from the Creation throughout the Known Earth." Of what has been termed in late years " learned credulity," the labours of Dr. Anderson afford an excellent illustration. Of the creationist school of Masonic historians, he is the facile princeps and, if imitation may be regarded as the sincerest form of flattery, the late Dr. George Oliver has been, beyond all comparison, his most appreciative disciple.

 

Over eighty different copies of these Old Charges or Constitutions of the Fraternity are now known to have been or to be still in existence ; these, for the most part being preserved with great care in Public or Masonic Libraries. They are generally written on parchment or paper rolls, which vary from about five to nine feet in length and from five to eleven inches in breadth. There are seven of these Old Charges in the British Museum, others in the archives of the United Grand Lodge of England, at York, Edinburgh and other places ; York being very fortunate in having the richest collection.

 

The Masonic Year‑book for the Province of Shropshire for 1912 contained particulars of a copy of the Old Charges which the Rev. C. H. Drinkwater of Shrewsbury discovered in a MS. book in the custody of the Rector of Warburton. This copy appears to have been made in 1748 from an older copy contained in another book written in 1694.

 

In 1908 W. J. Hughan announced the discovery of the Tho. Carmick MS. of A.D. 1727, so named after the owner and, probably, the transcriber of the document, from one belonging to St. John's Lodge of Philadelphia, U.S.A. The text is, in chief respects, similar to the well‑known Alnwick MS. of 1701, but has features peculiar to itself, more especially in relation to its Christian character and sundry additions and omissions ; besides which the anonymity of the MS. generally is varied in this instance by the Apprentice charge being declared to be " Invented by Mr. William harige, Sury and Meason, of his Majesty's town of harwich." CHAPTER III THE STONEMASONS (STEINMETZEN) OF GERMANY THE ceaseless progress of the building art, throughout the strife and turmoil of the Middle Ages, is a remarkable phenomenon which at once arrests our attention and challenges our research. A bare list of the monuments of architecture erected from the ninth to the fifteenth centuries would cover many pages ; in no country is this movement more emphatically marked than throughout the length and breadth of Germany. Devout men from the British Isles, chiefly from Ireland, crossed over to the mainland and, penetrating into the depths of the German forests, carried the pure doctrines of primitive Christianity to the German tribes. Wherever they came, they raised churches and dwellings for their priests, cleared the forests, tilled the virgin soil and instructed the heathen in the first principles of civilization.

 

And who were these builders ? What manner of men were they ? Whence came they? They were the Steinmetzen. They were a class of simple workmen, bound together by strong ties of brotherhood, but containing in their midst master builders whose minds were stored with all the mathematical knowledge of those days, who contentedly worked for a lifetime at an edifice, satisfied to know that, although they might never see its completion, their successors would carry on the work to a glorious conclusion and raise one more temple to the worship of the Most High.

 

Fallou (Mysterien der Frei>naurer, p. 157) asserts that, in the eleventh century, the monks in Germany first copied their brethren in Gaul by instituting lay brotherhoods attached to the convent and that the Abbot Marquardt of Corvey made use of this institution to procure builders for his new convent. Schauberg, however, refers to Springer (De Artificibur Monachis, Bonn, 186 1) as proving that, throughout the Middle Ages, the chief artificers were laymen‑not lay brothers of the convent ‑and that even at Corvey the great majority of the artists were laymen. There is no proof that these lay brotherhoods were builders ; more probably they consisted of nobles, knights and rich burghers, as is clearly pointed out by a further assertion of Fallou's, on the same page, that, in the year 1140, the Cistercians of Walkenried (in Brunswick, at the foot of the Hartz Mountains, on the Wieda) instituted such a fraternity and boasted that they could travel thence to Rome, dine each day with one lay brother, sup and sleep with another. This most certainly discloses the nature of these fraternities and it is impossible to connect them in any way with the building craft : they were not lay brothers in the ordinary sense and evidently did not reside in the convent. On p. 198,,however, he is inclined to attribute the institution of a lay brotherhood to a still earlier date‑say A.D. io8o, when 64 THE STONEMASONS (STEINMETZEN) OF GERMANY 65 William, Count Palatine of Scheuren, was elected Abbot of Hirschau (on the Nagold, in the Black Forest, Wurtemberg), of whom it was reported that he was so famous that crowds flocked to his convent, praying for admission. These petitioners were all admitted as lay brothers and speedily taught the various manipulations of masonry, etc. ; so that, in io8z, he was enabled to undertake the reconstruction of the monastery. At that time no fewer than three hundred monks and laymen dwelt in the convent under his orders. He instituted a rule for them, partitioned out their hours of labour, rest, worship and refreshment, inculcated above all things brotherly love and enjoined strict silence at work, unless desirous of communicating with the master. His school of art rapidly acquired such extended fame that he was overwhelmed by entreaties from all parts of Europe to furnish architects and artists for building operations. Nevertheless, in spite of his best workmen being constantly drafted off elsewhere, he was enabled to see his convent completed before his death, A.D. 1091.

 

Thus far Fallou. As he unfortunately omits to quote his authorities, it can only be assumed that he drew his facts from some monkish chronicle. That Abbot Wilhelm was a great man in his day is indisputable. St. Anselm, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, visited him in 1084 ; and the ruins of his splendid monastery are still in evidence. But the above account scarcely justifies the deduction that he was the originator of the craft of stonemasons. It is perfectly evident ‑(1) That the lapse of time was totally insufficient to create a large class of skilled artificers ; and (z) We have no trace here of divisions into grades, such as apprentice, fellow and master. As regards the first point. In io8o he succeeded to his post and, in 1o82, he was enabled to commence reconstruction. It is, therefore, evident that many of the laymen who are reported to have joined him were already skilled masons (two years being wholly insufficient for the instruction of such a large body of men) ; nor would the ensuing nine years have sufficed to raise such a superstructure by means of only half‑trained workmen. In fact, a passage further on in Fallou (op. cit., p. zoi) distinctly states that, according to the chronicle of Walkenried, Abbot Henry III admitted into his convent " z 1 skilled laymen, chiefly stonemasons," as lay brothers. It is important to distinguish between a layman and a lay brotherthat is, between a citizen of the world and a semi‑member of the Church. Fallou would seem almost purposely to have confounded them. As to any organization of the workmen, the idea is untenable. If any such existed, it was doubtless amongst the free artisans of the town, who may have entered into the pay of the monks ; but the lay brothers in all cases became the servants of the convent, dependent on them for food, lodging and raiment ; and the necessity for a term of apprenticeship is entirely absent. The title of magister, or master, was doubtless in use and may have denoted the monk directing the operations. The distinctive feature of apprenticeship is the obligation to serve a certain master for a fixed time at a reduced rate of payment, or even gratis, as the case may be. But a lay brother of a monastery would be under the same rule as the monk himself‑allowed to possess no private property‑hence could receive no pay beyond his sustenance ; so that if grades 66 THE STONEMASONS (STEINMETZEN) OF GERMANY of workmen existed at the building of these monasteries, they were either craft masons in the pay of the abbot, or something totally dissimilar to any association subsequently known to us. Speaking of Fallou's assertions as above, Winzer (Die Deutschen Bruderschaften, p. 47) says : " But these fraternities cannot interest us, being organizations of serfs " ; and probably he is right the workmen, or labourers, with the exception of a certain proportion of craft masons, being most likely the serfs, vassals and villeins of the convent. Fort (Early History and Antiquities of Freemasonry, p. 73), however, distinctly maintains that the Freemasons at a very early age appropriated the several degrees then existing in the monasteries. On p. 46 he gives his reasons for this statement, which are wholly unsatisfactory " Lacroix asserts, in a chronicle of the time of Dagobert (A.D. 6z8‑‑9), that Saint Eloi organized the jewellers, whom he selected from different monasteries, into a society comprising three degrees of labourers‑masters, fellows and apprentices." There is no proof that these monks were clerics ; in the early ages monks could enter or leave a monastery as they chose ; vows of chastity, etc., were unknown ; in fact the life of a monk was a purely voluntary one ; and in the quotation we are told that they left their different monasteries and were organized into a society. Lacroix (Les Arts au Moyen age, p. 16o) himself says : " Already was the jeweller's trade organized into a corps d'etat "‑i.e. a trade association‑which is far from proving Fort's assertion ; indeed, more naturally suggests the usual features of an ordinary craft guild.

 

It should be added that Fallou had previously maintained the same theory and even went further, in endeavouring to show that the ceremonies of the Steinmetzen were an adaptation of those used at the reception of a Benedictine novice, thereby implying that Freemasonry, as (according to this author) we now have it, was directly due to the inspiration or influence of the Abbot Wilhelm. Unfortunately for this theory, the Benedictine ceremonies, relied upon by Fallou, appear to have had no existence outside the pages of his work, indeed his statements on this head are positively contradicted by more than one writer of authority (Gurlitt, Geschichte des Benedictiner Ordens and Aubrey, History of England, vol, i, p. 98).

 

We thus see that from the sixth (perhaps fifth) century onwards up to the twelfth, when most of the monasteries were completed, they afforded the means of acquiring skill in the manipulation of building materials and may thus be looked upon in Germany as the earliest school of masonry and the cradle of architecture, furnishing large numbers of cunning artificers and experienced master builders, but not contributing in any way towards the organization of the stonemasons. For the origin of this sodality we must look to the trade guilds ; which, beginning in the towns as early as the tenth century, or even earlier, had meanwhile been acquiring increasing importance and extent ; until, in the twelfth, we find them fully developed throughout Germany. When the German tribes first appeared on the pages of history, they consisted of perfectly free and independent members only ; subject in matters of external policy and war to a chief of their own election, who THE STONEMASONS (STEINMETZEN) OF GERMANY 67 is described generally as their king, but whose office was not hereditary‑those cases in which the dignity descended from father to son arising solely from the superiority of the son to the other members of the tribe. Even the great Attila's kingdom fell to pieces on his death. The great bond of society was the patriarchal ; every member of a family owed allegiance and support to its head and assistance to every other member of the family. In course of time as the families grew larger and extended over a wider territory, their bond of union was loosened and voluntary associations of neighbours, having a community of interests, took its place. When Charlemagne established his supremacy in the ninth century, he introduced the feudal system and, from this time, we find German society divided into feudal lords‑feudal retainers‑smaller freeholders and serfs. About this time, also, cities first began to arise, probably from various causes. In some cases fortified places were necessary for protection against the still savage and predatory tribes of the North, or of Hungary. Charlemagne was himself the founder of a city, by establishing a court there, as at Aix‑la‑Chapelle. In others, the increasing population round a bishop's seat frequently developed into a town.

 

In the German towns of the Middle Ages we find two distinct classes. First, the original freeholders, in whom resided the whole government of the town, represented by the burghers' guild. This guild underwent various denominations in the different cities : it was called the old guild, the high guild, the guild, the patrician guild, etc. In some cases, where it monopolized the chief trade (not craft), it was otherwise styled‑for instance, the weavers' guild. But under whatever denomination, it had grown exclusive ; it no longer admitted all free burghers, not even if they possessed the territorial qualification ; demanding, in all cases, that the claimant to the honour should have forsworn his craft for a year and a day ; that none " with dirty hands," or " with blue nails," or who " hawked his wares in the street," should be admitted (Brentano, On the History and Development of Guilds, p. 43). Thus a distinct class had been formed‑the patrician class, the rights and emoluments of which were hereditary and acquired with great difficulty by strangers ; whose members reserved to those among themselves who were not thoroughly independent of all labour the most lucrative and considerable trades, such as the goldsmiths, the bankers, the general merchants, etc. They had also grown proud, domineering and aggressive ; so that no sooner did the second class, the craft guilds, feel themselves strong on their legs, than in one city after another bloody feuds ensued ; the final result of which was the dethronement of the patricians from their supremacy and, in some cases, the breaking‑up of the high guild.

 

Generally, however, the conquerors, with rare magnanimity, still allowed the patrician guild to contribute its delegates to the municipal council and, in some cases, even granted them a casting vote in consideration of their past services (ibid., p. 47). Brentano fixes the time of the final victory of the craft guilds as towards the end of the fourteenth century, although in some cities the consummation had been arrived at much earlier.

 

 68 THE STONEMASONS (STEINMETZEN) OF GERMANY The craft guilds having thus acquired a high position, we now find another movement initiated by the masters‑who in their turn became proud‑viz. that of gradually excluding the workmen from their meetings. This took place in all guilds, the stonemasons only excepted, as will presently appear ; and even with it, the same evolution must have occurred, only much later‑probably not till the end of the seventeenth century. The workmen (journeymen) therefore formed guilds or fraternities of their own ; in some cases electing officers of their own body ; in others, from amongst the masters. The literature treating of these societies is extensive and, in many cases, their customs and usages may enable us to form some idea of the customs of the stonemasons, who were a craft guild resembling in many things the other craft guilds and, in some matters, wherever the exigencies of their trade required it, differing from all. This fraternity of builders, whose first authentic charter is the one already quoted of the thirteenth century, had doubtless been in existence much earlier, as a contract has been preserved to us made in 1133 between the Bishop of Wurzburg, Embricho and the lay master mason Enzelin (see Dr. Ang. Reichensperger, Die Bauhiitte des Mittelalrers, p. 12, Cologne, 1879) ; to them we must look for the organization of the society, which was not to be found amongst the convent builders. It is probable that in the twelfth century, or thereabouts, the skilled masons of the convent builders left the employ of their masters, the monks, now grown opulent, fat, lazy, and vicious and unable to provide them with further work, amalgamated with the craft builders in the town and that the two together formed the society afterwards known throughout Germany as the Steinmetzen.

 

In the codes of laws and ordinances we find one new feature that doubtless dates from 1459‑that of the bond embracing all Germany and Switzerland‑that is, the inner fraternity and the supreme authority. There can be no doubt that previous and constant intercommunication had reduced the various guilds of stonemasons scattered throughout Germany to one general uniformity, except in some small matters (the length of apprenticeship, for instance) and that, like all other trades, a journeyman free to work in one place was acceptable in another. Yet differences, tending to positive strife, were by no means impossible under such circumstances ; but, in 145 9, this was rendered excessively difficult by the institution of a universal guild or fraternity and four chief lodges, to which all disputes must be referred. Of the latter, in spite of some obscurity in the wording, the lodge at Strasburg was the supreme head. It is even more than likely that this assembly in 1459 and the rules then laid down were the direct result of some quarrel which had threatened to become prejudicial to the trade ; or they may have taken their rise from a feeling in the craft that the days of their highest prosperity and power were slipping away from them and that some mighty effort was necessary to consolidate their associations and combine their interests ; or they may, on the other hand, have been simply the outcome of a desire to obtain royal authority for their future proceedings, as immediately afterwards these statutes were laid before the Emperor for confirmation.

 

 THE STONEMASONS (STEINMETZEN) OF GERMANY 69 These Ordinances apparently remained in full force till 1563, with possibly some slight alterations of individual sections ; a proceeding perfectly allowable according to the laws themselves. Heldmann, indeed, supposes that such did take place, at the assemblies held (as he avers) in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries at Strasburg, Cologne, Bale and other places, although he does not cite his authority for this statement (see Die drei Aeltesten Geschichtlichen Denkmale, p. 5 2). It is, however, quite obvious that the Ordinances of 1459 are given in a very confused manner, without any attempt at natural sequence or order ; and for this, as well possibly as for other reasons, it became highly desirable that they should undergo a general revision, which accordingly took place in 1563, at two meetings, held respectively on the festivals of St. Bartholomew and St. Michael. These revised laws were printed in folio and a copy distributed to every lodge of importance the master of which was willing to join the fraternity ; and the following are excerpts from what is described as The Brother Book of 1563, containing " The Ordinances and Articles of the Fraternity of Stonemasons renewed at the Chief Lodge at Strasburg on St. Michael's Day MDLXIII." No English translation of these Ordinances has hitherto appeared. They were first published as the Secret Book (Geheimbuch) of the Stonemasons, in folio, with the imprint 1563 and the imperial eagle on the title page and, from this copy, were republished by Heldmann, Krause, and Heideloff.

 

The preamble reads as follows His Imperial Roman Majesty, our most gracious Lord, having in this one thousand five hundred and sixty‑third year most graciously renewed, confirmed and approved to the general fellowship and brotherhood of the Stonemasons in German Lands their regulations and duties ; and, whereas for some time past, many irregularities and bad habits have arisen and obtained in the craft of masonry, therefore have many masters and fellows of aforesaid craft and fraternity, as they are named hereafter, met together in the aforesaid sixty‑third year at Bale on St. Bartholomew's and at Strasburg on St. Michael's Day, in order to elucidate and better aforesaid Ordinances and Articles of the Craft and Brotherhood and the aforesaid have elucidated and bettered said Ordinances and settled that they shall be held as hereafter follows ; and no one who is of this guild shall do or act contrary thereto.

 

It is unnecessary to reproduce the Ordinances in full, but the following are of interest to modern Freemasons Of the Duties of those who are of this Guild.

 

II. Whoso comes into this guild of his own good will, as hereafter stands written in this book, he shall promise to keep every point and article if he be of our craft of Masonry. Those shall be masters who can erect costly edifices and such like work, for the which they are authorized and serve no other craft unless they choose so to do. And be it masters or fellows they shall and must conduct themselves honourably and none shall be wronged by them ; therefore have we taken power in these Ordinances to punish them on the occasion of every such act.

 

4 70 THE STONEMASONS (STEINMETZEN) OF GERMANY Who may be taught to execute Work from the Ground Plan or other Carved Work.

 

XIII. And no craftsman, warden, or fellow shall teach any one, whoever he be, that is not of our craft, to make extracts from the ground plan or other usages of masonry, who has not practised masonry in his day, or not served long enough with a stonemason according to our craft, customs and ordinances.

 

No Master shall teach a Fellow anything for Money.

 

XIV. And no craftsman or master shall take money from a fellow for showing or teaching him anything touching masonry. In like manner no warden or fellow shall show or instruct any one for money in carving as aforesaid. Should, however, one wish to instruct or teach another, he may well do it, one piece for the other, or for fellowship sake, or to serve their master thereby.

 

How many Apprentices a Master may have.

 

XV. A master who has only one building or work may have three apprentices, two rough and one art apprentice, that he may also employ fellows in the same lodge, that is, if his superiors permit. If he have more than one building he shall not have more than two apprentices on the first works and buildings, so that he have not more than five apprentices on all his buildings. Nevertheless, so that each may serve his five years on that building and work on which he serves.

 

Who openly lives in Concubinage.

 

XVI. No craftsman or master of masonry shall live openly in adultery. If, however, such a one will not desist therefrom, no travelling fellow nor stonemason shall stand in his employ, or have communion with him.

 

 Who lives not as a Christian, and goes not yearly to the Holy Sacrament.

 

XVII. No craftsman or master shall be received into the guild who goes not yearly to Holy Sacrament, or keeps not Christian discipline and squanders his substance in play. But should any one be inadvertently accepted into the guild who does these things as aforesaid, no master shall keep company with him, nor shall any fellow stand by him until he shall have ceased so to do and been punished by those of this guild.

 

How Complaints are to be heard, judged, and conducted.

 

XIX. And if a master have a complaint against another master for having violated the regulations of the craftsmen, or in the same way a master against a fellow, or a fellow against another fellow, whatever master or fellow is concerned therein shall give notice thereof to the masters who hold these books of the regulations. And the masters who are informed thereof shall hear both parties and set a day when they will hear the cause. And meanwhile, before the fixed or appointed day no fellow shall avoid the master, nor master the fellow, but render services mutually until the hour when the matter is to be heard and settled. And this shall all be done according to the judgment of the craftsmen and what is adjudged shall be observed accordingly. And, moreover, where the case arose there shall it be tried, by the nearest masters who hold the book of these regulations, and in whose district it occurred.

 

Where a Book is, there shall be the Collection for the Poor and Sick Brothers.

 

.

 

IV. And all those to whom books of the ordinances are given, shall faithfully collect the weekly penny from the fellows ; and if a fellow becomes sick, shall assist him. Likewise, where such a superior has a master under him, having employment and fellows, he shall order him to collect the weekly pennies in a box and give him a box for that purpose, which box shall THE STONEMASONS (STEINMETZEN) OF GERMANY 71 be emptied by and accounted for to each superior of a district every year and be employed for the assistance of the poor and sick of our craft who are under him.

 

And every master who has a box and has received account every year of his neighbours of their boxes, shall send a bohemian [a coin of trifling value] every year at Michaelmas to the chief lodge at Strasburg, with a ticket whence it comes, as a sign of obedience and brotherly love ; that it may be known that all things as aforesaid have been carried out.

 

 How the Masters of this Guild shall preserve the Book.

 

.

 

VIII. The master who has charge of the book shall, on his oath to the guild, have a care that the same be not copied either by himself or by any other person, or lent ; so that the books remain in full force, as resolved by the craftsmen. But should any one be in need of one or two articles more or less, that may any master give him in writing. And every master shall cause these Ordinances to be read every year to the fellows in the lodge.

 

 No Fellow to be employed who lives in adultery.

 

XLVI. No master or craftsman shall employ any fellow who consorts with a woman in adultery, or who openly lives a dishonourable life with women, or who goes not to the holy communion according to Christian discipline, or one who is so foolish as to game away his clothing.

 

Not to leave the Lodge without permission.

 

LI. No fellow shall go out from the lodge without leave, or if he go to his broth or any other meal, remain out without leave ; nor shall any make Holy Monday. If any one do so, he shall stand to punishment by the master and fellows and the master shall have power to discharge him in the week when he will.

 

What an Apprentice shall vow to the Craft when he has served his time and is declared free.

 

LIV. In the first place, every apprentice when he has served his time and is declared free, shall promise the craft, on his truth and honour, in lieu of oath, under pain of losing his right to practise masonry, that he will disclose or communicate the mason's greeting and grip to no one, except to him to whom he may justly communicate it ; and also that he will write nothing thereof.

 

Secondly, He shall promise as aforesaid, to be obedient to the craft of masonry in all things concerning the craft and if he be sentenced by the craft he shall conform wholly to such sentence and yield obedience thereto.

 

Thirdly, He shall promise not to weaken but to strengthen the craft, so far as his means may extend.

 

Fourthly, No one shall stand by another to hew stones who is not honestly of the craft ; and no master shall employ any one to hew stones who is not a true stonemason, unless it be previously permitted to him of a whole craft.

 

LV. And no one shall alter of his own will and power his mark which has been granted and lent him by a craft ; but if he ever desire to alter it he shall only do it with the knowledge, will and approval of a whole craft.

 

LVI. And every master, having aforesaid apprentices, shall earnestly enjoin and invite each one when he has thus completed the above‑written five years to become a brother, by the oath which each one has taken to the craft and is offered to each.

 

 No Apprentice to be made a Warden.

 

LVII. No craftsman or master shall appoint as warden any one of his apprentices whom he has taken from his rough state, who is still in his years of apprenticeship.

 

LVIII. And no craftsman or master shall appoint as warden any apprentice whom he has 72 THE STONEMASONS (STEINMETZEN) OF GERMANY taken from his rough state to apprentice, even if he have served his years of apprenticeship, unless he have also travelled for one year.

 

Ordinances of the Apprentices.

 

LX. And no craftsman shall knowingly accept an apprentice of illegitimate birth, but shall have made earnest inquiries before accepting him and shall ask the apprentice on his truth whether his father and mother have lived together in wedlock.

 

LXI. And it is also decreed that no craftsman shall accept an apprentice in the rough otherwise than for five years and henceforth none shall pay any money for the time which he has not served, but shall completely serve his five years. Nevertheless, what has heretofore been done, that shall so remain, but in future it shall only be done as aforesaid.

 

LXII. And a father, being himself a mason, shall have power to bind one or more of his sons for five years and to complete their instruction, but only in the presence of other stonemasons ; and such an apprentice shall not be under fourteen years of age.

 

A few paragraphs of the 1459 Ordinances are totally omitted in 1563. These principally provide for divine worship, the singing of masses for the departed and the return of the book and box to Strasburg, should a master's building be completed and he have no further employment for his fellows. One of the omitted Ordinances is, however, curious ; and to render the review complete it is now inserted Item. Whoever desires to enter this fraternity shall promise ever to keep steadfastly all these articles hereinbefore and hereafter written in this book ; except our gracious lord the Emperor or the king, princes, lords, or any other nobles, by force or right should be opposed to his belonging to the fraternity ; that shall be a sufficient excuse ; so that there be no harm therein. But for what he is indebted to the fraternity, he shall come to an agreement thereon with the craftsmen who are in the fraternity.

 

The Ordinances of 1459 and 1563 provide that an apprentice shall not be appointed warden ; whereas those of 1462 permit the master to appoint an apprentice to the office of warden, " if he be able to maintain it " ; that is, if he be sufficiently instructed and capable, in order that no harm may thereby ensue. In all other points, the Torgau Ordinances are merely complemental to those of 1459ò The stonemasons were divided, like all other crafts whatsoever, into three classes‑masters, fellows and apprentices. The apprentices, however, though of the craft, were not admitted to the brotherhood ; in this respect an analogy existing with the other craft guilds. But with the stonemasons, as their laws reveal, the master remained a member of the brotherhood and owed his position in the fraternity as presiding judge, solely to his qualification of workmaster ; whereas, in other crafts, the masters had formed fraternities of their own and the journeymen also ; and the journeymen fraternities were presided over in some instances by one of the masters of the locality and, in others, by one or more of the journeymen themselves, who then took the title of " Old‑fellow " (Alt ge rell). In both cases, however, the officer was elected by the votes of the members ; and in the former the master was admitted more as a representative of the masters than THE STONEMASONS (STEINMETZEN) OF GERMANY 73 as a president, the proceedings being always conducted by the " Old‑fellow," the master sitting as a sort of coadjutor (see Berlepsch, Chronik der Gewerbe, vol. i).

 

On the completion of his apprenticeship a new life awaited the young workman. He was declared free of the craft and obtained rank as a fellow craft (Gesell) ; but did not necessarily thereby enter the fraternity. This act was solemnly performed before the assembled Lodge and was doubtless accompanied by some formalities, of which the leading features are pointed out. We know that he had to take a solemn obligation " on his truth and honour in lieu of oath," under the penalty of being expelled the craft, that he would be a true, loyal, and obedient mason, that he would maintain the craft as far as in him lay, that he would not of his own initiative alter or change his distinctive mark and that he would not disclose the greeting (Gruss) or grip (Schenck) to any non‑mason ; even that he would not commit any part thereof to writing. These methods of recognition were then imparted to him and the ceremony concluded with a jovial feast, which was partly at the master's expense, partly at his own. To this feast sundry guests were invited, probably the clergy attached to the building then in course of erection ; even the bill of fare was provided for. The master was strictly enjoined not to delay this action for a longer period than fourteen days, except on good and valid grounds ; and it was expressly stipulated that henceforth nothing shall be unjustly withheld, in order that no excuse may be pleaded in after‑times ; hence it may be assumed that amongst other matters the Ordinances were read to him. This was called pledging his mark, toasting it, or drinking good luck to it ; and, so important was the occasion considered, that the stipulated rules of frugality were suspended and the warden was empowered to cease work one hour sooner. This mark henceforth became his distinctive property and was used by him as a species of signature ; he was required to engrave it on all his work upon completion and severely punished if he did so before the work had been proved and passed. What the grip was we are not told ; but at the beginning of last century, Herr Osterrieth, an architect, who had been professionally educated at Strasburg, where he joined a survival of the stonemasons, on being admitted to Freemasonry by Heldmann at Aarau (in the province of Aargau, Switzerland), expressed his astonishment at recognizing in the entered apprentice grip the token of the Strasburg stonemasons (see Heldmann, Die drei Aeltesten Geschichtlichen Denkmale, p. zSo). Unless we think fit to doubt this assertion, the Masonic reader will know what the stonemason's grip was ; if we believe it, the curious question remains, is the resemblance a mere coincidence, or a proof of a connecting link between the German and English stonemasons of the Middle Ages ? On Osterrieth's own showing, he must have violated his promise of secrecy to his Strasburg Brethren and, therefore, cannot be regarded as a witness of scrupulous veracity. He places himself in the awkward dilemma, either of having deceived the Freemasons of Aarau by a falsehood, or of having perjured himself, so that we shall be justified in receiving his disclosure with caution. It is also to be noted, that, although all writers claim a grip for the stonemasons, the only evidence by which this claim can be supported, is one word quoted, viz. Schenck. This 74 THE STONEMASONS (STEINMETZEN) OF GERMANY word is derived from schencken, to give ; hence handschencken, to give or shake hands ; and in this case we must suppose that the word Hand is omitted and understood, as Schenck alone would not import the fuller meaning. The word Schenck occurs very frequently in the Ordinances and, in other clauses, always refers to the pledge feast ; ausschencken or verschencken is to pour out, a libation, a toast, pledge, etc. and as these toasts were always drunk in other handicrafts, with a prescribed movement of hand and cup, accompanied by a fixed form of words, it may be assumed that the stonemasons also had their pledge‑ritual. It is therefore just possible that here the word alludes to the pledge and that the article forbids the fellow craft to divulge to the non‑mason this peculiar ceremonial. Inasmuch, however, as all German writers agree in attributing the possession of a certain grip to the present descendants of the stonemasons and, taking into consideration that the word is used conjointly with " greeting " (Grass), it may reasonably be concluded that the existence of a grip has fairly been demonstrated.

 

Heldmann also states (p. z50) that the Steinmetzen had a series of prescribed steps, identical with those of the Freemasons, but he cites no authority, not even his friend Osterrieth ; so that it remains more than questionable whether the former has not given a very loose rein to his imagination. Fallou more than once describes these steps, asserting, but always without authority, that they were usual on various specified occasions ; and Winzer (p. 67) copies him. According to Heinsch, they reappear amongst the Stone‑heivers and are described as three equal steps forward and backward, in which, however, there is nothing suggestive of Masonic identity.

 

But the new craftsman was also charged not to reveal the greeting. Findel, Fort, Steinbrenner and others, translate this word by " salute," a term conveying a sense which appears to be unauthorized. A salute combines the idea of a greeting by word of mouth and a greeting by action ; in fact, a sign and a speech. There is no mention in an authentic document of a sign. Fallou writes throughout in such a manner as to leave the impression that the salute was accompanied by a sign ; and Fort (p. 215) expressly declares that a wandering journeyman on entering a Lodge " advanced by three upright measured steps and gave the salute, Gruss, or hailing sign." It is impossible to restrain a feeling of impatience when writers, whose works would otherwise be valuable, destroy the confidence of a critical reader by such baseless assertions. In no trade of the Middle Ages, not even amongst the Steinmetzen, is it possible to find the slightest trace of a sign or of anything approaching thereto. It would not, however, be fair to leave unnoticed the remark that sculptured images may still be seen in existing medixval churches whose attitudes bear a close resemblance to certain of our Masonic positions. Indeed, Fort (Early History and Antiquities of Freemasonry, p. 89) positively asserts " that in one of the churches at Florence there are life‑size figures in Masonic attitudes." The idea thus suggested is further supported by a pictorial representation of the entrance to the cathedral in the same city, which he gives as a frontispiece to his well‑known work. In this sketch there are portrayed (exclusive of minor figures) the forms of five ecclesiastics in reverential attitudes. The postures they assume THE STONEMASONS (STEINMETZEN) OF GERMANY 75 will remind those conversant with the services of the Roman Church of the attitude of the officiating priest and, beyond the strong family likeness which must always exist between supplicatory and reverential positions of all kinds and in all countries, assumed in invocation of Divine aid, there does not seem anything to merit attention in the similitude upon which Fort has laid so much stress. It may be added, that to what has been happily termed by Hyde Clarke " the doctrine of chance coincidences " are due all the " traveller's tales " of later years, wherein, as a common feature, appear either the manifestation or the recognition of Masonic signs, by Arabs of the desert, native Australians, Bushmen, Afghans, etc. Upon the whole, we may safely infer that whatever resemblances may appear to exist between the Masonic ceremonial and the attitudes to which Fort has alluded are as much the product of chance as the " supposititious masonry " of our own times, which has evoked the excellent definition of Hyde Clarke (see Freemason's Magazine, November 26, :1864).

 

As for the greeting itself we are distinctly told what it was, also the words in which a fellow was to claim assistance and how he was to return thanks for the help tendered. It may seem strange that what was considered a secret should have been committed to writing ; and, in fact, Fallou (Mysterien der Freimaurer, p. 3 5 3) asserts that it was never in use and that the Torgau Ordinances were of no authority, being merely a private sketch of a proposed new ordinance and rule ; and he elsewhere states that they never received confirmation. The latter statement is correct and, moreover, they were never meant to be confirmed, being entirely subsidiary to and elucidatory of, the 1459 Ordinances ; but, as to the former, it is so palpably erroneous, as shown in another place and by the preamble itself, that no words about it need be wasted here. Fallou prefers to this documentary evidence the statements of a Steinmetz of the present day ; the greeting, however, as told by him is so similar, that it may well have arisen from the old original‑all except the three upright steps. When we take into account, however, the fact that the Torgau Ordinances were never printed, or intended to be and were probably only entrusted to well‑known masters, as may be presumed from the fact that up to the present time only one copy has come to light ; when we consider how important it was that this greeting should be given with great exactitude, in order to distinguish a bona fide craftsman, we can no longer wonder at the Saxon masters ensuring its accurate preservation. But if so, why was not the grip similarly preserved? Because it was so simple in its very nature, that once learned, it could not be forgotten or perverted.

 

A careful glance at the Ordinances will convince us that no single clue of the remotest kind is afforded as to the nature of the affiliation ceremony ; we are not even told that a ceremony existed, nor is it probable that it did in 145 9, although one may have become usual in after‑years. We are not informed that there were any secrets to be communicated, or mysteries to be concealed, or any further instruction to be acquired ; nay, we are directly assured that there were none ; because the perfect apprentice was no longer to have aught concealed from him ; that is to say, that 7 76 THE STONEMASONS (STEINMETZEN) OF GERMANY everything necessary to the due prosecution of his profession became his by right, whether or not he joined the fraternity. Fort, in his description (which is chiefly copied from Fallou), evidently confuses the distinct occasions of passing to the journeyman's degree and of entering the fraternity, which mistake, however, Fallou has avoided. Findel also, following the same lead, has not only fallen into a similar error, but contrives to entangle with both these incidents some of the preliminaries of indenture. Steinbrenner has gone even farther astray, placing the conferring of the mark last of all. Their great authority Fallou presents a graphic description of this ceremony, but it will be sufficient in this place to glance at its leading features. He avers that the candidate was blindfolded, half unclothed, slipshod, deprived of weapons and metals (a cord about his neck), led three times round the Lodge ; that he then advanced by three upright steps to the master, undertook an obligation on the Scriptures, square and compasses, was restored to sight, shown the three great lights, invested with a white apron and gloves, etc., etc. Now, it may positively be affirmed that if Fallou could have fortified these assertions by the merest colour of authority, he would have done so ; also that if subsequent writers had been able to discover any confirmatory evidence, they would have given it. Endeavours to trace any foundation of authority have proved lamentable failures and, combining this experience with the above considerations, it does not seem difficult to pronounce that the entire ceremony has been invented by Fallou. The account is in itself improbable. Why should the fellow craft be blindfolded ? There was no concealed light to be revealed to him as far as operative masonry was concerned and of a speculative science there is no trace in the annals of the Steinmetzen. It should be recollected, moreover, that Fallou places before us the details of an affiliation, not of an initiation. Beyond a doubt the novice would be "deprived of weapons"; these were never at anytime allowed in Lodge ; and possibly he may have been partially unclothed in token of humility and to remind him of his distressed brethren. But wherefore the cord " about his neck " and the rest of the ceremony ? The whole account is palpably absurd. It may at once frankly be avowed that no record exists of the ceremony of affiliation amongst the stonemasons and, even according to Fallou, their present descendants have preserved none of any kind. It is, therefore, in the highest degree improbable that we shall ever know whether one existed ; but we have means at hand, if we concede its possible existence, of forming an imperfect idea of its nature, in the recorded ceremonies of other journeyman fraternities. Some of these usages certainly survived until the early part of this century and may perhaps even now be more or less practised.

 

We find, then, that the first thing necessary to render a meeting of the fraternities legal was the opened chest of the society. This contained their documents, minute‑books, registers and treasury ; and was usually secured by three locks and keys, which keys were in possession of three different officials ; hence their joint presence must also have been necessary. The presiding officer then knocked with some symbol of authority (usually a staff or hammer), to procure silence. The THE STONEMASONS (STEINMETZEN) OF GERMANY 77 periodical contributions of the members were then collected. Complaints were next heard and strife adjusted. The locksmiths (see Berlepsch, Chronik der Gewerbe, vol. vii, pp. 173‑6) (and possibly other crafts) closed their meetings by three formal inquiries, whether anything for the good of the craft or of the fraternity offered itself. All ceremonial operations were conducted in the form of a dialogue between the officials. Now note the ceremony of affiliating a journeyman joiner (Stock, Grunddiige der TVerfassung, p. 24). He was ushered into the assembly and placed before the president in an upright position, his heels joined, his feet at right angles, which was ensured by the square being placed between them. His posture was proved by the level, he was required to stand erect, elbows on his hips and hands spread out sideways so as to represent an equilateral triangle, of which his head was the apex. He was denominated throughout " rough wood." He was then directed to listen to a lecture. The first part of this lecture treats of the origin of the joiner's art and includes remarks on architecture in general, couched in rude verse, the phraseology of which (according to Stock) denotes an early eighteenth‑century origin ; much of it is based upon Vitruvius. In the generality of crafts he underwent a rude symbolical ceremony called Hdnseln (see Berlepsch, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 66 ; vol. vi, p. i i 8)‑that is, handling or manipulation. In the case of the joiners this consisted of being stretched on a bench, rather roughly planed and shaped with various tools, in fact treated as rough wood under the joiner's hands. The locksmiths turned a key round three times in the mouth of the candidate (Stock, op. cit., p. 29). After this ceremony the joiner was called in future " smooth wood " and, the proceedings being ended, was once more placed under the level. We then are treated to a reminiscence of knightly installations ; for the master having asked his name and received for an answer, say, " Martin," exhorts him thus‑" Until now you were Martin under the bench, now you are Martin above the bench " ; he then slaps his face and continues, " Suffer this, this once from me, henceforth from no man " (ibid., p. 28). The joiners' ceremony has been selected for quotation, being the most symbolic and, therefore, the least inimical to the theory of there being at this period any species of speculative Masonry ; and because, as might be expected from their intimacy with the masons, it shows traces of a connexion with architecture. The lecture contains excellent rules for conduct and some lessons in morality. Although couched in rude language, it is brimming over with the rather ponderous German wit.

 

The office of warden does not appear to have existed in guilds other than those of the stonemasons, but there full information as to his duties is found. In his installation we find traces of another solemn ceremony. He was to be appointed personally, not by a message or a third party, master and warden being both present and no doubt the whole Lodge ; the master then addressed him on the importance of his office and its duties (" he shall impress him with the wardenship ") and the warden made oath to the saints (the four crowned martyrs), on the square and gauge, to perform his duties to the best of his ability. The fellows then hailed him as warden and swore obedience to him as the master's representative, the whole of course, 78 THE STONEMASONS (STEINMETZEN) OF GERMANY concluding with a feast at the warden's expense. As to his duties, they were manifold. The 1563 Ordinances merely state generally, that he is to be true, trusty and obedient, but those of Torgau are much more minute. We are told that his signal was two knocks, but whenever an announcement was made, such as to begin or to cease work, command attention, etc., one knock only. He was to preserve the order, the privileges, the tools and appliances of the Lodge and to see that all instruments of precision, square, gauge, etc., were maintained in full accuracy. He was to act as general instructor to the fellows and apprentices and prepare, prove and pass their work for them, to reject spoilt work and to levy all fines for negligence or otherwise. He was to call the brethren to labour at the proper time, without fear or favour and to fine those who did not make their appearance ; in this latter respect, his attention being forcibly directed to the influence of a good example. Whilst true and faithful to his master, ever on the alert to safeguard his interests, he was to be conciliatory and kind to the fellows, ever ready to help them, of a peaceable disposition, to avoid giving cause of strife and, on no account, to act with greater severity than the usages of the craft permitted. He was to preside at their ordinary vesper meal and to enforce a becoming frugality ; he had power to assist a traveller and to engage and dismiss workmen and, in the master's absence, succeeded to all his authority, even to the extent of reducing the hours of labour. His name is differently given. The Strasburg Ordinances always call him parlierer. According to Fallou and others this word would signify " the speaker," from the French parler, to speak ; and, in fact, he was, undoubtedly, to a certain extent, the mouthpiece of the master. But a glance at the original language of the Statutes will show that no other word there used indicates a French origin and the custom, since so prevalent with a certain class of German writers and speakers, of Teutonizing French words, to the great detriment of their fine old mother tongue, had not yet arisen. Fort gives a far more probable derivation (Early History and Antiquities of Freemasonry, p. 267). The Torgau Ordinances spell the word pallirer ; and he states that, in former times amongst the Germans, all places of worship, justice, etc., were fenced around with a row of stakes, in modern German pfahl, formerly pal ; the guardian or warden of the enclosure would thence take his name, pfablirer or pallirer and, when the real meaning of the word was forgotten and the present office of the holder only remembered, it might easily have become corrupted into parlierer.

 

Individual Lodges were subordinate to a district Lodge ; several district Lodges owed obedience to a provincial Lodge and all culminated in the chief Lodge of Strasburg, all being united by the tie of brotherhood.

 

Masonic writers all combine in placing vividly before us the importance and the dignity of the chief master at Strasburg ; and scarcely one of them omits to mention that he was invested with a sword and sat enthroned under a canopy or baldachin. If, however, this assertion is carefully traced from one authority to another up to the fountain‑head, we find that it originates in the work of a nonmason, viz. Stock (p. 85), who says he has been informed " that such was the case." THE STONEMASONS (STEINMETZEN) OF GERMANY 79 Fallou (p. 72) ascribes the origin of this statement to Grandidier, but questions his accuracy. It therefore rests simply on hearsay. Without being a matter of importance either way, it affords, nevertheless, a good example of the manner in which Masonic history has been written. But, without importing into the case any extravagant conclusions, no doubt need be entertained that the overjudge at Strasburg wielded an immense influence ; although, looking at the whole spirit of the Ordinances before us, it is hardly conceivable that his judicial decisions were promulgated on his own sole and undivided authority. Like the district masters, he had probably to avail himself of the assistance of neighbouring or, perhaps, provincial masters and of the fellows of the craft in general. In 1461 the Town Council of Strasburg formally made over to him the adjudication of all disputes amongst the citizens relating to their buildings and he was provided with an assistant versed in the law. But, as he misused this power, it was withdrawn in 16zo. See Alsatia Illustrata, by Schopflin, quoted by Krause, znd edit., vol. ii, pt. iv, P. 245.

 

In the Cathedral of Wurzburg two pillars stand within the building, which at some period formed a part of the original porch. They are of peculiar construction. Their names, Jachin and Boaz, suggest a derivation from the celebrated pillars at the entrance of King Solomon's Temple, with which, however, their architectural form in no way corresponds. Jachin is composed of two series of eight columns ; the eight springing from the capital extend to the centre and are there curved and joined two and two, so as to form in reality only four U‑shaped columns ; the same applies to the four whose eight open ends rest on the base. At the bends of the opposing U's, the pillar is completed by an interlaced fillet or band. Boaz consists of two U's at the top and two at the base, these are joined by two O's of equal length, so that this pillar consists of apparently three series of four columns each. The names are engraved on the capitals. A sketch of these will be found in Steinbrenner, p. 76. A counterpart of Jachin is to be found in Bamberg Cathedral and one of Boaz in the New Market Church of Merseburg ; various ornamental forms in other buildings resemble these columns in one or more respects (see Steinbrenner, Origin and Early History of Freemasonry, p. 79). It is obvious that these curious monuments are suggestive of many mystical interpretations ; they may be intended to represent man (body and soul), the Trinity (three in one), or, in fact, almost anything‑a little ingenuity will discover numberless hidden meanings ‑or they may simply be the result of the inventive fancy of some skilful workman. Their names merely prove that the masons were acquainted with that part of the Old Testament most interesting to them as architects, which in itself may have suggested the idea of constructing something unusual. Of Church symbolism, Stieglitz (Geschichte der Baukunst, p. 448) observes, " and because the Apostles were considered the pillars of the Church, the columns at the side of the porch were referred to them ; although the pillars in front of King Solomon's Temple were thereby more especially brought to mind." But, admitting that the ancient builders attached a hidden symbolical meaning to these pillars, the fact is sufficient to sustain 8o THE STONEMASONS (STEINMETZEN) OF GERMANY the theory that a speculative system of philosophy or of theology was nurtured in the masons' lodges.

 

One point, however, demands attention before we pass from this subject. According to Schauberg (Vergleichendes Handbuch der Symbolik der Freimaurerei, vol. ii, p. S33) on each side of the Meistertafel (master's tablet) at Bale is a sculptured representation of one of the four martyrs, with the addition of a couplet in rude rhyme. Identical verses, in slightly modernized phraseology, are also engraved on the treasury chest of the Hamburg Lodge of Masons, which reverted to Vienna together with the Brother‑book, after the death of the last Steinmetz, Wittgreff. These verses run as follows I The square possesses science enough, But use it always with propriety.

 

II The level teaches the true faith ; Therefore is it to be treasured.

 

III Justice and the compass' scienceIt boots naught to establish them.

 

IV The gauge is fine and scientific, And is used by great and small.

 

 The versifiers, in the second and third rhymes more especially, clearly show that they grasped the idea of an ethical symbolization of the implements of their handicraft ; yet the question arises, whether this ought not rather to be taken as a proof of philosophical reflection on the part of some individual members, than as indicative of a system of speculative philosophy having been co‑existent with medixval stonemasonry? It has been already shown that the masons enjoyed no monopoly of the symbolism of their trade. H. A. Giles (Freemasonry in China, p. 3) observes : "From time immemorial we find the square and compasses used by Chinese writers, to symbolize exactly the same phases of moral conduct as in our own system of Freemasonry." If such a system existed, why has it not survived ? why are there no traces of it in the still existing lodges of the stonemasons ? Why, when Freemasonry was introduced from England, did no recognition take place of its previous existence in Germany ? The reason is obvious. Stonemasonry, purely operative, had existed in Germany ; Freemasonry, that is, a speculative science‑never ! The Steinmetzen may have claimed a few thoughtful, speculative members and so, for that matter, might a society of coalheavers ; but it never concealed within the bosom of its operative fraternity any society which consciously and systematically practised a speculative science.

 

 THE STONEMASONS (STEINMETZEN) OF GERMANY 81 In view of the assertions so often made, that the stonemasons were in the habit of admitting into their fraternity the most learned men of the age, it is somewhat surprising to find no provision for this contingency in the Ordinances. Albertus Argentinus and Albertus Magnus are both claimed as masons. To the former is attributed the design for the towers of Strasburg Cathedral and, to the latter, the plan of Cologne Cathedral, although some writers are inclined to consider them as one and the same person. This is the opinion of, amongst others, Heideloff, who says (Die Bauhiitte des Mittelalters, p. 15), " the masons' traditions connect Albertus Argentinus with the Cathedral of Strasburg, but he is probably Albertus Magnus, born 1193 or 1206, living in 1230 as a Benedictine monk in Strasburg, teacher of theology, philosophy, physics and metaphysics." If he really designed the plan of Cologne Cathedral, we can scarcely wonder at the masons desiring to claim him as a brother, but proof is, in such a case, of course, hardly to be expected. The Emperor, Frederick III (1440‑1492), is said to have been admitted to the fraternity, as shown in his Veiskunig. All this is not impossible, but there is nowhere any proof of, nor provision made for it. Nevertheless, we know that other crafts admitted honorary members ; indeed, when the town government was divided amongst the craft guilds, it became necessary that every citizen should belong pro forma to one of them and provision is very early made for this. In the charter granted in i z6o by the Bishop of Bale to the tailors, we find this clause : " The same conditions shall be submitted to by those who are not of this craft and wish to join the society or brotherhood." See Berlepsch, Chronik der Gewerbe (vol. ii, pp. 18, 19).

 

It is a remarkable fact that, throughout this roll of documents, no mention is made of the four martyrs, but that the guild of stonemasons and carpenters, who were always cited together, is repeatedly called the Fraternity of St. John the Baptist. This arose from their having originally held their headquarters at the Chapel of St. John in the cathedral square ; but it also points to the possibility of their having formed only one fraternity.

 

In 15 61 (two years before the Strasburg Ordinances of 15 63), the burgomaster and council of Cologne issued a charter of constitution to the stonemasons and carpenters, containing eighteen clauses, some of which were in direct conflict with the 1459 and 1563 Ordinances. Even if we admit that the craft first drew up the Ordinances and the council then confirmed them, as was probably the case, the importance of these contradictions is none the less. Either way, it implies that the municipality was able to impose terms on the masons within its walls, subversive of the formally recognized Ordinances of the craft, which ordinances had even been approved and confirmed by the Emperor.

 

One or two traditions of the craft remain to be noticed. At p. 146 of Steinbrenner's work (also Findel, p. 66o), we find an examination of a travelling salutemason. Fallou seems to have been the first to attach any great importance to this catechism, which he declared to be in use on the seaboard of North Germany ; and he professed to find in it a great resemblance to the examination of an entered 82 THE STONEMASONS (STEINMETZEN) OF GERMANY apprentice freemason and a clear proof of the early existence in Germany of Speculative Masonry. Steinbrenner goes even further and claims that it was used by the stonemasons of the Middle Ages. Here he is clearly in error, as no other writer, not even Fallou, claims for it any great antiquity, but all cite the catechism as tending to prove the former existence of something more to the purpose. Fallou no doubt got it from Krause or Stock ; but it seems to have been first published in i 803 by Schneider in his Book of Constitutions for the Lodge at Altenburg, from which Stock owns to having copied it ; so that its very existence is not above suspicion, at least in this exact form, as Schneider says, " he has discovered the secrets of these masons with great difficulty " and he may not have obtained a veritable transcript of their " examination." The following are a few extracts " What was the name of the first mason ? " Anton Hieronymus [Adon‑Hiram ?] and the working tool was invented by Walkan " [Tubal Cain?].

 

In regard to these expressions, the two pillars previously referred to sufficiently attest that the masons were conversant with the architectural details of the Holy Writings ; and there is nothing to excite surprise in their claiming Adon‑Hiram as a brother, or in their affirming that the first artificer in metals designed the implements of their handicraft. Fallou lays great stress on the following Q. What dost thou carry under thy hat ? A. A laudable wisdom.

 

Q. What dost thou carry under thy tongue ? A. A praiseworthy truth.

 

Q. What is the strength of the craft ? A. That which fire and water cannot destroy.

 

And he explains the substitution of truth for beauty, by the fact [sic] that beauty is no longer a part of a mason's art (see Mysteries der Freimaurer, p. 366).

 

But even if this is conceded, we only arrive at the simple conclusion already forced upon us‑that the stonemasons, like all other guild‑members, were fond of symbolism and allegory. The most interesting part of this catechism is the tradition contained in the following dialogue " Where was the worshipful craft of masons first instituted in Germany? " "At the Cathedral of Magdeburg, under the Emperor Charles II, in the year 876." From this it may reasonably be concluded that the tradition amongst the stonemasons ran to the effect that their craft guild took its rise at the building of Magdeburg Cathedral. The inner fraternity, as we know, only originated in 1459. But the earlier date (876) is undoubtedly an anachronism. The first cathedral was built in the tenth century, its successor in the twelfth, whilst Charles (the second of Germany, the third of France, surnamed Le Gros) was deposed in the year 887! Putting the Emperor's name on one side, the date first in order of time (876) will coincide fairly well with the incipience of the German craft guilds and the second with that of the culminating point in their history. The whole matter is, of course, merely legendary and of no great importance in an historical study.

 

 THE STONEMASONS (STEINMETZEN) OF GERMANY 83 Another tradition, which is constantly cited, appears to have been first published in 1617 by Schadeus in his description of Strasburg Cathedral. It runs to the effect that the cathedral, being completed in 1275, the tower was begun in 1277 by the famous architect, Erwin of Steinbach and that his daughter Sabina, being a skilful mason, carved the porch. Why Fort (p. 81) speaks of the " undoubted authenticity " of this tale it is difficult to conjecture. Assertion does not merge into demonstration by the mere fact of constant repetition. Stieglitz's argument (Geschichte der Baukunst, p. 573) that women were admitted to membership in the majority of the mediaeval guilds is valueless. Membership of a guild did not carry with it the right of being apprenticed, although it implied that a female member might share in all its benefits, pious and pecuniary and, in the event of her husband's death (he being a master), might carry on his trade. But this was easily done with the help of a managing journeyman and provision was made for his promptly acquiring the master's rights by marrying such a widow. From the records that are accessible, there is no evidence that the stonemasons ever contemplated the contingency of female membership. Apprenticeship and travel were essentials and, of these ordeals, though the fortitude of a determined woman might have sustained her throughout the labours of the former, it is scarcely to be conceived that a member of the gentler sex could have endured the perils and privations of the latter. It should be stated, however, that in London a woman was admitted to the " freedome " of the Carpenters' Company in 1679, " haveing served her Mistres a terme of seaven years." A remarkable tradition appears to have been prevalent from the earliest times viz. that the stonemasons had obtained extensive privileges from the Popes. Heideloff gives, among the confirmations of the Emperors already cited, two papal bulls, viz. from Pope Alexander VI, Rome, 16th September 15 oz. Pope Leo X, pridie calendarium Januarii 1517.

 

He also says that they received an indulgence from Pope Nicholas III, which was renewed by all his successors up to Benedict XII, covering the period from 1277 to 1334. He, confesses, however, that he could never obtain one of these documents for perusal. The Strasburg Lodge, in its quarrel with the Annaberg Lodge (1518‑1521), besides relying upon the confirmations of the Emperors, also alludes to the authority granted it by the papal bulls, so that this tradition (if such it be) is found in force very early. Kloss and Krause have both made strenuous efforts to discover these bulls. It is well known that Governor Pownall, in 1773, was allowed to make a careful search in the archives of the Vatican, which was fruitless in its result, although he was rendered every possible assistance by the Pope himself (see Archceologia, vol. ix, p. 1 z6). Krause searched the Bullarium Magnum Rome in vain ; and Kloss, the Bullarium Magnum Luxemburgi (Kloss, p. 236), with a similar want of success. But whether or not the tradition rests on any solid 84 THE STONEMASONS (STEINMETZEN) OF GERMANY foundation, it is certain that the Church, by holding out from time to time special inducements, sought to attract both funds and labour for the erection of its splendid cathedrals ; and some of these tempting offers were not quite consistent with strict morality. For instance, there is a document which Lacomblet states was signed on April i, 1 279, by Archbishop Sifrid of Cologne, promising full absolution to all who shall, for the furthering of the cathedral building operations, present to him any wrongfully acquired goods (see Lacomblet, Urkundenbuch fur Geschichte des Nieder Rheins, vol. ii, p. 429). Pope Innocent IV, on May zi, 1248, issued a bull promising indulgence to all " who shall contribute to the restoration of the Cathedral at Cologne, recently destroyed by fire " (ibid., vol. ii, p. 173). This does not quite amount to granting privileges to the stonemasons, but comes somewhat near it. It is, however, only fair to add, that of this latter document no original appears to be extant, the only copy of it being in Gelen's manuscript, de admir. magnit. Coloniae, p. 231 (ibid., vol. ii, p. xviii).

 

The general conclusions to which we are led by the foregoing inquiry may be thus briefly summarized i. The cradle of German architectural skill is to be found in the convents, not the organization of the Steinmetz guild.

 

z. This organization had its origin in the craft guilds of the cities.

 

3. About the twelfth century the convent and the craft builders imperceptibly amalgamated and formed the guilds of the Steinmetzen.

 

4. These guilds differed only from other guilds in never having split into separate fraternities for masters and journeymen.

 

5. In 1459 they constituted themselves into one all‑embracing fraternity, with its perpetual head at Strasburg.

 

6. The Steinmetzen were not singular in possessing a general bond of union, although their system of centralization has received greater notice than that of other fraternities.

 

7. As in all other guilds, there was in use a secret method of communication, consisting of a form of greeting.

 

8. It is possible that there was a grip, in the possession of which the Steinmetzen may have differed slightly from the other crafts.

 

9. There is not the slightest proof or indication of a word and the existence of a sign is very doubtful.

 

10. There was no initiation ceremony.

 

11. There was possibly, but not probably, a ceremony at affiliation.

 

i z. The symbolism did not go further than that of other craft guilds. 13. There is not the least trace of a speculative science. 14. The admission of honorary members is very doubtful.

 

15. The independence of State control was attempted but never established. 16. The Ordinances of the Steinmetzen and their institution of a fraternity, were designed to prolong their corporate existence by bringing into play a machinery analogous to that of a modern trades union.

 

 THE STONEMASONS (STEINMETZEN) OF GERMANY 8 5 17. The confirmations of the Emperors were fraudulently obtained.

 

18. Whether privileges were granted by the Popes remains undecided.

 

i 9. Although the Steinmetzen preserved a continuous existence until within living memory, Freemasonry, on its introduction into Germany from England in the last century, was not recognized as having any connexion with them, although in outward forms there were many points of resemblance between the usages of the German Stonemasons and of the English Freemasons. The Abbe Grandidier (a non‑Mason) in 1778, or the following year, first broached the theory of there being an historical connexion between the Freemasons and the Steinmetzen, although Freemasonry in its present form had penetrated into Germany from England nearly half a century previously.

 

 CHAPTER IV THE CRAFT GUILDS (CORPS D'ETAT) OF FRANCE J T is somewhat remarkable that French Masonic writers have not been tempted to seek the origin of the institution in their own past history and in the traditions and usages of their own land. German authors, from Fallou onwards, have seized upon every trifling circumstance, every chance coincidence, tending to show a German origin of Freemasonry and, when a link was wanting in the chain of evidence, have not scrupled either to forge one, even to the extent of inventing ceremonies, or placidly to accept, without inquiry, the audacious inventions of their predecessors. And yet, by a judicious combination of the history of the French trade guilds with that of the Companionage, a much better case might be made out than the Steinmetz theory, requiring for its complete establishment no deliberate falsification of history, as in the former instance, but only a slight amount of faith in some very plausible conclusions and natural deductions from undoubted facts. A glimmering of this possibility does occasionally manifest itself. An anonymous pamphlet of ‑1848 (Les Compagnons du Devoir) casually remarks, " Let us point out the community of origin which unites the societies of the Companionage with that of the Freemasons." Another writer (C. G. Simon, Etude historique et Morale sur la Compagnonage) says, " The moment we begin to reflect, we are quickly led in studying the facts to the conclusion that the Companionage and Freemasonry have one common origin." Many other French writers and one English one, (Heckethorn), make similar allusions, but without attaching any importance to the subject, or proceeding any further with it ; treating, in fact, the journeymen societies of France as a species of poor relations of the Freemasons‑as somewhat disreputable hangers‑on to the skirts of Freemasonry. Two French authors are more explicit. Thory (Acta Latomorum, p. 301), writing many years before those quoted above, gives a very slight sketch of the Companionage and remarks, " Some authors have maintained that the coteries of working masons gave rise to the order of Freemasons." Unfortunately, he affords no clue to the identity of these authors and it has not been possible to trace them. Besuchet (Precis historique de l'Ordre de la Franc‑maconnerie, p. S) observes that in 1729 the prevailing opinion in France was that " England only restored to her what she had already borrowed, inasmuch as it is probable, according to a mass of authorities and traditions, that Freemasonry, in its three first or symbolic Degrees, is of French origin." Besuchet then also lets the matter drop ; and there is no serious attempt to examine the craft guilds of France from a Masonic point of view. Although French historians could undoubtedly have made out a good and plausible case if they had wished to do so, it is not by any means probable that their theory would have been unassailable.

 

86 THE CRAFT GUILDS (CORPS D'ETAT) OF FRANCE 87 In Paris the rise of the municipality is characterized by a singular feature‑the government of the city being vested not in the delegates of all the guilds, but in the officers of one huge guild only, that of the Parisian Hanse. It is, however, well to bear in mind that the Hanse was not only the chief source of the opulence and prosperity of the capital, but also, in course of time, came to include all the well‑to‑do citizens.

 

At the period when history first affords us any definite picture of this association, we meet with it under the name of the Marchands de 1'eau de Paris and, later, simply as Marchands de l'eau and it possessed a monopoly of the commerce of the Seine within certain limits above and below the city. No ship could enter this territory without taking into partnership and sailing under the protection of one of the members of the company ; otherwise all its cargo was confiscated. In return for lending his name, the Paris merchant had the option either of taking over half the freight at cost price, or of selling such goods as were intended for Paris under his own auspices and halving the net profits. Furthermore, no goods were allowed to proceed beyond Paris, if the Paris merchants thought them suitable and required in that city. They were enabled to secure all the profits of extensive trading without the risk attending it, their own capital not being called into requisition. The head of this association was called the provost of the merchants and he very early assumed all the functions of a mayor of the city, even collecting the taxes until the reign of Louis IX (1226‑1270). For this guild the French writers claim a Roman origin and all agree in considering it the direct successor of the Nautm Parisiaci. The fact is that a corporation of Nautx did exist under the Romans, also that in the reign of Tiberius Cxsar they erected an altar to Jupiter, which was found, in the eighteenth century, on the spot now occupied by the Hotel de Ville (see Levasseur, Histoire des Classes Ouvrieres en France, vol. i, p. 22). It bears the following inscription TIB . C.+ESARE . AVG . IOVI OPTVM MAXSVMO . . . . M NAVT.E PARISIACI PVBLICE . POSIERV . TN The earliest document in which this company is legally recognized bears date A.D. 1121, wherein Louis VI grants certain privileges which had previously vested in him and in which it is treated as an already ancient institution (ibid., p.193). These privileges were confirmed in 1170 by Louis VII and once more in 1192 by Philippe Auguste. This society appears shortly afterwards under another name, whilst still retaining its ancient fluvial jurisdiction‑viz. that of the Marchands, or Six Corps de Paris. These six bodies were the cloth‑workers (drapiers), grocers (Ipiciers), mercers (merciers), hatters (bonnetiers), furriers (pelletiers) and goldsmiths (orfivres). These constituted the municipality ; each corps elected biennially its master and 88 THE CRAFT GUILDS (CORPS D'ETAT) OF FRANCE wardens (garden) ; each of these masters became successively juge, consul and, finally, Echevin de la ville de Paris. They were regarded as the most distinguished citizens, and became ipso facto ennobled, taking the title of esquire (ecuyer) ; their provost assuming that of chevalier (see Lavergne, Introduction to Delacroix, Memoire a Consulter sur l'Existence den Six Corps, p. 7). Levasseur (p. 482) is of opinion that these guilds were not descended from the Hanse, but he gives no reasons and is directly opposed by all other writers.

 

All the remaining trades and crafts of Paris seem to have arisen much in the same manner as those of the other cities of the kingdom and some very ancient records are still in existence. The jewellers were organized as early as the time of Dagobert (6z8, 629) by St. Eloi, recognized by a royal charter (traditional) in 768 and their privileges confirmed in a capitulary of Charles the Bald (846). The Dictionnarius of Jean de Garlande‑in the second half of the eleventh centuryenumerates four classes of workers in gold (aurifabrorum industria)‑viz. the coiners (nummularii), enamellers (firmacularii), gobletmakers (cipharii) and the goldsmiths properly so called (aurifabri). In io6i Philippe I granted privileges to the candlemakers and, in 116o, Louis VII conceded no fewer than five trades in fief to the wife of Yves Laccohre. The ancient customs of the butchers are mentioned in 1162 and confirmed by Philippe Auguste in 1182. In 1183 the furriers and clothworkers were also the objects of his benevolence. Of the butchers Levasseur says that, already at the beginning of the twelfth century, the date of their origin was unknown and a charter of 1134 speaks of their old‑established stalls. In course of time these stalls were limited to a fixed number and became hereditary (like the Roman corporation of butchers), forming a very thorough monopoly. So strong was the guild of butchers, that, on several occasions, when neighbouring landowners wished to erect markets on their own property, the king was induced by the monopolists to forbid their erection, or to confine the number of new stalls within a very small limit.

 

But this excessive power of the trades guilds naturally gave rise to various abuses and it seems that after the reign of Philippe Auguste even the provost became venal and, in consequence, the collection of the taxes was taken out of his hands by Louis IX, who, in 125 8, appointed Etienne Boileau provost of Paris. Under this new arrangement the various craft guilds and general administration of the city came under the supervision of the provost of Paris ; but the governance of the six corps and the fluvial jurisdiction still remained with the provost of the merchants. In spite of this, in 1305, the six corps were so strong, that under their provost, Marcel, they were enabled to dictate to the young regent of France the impeachment of his ministers, the liberation of the King of Navarre and the appointment of a council of four bishops, twelve knights and twelve bourgeois to assist the Dauphin. This victory must have rankled in the minds of the sovereigns of France ; for, in 13 83, Charles VI, believing himself to be irresistible after his defeat of the Flemish at Roosebeck, abolished the municipality altogether ; suppressed the prevoti of the merchants, transferring the remnant of its jurisdiction to the prevot de Paris; inter‑ THE CRAFT GUILDS (CORPS D'ETAT) OF FRANCE 89 dicted all trade fraternities and forbade the craftsmen in general to have any other chiefs than those appointed by himself. He had, however, over‑estimated his power : the guilds did not disband ; the butchers were the first to be legally reinstated in 1387; the others followed suit ; and, in 1411, the municipality itself was restored (see Levasseur, vol. i, pp. 409‑II). Ultimately the provost of Paris was suppressed and the provost of the merchants recovered the whole of his former authority, which, in spite of many temporary reverses, continued in full force until the great revolution at the end of the eighteenth century (Depping, Livre des Mitiers d'Etienne Boileau, Introduction, p. 86).

 

Under what title the earliest trade guilds exercised their authority it is now impossible accurately to determine. It may have been the inherent right in any body of men to settle their own line of conduct, provided such conduct obtained the general approbation of their fellow citizens. Subsequently, in the feudal ages, the consent of the lord paramount was absolutely essential to the validity of their statutes (see Ouin‑Lacroix, Histoire des Anciennes Corporations d'Arts et Mitiers, p. 5) ; whilst, in the fourteenth century, the trade guilds could not legally exist without the king's express approval of their rules and regulations.

 

There are occasional traces of curious ceremonies in connexion with the reception of new masters. Whether they were usual in all trades it is difficultto decide, as upon this point historical records leave us very much in the dark. With the bakers of Paris the modus operandi is thus described : " On the day agreed upon the candidate leaves his house followed by all the bakers of the city and, coming to the master of the bakers, presents to him a new jar full of nuts, saying, `Master, I have done and accomplished my four years ; behold my pot full of nuts.' Then the master of the bakers turning to the secretary (clerc lcrivain) of the craft, demands to know if that is truly so. Upon receiving a reply in the affirmative, the master of the bakers returns the jar to the candidate, who smashes it against the wall, and ‑behold him master 1 " (see Monteil, Histoire des Francais des Divers .tats, 4th edit., 1853, vol. i, p. 294).

 

Another ceremony of greater interest (as taking place at the reception of the millstone‑makers, who were classed in the same category as the stonemasons) is the following : " A banqueting hall was prepared and above that a loft, whither, whilst the masters were partaking of good cheer below, the youngest accepted master, with a broomstick stuck into his belt in lieu of a sword, conducted the candidate. Shortly after, there issued therefrom cries which never ceased, as though he were being cudgelled to death " (see Ouin‑Lacroix, Histoire des Anciennes Corporations, 1850, p. 243) In 1467 Louis XI organized the crafts into a species of militia or garde national. The various trades were ranged under sixty‑one banners. The king granted them a distinguishing banner bearing a white cross in chief and below, the private blazon of the craft. These banners were only produced on special occasions and in the king's service, not on the ordinary festivals of the crafts. They were confided to the chiefs of each trade and kept in a chest under triple lock, one key of which go THE CRAFT GUILDS (CORPS D'ETAT) OF FRANCE was retained by the king or his officers (see Migne, Nouvelle Encyclopedie theologique, Dict. des Confreries et Corporations, p. 75).

 

The first occasion on which these corps assembled they numbered 8o,ooo men and were reviewed by Louis XI, Cardinal de la Ballue and others. The leading banners were those of the six corps of merchants ; the thirty‑second being that of St. Blaise, comprising the masons, quarrymen, stonemasons, etc. (see Migne, op. cit., p. 78). This organization was afterwards extended throughout the kingdom. The trade guilds not only possessed their distinguishing banners, but also assumed coats of arms and mottoes. That of the six corps in Paris was, Vincit concordia fratrum ; of the apothecaries, Avec noun securite et coniance ; and of the locksmiths, Fidelite et secret.

 

An institution closely allied with the craft guilds was that of the fraternity (confrairie, conphrairie, frairie, confrerie le cierge, la caritat, etc.). Every craft guild belonged, as a body, to some fraternity, maintained an altar in some neighbouring church and decorated it with candles, to supply which it levied on its members fines and fees to be paid in wax. From this wax candle the fraternity was sometimes spoken of simply as le cierge, " the candle." La caritat is the Provencal form of la charite, " the charity." The other synonyms given above are archaic forms of confrerie, " confraternity." The society was composed of the same members as the craft and is, in many cases, difficult to distinguish from it on that account ; nevertheless, it was always a distinct entity and was often legislated for separately. It provided for the assembly of the brethren at stated periods, for religious exercises and social pleasures ; those of the table occupying a large share. The newlyreceived master was expected to provide the members of the fraternity with a banquet and it was the excess to which the feasting was carried which eventually formed one of the great hindrances to becoming a master. Their most useful sphere of action was the sustenance and relief of aged and poor masters, their widows and children, the assistance rendered to members in cases of illness and to companions on their travels. The members appear to have belonged solely to the body of masters, although apprentices entering on their indentures and companions working in the city, were required to contribute to the funds. In return they were assisted from the treasury and shared the benefit of the religious services. Louandre says (Introduction to Monteil, Histoire de l'Industrie francaise, 1872, p. S 4), " Entirely distinct from the corporation, although composed of the same elements, the fraternity was placed under the invocation of some saint reputed to have exercised the profession of the members. The symbol of the craft was a banner, that of the fraternity a wax taper." The craft guilds were dedicated to particular saints ; e.g. the cordwainers of all kinds to St. Crispin, the carpenters to St. Joseph, the goldsmiths to St. Eloi and so on ; but the fraternities appear to have been generally dedicated to the patron saints of the churches or chapels in which their altars were raised. At Rouen in x61o the masons had a fraternity under the patronage of Saints Simon and Jude; (Ouin‑Lacroix, Histoire des Anciennes Corporations, p. 238), who were never even traditionally connected with the building trades. That the THE CRAFT GUILDS (CORPS D'ETAT) OF FRANCE 91 fellow‑crafts were not admitted seems very probable from the fact that, as early as November 1394, the fellow‑craft furriers (garcons pelletiers) were permitted by royal ordinance to form their own fraternity (Levasseur, Histoire des Classes Ouvrieres en France, p. 497). But, although the craft and the fraternity may usually be described as two names for one body, this was not always the case. There were sometimes several fraternities in one craft ; at other times several crafts united to form one fraternity (ibid., p. 470). In Montpellier the glassmakers united with the mercers, because in the first‑mentioned craft there was only one resident master, who did not suffice to form a fraternity. We hear of an early fraternity of stonemasons in 1365, the statutes of which have been preserved (Confrerie de pejriers de Montpelier). One of the earliest decrees against the fraternities, whether of citizens (and at that time we may take it that citizens were always tradesmen), or of nobles or others, has more than antiquity to recommend it, inasmuch as it was promulgated by the father of one who played a great part in the history of our own country, viz. Simon, Count de Montfort, whose son was the celebrated Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester. It is dated A.D. 1212, and runs as follows : " No baron, bourgeois, or peasant shall dare in any way to pledge obedience by way of oath or good faith in any conjuration whatsoever, even under pretext of fraternity or other good thing, the which is often mendacious (mensonger), unless it be with the consent and pleasure of the said lord (seigneur) ; and, if any are convicted of having so taken oath against him, they shall be held, body and chattels, at his pleasure. But if it be not against the said lord, then the members of the fraternity (conjurateurs) shall only pay, if barons, 1o livres, if knights, loo sols, if citizens, 6o sols, and if peasants, zo sols " (Ouin‑Lacroix, Q. cit., p. 423).

 

In 1308 the number of these fraternities was so great as to provoke the fear of Philippe le Bel, who interdicted them ; and this was more especially the case in the south of France, under the name of La Caritat (Levasseur, op. cit., vol. i, p. 468). Of these bodies‑so numerous as to be considered dangerous by the State‑but few records have come down, so that the absence of any statutes of a prior date to A.D. 1170 by no means implies that such fraternities had not previously existed.

 

The following code is preserved in the archives of the city of Amiens. It is dated June 15, 1407 and styled the " Statutes regulating the Fraternity (cierge, candle) of the masons' trade (du mestier de Machonnerie) of Amiens " (A. Thierry, Recueil des Monuments inidits de l'Histoire du Tiers Etat, vol. ii, p. z6).

 

Know all men who may see or read these presents, that it has been and is ordained by the Mayor and 1~chevins of the city of Amiens, for the common wellbeing and profit, at the request of the men of the craft of masonry in the said city and with their consent, or that of the major and more sane part of them, assembled before the said mayor and 1chevins or their commissioners, as follows : Firstly. It is ordained that the masters of the said craft are and be required to attend at the honours funereal and nuptials of those who are of this craft, if they be in the city of Amiens and have no sufficient excuse, which excuse they are required to make known to the sergeant or clerk of the " candle " of the said craft and if any one fail to do so he shall be liable each time to a fine of xii pence, to be applied to the profit of said candle.

 

 92 THE CRAFT GUILDS (CORPS D'ETAT) OF FRANCE z. Item. It is ordained that all such sums as shall be presented for libations to those of the craft on their return from the funeral honours of any of this craft, the one half of the said donation, whether large or small, shall be placed and converted to the profit of said " candle " and the other half to be expended in drink amongst them, as may seem good to them.

 

3. Item. When any apprentice shall be first received into the said craft he shall be required to give one pound of wax as soon as he commences to earn money in the said craft, to be applied to the profit of the said " candle." 4. Item. If any of the said craft work for the first time in said city of Amiens, as soon as he shall have worked xv days, he shall be required to pay to the profit of the said " candle " one pound of wax and as long as he remain there be quit of paying it any more, excepting the first time only.

 

5. Item. It is ordained that all those of the said craft who do earn money here, living in the city of Amiens, shall be required to belong to the said " candle," to enter into it and shall be constrained to pay, observe and accomplish the matters above said and each single clause hereof the which constraint shall be exercised by the sergeant or clerk of the said " candle," who shall also constrain each one of the said craft, who in this place earns money, to pay his part and portion of the said " candle : " and for so doing he shall have for wages every year xii sols of Paris, a hood of the livery of those of the said craft and ii sols for each funeral or wedding which he shall summon, such ii sols to be levied on him, or them who gave the order.

 

The above ordinances were made, ordained and established in the echevinaae of Amiens, with the assent of the said mayor and ichevins, by Sire Fremin Piedeleu, Mayor of Amiens, Jacque Clabaut, Jehan Plantehaie, Jacque de Gard, Pierre Waignet, Jehan Liesse, Thumas de Henault, Jehan Lecomcte, Jacque de,Cocquerel et Thumas de Courchelles, ichevins the xv day of June in the year one thousand four hundred and seven.

 

The above statutes may advantageously be supplemented by two articles from those of the masons of Rheims ; one of which exhibits a curious regulation touching their religious services, whilst the other indicates that the constant endeavours of the authorities to put down the abuse of the banquets had not been entirely fruitless, inasmuch as the statutes outwardly conform to the royal commands. It must not be forgotten, however, that the statutes of this date, though drawn up in all cases for the perusal of the king or his ministers, the royal approval being necessary to render them valid, it by no means follows that they were not systematically evaded by a private understanding amongst the masters. The statutes referred to are dated July z6, 1625 and the clauses are as follows (see Collection de Documents inidits sur l'Histoire de France, Section Pierre Varin, Archives Legislatives de la Ville de Reims, pt. ii, vol. ii, p. 483).

 

 XVI. The masters of the said craft shall be required every year, at the procession of the Holy Sacrament of the altar, according to their invariable custom, to carry four torches of the weight of ten pounds each one, which torches shall be borne by the four junior masters of the craft.

 

.

 

I. And we forbid the said wardens (iureZ) to accept any banquet from those who shall achieve their masterpiece, under penalty of arbitrary fine ; and the said companions to offer any such under penalty of being deprived of the masterpiece [i.e. not allowed to benefit by its successful completion] and without the faculty of being admitted under three years ensuing.

 

Of all the French handicrafts, the building trade of the Middle Ages naturally possesses the greatest interest. Without pausing to touch on the disputed point THE CRAFT GUILDS (CORPS D'ETAT) OF FRANCE 93 as to the country in which the Gothic style of architecture originated, it may safely be asserted that, as regards boldness of conception and dexterity of execution, the French artists were not behind their contemporaries in other parts of Europe. The churches, cathedrals, town‑halls and other monuments scattered throughout France, testify to their skill. It should be noticed that the familiar tradition of bands of builders wandering from one country to another has also obtained credence in France and even misled so careful a writer as Ouin‑Lacroix. He says (Histoire des Anciennes Corporations, p. zz7) : " The corporation of masons offers a proof of its early regular organization as far back as the twelfth century, in the grand manifestation of zeal which it displayed about i 145 in proceeding to Chartres to take part in the construction of the cathedral there, which has since become so famous. There were to be seen, as wrote Archbishop Hugues of Rouen to Theodoric of Amiens, immense Norman companies, organized in vast corporations under the conduct of a chief named Prince, emigrating in a crowd to the Chartres country. On their return, according to Haimon, Abbot of St. Pierre‑sur‑Dive, these same companies built and repaired a great number of churches in Rouen and that province." Levasseur has not allowed himself to be led astray, but gives the true interpretation of these letters (op. cit., vol. i, p. 3z6), portions of which he appends in a footnote. The " immense companies " consisted of amateurs‑lords and ladies, knights, priests and peasants‑who harnessed themselves to the cars and helped to drag along their destined route the huge stones of which the cathedral is built. Miracles are even reported of the rising tide being stayed in order to suit the convenience of some parties of these devotees, who might otherwise have been placed in a very awkward fix. The members of these associations performed the useful functions of common labourers and beasts of burden, but nothing tends to show that they were in any sense masons. It was a grand and remarkable demonstration of the allconsuming religious zeal of the Middle Ages‑a manifestation of the same spirit which underlay the pilgrimages and the Crusades.

 

Very early notices of the building trades are to be found ; but the oldest code which has been preserved is probably that of Boileau (about iz6o). In it we find them already subdivided into many branches, which of itself presupposes a much earlier existence, as the division of labour always marks a considerable development of a trade. This code unites under the banner of St. Blaise, the masons, stonemasons, plasterers (both makers and users) and the mortarers (both makers and users of mortar). From other sources we know that the quarry‑workers and the tylers (but not tyle‑makers) owed allegiance to the same banner, also the millstonemakers.

 

In this code the stonemasons are not particularly mentioned, although towards the end a decided distinction is drawn between the members of this craft and the masons. It is probable that they are classed throughout with the ordinary masons and that only in the special instance alluded to did any difference exist. The code contains twenty‑four articles, but, as some of these relate solely to the plasterers and mortarers, those only are given which are of interest in the present inquiry.

 

 94 THE CRAFT GUILDS (CORPS D'ETAT) OF FRANCE OF THE MASONS, THE STONEMASONS, THE PLASTERERS, AND THE MORTARERS I. He may be mason in Paris who wishes, provided always that he knows the handicraft and that he works after the usages and customs of the craft ; and they are these II. None may have in his employ but j apprentice ; and if he have an apprentice, he may not accept him for less than vj years' service, but for longer service may he well accept him, and also for pay if he be able to obtain it. And if he accept him for less than vj years, then is he cast in a fine of xx sols, to be paid to the Chapel of St Blaise, unless they be his own sons born only in honourable wedlock.

 

III. And the mason may take to himself one other apprentice so soon as the first shall have served v years, for whatsoever time he may have taken the first.

 

IV. And the king who is at this time and to whom God grant long life, has granted the mastership of the masons to Master William of Saint Patu, for so long as it shall please him. Which Master William took oath in Paris, within the precincts of the palace aforesaid, that he would the aforesaid craft well and loyally keep to the best of his power, as well for poor as rich, for weak as strong, for so long as it shall please the king that he keep the said craft ; and afterwards the said Master William did take, the form of oath aforesaid before the Provost of Paris at the Chastelet.

 

VII. The masons, the mortarers and the plasterers may have as many assistants and workmen in their service as they please, provided always that they instruct them not in any point of their handicraft.

 

VIII. And every mason and every mortarer and every plasterer, shall swear by the saints that he will keep the craft aforesaid well and truly, each one in his place : and if they know that any one do ill in anything and act not according to the usages and customs of the craft aforesaid, that they will lay the same before the master whensoever they shall know thereof, and on their oath.

 

IX. The master whose apprentice shall have served and completed his time shall appear before the master of the craft and bear witness that his apprentice has served his time well and truly : and then the master who keeps the craft shall cause the apprentice to swear by the saints that he will conform to the usages and customs of the craft well and truly.

 

X. And no one shall work at his craft aforesaid after the stroke of none (3 p.m.) of Notre Dame during flesh time ; and of a Saturday in Lent, after vespers shall have been chanted at Notre Dame ; unless it be to close an arch or a stairway, or to close a door frame placed on the street. And if any one work beyond the hours aforesaid, unless it be of necessity in the works aforesaid, he shall pay iiij pence as fine to the master who keeps the craft and the master may seize the tools of him who shall be recast in the fine.

 

XVII. The master of the craft has cognisance of the petty justice and fines of the masons, the plasterers and the mortarers and of their workmen and apprentices, as long as it shall please the king, as also of deprivation of their craft and of bloodless beatings and of clameur de proprete.

 

XVIII. And if any of the aforesaid craftsmen be summoned before the master who keeps the craft, if he absent himself he shall pay a fine of iiij pence to the master and, if he appear' at the time and acknowledge [his fault] he shall forfeit and if he pay not before night he shall be fined iiij pence to the master and if he deny and be found to have done wrong he shall pay iiij pence to the master.

 

XIX. The master who rules the craft can not levy but one fine for each offence ; and if he who has been fined is so stiffnecked and so false that he will not obey the master or pay his fine, the master may forbid him his craft.

 

.

 

. If any one of the aforementioned crafts whose craft shall have been forbidden him by the master shall nevertheless use his craft, the master may seize his tools and keep them until he have paid the fine ; and if he forcibly resist, the master shall make it known to the Provost of Paris, and the Provost of Paris shall compel him.

 

 THE CRAFT GUILDS (CORPS D'ETAT) OF FRANCE 95 .

 

I. The masons and the plasterers owe the watch duty and the tax and the other dues which the other citizens of Paris owe the king.

 

.

 

II. The mortarers are free of watch duty and all stonemasons since the time of Charles Martel, as the wardens (preudomes) have heard tell from father to son.

 

.

 

III. The master who keeps the craft in the name of the king is free of the watch duty for the service he renders in keeping the craft.

 

.

 

IV. He who is over lx years of age and he whose wife is in childbed, so long as she lies abed, are free of watch duty ; but he shall make it known to him who keeps the watch by order of the king.

 

These statutes were published in the original French as an appendix by G. F. Fort, The Early History and Antiquities of Freemasonry. A translation, with notes, appeared in Moore's Freemasons' Monthly Magazine, Boston, U.S.A., May 1863, vol. xxii, p. 201.

 

On Art. IV Fort has built up two erroneous conclusions which need correction. The less important one is making a nobleman out of plain Master William de Saint Patu. This has probably arisen from the prefix de, though the plebeian title of mestre should have warned him that it only signified that St. Patu was some district or hamlet where Master William was born. At a time when the commonalty were only just beginning to assume surnames, this was the usual mode of distinguishing one William from another.

 

The other mistake into which Fort has stumbled is of more consequence, as he manages to open a " lodge " within the palace. This would imply that the Paris masons called their workshops " lodges "‑a form of expression they never used, with which French artisans have not even yet become familiarized ; and as a lodge in the palace could merely exist for the purposes of government, it would very closely resemble our present Freemasons' Lodges. The word loge, which he has thus contrived to mistranslate, signifies an enclosure or space partitioned off and survives in the loge du theatre, or box at a theatre. Es loges du pales, or, in more modern form, En les loges du palais, simply means, in the enclosures of the palace, i.e. within its precincts.

 

Additional proof of the corporate existence at an early age of the building trades may present some interest. At Amiens the masons (machons) appear to have taken part in the municipal elections, for the first time, in 1348 (see A. Thierry, Recueil des Monuments inidits de l'Histoire du Tiers Etat, p. 540). In 1387 the municipality had a city architect (maitre des ouvrages, master of the works).

 

The archives of Montpellier supply the following references (Renouvier et Ricard, Des Maitres de Pierre, pp. 23, z6, zo and So).

 

1201. Bertrandus : Jai la peira (does stone work).

 

1244. Paul Olivier : maistre de peira (master‑mason).

 

1334. Peri Daspanhayc : maistre que hobra al pout de Castlenou (master who works at the bridge of Castlenau).

 

The statutes of the probes hommes of Avignon regulate, in 1243, the pay of the stonemasons.

 

 i 96 THE CRAFT GUILDS (CORPS D'ETAT) OF FRANCE In 1493, Peyre Borgonhon, master‑mason, reports to the consuls of Montpellier that he could no longer find masons to work at the fortifications under 4 sons per diem ; and these, " after taking information respecting the prices elsewhere and considering also that the days in the month of April were amongst the longest in the year, resigned themselves to pay the price asked." This is one of the earliest strikes in the building trade.

 

In 1zo8, Ingelram was architect of Rouen Cathedral ; in 128o, Jehan Davi constructed the south porch (Ouin‑Lacroix, op. cit., p. 229).

 

In 1389, Jehan de Boyeaux was appointed master‑mason of the city of Rouen. His title was " master of the works of masonry," his salary 1o livres a year : he had a seat at the municipal board, and wore a distinctive dress almost like that of the echevins of the city. The salary, however, rapidly increased. In 1562, Pierre de Marromme received 75 livres and, in 1692, Nicolas de Carpentier 1500 livres, besides other emoluments (Ouin‑Lacroix, op. cit., p. 236). This title and office of master of the works still existed in 1777, Fontaine being then the architect.

 

Guillaume de Saint Leonard, mayor, revised the statutes of the plasterers of Rouen in 1289. They must, therefore, have been previously drawn up.

 

The statutes of the tylers of Rouen, in 1399, prove that already their slates were in use.

 

In 15 07, Jehan Gougeon is styled tailleur de Pierre et Masson, affording another proof that the masons and stonemasons were virtually one craft, although, as seen already, in certain cases distinctions were made.

 

In 1498, the Parliament prohibited all banquets and confriries and, at the same time, enacted laws to regulate the guilds ; which measures proving inoperative, led to further legislation in 1500. In 15o,, however, the Parliament had to content itself with forbidding the formation of new associations. In 15 3 5, the prohibition was renewed ; but, meanwhile in 152.9 and 1534, fresh laws regulating the guilds were passed. This constant see‑saw brings us to the statute of Francis I of August 1, 1539. French Masonic writers have signally failed to understand this enactment, from which they have drawn the most absurd conclusions ; but non‑Masonic authors have escaped these errors, Levasseur, Louandre, Heckethorn and others, all seeing it in its true light. Thory broadly states that it abolished all trade guilds. Rebold says, " The Masonic corporations were in a large measure dispersed and dissolved in France at the beginning of the sixteenth century, when their scattered fragments were absorbed by the city guilds." (Here he evidently alludes to the bodies of travelling masons, with special papal privileges, whose very existence in this sense is problematical.) "At length, in 1539, Francis I abolished all guilds of workmen and, in France, thus perished Freemasonry, according to the old signification of the word " (see E. Rebold, Histoire generale de la Franc‑maconnerie, 1851, p. 76). The inaccuracy of this historian is evident still more glaringly in a later work‑" The number of these fraternities diminished by degrees in almost all countries and, in France, they were dissolved in 1539, by edict of Francis I, for having persisted in the revindication of their ancient privileges, but particularly r THE CRAFT GUILDS (CORPS D'ETAT) OF FRANCE 97 for having given umbrage to the clergy by the purity of their religious ideas and secret reunions." The gravamen of the charges against the fraternities was the bad not the good use they made of their secret meetings, in conspiring against the supremacy in trade matters of the State and in buttressing the pernicious monopolies of the masters ; and when, a hundred and twenty years later, some of these came into collision with the clergy, it was not on account of the purity of their religious ideas, but was due entirely to the travesties of religion exhibited in their rites and ceremonies. These writers, instead of following blind guides, would have done infinitely better had they turned to the French statutes and drawn from the fountain‑head. The truth of the matter simply is, that Francis I attempted (though unsuccessfully) to suppress the fraternities, but he never sought to abolish the guilds ; on the contrary, the same law acknowledged their legality by regulating them. Both the guilds and the fraternities survived him for two centuries and more.

 

A translation of a few of the most important paragraphs of the ordinance will show its real character.

 

 (185) All fraternities (confrairies) of craftsmen and artisans shall be abolished, interdicted and forbidden throughout our kingdom, according to the ancient ordinances and edicts of our sovereign courts.

 

(186) We ordain that all matters formerly tried before the fraternities shall in future be carried before the ordinary justices of those places.

 

(188) And, in order to pass the mastership of said crafts (mestiers), there shall be no dinners, banquets, nor convivialities (disnies, banquets, ni convis), nor any other expenses whatsoever, even should it be done voluntarily, under penalty of a fine of loo sols of Paris, to be levied on each one who shall have assisted at said banquet.

 

(189) The wardens (gardes) shall pass the masters as soon as they shall truly have achieved their masterpiece.

 

(191) We forbid all the said masters, together with their journeymen and apprentices (compagnons et serviteurs) in all trades, to make any congregations or assemblies (congregations ou assemblies) be they large or small and for whatever cause or occasion whatsoever ; nor to erect any mono polies, nor to have or take any council together concerning their craft, under penalty of confiscation of body and goods.

 

 The effect of this sweeping enactment was simply nil. The societies were for a time carried on in secret, then one was excepted as a particular favour, then another and so on, till none remained to claim exemption. As late as 1673 new crafts were incorporated into guilds, but there is no occasion to pursue the inquiry. Laws more or less severe were enacted one year, to be modified or reversed the next and this vacillating policy continued, until, in 1776, a vigorous attempt was made to reconstruct the whole system and to establish absolute free trade. In the reign of Louis XVI and under the ministry of Turgot, it was perceived that the guilds exercised an evil influence on the industry of the country by limiting competition, checking progress and invention and confining the stalwart limbs of the eighteenth‑century giant in the swaddling clothes so appropriate and serviceable to the fifth‑century babe. That astute minister threw open the crafts and trades to all comers, suppressed and I 98 THE CRAFT GUILDS (CORPS D'ETAT) OF FRANCE abolished all guilds and fraternities, excepting only the goldsmiths, chemists (pharmaciens), publishers and printers and the maitres barbierr perruquiers‑etuvistes ‑compound‑craftsmen who united the functions of barber, wigmaker and bathkeeper.

 

But this edict, coupled with reforms of other flagrant abuses, cost Turgot his position and the ordinance did not long survive him. His successor Necker reconstituted all the corporations in a slightly modified form in 1778. It required the terribly clean‑sweeping broom of the French Revolution to annihilate all these dusty cobwebs, the growth of centuries of privilege and abuse. The trades guilds had served their turn as the nurseries of art and industry, their fraternal bonds had been excellent institutions in the " good old times " when might was right, but for ages they had ceased to be anything else but irritating fetters on the extension of commerce. The National Assembly of 1793 at once and for ever abolished them and the Chambers of Commerce, the masters unions and the trades unions of to‑day‑possibly their lineal descendants‑have taken their place.

 

 CHAPTER V THE COMPANIONAGE, OR LES COMPAGNONS DU TOUR DE FRANCE BROADLY stated, the Companionage, or Compagnonnage, means the associations formed by the journeymen of France for mutual support and assistance during their travels. In many regulations of this association it may compare with those of the German fraternities, but in others the difference is strongly marked. For example, it was divided into three great divisions ; to one of these each trade belonged, whilst in three handicrafts some members belonged to one division and some to another ; and these three divisions were extended throughout France : whereas in Germany each craft was a separate entity ; and, in many cases, the members of a trade in one town had no bond of union connecting them with a similar Bruderschaft of another town, beyond the ordinary results following the exercise of a common employment. Another great point of difference was, that the French fraternities practised a veritable initiation‑a mystic reception ‑and treasured venerable legends ; whilst the affiliation of the German craftsmen was simply a burlesque ceremony, enriched by a certain amount of symbolism. With Freemasonry it had not only these points in common, but also others : its existence was patent to all and readily acknowledged ; with its works of charity and festivals the public were familiar ; but its legends, its ceremonies, its signs and tokens, were shrouded in mystery and even a bare allusion to them was considered highly culpable. Although latterly by enlightened members of this fraternity it has not been considered improper partially to unveil its legendary lore, yet to this day no revelation of its more important secrets has been made.

 

Not the least wonderful fact relating to the Companionage is that, apparently, its very existence was only generally known from the bloody battles arising out of the enmity between the various corps. If two bodies of workmen met and fought, the survivors were condemned to the galleys and the public journals announced another fatal affray between inimical artisans; but no one (previously to 1841) ever thought it worth while to inquire into the cause of the ever‑recurring feuds between rival fraternities, or sought to obtain any information as to their usages and customs. By the public in general the Companions appear to have been regarded with the same indifference which has been manifested by the Masonic writers of a subsequent era.

 

A light was, however, suddenly shed on this obscure subject. Wearied by their pernicious and insensate strife, Agricol Perdiguier,aworkman of superior intelligence, undertook the apparently hopeless task of reconciling the various factions. In 1841 he published his Livre du Compagnonnage, giving as accurate an account of their 99 I zoo THE COMPANIONAGE history and traditions as the nature of his oath would permit, followed by very sensible reflections and an earnest appeal to all parties to cease their fratricidal quarrels and unite for the general good. Previous attempts had been made in a like direction, but without having recourse to the printing‑press. This writer was replied to by another workman, Moreau (Un mot sur le Compagnonnage in 1841 and De la Reforme des Abus du Compagnonnage in 1843), whose intentions were equally enlightened, but who objected to the means employed by Perdiguier. Perdiguier's work, however, seems to have startled France. The late George Sand invited the author to visit her and was so impressed by his philanthropic aims, that, as related by Perdiguier himself, she furnished him with funds to undertake afresh the tour of France and to preach his new gospel to his fellows. The same year the talented authoress published her novel Le Compagnon du Tour du France ; and attention being thus forcibly called to the Companionage, within the next few years the subject was further dealt with by other writers, many of whom were themselves companions. See Capus, Conseils d'un Vieux Compagnon, 1844 ; Giraud, Reflexions sur le Compagnonnage, 1847 ; Sciandro, Le Compagnonnage, 18 S o ; and C. G. Simon, Etude historique et Morale sur le Compagnonnage, 18 5 3 It will be seen that a new spirit was already infused into the society, inasmuch as but a few years previously such proceedings would have been looked upon with horror. In 1834, when Perdiguier was about to publish a volume of simple songs for the use of his fellows at their festive reunions and, by means of a preparatory circular canvassed for subscribers, he was indignantly informed that " such a thing never had been and never ought to be done." Such was the scrupulous secrecy observed by the Companions. But, although the society objected to the publicity of the press, it by no means follows that all their instruction was purely oral ; much of an important nature was committed to writing and carefully preserved from the ken of the profane.

 

Surprise has already been expressed that the Companionage has been so lightly passed over by Masonic writers. Its ceremonies and legends are so interesting of themselves, its resemblance to our present system of Freemasonry so obvious, that no history of Freemasonry would be complete without a searching examination of the whole subject. Schauberg (Vergleichendes Handbuch der Symbolik, vol. i, p. 5o4) knew of the Companionage in 1861 and gives its salient features, as detailed by the Gartenlaube (an illustrated German monthly). Subsequent German writers have studied and quoted Schauberg, yet not one of them has had the candour to even mention the French Companions. Are we to conclude that they might have been formidable rivals of the Steinmet!~en ? In dealing with the Companionage it will be well to make its acquaintance in its full development as it existed previously to the Revolution of 1848 and then to trace it as far back as possible into the mists of antiquity. The following description refers more particularly to the year 1841 (the date of Perdiguier's publication) and many of its regulations have consequently fallen into disuse : its old enmities and feuds are especially out of date, but in one form or another it still exists.

 

 

 

 THE COMPANIONAGE 103

 

is a personage about whom very little is known and each of the societies has invented a more or less probable story concerning him ; nevertheless there is one which enjoys an extended acceptance with very many Companions du Devoir‑it is from this that I extract, without changing a single word, the following details."

 

THE LEGEND OF MAITRE JACQUES

 

Maitre Jacques, one of the first masters of Solomon and a colleague of Hiram, was born in a small town called Carte, now St. Romili [undoubtedly legendary], in the south of Gaul ; he was the son of Jacquin [?Jachin], a celebrated architect, and devoted himself to stone‑cutting. At the age of fifteen he left his family and travelled into Greece, then the centre of the fine arts, where he entered into close alliance with * * * [?Pythagoras], a philosopher of the highest genius, who taught him sculpture and architecture. He soon became celebrated in both these arts.

 

Hearing that Solomon had summoned to himself all famous men, he passed into Egypt, thence to Jerusalem. He did not at first gain much distinction amongst the workmen ; but at last, having received an order from the chief master to construct two columns, he sculptured them with such art and taste that he was accepted a master.

 

[Perdiguier then ceases to quote verbally from the legend, but remarks]," Hereafter follows a long catalogue of all his works at the temple and the history is thus continued : " Maitre Jacques arrived in Jerusalem at the age of twenty‑six years ; he remained there only for a short time after the construction of the temple and many masters, wishing to return to their country, took leave of Solomon loaded with benefits.

 

Maitre Jacques and Maitre Soubise made their way back to Gaul. They had sworn never to part ; but before long M. Soubise, a man of violent character, becoming jealous of the ascendency which M. Jacques had acquired over their disciples and of the love which they bore him, separated from his friend and chose other disciples. M. Jacques landed at Marseilles, M. Soubise at Bordeaux. Before commencing his travels M. Jacques chose thirteen Companions [Compagnons] and forty disciples ; being deserted by one of them he chose another. He travelled for three years, leaving everywhere the memory of his talents and virtues. One day, being at some distance from his disciples, he was assailed by ten of the followers of M. Soubise, who attempted to assassinate him. In order to save himself he plunged into a swamp, the canes [or reeds, in French joncs] of which not only supported him, but afforded a refuge from the blows of his assailants. Whilst these cowards were seeking some means of reaching him, his disciples arrived and effected his rescue.

 

He withdrew to St. Beaume. One of his disciples, called by some Jeron, by others Jamais, betrayed him to the disciples of M. Soubise. One day, before sunrise, M. Jacques being alone and engaged in prayer in his accustomed spot, the traitor arrived accompanied by the executioners and gave, as usual, the kiss of peace, which was the preconcerted death signal. Five villains at once fell upon and killed him with five dagger wounds.

 

His disciples arrived too late, but yet in time to receive his last farewell. " I die," said he, " for God has so willed it ; I forgive my assassins and forbid you to follow them ; they are already miserable enough ; some day they will repent. I 

 

 

 

 

104 THE COMPANIONAGE

 

deliver my soul to God, my Creator; and you, my friends, receive from me the kiss of peace. When I shall have rejoined the Supreme Being, I shall still watch over you. I desire that the last kiss which I give you, be imparted always to the Companions whom you may make, as coming from their Father; they will transmit it to those whom they make; I will watch over them as over you; tell them I shall follow them everywhere so long as they remain faithful to God and to their charge [devoir] and never forget. . . ." He pronounced a few more words which they were unable to understand and, crossing his arms over his breast, expired in his fortyseventh year, four years and nine days after leaving Jerusalem and 989 years before Christ.

 

The Companions, having disrobed him, found a small piece of cane, which he wore in memory of the canes that had saved his life when he fell into the swamp. Since then the Companions have adopted the cane. It was not known whether Maitre Soubise was the instigator of his death ; the tears which he shed over his tomb and the pursuit of the assassins which he ordered, contributed to weaken in a great measure the suspicions that were entertained. As for the traitor, he very soon repented of his crime and, driven to despair by his poignant regrets, he threw himself into a pit, which the Companions filled up with stones.

 

M. Jacques' career being thus closed, the Companions constructed a beir and carried him into the desert of Cabra, now called St. Magdalen.

 

[Perdiguier once more ceases to quote verbally and summarizes as follows :] Here follows the embalming of M. Jacques and the funeral ceremonies, which lasted three days ; the procession encountered a terrible storm, crossed forests and mountains, made stations in a place now called Caverne St. Evreux, by others named Saint Maximin, Cabane St. Zozime, etc. The procession at length arrived at the final resting‑place.

 

[At this point Perdiguier once more gives the legend in full.] Before lowering the body into the tomb, the elder gave it the kiss of peace; every one followed his example, after which, having removed the pilgrim's staff, the body was replaced in the bier and lowered into the grave. The elder descended beside it, the Companions covering both with the pall and, after the former had given the Guilbrette [this term will be explained later], he caused them to hand him some bread, wine and meat, which he deposited in the grave and then returned to the surface. The Companions covered the grave with large stones and sealed it ' with heavy bars of iron; after which they made a great fire and threw into it their torches and all that had been used during the obsequies of their master.

 

His raiment was preserved in a chest. At the destruction of the temples, the sons of M. Jacques separated and divided amongst them his clothing, which was thus distributed

 

His hat to the hatters.

His tunic to the stonemasons.

His sandals to the locksmiths.

His cloak to the joiners.

His belt to the carpenters.

His staff (bourdon) to the wagonmakers.

 

Perdiguier then concludes as follows: " After the division of the articles belonging to M. Jacques, the act of faith was found which was pronounced by him

 

THE COMPANIONAGE105

 

on the day of his reception [as master, probably] before Solomon; Hiram, the high priest; and all the masters. This act of faith, or rather this prayer, is very beautiful." In respect to Maitre Soubise, we are afforded even less information than in the case of Solomon. Perdiguier remarks that he has been unable to find any document relating to him and that we must be content with the particulars furnished by the legend of Maitre Jacques. Judging by the legends of Hiram and Maitre Jacques, we might expect to have some record of the tragic ending of Soubise, but if such existed, Perdiguier failed apparently to find it.

 

Each of these masters, Solomon, Jacques and Soubise, has been selected by the different crafts as chief patron, three of the trades‑the stonemasons, joiners and locksmiths‑being divided in their allegiance between Solomon and Jacques, the carpenters between Solomon and Soubise. Under one of these three banners each craft forms its own fraternity, entirely independent of all other crafts and sometimes at open enmity with its sister societies of the same detoir. This, however, is only a family quarrel and gives way to firm alliance when a question arises as between the various divisions. For instance, in the family of Jacques we find the joiners friendly with the stonemasons, but enemies of their friends the farriers ; yet, they all unite as one man against the common foe, the Sons of Solomon. As a general rule, the families of Jacques and Soubise are at variance; but, although they love each other little, they hate Solomon more.

 

The fraternities which are thus formed are only open to journeymen, that is, apprentices who have served their time. Perdiguier ‑ who was a joiner of Solomon ‑ has not given any hint of the ceremonies used at their reception; probably with the exception of his own society, these would remain a secret even to himself, whilst his oath would forbid any revelation. In his own handicraft the following customs and arrangements prevailed :‑A young workman presents himself and requests to be made a member of the society. His sentiments are inquired into, and if the replies are satisfactory, he is embauche. At the next General Assembly he is brought into an upper room (fait monter en chambre), when, in the presence of all the companions and of filie.r, questions are put to him to ascertain that he has made no mistake, that it is into this particular society and not in some other that he wishes to enter; and he is informed that there are many distinct societies and that he is quite free in his choice. The ordinances, to which all companions and afflies are obliged to conform, are then read to him and he is asked whether he can and will conform thereto. Should he answer " No," he is at liberty to retire; if he replies " Yes," he is affiliated and conducted to his proper place in the room. If he is honest and intelligent, he obtains in due course all the degrees of the Companionage, and succeeds to the various offices of the society.

 

The candidate is affiliated‑but in what manner is not stated‑and thus attains the first step. In this particular society there are three further steps‑accepted companion (compagnon reFu), finished companion (compagnon fina) and initiated companion (compagnon initie). All these Degrees were probably attended with a io6 THE COMPANIONAGE ceremony, but Perdiguier is silent on the subject. Doubtless the ceremonies of the Companionage comprised a rehearsal of some tragic scene similar to that recounted in the career of Maitre Jacques or of Hiram. Thory, writing (a generation earlier than Perdiguier) of the Companions, says, " their initiations are accompanied by secret forms and their unions existed from time immemorial." (See Acta Latamorum (i8i5,) p. 3oi). J. C. Besuchet (Precis historique de l'Ordre de la Franc‑Mafonnerie, 18zg), who evidently knew nothing of M. Jacques and Hiram says the New Testament furnished them with the chief part of their mystic ordeals (epreuves mysterieuses). Clavel (Histoire pittoresque de la Franc‑Mafonnerie, 1843, p. 367) maintains that, in the superior grades of the Companionage, the " funereal catastrophes " of the legends were acted, but as he gives no authority and wrote two years after the publication of Perdiguier's work, it is possible that he only arrived at this conclusion on the ground of its inherent probability.

 

Whether the several grades held separate meetings is indeterminable, though with the Enfants de Salomon, even the " affiliates " assisted at the General Assemblies. The Degrees of the locksmiths were identical with those of the joiners as above specified; indeed, these societies often amalgamated, but the stonemasons of Solomon slightly differed from the cognate crafts in styling their affiliates " young men " (jeunes hommes) and they did not subdivide the degree of Companion.

 

In the system of Maitre Jacques all the members were included in two grades, the lower being termed Aspirants and the upper Companions. The sons of Maitre Soubise were divided into Companions and foxes (renards). These two families allowed the younger class no participation in their ceremonies, assemblies, or festivals; and the members of the upper class sometimes assumed nicknames descriptive of their scorn for the novices, such as " the scourge of the foxes," " the terror of the aspirants," etc. To all the societies the connexion of the stonemasons with Hiram appears to have been known and, in some, the members habitually wore white gloves, giving as a reason that they did so in order to testify to their innocence in his death.

 

Once a year each craft held high festival. The proceedings commenced with a special Mass, after which there was a grand assembly. Officers were elected for the ensuing year and the whole concluded with a banquet, followed by a dance, to which the Companions invited their sweethearts and friends. The members of friendly crafts were also invited. But the same distinctions were made as on ordinary occasions. The Companions held their festivities apart and suffered no intrusion from the aspirants. The aspirants had their own jollification, but were unable to exclude the Companions if any were inclined to take part. With the Sons of Solomon, however, the case was different : they held joint meetings. Each society had its festival on the day of its patron saint, who was always supposed to have exercised that particular craft. Thus the carpenters celebrated St. Joseph ; the joiners St. Anne; the locksmiths St. Peter; the farriers the summer festival of St. Eloy ; the smiths the winter St. Eloy ; and the shoemakers St. Crispin. The stonemasons celebrated the Ascension. On the day following, a second dance was usually given, to which the masters and their families were invited.

 

From Perdiguier we learn that in every town of the Tour de France technical schools were established and maintained by the stonemasons, joiners and locksmiths. The other crafts do not appear to have shared in this highly beneficial institution. In those schools, which were open in the evening, the workman was taught architectural and lineal drawing, designing, modelling, carving and the elements of all sciences connected with his profession. Perdiguier gives no data by which to judge at the age of this institution, but he speaks of it as already old in 1841. This illustration of provident thought in a body of simple journeymen is as astonishing in one sense as their idiotic feuds are in another.

 

Between 1651 and 1841 our knowledge of the Companions appear to be restricted to the criminal prosecutions entailed by their perpetual quarrels. Between 1648 and 1651, however, we obtain a further insight into their secrets and are enabled to form some idea of the ceremonies of the societies of Maitre Jacques, through the apostasy of the shoemakers. It will be seen that the leading idea is still that of a betrayal, death and resurrection, although the hero is not a semi‑fictitious personage like Hiram, but no one less than our Saviour Himself. That much of an indefensible nature took place cannot be denied, but it is possible that the information afforded is prejudiced and one‑sided. A Companion shoemaker of a highly religious turn of mind seems to have been the first to take offence at the questionable practices of his fellows and to have abjured them. He even went further : he instituted a body of lay brothers composed of journeyman shoemakers, adopted a peculiar dress, established a rule enjoining them to enter the various shops of the craft and, by instruction and good example, to reform the manners of their fellows. They took the name of Brothers of St. Crispin and obtained ecclesiastical authority for their proceedings. In consequence of these measures and the revelations made by him and those of his way of thinking, the municipality of Paris interdicted the assemblies in 1648. The societies of the Companionage took refuge in the Temple, which was under a separate jurisdiction. The clergy also took the alarm and used all the terrors of the ecclesiastical law to forbid the ceremonies and institutions.

 

Some of their Mysteries were printed and revealed in 1651 and, in consequence of renewed thunders from the pulpit, more revelations succeeded. At length the Companions were foolish enough to cause a riot in the precincts of the Temple, the Bailli was worked upon by the bishops and, eventually, the Companions were sentenced and expelled by him on September 11, 1651. (See Thory, Annales Originis Magni Galliarum Orientis, 1812, pp. 329, 33o.) The cordwainers (shoemakers) were the first to disclose their secret ceremonies, March 23, 165 1 and, on May 16 following, together with their masters, solemnly forswore them; but many of the societies refused to follow their example and continued to meet. Others, however, also divulged their secrets and addressed a string of questions to the doctors of the Sorbonne respecting their practices. But from the very io8 THE COMPANIONAGE wording of these questions and revelations, it is abundantly evident that they were drawn up by a prejudiced and probably priestly hand, so as to make the replies a foregone conclusion.

 

Thory, in his History of the Grand Orient, reproduces the material portions of the revelations and declares that his extracts are taken from old works, but without affording any clue to their identification. He has probably relied on some of the writings of Pere Pierre Lebrun (1700‑50), as these are referred to by Simon in connexion with the same subject. When, however, Thory maintains that the customs of the Companionage and of Freemasonry present no features of resemblance, it can only be supposed that he resolutely closed his eyes to the surprising similarities which exist in the two systems. The parallelism, indeed, though claiming attention, may, of course, be only fortuitous and, without further evidence, will by no means establish the connexion of one institution with the other. From the same source we derive further information concerning the tailors and the ceremonies of the charcoal burners. As regards the tailors, Thory states that the second or banquet chamber was decorated with a painting of the gallantries of the first three Companion tailors and that, before the banquet, a lecture was given, consisting of the explanation of these obscene adventures.

 

The charcoal burners met in a forest and called themselves " cousins." Thory and all other writers look upon the word as signifying a cousin by blood and maintain that Francis I was himself admitted a Companion, also that he subsequently introduced the fashion amongst royal personages of calling each other " cousin." But when we remember the fondness of the Companions for the animal kingdom and take into account that the candidate amongst the charcoal burners was called a " wasp," is it not just possible that " cousin " is applied in its other meaning, viz. a gnat, which would be a most appropriate name for these denizens of the forest. At their initiation a white cloth was spread on the ground, on which was placed a full salt‑cellar, a goblet of water, a wax candle and a cross. The candidate took the oath lying prostrate on the cloth and, with his hands, one on the salt, the other on the goblet. He was then raised and, after some " mystification " given the password; which would prove him a true and good " cousin " in all forests. The master afterwards explained the symbols ; the cloth represents the shroud ; the salt, the three theological virtues ; the fire, our funeral torches ; the water, that which will be sprinkled over our grave; the cross, that which will be borne before our coffin. The candidate was then taught that the true cross was of holly, that it had seventy‑two thorns, that St. Theobald was the first charcoal burner, St. Joseph the first carpenter, St. Balthasar the first mason, etc.

 

All writers on secret societies seem to be of opinion that the Carbonari were the direct offspring of this society. This is immaterial to the present inquiry, but anyone who has travelled much in the forests of France and Germany must be aware that the secret societies of the charcoal burners still exist and receive amongst them honorary members, principally huntsmen, gamekeepers, lumbermen, etc. Heckethorn (Secret Societies of all Ages and Countries, 1875, vol. ii, p. 70), without THE COMPANIONAGE log quoting his authority, has given a charcoal burner's examination, which is absolutely unsurpassed for pathetic resignation to a very unenviable lot Whence come you, cousin of the oak?‑From the forest.‑Where is your Father ?‑Raise your eyes to Heaven.‑Where is your mother ?‑Cast your eyes on the earth.‑What worship do you render your Father ?‑Homage and respect.

 

‑What do you bestow on your mother ?‑My care during life, and my body hereafter.‑If I want help, what will you give me ?‑I will share with you my day's earnings and my bread of sorrow ; you shall rest in my hut, and warm yourself at my fire.

 

Between 140o and 1648 we almost lose sight of the Companions, for the glimpse obtained during that period is a very slight one. Yet it is valuable, as showing that the shoemakers had added to the recognized legends of their patron saints an unauthorized version of the recovery of their bodies, thus bringing the legend once more into harmony with the heathen mysteries and the familiar traditions which have come to us from antiquity. The following passage is from Migne's Nouvelle Encyclopedie theoiogique, Dictionnaire des Mysteres, vol. xliii, p. 274 Many manuscripts of the mystery of St. Crispin and St. Crepinian are in existence. .‑. .‑. One is in the Archives of the Empire .‑. .‑. published in print 1836, by Messieurs Chabailles & Dessales. . ‑. . ‑. date, commencement of the fifteenth century [it took four days to represent]. The first three days follow the legend pretty closely; in the fourth the authors have allowed their imaginations much licence. The subject thereof is the invention or discovery of the bodies of the two masters. .‑. .‑. Messieurs Chabailles & Dessales also say, the mystery of St. Crispin and St. Crepinian was singular in this respect, that instead of being acted by the brotherhood of the Passion like most of the other mysteries, it was represented by a special troop, a society of workmen who every year assembled to celebrate the glory of their patron saints. Such was in effect the usage of the Fraternity of Cordwainers of Paris.

 

This is the earliest indication of the Companionage, but it must not be supposed that still earlier and. more important references do not exist. No study of the Compagnonnage at all worthy of the name has yet been made. Perdiguier attempted nothing of the kind; he merely stated what was usual in his own time. Simon's Etude historique is not what its title implies; he is content with the information supplied by Thory and Perdiguier; and the foregoing barely does more than touch the fringe of a vast subject. The origin of the institution cannot be determined with precision. Its antiquity, if we believe Thory, is " time immemorial," whilst, if we turn to Perdiguier, " it has existed for ages." Simon and those who follow him, date its origin in the twelfth century, but give no reasons for their assertion. Having regard to these discrepancies, let us examine whether the facts in evidence admit of forming an independent opinion. We find I. That in 1841 (Perdiguier's time) the Companionage consisted solely of journeymen.

 

1 io THE COMPANIONAGE II. That, according to the revelations which called forth the opinion of the doctors of the Sorbonne (March 14, 1655), such was then also the case.

 

III. That the previous revelations and the renunciation of May 1, 1651, indicate that the masters at that date took part in the ceremonies and, therefore, in the Companionage.

 

IV. That, according to A. Monteil, distinct indications of a similar ceremony are evident in the reception of a master millstone‑maker, a branch of the stonemasons, in the fifteenth century.

 

V. We must guard ourselves from confusing in any way the religious fraternities of either the masters or the journeymen with the Companionage. The fraternities were acknowledged by the state and ruled by codes of laws under governmental sanction: the Companionage statutes have never to this day been revealed. In France we have to do with the following distinct bodies : the craft guilds, the masters fraternities, the journeymen's fraternities and the Companionage, all working into each other like the cogs of a train of wheels, but all distinct pieces of mechanism.

 

VI. We may add to the preceding, the great probability that the French trade guilds were direct descendants of the Roman colleges, without serious break of continuity ; and VII. That no theory can be tenable which does not reconcile all the facts of the case.

 

One point of absorbing interest is, of course, the age of the Hiramic Legend did it, or did it not, exist previously to the Masonic revival Of A.D. 1717 ? And here we are met with Perdiguier's assertion that it is derived directly from Freemasonry. He says (Le Litre du Compagnonnage, vol. ii, p. 8o) in answer to a letter of Beau Desir le Gascon As to this history of Hiram's, I regard it as a mere fable, ingenious enough, but of which the consequences are horrible; for it tends to separate those who take it seriously. The Bible‑the only book of any real authority concerning the con structors of Solomon's Temple‑says nothing about Hiram's murder; and, for my part, I do not believe it. The Compagnoas strangers and those of Liberty have no authentic details of this fable, which is quite new to them and I fancy that the Companions of the other societies are not more advanced: I look upon it, therefore, in the light of a Masonic invention, introduced into the Companionage by persons initiated into both of these secret societies. Freemasonry, according to the most zealous historians‑‑and M. Bazot is of the number‑was only introduced into France in 1715. The Companionage is indisputably anterior; nevertheless, from the day it was introduced into this country our Companions frequented it and found in its bosom useful truths, but also numerous errors.

 

In judging the question, however, it must be remembered that Perdiguier was a simple journeyman joiner, of enlightened views and great intelligence, but of limited education. He apologizes for his own songs by explaining that he was ignorant of the art of versification, owing to a poor education, until, for the better THE COMPANIONAGE III carrying out of his purposes, he endeavoured to obtain some slight insight into its rules. That, according to his lights, he was scrupulously exact in all his works, every word in them testifies. We may therefore blindly follow him when he describes the usages of his own day and implicitly accept, as then existent, the traditions which he hands down; but, in matters of history, his statements must be sifted. It will be observed that he fixes the introduction of Freemasonry into France at 1715 ! The fact embedded in the above quotation was not within his personal knowledge, nor, to judge from his own words, was it even a tradition current amongst the Companions.

 

Sir G. Cornewall Lewis, in Methods of Observation and Reasoning in Politics, says In the case of customs and of laws dependent on usage, there is more security against alteration than in the repetition of a story by one person to another, because there is the agreement of many persons in its observance.

 

It is submitted, therefore, that we are at liberty to reject some of his conclusions or inferences, without thereby invalidating his testimony in other matters. But it may be argued, why then accept his account of the battle at Lacrau in 1730, the contests of skill at Lyons in 1726 and Marseilles in 18o8, these also being matters of history, on which important conclusions are founded? Because they are traditions of the society, given with such minuteness, that each is doubtless based upon a substratum of fact. He gives them with equal impartiality, although one tells against his own society; and the Companionage songs commemorate both. On the other hand, although legendary, the traditions date from so recent a period, that if fabulous, some protest against their reception would have been recorded.

 

It may, therefore, be suggested that, as regards the Hiramic Legend, Perdiguier has jumped at an illogical conclusion; and that the Legend of Hiram the builder is not only anterior to I 7z6‑the date of the introduction of Freemasonry into France‑but probably coeval with the Companionage itself. The reasons are obvious. We may fairly assume that the two societies of Solomon and Jacques existed separately previously to I7z6. This is evident from the battle of Lacrau, 1730; the contest at Lyons, I7z6 ; and from an inscription on the top of the Tour St. Gilles in Languedoc. Perdiguier there found the following names hewn in the stone: " Joli Cceur de Landun, 1640 " ; " L'Invention de Nancy, 1646 " ; " L'Esperance le Berichon, 165 5 " ; " La Verdure le Picard, 165 6 "‑the words showing that the first two are Sons of Solomon, the two latter of Jacques. Accompanying the names are carvings of masons' picks, compasses, squares, levels and other stonemasons' tools. (See Le Livre du Compagnonnage, vol. ii, p. 85.) But all the crafts and societies agree in this, that the Sons of Solomon were anterior to those of Jacques, whose legend follows the lines of the Hiramic myth. The revelations to the doctors of the Sorbonne were those of shoemakers, hatters, etc.‑all crafts owing allegiance to the charge of Maitre Jacques. Earlier still, in 1400, we find the shoemakers acting a mystery: they were Sons of Jacques, as we know, yet, if tradition is at all to be relied on, the shoemakers were of later origin than the I I Z THE COMPANIONAGE Stonemasons of Jacques and these than the Stonemasons of Solomon. Yet we hear of the shoemakers at that early date making unauthorized additions to the history of St. Crispin, which bring it into harmony with those of Jacques, of Hiram, of Isis and Osiris, of Bacchus and of that Grand Mystery, an irreverent representation of which ultimately called down upon the Companionage the wrath of the Church. The Sons of Jacques, therefore, possessed and acted a legend from a very early date; and, if the Sons of Solomon did not then cherish the Hiramic Legend, what preceded it ? From the very nature of the society, some traditionary tragedy was necessary. What was it? It could not refer to Solomon; the Companions possess no legend relating to him, beyond the fact that he granted them a charge. We have no trace of any other personage‑no hint of any other legend. We are driven to the conclusion that the Sons of Solomon either possessed the Hiramic myth, or none at all ; and the latter supposition is hardly conceivable. But as we have seen that the Sons of Solomon, as opposed to the Sons of Jacques, certainly existed as early as I64o and, inferentially, before A.D. 1400, we may safely conclude that their distinctive legend is of prior date to the introduction of modern Freemasonry into France.

 

Another curious point for research is that of the fondness of the Companions for nicknames derived from the animal kingdom. If we assume that the Companions who formed the first corps took the name of wolves for some obscure reason, we may legitimately conclude that the other societies adopted theirs on the same grounds, or in rivalry or emulation. Our task is, therefore, reduced to tracing the origin of the title " wolves." In connexion with this word, another curious subject arises. In England and America the son of a Freemason is termed a Lewis. Technically, a Lewis is an instrument consisting of two side pieces of iron in the shape of a wedge, or right‑angled triangle. These are placed within a dovetailed excavation in a large stone, so that the slanting sides fit the walls of the perforation, leaving space to insert, between the two wedges, a flat piece of iron which fits the two upright sides of the others and forces them well into the corner, all three projecting above the surface of the stone. A hole exists through all three, into which a ring is passed and we have thus inside the stone a dovetail of iron which cannot be withdrawn, by means of which the heavier stones are raised by ropes or chains. We are told that as the Lewis supports the burden of the stone, so should the Lewis or Mason's son support the burden of his father's declining days. The analogy is completed by the fact that the Mason is termed a perfect ashlar, i.e. a truly squared stone. But the Companions possess this analogy more completely still. With them the aggregate of pieces forming the Lewis is a Louve, or female wolf and the two wedge‑shaped side pieces are Louveteaux, or sucking wolves. A Companion is a wolf, all Companions' sons are called Louveteaux, or little wolves and it is probable that the same reasoning is applied, although we are not told so directly. But why the title " wolf " at all ? Are we to believe that this is a distinct relic of the Roman traditions (possibly a survival of the Bacchic Mysteries) and does it furnish another link to the chain of evidence THE COMPANIONAGE 113 connecting the Companions with the Collegia ? Amongst the various symbols which served as military ensigns with the Roman armies was the wolf. The Lupercalia were celebrated in many of the cities of Gaul and were not abolished till A.D. 496 by Pope Gelasius I. The reference to a wolf is frequent in the French language and seems to be interwoven with the national life. A strong iron holdfast is called a Dent de Louve, a wolf's tooth. Even their royal palaces were called Lupara, wolves' lairs and, later, Louvres. The ancient palace of the Louvre in Paris still retains the name. And, during the last century, a festival strongly suggesting the Lupercalia was annually held at Jumieges. The hero was elected by his Com panions and called the Loupvert, green wolf. On the morning of June 23, the eve of St. John the Baptist, he was conducted round the place in procession, attended mass, etc. At a certain moment he gave, by running a‑muck and striking every one with his fists, a signal for the commencement of coarse amusements, in which all the troop took part. Young men and maidens joined in the revels, which continued throughout the ensuing day and ended with a banquet (Langlois, Les _nerves de Jumieges, 1838, p. 17). If this was a survival of the Lupercalia, the transposition of its date from the feast of St. Valentine to that of St. John is curious and, perhaps, significant. Migne (see Nouvelle Encyclopedie theologique, Dictionnaire des Mysteres, tom. xliii, p. 498) also mentions the games of Saint Loup as amongst the most important and ancient of France. Saint Loup was a Burgundian saint and bishop of Sens, and took the part of the Burgundians against Clothair in the seventh century. (Troisieme Encyclopedie theologique, Dictionnaire des Legendes, tom. xiv, p. 790.) Clavel and Heckethorn both derive the name of wolf from the mysteries of Isis. Heckethorn says In the mysteries of Isis the candidate was made to wear the mask of a wolf's head. Hence a wolf and a candidate in these mysteries were synonymous. Macrobius, in his Saturnalia, says that the ancients perceived a relationship between the sun, the great symbol of these mysteries; and a wolf, for, as the flocks of sheep and cattle disperse at the sight of the wolf, so the flocks of stars disappear at the approach of the sun's light. And in Greek, Avrcos means both the sun and a wolf. There is a family of fellow crafts that still derive their name from that idea.

 

But as it is " a far cry " to Egypt, something nearer home may content. The name alone of the Lupercal games is suggestive, but we are met with the fact that no mention of masks is found connected therewith. A French writer (Encyclopedie Methodique, Antiquites, tom. iii, Luperces) has, however, endeavoured to get over this circumstance in the following words There is to be seen on a chalcedony in the collection of Stosch, a naked figure, erect, clothed with a sort of large girdle of the skin of some animal around his loins ; a robust man, who having a thyrsus reclining against his shoulder, is in the act of using both hands to put on a mask. The figure doubtless represents one of the Luperci, or priests of Pan, who ran naked in the streets, etc. The rites of the festivals of Pan did not differ much from those of Bacchus ; these were celebrated by plays in the theatre ; the festivals of Pan were perhaps also distinguished by spectacular performances, to which the mask would allude. It is true we do not read that the Luperci ran about masked, but the silence of the ancients does not render this supposition impossible.

 

But has not the writer made a mistake ? Does not the thyrsus prove that the figure represents an actor in the Dionysia ? All things considered, it is to the Bacchic mysteries, which were derived from those of Egypt, that we may attribute the wolves, foxes and dogs of the Companions. (See Sainte‑Croix, Mysteres du Pa ganisme, tom. ii, pp. 7z‑98.) This supposition derives extra force from the name of Maitre Soubise. Perdiguier can only feebly suggest that there was perhaps a Pere Soubise, a Benedictine monk, a personage it has not been possible to trace, but Clavel (P. 366) thinks it not impossible that the name of Soubise is derived from Sabazius, one of the many epithets applied to Bacchus. If this view is accepted it may be possible to unravel the mystery of the " howling," something very similar having taken place at the Dionysia. Robert Brown in The Great Dionysian Ayth (vol. ii, p. 31) says According to the mythologists, whose views are noticed by Diodorus Sikelos, Sabazios was a very ancient Dionysos, son of Zeus and Persephone, whose cult was performed at night and who was horned. He was also called Sabos and Ploutarchos remarks " that many even now call the Bakchik votaries Saboi and utter this word when they celebrate orgies to the god." Saboi was one of the sacred names shouted at the Bakchik and Phrygian celebrations in honour of Dionysos. . . . As already explained, Sabazios is the Phcrnician god Sbat, the seventh planet, or Saturnus who presides over the seventh or Sabbath day.

 

Again, have we not a reminiscence of the Bacchic legends in the obscene love adventures of the three primitive tailor Companions, as hinted at in the revelations of 1655 ? As regards Maitre Jacques, Perdiguier says that, in the earliest ages, the Sons of Solomon were the only society; that there arose a schism in the bosom of this fraternity and that the seceders placed themselves under the protection of Jacques Molay, the last Grand Master of the Templars. In the legend we find, as if in corroboration of this, an allusion to the " destruction of the Temples." There is much in the legend to bear out this construction of their origin. We have the name of Jacques, the residence in the Holy Land, with the canes, which might be taken to represent the knightly lance. Soubise might figure for the Pope, who was a friend and protector of the Templars previous to Molay's return to France, while the traitor would stand for the King of France. The traitor's kiss might be looked upon as the symbol of the christening when Molay stood sponsor to the king's child, prior to his arrest and the large fire which the Companions built over his grave might be the type of Molay's awful death. But, apart from the fact that all this similitude is somewhat forced, it is evident that the Legend of Maitre Jacques bears much more resemblance to the passion of our Lord. The traitor was one of Jacques' own disciples, he betrayed him with a kiss, his clothes were divided amongst THE COMPANIONAGE 115 his followers, his betrayer committed suicide and the wounds inflicted by the daggers of the assassins were five in number, corresponding with the punctured hands, feet, and side of our Saviour. Again, it is almost impossible to believe that Molay ever had the opportunity of becoming the protector of such a body. A schism of this kind is not accomplished and crowned in one day. The Pope's letter inviting Molay to return from Cyprus and confer with him was dated June 1306 and the Grand Master arrived in France at the commencement of 1307. On October 13 of the same year he was imprisoned and never regained his liberty; and, in the interval, after depositing the treasure of the order in the Temple at Paris, he had visited Poictiers to have an interview with the Pope. (See C. G. Addison, The Knights Templars, 18 5 z, pp, z 3 ‑41.) What time had he to place himself at the head of the dissenting Companions ? But, if this theory is rejected, what shall be substituted for it ? In the first place, is it absolutely certain that the masons of Jacques were seceders from those of Solomon ? That they are of later formation is evident, inasmuch as the Hiramic Legend shows no traces of Christianity, whereas that of the Maitre Jacques does. But, if the points of agreement are reviewed, it may be possible to glean indiscriminately from all three families. If Freemasonry owes anything to the Companionage,it is probably to the Sons of Solomon more especially, but concerning these there is very little information. The following coincidences are worthy of attention i. " Sons of Solomon " certainly reminds us in general terms of our own fraternity. 2. Companions de Liberte, free companions, of Freemasons. 3. Devoir is a literal translation of our English Charge and the documents appear to be very similar in form. 4. General Assembly is a term common to both societies. 5. Accepted Companion and Initiated Companion sound strangely familiar. 6. Passed Companion presents a remarkable coincidence with our own expression. 7. The identity of idea and application between the Lewis and the Louveteau can scarcely be a mere chance correspondence.

 

The above are similarities of expression and phraseology; let us now pass on to those of procedure preparatory to initiation. In both societies we find 8. A previous inquiry into the candidate's character. 9. An absence of com pulsion and a perfect freedom of choice. io. A preliminary exposition of the general tendency of the society. ii. Perfect liberty to withdraw up to the last possible moment. i 2. Sponsors, represented in Freemasonry by the proposer and seconder.

 

As regards the government of the societies, it will have been observed that13. Each particular society was thoroughly independent, but welded into uniformity with the other societies by the various charges. Previously to 1717 this was generally the status of Freemasonry. 14. Each society exercised the powers of petty justice over its own members. (Compare Brentano, Gilds, 1870, PP. 54, 63, and Fort, p. 132.) 15. Punishments took the form of fines and, in grave cases, of expulsion. The Hallizvell poem is very explicit as to the punishment 116 THE COMPANIONAGE of disobedient masons. The loth Punctus requires that if " the mason lyve amysse, and yn hys werk be false, he schal thenne be chasted after the lawe." 16. Amongst the Sons of Solomon there was a perfect equality of membership. 17. All the members took part in the election of officers. 18. Every Companion was eligible for office.

 

icg. The officers were a president, elders and secretary. If we regard the president as master and the elders as wardens, the exact counterpart is met with in the three principal officers of a Freemason's Lodge. The Steinmetzen had only one warden, the Companions evidently had more.

 

The acknowledged principles of the two institutions‑the Companionage and Freemasonry‑rest upon a common foundation 2o. The Companions profess Honour to God, the desire of preserving their master's interests and of yielding to one another mutual support and assistance. The second of these protestations may well be paraphrased as their bounden duty. Now, honour to the Almighty, the pursuit of duty here below and brotherly relief, are cardinal points of a Freemason's profession. The Companion, on entering his lodge, is asked, " What seek you here ? " and answers, " God and the apostles." To arrive at the knowledge of God and of His truth, is the leading precept imparted in Masonic Lodges.

 

The ceremonies of the Companionage present many singular features, some of which have their analogues in Freemasonry and in the usages of the Steinmetzen ; whilst of others, the types are found in the proceedings of the Vehm Gerichte, or Vehmic tribunals of Westphalia, in the ceremonial of the Mysteries and, even, in the Israelitish customs recorded in the Holy Writings. Amongst these may be briefly noticed 21. The sequence of degrees.

 

22. The costume and posture of a candidate. Describing the procedure of the Holy Vehme, Sir F. Palgrave (The Rise and Progress of the English Commonwealth, vol. i, pp. 149, 15 o) says Bareheaded and ungirt, the candidate is conducted before the dread tribunal. He is interrogated as to his qualifications, or, rather, as to the absence of any disqualification. He must be free born and a Teuton. If the answers are satisfactory, he then takes the oath, swearing by the Holy Law. The new Freisschopff was then entrusted with the secrets. He received the pass‑word, by which he was to know his fellows and the grip or sign by which they recognized each other in silence. If he discloses the secrets, he is to expect that he will be suddenly seized by the ministers of vengeance. His eyes are bound, he is cast down on the soil, his tongue is torn out through the back of his neck.

 

According to Jacob Grimm (Deutsche Rechts‑Alterthumer, 1828, pp. 184, 714), a cord about the neck was used symbolically, in criminal courts, to denote that the accused submitted his life to the judgment of the court. When used upon the person of a freeman, it signified a slight degree of subjection or servitude.

 

THE COMPANIONAGE 117 23. Prescribed steps during a ceremony. 24. Conventional knocks. 25. Pro gression from one officer to another. 26. An examination on previously imparted instruction.

 

27. Circumambulation. This rite is probably a relic of Sun‑worship. In ancient Greece, when the priests were engaged in the rite of sacrifice, they and the people always walked three times round the altar while singing a sacred hymn.

 

In making this procession, great care was taken to move in imitation of the sun. At the ancient Symposia the cups were always carried round from right to left and the same order was observed in everything that took place in the entertainment. See Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities; Dudley Wright, Druidism, pp. 26‑7 ; Fort, P. 321 ; Oliver, Historical Landmarks, 1846, vol. i, p. 311 ; Asiatic Researches, 1798, vol. v, p. 3 5 7 ; Pliny, Natural History, xxii, 2 ; Elton, Origins, P‑ 293 28. Discalceation. In the Israelitish, as well as in the Germanic nationalities, this rite, in its widest signification, was symbolized to mean a total relinquishing of personal claim and complete humiliation and subjection. Dr. Adam Clarke thinks that the custom of worshipping the Deity barefooted was so general among all nations of antiquity, that he assigns it as one of his thirteen proofs that the whole human race have been derived from one family.

 

29. The living circle. 3o. The two lighted candles, representing the sun and moon. 31. The oath of secrecy. 32. The avoidance of a conventional method of salutation. 33. The banquet following the ceremony. 34. The use of two separate rooms. (The Steinmetzen only used one, their workshop.) 3 5. The Guilbrette. This evidence of membership may be held to correspond with the signs of antiquity. It will be remembered that no trace of a sign was discoverable amongst the Steinmetzen. 36. The watch or pass‑word. This also was unknown in Germany. The Companions probably made use of Biblical words. 37. The use of the square and compasses.

 

3 8. The custom of holding monthly meetings, generally on the first Sunday. Freemasons also meet on the first, second, third, etc., Monday, Tuesday, or as the case may be ; that is to say, both societies as a rule avoid appointing for their assemblies a fixed day of the month, but arrange to meet on a certain day of the week.

 

39. The custom of holding a yearly festival, accompanied by a religious service and followed by a banquet. 40. The habit of converting fines into liquor for the general benefit. The By‑laws of our old Lodges prove the existence of this custom among the Freemasons.

 

As accidental coincidences, which cannot influence conclusions, may be mentioned the enmity of the Roman Church towards both Freemasonry and the Companionage, the admission of candidates of all religions and the blue sash edged with gold. But the most striking factors in the final judgment must be 41. The mutual possession of an Hiramic Legend; with its probable existence amongst the Companions from a very remote period. Candour, however, demands 118 THE COMPANIONAGE the acknowledgment, that in Freemasonry we meet with but sparing allusions to Hiram, until the early part of the eighteenth century.

 

Many of the characteristics are only what must arise in every secret society and those in which may possibly be discerned the germs of our existing Freemasonry, if viewed singly, would be of very slight value. Taken conjointly, their weight materially increases. It is necessary, however, to call attention to the possible absence amongst the Companions of one of the leading features of Freemasonry. Nowhere is there any distinct mention of a grip. The guilbrette may include one; it appears more than probable, but Perdiguier does not hint or declare that the giving of hands in this ceremony is performed in any special manner.

 

As we ponder over the evidence which has been unfolded, the question naturally arises, If this striking similitude to English Freemasonry existed in France as late as 184i‑that is, for more than a century after the first Lodge in France was warranted by the Grand Lodge of England‑why did the two societies never intermingle ? Why should Frenchmen have accepted warrants at English hands, when they might as well have applied to the Enfants de Salomon ? The difficulty is, however more apparent than real. Whatever may have been the primary object of the Companionage, it must be evident that it had long ceased to possess any speculative character. The ceremonies were still worked and preserved with that obstinacy which characterizes all popular usages, of which many remarkable instances might be cited. They served their purpose in fostering amongst the workmen an esprit de corps, they had become part and parcel of a system of mutual assistance. In England, however, they had attained, or perhaps retained, a higher significance; and, though alike in outward form, were wide as the poles asunder in moral tendency. The supporters of Freemasonry, in France at least, were chosen from amongst the higher classes ; those of the Companionage from the lower. If we admit, with Perdiguier, that Companions were received into Freemasonry, we need not be surprised at their failing to recognize in our beautiful morality and ritual anything more than a chance resemblance to their own ancient institution. An illiterate journeyman would scarcely look for any connexion between a society that strove to reconcile all mankind and one that taught him that his first duty was to hate and combat his fellows of another and rival fraternity; between a society that upheld the moral equality of all men, combined with a cheerful submission to authority and one whose chief endeavour was to counteract the power of the masters and employers. Even such an enlightened man as Perdiguier, when struck with certain resemblances, is rather inclined to account for them by presuming that his fraternity has copied the Freemasons, than by imagining a common origin. The failure on the part of the ignorant workman to recognize the relationship is not extraordinary. Yet what can be said of the French Freemasons ? Their blindness may be accounted for by ignorance, pride and ambition. Ignorance of the ways and usages, history and traditions of the Companionage ; pride in their own position, which would have declined such humble relations ; ambition to be thought descendants of the Templars, Rosicrucians, Magi, etc. etc. ? Have we not seen, although nothing can THE COMPANIONAGE zip be more indisputably evident than the descent of English and, consequently, of all Freemasons, from the medixval builders, that this descent was largely denied, or only grudgingly admitted, as a convenient cloak in whose ample folds the haughty Templars deigned to masquerade ? If Freemasons scorned as parents the glorious architects of the Middle Ages, how could they be expected to acknowledge brotherhood or seek affinity with a set of ignorant present‑day workmen, who were only known to them by means of the police reports continually detailing their revolting battles, of whose inner constitution absolutely nothing was known to the general public previously to 1841 ? CHAPTER VI MEDIEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY A PREVALENT theory at one time was that all Gothic churches were erected by a body of travelling Freemasons acting in concert, who, being apparently a kind of lay brethren, guided entirely by the monks and always working as one man, were assumedly under the control of one supreme chief, as the Franciscans and Jesuits of later times by a " General." Coupled with this is ordinarily found a belief that the Gothic architecture practised by these monks and masons was, in its origin, an emanation from Byzantium, thus forming a link by which to connect the Masonic bodies and their architecture with the East, so on up to the Temple and further still, if necessary, ad infinitum. (See Thomas Hope, Historical Essay on Architecture, chap. xxi ; Fort, Early History and Antiquities of Freemasonry, p. 33.) Another and more scientific, though equally baseless hypothesis, places the origin of Gothic architecture in Germany, making the Germans its apostles, sometimes, indeed, going so far as to deny the natives of other countries even the poor merit of imitation‑their churches being supposed to have been built for them by Germans; while a third scheme contents itself with simply ridiculing in toto the pretensions of the Freemasons. (See Findel, History of Freemasonry, p. 76; G. Edmund Street, Gothic Architecture in Spain, 1865, p. 464; Joseph Gwilt, Encyclopcedia of Architecture, 1876, pp. iz8, 130; and Rev. J. Dallaway, Discourses upon Architecture, 1833, pp. 405‑7ò) It is essential to examine the Parentalia and duly to consider the elaborate arguments by which Governor Pownall, Sir James Hall and Hope have supported their respective contentions, in order to form a correct estimate of the influence these have exercised in shaping or fashioning the theory of Masonic origin, believed in by encyclopxdists between 1750 and 1861.

 

It is true that J. S. Hawkins's History of Gothic Architecture, 1813, is honourably distinguished from all similar works published after the disclosure of Sir J. Hall's hypothesis, 1803, by the absence of the word Freemasons from both index and letterpress; but, with this solitary exception, all writers (after Hall) who selected architecture as their theme have associated the Freemasons with the Gothic, or pointed style‑a theory which reached its fullest development in the well‑known essay of Hope.

 

Wren‑if we accord him the credit of the outline of Masonic history given in the Parentalia‑blended conjecture with tradition. Hall found in the statement ascribed to Sir Christopher, the principle of authority and looked no further. The greatest architect of his age and the " Grand Master of the Freemasons," could

 

 

 

120(B)

 

A SERIES OF FIFTEEN

 

ENGLISH

 

AND

 

FRENCH

 

FREEMASONRY PRINTS

 

OF 1745‑1757‑1849‑1812

 

They depict meetings of Freemasons

for the reception of Apprentices and

admission of Masters

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEDIEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY 121

 

not possibly err in coupling the profession he adorned with the society over which he ruled. Dallaway in 1833 published his Discourses upon Architecture, the last of which he entitled " Collections for an Historical Account of Master and Free masons " and from this fount Masonic writers have largely drawn. He cites approvingly " that the incorporation of masons, in the thirteenth century, may have finally brought the pointed arch to that consistency and perfection to which it had not then attained " (R. Smirke, in the Archaologia, vol. xxiii). " The denomination of Free‑masons in England, he deemed to be merely a vernacular corruption of the Freres‑Mafons established in France " (Discourses, etc., pp. 407, 434). Hope quotes no authorities ; and though, at the present day, many people might think that the verdict formerly passed upon his Anastasius (18ig) would now apply to his history of the Freemasons‑viz. " a romance which holds a distinguished rank among modern works of fiction "‑it was at one time so much in request, as a professional textbook, that an analytical Index to its contents, consisting of eightynine pages and with twelve illustrations in wood, had a very extended sale. Dean Milman remarks: " All the documentary evidence adduced by Mr. Hope amounts to a Papal privilege to certain builders or masons, or a guild of builders, at Como, published by Muratori and a charter to certain painters by our Henry VI. Schnaase (Geschichte der Bildende Kunst, iv, ch. 5) examines and rejects the theory " (History of Latin Christianity, vol. vi, p. 5 87).

 

According to the editors of the Parentalia, he [Wren] was of opinion (as has been mentioned in another Place) that what we now vulgarly call Gothick ought properly and truly to be named the Saracenick Architecture refined by the Christians, which first of all began in the East, after the Fall of the Greek Empire, by the prodigious Success of those People that adhered to Mahomet's Doctrine, who, out of Zeal to their Religion, built Mosques, Caravansaras and Sepulchres wherever they came.

 

These they contrived of a round Form, because they would not imitate the Christian Figure of a Cross, nor the old Greek Manner, which they thought to be idolatrous and, for that Reason, all Sculpture became offensive to them.

 

They then fell into a new Mode of their own Invention, tho' it might have been expected with better Sense, considering the Arabians wanted not Geometricians in that Age, nor the Moors, who translated many of the most useful old Greek Books. As they propagated their Religion with great Diligence, so they built Mosques in all their conquered Cities in Haste. The Quarries of great Marble, by which the vanquished Nations of Syria, Egypt and all the East had been supplied, for Columns, Architraves and great Stones, were now deserted; the Saracens, therefore, were necessitated to accommodate their Architecture to such Materials, whether Marble or Free‑stone, as every Country readily afforded. They thought Columns and heavy Cornices impertinent and might be omitted; and, affecting the round Form for Mosques, they elevated Cupolas, in some Instances with Grace enough. The Holy War gave the Christians, who had been there, an Idea of the Saracen Works, which were afterwards by them imitated in the West; and they refined upon it every Day as they proceeded in building Churches. The Italians (among which were yet some Greek Refugees) and with them French, German and 122 MEDIYEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY Flemings, joined into a Fraternity of Architects, procuring Papal Bulls for their Encouragement and particular Privileges; they stiled themselves Freemasons and ranged from one Nation to another as they found Churches to be built (for very many in those Ages were everywhere in Building, through Piety or Emulation). Their Government was regular and where they fixed near the Building in Hand, they made a Camp of Huts. A Surveyor govern'd in chief ; every tenth Man was called a Warden and overlooked each nine. The Gentlemen of the Neighbourhood, either out of Charity or Commutation of Pennance, gave the Materials and Carriage. Those who have seen the exact Accounts in Records of the Charge of the Fabricks of some of our Cathedrals near four hundred Years old, cannot but have a great Esteem for their (Economy, and admire how soon they erected such lofty Structures.

 

The full title of the work is Parentalia, or Memoirs of the Family of the Wrens; but chiefly of Sir Christopher Wren. Compiled by his son Christopher. Now published by his grandson, Stephen Wren, Esq., with the care of Joseph Ames, F.R.S. London, MDCCL, p. 3o6.

 

Governor T. Pownall, in Arch&ologia, 1788, vol. ix, pp. i io‑z6, " Observations on the Origin and Progress of Gothic Architecture and on the Corporation of Freemasons," believed that " the collegium or corporation of Freemasons were the first formers of Gothick Architecture into a regular and scientific order, by applying the models and proportions of timber frame‑work to building in stone " ; and was further of opinion that this method " came into use and application about the close of the twelfth or commencement of the thirteenth century." The times of building the Gothick new‑works coincide with this xra. A fact which coincides with this period offers itself to me‑that, the churches throughout all the northern parts of Europe being in a ruinous state, the Pope created several corporations of Roman or Italian architects and artists, with corporate powers and exclusive privileges, particularly with a power of setting by themselves the price of their own work and labour, independent of the municipal laws of the country wherein they worked, according as Hiram had done by the corporations of architects and mechanicks which he sent to Solomon. The Pope not only thus formed them into such a corporation, but is said to have sent them (as exclusively appropriated) to repair and rebuild these churches and other religious edifices. This body had a power of taking apprentices, and of admitting or accepting into their corporation approved masons. The common and usual appellation of this corporation in England was that of The Free and Accepted Masons.

 

Governor Pownall then goes on to say that, claiming to hold primarily and exclusively of the Pope, they assumed a right, as Free‑masons, of being exempt from the regulations of the statutes of labourers, to which they constantly refused obedience. One might collect historical proofs of this, but as the fact stands upon record in our statute laws, I shall rest on that.

 

Our author next fixes the establishment of the Freemasons in England about the early part of the reign of Henry III, at which period " the Gothic architecture came forward into practice as a regular established order " ; and suggests as irresistible MEDIEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY 123 ‑the inference that the invention and introduction of this bold and very highly scientific order of architecture must be referred to these chosen and selected artists. Pownall concludes Having shown from incontrovertible record that there was in England a corporation of architects and masons, instituted by a foreign power and that this foreign jurisdiction, from which they derived and under which they claimed, was the Pope, who created them by bull, diploma, or charter, about the close of the twelfth or commencement of the thirteenth century, I was very solicitous to have inquiry and search made amongst the archives at Rome, whether it was not possible to find the record of this curious transaction and institution. The librarian of the Vatican was, in '1773, on my behalf, applied to. He examined the archives deposited there and, after a long search, said, " he could not find the least traces of any such record." The head keeper of the archives was next applied to and his answer was the same. The Pope himself, in consequence of a conversation which the inquiries in my letter led to, interested himself in the inquiry and, with the utmost politeness, ordered the most minute research to be made; but no discovery arose from it. I cannot, however, yet be persuaded but that some record or copy of the diploma must be somewhere buried at Rome, amidst some forgotten and unknown bundles or rolls.

 

Patrick F. Tytler, in his History of Scotland, '1845, vol, ii, p. 278, says : " I have in vain looked for the original authority upon which Sir Christopher Wren and Governor Pownall have founded their description of the travelling corporations of Roman architects." Of Gothic architecture Sir James Hall (Essay on Gothic Architecture, pp. 2, 112) says During the three centuries in which it prevailed exclusively over the greater part of Europe, its principles remained fixed and unchanged, in passing through a multitude of hands, eager to outdo their predecessors and their rivals by the novelty as well as by the elegance of their compositions. Such a conformity cannot be accounted for but by supposing that the artists were guided in their work by some principle known to them all and handed down from one generation to another. But that no such principle has reached our knowledge, is proved by the various unsuccessful attempts which have been made of late to explain the forms of Gothic architecture and to reconcile them to each other. We must, therefore, conclude that if there had been any such principle, it was known to the artists only and concealed by them from the rest of the world. In order to determine this point, it is necessary to inquire by whom the art was practised. In that view, I shall refer, in the first place, to Sir Christopher Wren, an authority of great weight.

 

This writer then transfers to his pages the extract already given from the Parentalia, adding, after the words " he [Wren] was of opinion," " says his son, Mr. Wren," and continues The architecture here pointed out, as practised by the Freemasons in contradistinction to the Romans, being decidedly what we call Gothic, it is quite obvious 124 MEDIEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY that Sir Christopher Wren considered Gothic architecture as belonging to the Freemasons exclusively. Sir Christopher, who was surveyor‑general of the works of architecture carried on in the kingdom and, at the same time, a man of learning and curiosity, was led to examine the old records, to which he had free access. Being, likewise, for many years, the leading man among the Freemasons, and their Grand Master, we may consider his testimony in this question as the strongest that the subject will admit of.

 

It is fairly inferential that in the view thus expressed Sir James Hall was largely influenced by a belief in the actual testimony of a Grand Master of the Freemasons. There is no proof that Wren ever held that office or that he was a Freemason.

 

Reviewing the condition of architecture towards the end of the tenth century, Hope says It may be supposed that, among the arts exercised and improved in Lombardy, that of building held a pre‑eminent tank; and, in fact, we find in Muratori, that already, under the Lombard kings, the inhabitants of Como were so superior as masons and bricklayers, that the appellation of Magistri Comacini, or Masters from Como, became generic to all those of the profession. We cannot, then, wonder that, at a period when artificers and artists of every class formed themselves into exclusive corporations, architects should, above all others, have associated themselves into similar bodies, which, in conformity to the general style of such corporations, assumed that of free and accepted masons and was composed of those members who, after a regular passage through the different fixed stages of apprenticeship, were received as masters and entitled to exercise the profession on their own account.

 

In the view of the same writer, " Lombardy itself soon became nearly saturated with the requisite edifices " and unable to give the Freemasons " a longer continuance of sufficient custom, or to render the further maintenance of their exclusive privileges of great benefit to them at home." The Italian corporations of builders, therefore, began to look abroad for that employment which they no longer found at home ; and a certain number united and formed themselves into a single greater association of fraternity‑seeking a monopoly, as it were, over the whole face of Christendom.

 

They were fraught with Papal bulls, or diplomas, granting to them the right of holding directly and solely under the Pope alone ; they acquired the power, not only themselves to fix the price of their labour, but to regulate whatever else might appertain to their own internal government, exclusively in their own general chapters ; prohibiting all native artists not admitted into their society from entering with it into any sort of competition.

 

That an art so peculiarly connected with every branch of religion and hierarchy as that of church architecture, should become, in every country, a favourite occupation with its ecclesiastics, need not, Hope thinks, excite surprise.

 

MEDIEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY 125 Lest, however, such as belonged not to their communities should benefit surreptitiously by the arrangements for its advantage, the Freemasons "framed signs of mutual recognition, as carefully concealed from the knowledge of the uninitiated as the mysteries of their art themselves." Wherever they came, they appeared headed by a chief surveyor, who governed the whole troop, and named one man out of every ten, under the name of warden, to overlook the nine others.

 

This last statement is evidently copied from the Parentalia ; and a careful collation of Hope's work with the three previously cited, will prove that his remarks on the Freemasons are mainly, if not entirely, borrowed without the slightest acknowledgment from the Memoirs of the Vrens and the Essays of Governor Pownall and Sir James Hall.

 

Hope says further (Historical Essay, pp. 228‑38, 527) The architects of all the sacred edifices of the Latin Church, wherever such arose‑north, south, east, or west‑thus derived their science from the same central school; obeyed in their designs the dictates of the same hierarchy and rendered every minute improvement the property of the whole body.

 

The downfall of the Freemasons of that body composed of so many lesser societies dispersed and united all over Europe, which, throughout all Europe, was alone initiated in all the secrets of the pressure and the counter‑pressure of the most complicated arches, so essential to the achievement of constructions after the pointed fashion and so intricate, that even Wren confessed his inability to understand all their mysteries ;‑the passage of the whole art of building, from the hands of these able masters, into those of mere tyros, not bred in the schools of Freemasonry and not qualified to hazard its bold designs, forced architecture immediately backwards from that highly complex and scientific system, into one more simple in its principles and more easy in its execution.

 

It will excite no surprise that a treatise so highly esteemed by those who studied architecture as a profession and elevated, for the time being, by the general voice, into the character of a standard work, should have impressed with even greater force the somewhat careless writers by whom Masonic history has been compiled. Traces, however, of Hope's influence upon succeeding writers are to be found in many works of high reputation and these, as would naturally happen, still further disseminated and popularized the views of which an outline has been given, until, in the result, a natural reaction took place and, what Sir Gilbert Scott calls the " fables of the Freemasons " have so far extended their sway, that, as long since pointed out, the historians of the craft, by supporting what is false, have prevented thinking men from believing what is true.

 

Even the judicious Hallam has been carried along with the current, and remarks Some have ascribed the principal ecclesiastical structures to the fraternity of Freemasons, depositaries of a concealed and traditionary science. There is probably i26 MEDIEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY some ground for this opinion; and the earlier archives of that mysterious association, if they existed, might illustrate the progress of Gothic architecture, and perhaps reveal its origin. (See Hallam's Europe in the Middle Ages, ed. 18 S 3, vol. iii, p. 3 S 8. This work was originally published in 1832, the year following Hope's death. Cf. F. A. Paley, Manual of Gothic Architecture, 1846, p. z11 and G. A. Poole, History of Ecclesiastical Architecture in England, 1848, pp. r 16, 119.) Sir Francis Palgrave, writing in the Edinburgh Review, April 1839, pp. 102, io3, says Those who have hitherto attributed Gothic architecture to the Freemasons have considered the style as " the offsprings of a congregated body " ; and, deeming the members of the fraternity to have acted in concert, have attempted to show them working and calculating as a fraternity, for the purpose of arriving at the definite results which they afterwards so gloriously attained‑an hypothesis which will become perfectly credible when any scientific society shall have discovered a system of gravitation, any literary academy shall have composed a Paradise Lost, or any academy of the fine arts shall have painted a " Transfiguration." But we believe that the fraternity of Freemasons just performed the very useful and important duties properly belonging to the society or the academy. They assisted in the spread of knowledge and in bestowing upon talent the countenance and protection of station and established power.

 

An amazing analogy has occasionally been traced for the men who built the churches, bridges and abbeys, the ruins of many of which exist to the present day, but the only one for which any rational ground can be assumed is that of the Roman Collegia. These Collegia were certainly introduced into England, as is witnessed by the famous Chichester inscription (which, however, does not refer unequivocally to builders), even if the fact had not been certain from the nature of things and, because of this, added to a few vague traditions and certain loose expressions in panegyrists, with other late and unsatisfactory writers, it is sought to establish a great school of masons in this country, from whom the medixval operative masons and, subsequently, the modern Freemasons, can trace a direct descent. But, in the first place, it is very doubtful how far the British element, which is supposed to have carried on the Collegia until they reappeared in the Saxon form of guilds, survived the Saxon Conquest. Works of great research and ingenuity have been written on the one side and on the other, with the only apparent result of proving how irremediable and hopeless is the divergence of the learned and what little chance there is of the question ever being satisfactorily settled, or, at least, until the learned condescend to lay aside their individual crotchets, which, practically speaking, amounts to the same thing. But, even assuming a very considerable Celtic population and great Celtic influence, so that the Collegia may be the parents of the subsequent guilds, there is no evidence that any such Collegia belonged to the building trades, but a good deal of negative evidence to the contrary. The Celts, wherever and whenever found, were emphatically not builders‑the native works in Wales, Ireland and Scotland consisting either of mounds and earthworks, or MEDIEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY 127 subsequently of stonework of the rudest construction; their circular, beehiveshaped huts of stone, which were used also to a certain extent for religious purposes, being common to the merest savages. Gildas, speaking more than forty years after the decisive battle of Mount Badon had pretty well rid the country of the first swarms of invaders, says, that the towns still lie dreary and neglected (adhuc deserta squalent) and there is no evidence of either Silchester or Wroxeter having been restored by the Romano‑Britons after its first destruction. The discovery of British churches by Augustine proves nothing. Britain was a Roman colony for nearly ioo years after the conversion of Constantine, during which period they may have been built and, even if that were not so, the mere fact of the existence of a few small churches of rude construction is no proof of the existence of an extensive building fraternity, with regular rules and corporations. Moreover, the Anglo‑Saxons when they began to build were obliged to import workmen and they also sent abroad when they commenced to restore. Benedict Biscop, who may be regarded as the first patron of architecture amongst them, about 674, went over to France to engage " cementarios," in order that his church at Monk Wearmouth might be built " according to the manner of the Romans, which he had always loved " ; and St. Wilfrid, of York, slightly later, brought over with him eminent builders and artists from Rome, Italy, France and other countries. (See W. H. Rylands, " The Legend of the Introduction of Masons into England " in Masonic Magazine, April and May 188z.) We may, therefore, feel tolerably certain that all knowledge of the art of Roman building and with it the Roman building corporations‑though they still had Roman buildings in their midsthad long been lost and had never been handed down to the Saxons. Guilds, however, undoubtedly existed before the Conquest, as well as among the Saxon population afterwards. Brentano mentions three and Pike, in his History of Crime (vol. i, p. 68 et seq.) shows that the merchant guild of Dover and the burgesses guild at Canterbury, existed at least as early as the time of the Confessor ; and the various weaver guilds appear as regularly constituted, in the earliest records of the Exchequer dating not long after the compilation of Domesday. The learned Heineccius affirms that in Germany (which, though never a province of the Roman Empire, was much more influenced by it than is usually supposed) the guilds appeared first in the eleventh century and considers further, that they were an imitation of, not descendants from, the Collegia of Rome. Hence, on the whole, considering the double uncertainty of, firstly, the descent of any guild from classic institutions; and, secondly, of the chance of the building guilds in England at least having formed part of them, even if such descent existed, we must, however reluctantly, decide against the high antiquity of the Masonic bodies in the British Islands. Nor do organized bodies of masons seem to have arisen‑though on this point it should be observed that present conclusions may be at any time invalidated by the production of further evidence‑until long after the appearance of guilds among the other trades. The reason of this is obvious; the necessity of moving from place to place as work called them would long preclude their having 128 MEDIEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY associations by which the other trades were strengthened and controlled, the essence of which, as was the case also with the Collegia, was a local habitation. The early masons were probably to a certain extent under the direction of the monks and priests for whom they worked and it is highly probable that an ecclesiastic who had some taste for and, what is more, some practical knowledge of, architecture, was far more common then than now, while, in the more primitive countries, the missionaries would have, in many cases, to assist personally in the work. This and the naturally and necessarily migratory habits of the workmen, together with the occasional passing of styles, architects and workmen from one country to another, will account for the myth of a cosmopolitan body working under the monks. All the legends of the Freemasons, both here and abroad, are manifestly of a late medixval origin; while the stories of Euclid, the one mathematician of classic times known to the Middle Ages, are involved in that charming disregard of all chronology, which is one of their chief characteristics. There was a strange vein of imagination in the medixval character; witness the style of architecture, indigenous and utterly unlike anything either before or since‑the institution of chivalry, the crusades, the romances, strange tales, legends and travesties of history. Witness the legends of St. Alban, of " Ewclyde," King Pharaoh, of Virgil as a magician and the stories of King Lud, Brutus, Troynovant and others, for all of which no kind of foundation, or excuse for a foundation, exists. It may be observed, however, that the ancient Irish manuscripts undoubtedly conceal ethnic traditions pointing to an Eastern origin‑cf. the Irish version of Nennius, edited by Todd and Herbert, published by the Irish Archxological Society, 1848. As an illustration of the manufacture of legends a manuscript note on the margin of a copy of the 1723 Constitutions, preserved in the library of the Grand Lodge of England, has the following: " Witness the story of Meron [Naymus] Grecus, who was at ye building of Solomon's Temple, in the year of the world 293 3 and after came into France to Charles Martel, their king, who began to reign in the year of ye world 466o. So the man was 1727 years old 1 " But, at whatever period the Masonic bodies first took form, the ceremonies and customs by which they were distinguished are at least of much earlier origin than our oldest constitutions. The fabric rolls of York Minster, which have been published at length by Canon Raine for the Surtees Society, show that in 1355 Orders for the Masons and Workmen were issued.

 

The first and second masons who are called masters of the same and the carpenters, shall make oath that they cause the ancient customs underwritten to be faithfully observed. In summer they are to begin to work immediately after sunrise until the ringing of the bell of the Virgin Mary, then to breakfast in the fabric lodge, then one of the masters shall knock upon the door of the lodge and forthwith all are to return to work until noon. Between April and August, after dinner they shall sleep in the lodge, then work until the first bell for vespers, then sit to drink to the end of the third bell and return to work so long as they can see by daylight. It was usual for this church to find tunics (probably gowns), aprons, MEDIEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY 12q gloves, and clogs and to give occasional potations and remuneration for extra work. Gloves were also given to the carpenters.

 

Strikes, boycotting and rattening were, even in those remote times, not wholly unknown, for there is an account of a conspiracy that certain stonecutters or masons, being moved by a most wicked spirit of envy, wickedly conspiring for the death and ultimate destruction of Magister William Colchester, assigned to us and to the fabric of our church by our most dread lord the king, by his letters patent [Colchester had been master mason of Westminster Abbey] for the government of the said fabric and specially received under the protection of the same, treacherously assaulting the said William, did grievously wound him and did so injure another person, his assistant, that his life is considered in serious danger.

 

In 1433 two " setters " had ú1 6s. 8d. given to them as remuneration, also two skins for aprons, according to custom, which cost 12d. and ten pair of gloves, given at the time of setting stones, costing 18d. A nearly similar entry occurs in the following year. In 1472 William Hyndely, warden of the lodge of masons, was paid at the rate of 3s. 4d. a week for twenty‑eight weeks, for working in the office of the master of the masons and had 13s. 4d. for a reward. He became master mason and, two years later, was working with two apprentices and three labourers ; and, five years after that, with eleven masons and two apprentices. The bridge at Catterick, 1412, was contracted for by three masons at a lump sum, with a gown to each, " according to their degree." The building of Walberswick steeple, 1426, was undertaken for 4os., with a cade of herrings and a gown of " lenore ones," which is not very clear‑possibly leuere once, or " livery once," each time of working. A parish in Suffolk, 1430, was to provide every Freemason with a pair of white leather gloves and a white apron during the works. So the mason contractor for rebuilding the bell tower of Bury St. Edmunds, 1435, was to have 'Cio a year, board for himself in the convent hall as a gentleman and for his servant as a yeoman, also two robes, one for himself of gentleman's livery, that of the servant to be a yeoman's livery. Livery at that time was not a badge of servitude or menial office as at present, but of subservience and was worn by young gentlemen of high rank when in attendance on some great lord, which was a part of their education. " Wearing the Queen's livery " is an undoubted survival of these ideas, which is mentioned to show that builders were not the masters but the employes (not exactly the servants) of those who paid them. A " house " seems to have very commonly been part of the salary of the master mason, as in the agreement between the Prior of Durham and John Bell latimus, 1488 and in many other and earlier instances. The said John Bell had also an apprentice for whom he was to be paid by the sacristan. In 161o " a Freemason, who can draw his plot, work and set accordingly, having charge over others," is considered as worth 12d. a day before Michaelmas and iod. after it. A rough mason who can take 130 MEDIIEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY charge over others, was, at that time, worth iod. and 8d. according to the same seasons, showing that the old customs subsisted, occasionally at least, until very late times.

 

One of the earliest intimations of the " lodge " occurs in i zoo, when a tabulatum domicialem was the shed erected in front of St. Albans Abbey‑by Hugh Goldcliffe aforesaid and, in 132 1, is an entry of zs. 6d. for straw to cover the masons' lodge at Carnarvon Castle. At the chapel of St. Stephen, Westminster, a man was paid, in 1320, to clean out the lodge, amongst other work. In 1399, there occurs at York a list of the stores at the " loge " in the cemetery. In 1395, at the additions to Westminster Hall, the king engaged to find " herbergage " (harbourage) for the masons and their companions (journeymen) ; and, in the same year, is noticed the fact of two carpenters working upon the new house for the masons of Westminster Abbey and another house in Tothill Street; and of 15s. 6d. being paid to the " dauber " for the lodge for the masons and the house in that street. The earliest of the Masonic Constitutions or Charger, the Halliwell, circa 1400, has" If in the logge the apprentice were taken," also The prevystye of the chamber telle he no mon, Ny yn the logge whatsever they done; which is styled by Wyatt Papworth " a satisfactory instance of the attempt at concealment of trade mysteries." In 1421, at Catterick church, a " luge " of four rooms is specified as having to be made for the masons. In 1426, the masons engaged to build Walberswick steeple were to be provided with a " hows " to eat, drink, work and sleep in, and to " make mete in," i.e. fitting or convenient. These lodges were formerly thatched, but one properly " tiled " was to be provided at the expense of some parishioners in Suffolk. In 1432 a " luge " was erected in the cemetery at Durham. And, in 1541, Thomas Philips, freemason, with John Pettit, covenanted " to set up and fully finish " the Coventry Cross and, at their own charge, " to prepare, find and make a house or lodge for masons to work in during the time of making the same cross." (See T. W. Whitley, The Coventry Cross, 188o, pp. 8, 9.) Various customs of trade are mentioned in the manuscript Con stitutions of later date. The word Loge in Anglo‑Norman means " a lodge, habita tion, lodging." (See Wright's Glossary to Chaucer's Poems.) In the Dictionary of Architecture there are twenty‑four instances of " lodge" referred to between 1 zoo and 1523 in England; and four between 1483 and 1527 in Scotland.

 

As regards the origin of Masonic guilds there are two traditions, besides the alleged charter of Athelstan and the familiar legend of St. Alban, namely, one making Godfrey de Lucy, Bishop of Winchester, who first rebuilt the eastern portion of his cathedral, the founder of a confraternity, izoz, which is accepted by Milner as the origin of the society of Freemasons ; the second, that advanced by Anderson, 1738, but never authenticated, who assigns the honour to William Molart, Prior of Canterbury Cathedral, 14z9, under the patronage of Archbishop Chichele. Neither of these is really worth discussing. Even supposing that such societies were 132 MEDIEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY As regards the grips and signs attributed to the early builders, the masons' marks, the secrets, the lewd and profane symbols and the numerous figures indicative of a dislike of and contempt for the clergy, very few words are necessary, the more especially as the " signs and tokens " and the " masons' marks," will be referred to in subsequent chapters. That artisans of an especial trade should have peculiar modes of recognizing each other when travelling in search of work, is nothing but what might have been expected‑such practices exist in the Companionage and may in England, for all we know to the contrary. Moreover, a secret society has certain political, religious, or social‑some may call them anti‑social‑objects. These they would ill serve, by devoting their time to the practice of working stonemasonry and would serve it still less by contributing to the advancement and glorification of the Church, which has always considered the repression of such societies and such aspirations as being among her chiefest duties. Furthermore, all documentary and trustworthy evidence, all the dictates of sound common sense, tend to discourage, even ridicule, such a notion as being the mere chimera of visionaries and enthusiasts. So the marks are nothing but the ordinary marks similar to those made and chosen by each individual mason at the present day, whereby, in case of necessity, each man's work is ascertained. They are, apart from immediate trade purposes, useful and interesting to the antiquary, as showing the numbers who worked on any particular building, as well as whether the same masons worked on any other edifice and, if so, where ; but how anyone but a theorist, who prefers dreaming in his study to acquiring wholesome practical knowledge, could imagine that‑when used by the masons‑they referred to any esoteric doctrines, certainly surpasses all comprehension. That our medixval ancestors were superstitious and fond of alchemy, believing in certain signs, etc., is undoubtedly true and that workmen may have occasionally chosen such figures for their marks, partly from superstition and partly from caprice, is likely enough, but one can scarcely imagine any man foolish enough to waste his time and trouble in inscribing some mysterious secret on that side of a stone which was to be immediately covered up, there to remain for centuries, if it was ever destined to see the light at all. As to their secrets, all trades have their own, important or otherwise, to the present day and the medixval masons must have been more likely to have possessed theirs, when we consider the extreme height and comparative fragility of their buildings, the thinness of the walls and vaulting and the smallness of the stone employed. Both Wren and Soufflot, the builders of St. Paul's and St. Genevieve (Pantheon) and, certainly, the two most scientific architects of their respective countries, conceived the highest opinion of the skill of their medixval predecessors and we must remember that books in our sense of the word scarcely existed, that the great bulk of the teaching was oral, whilst books of practical geometry did not exist at all. Out of the thousands of names of authors and their works collected by the laborious compilers of the famous Histoire Litteraire de la France, none treat upon this subject. " It may be conceived," says Poole (History of Ecclesiastical Architecture in England, 1848, p. i 18), "that the MEDIYEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY 133 great secret of the Society resided in the practical way in which many principles, after which we are now feeling in vain and many rules of construction which each man now learns to employ by a mathematical process, were reduced to what is vulgarly, but expressively, called `the rule of thumb.' " " Perhaps," he continues, " John Wastell, the master mason of King's College Chapel, followed with the utmost assurance a rule of which he could not give a philosophical account, but which he was ready to apply again and again to works of every magnitude." There was a double motive with these men for keeping their trade secrets close, for, besides the mystery which mankind are so prone to affect, they really had something both to learn and to conceal.

 

As for the various symbols, lewd, profane, or merely caricatures, it should never be forgotten that the medixval nations were extremely coarse and, in their way, extremely witty. A very slight acquaintance with medixval literature will cause us to feel no surprise when we meet with stone caricatures equal in strength and coarseness to those of Rowlandson and Gillray, nor need we be astonished to find a good deal turn upon the clergy, as do a great number of those of our English draughtsmen, especially in the matter of tithe; and these, together with indecencies which are, after all, not quite unknown in more refined ages, were probably the amusements of carnally‑minded workmen when they thought they could indulge in them without risk of discovery. But a strong anti‑religious and anti‑social sub‑current certainly existed throughout the Middle Ages and these figures may possibly be the expressions of the feelings and opinions of individuals among the masons, though that any large body of men should combine to erect a magnificent edifice for the furtherance of a diametrically opposite creed, in order to put somewhere out of sight a little figure or symbol indicating their own, is an absurdity that the secret societies with all their inconsistencies‑and they have committed many and striking ones‑could not commit.

 

Lastly come the most curious, the most important and, at the same time, the most obscure questions of all: Who were the actual architects and designers of the mediaeval edifices ? were they Operative Masons or at least men belonging to that body ? Various theories have been advanced on this most interesting subject ‑the monks, the master masons, the architects, the Freemasons, while some have gone so far as to say that the reason why so few names are known is, that the medixval architects concealed their names from an excess of piety.

 

Crementarius, says Papworth, " is naturally the earliest, 1077 and the term most constantly used. Artifices were collected at Canterbury to a consultation, from which William of Sens came out the 1tilagister, a term also applied to his successor‑William, the Englishman; but it is not clear whether ` master of the work' or' master mason' is to be applied to these two. In 1217, a popular educational writer noted the word cementarii, together with the old French synonym maszun, leaving little hesitation for accepting the one for the other. The London Assize of IzI2, besides cementarii has sculptores lapidum IEberorZlm, words of very exceptional use. At the end of the thirteenth and beginning of the fourteenth 134 MEDIEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY centuries, the terms magister cementarii, with his sociis or fellows, are obtained. Marmorarius has been noted; also a new word latomus, which is, after that period, found written in all manner of spellings. A masoune, in old French, is to erect a house, de pere fraunche ; and, of somewhat later date, is found a mestre mason de franche pere ; while still later, 136o, a mason de fraunche pere ou de grosse pere appears in the statutes. In a writ of 1415 are the words petras vocatas ragge calces et liberal petras. During the fourteenth century lathomus is constantly found and it would appear to be applied as often to the mason who was to execute cut‑work, as to the mason who was required for rougher work or to labour at the quarry. Under the date of 1396, the contractors for the works at Westminster Hall were citiens et masons de Londres ; and, of the same year, are the passages lathomos vocatos fre Maceons and lathomos vocatos ligiers, or, as we should translate the words, masons called free (stone) masons, and masons (the same term is used for both) called layers or setters." (See Transactions K.I.B.A., 1861‑2, pp. 37‑6o.) The Westminster Hall deed will be found printed in The Freemason of November 26, 18 and the Masonic Magazine of February 1882, reproduced from the copy of the original document preserved in the Sloane MSS. No. 4595, p. 50‑ W. H. Rylands describes the entry in Rymer's Fcdera (vol. xvii, edit. 1717), cited by Papworth in the Dictionary of Architecture, s.v. " Freemason," as occurring in a syllabus of manuscript Acts, not published, at the end of the volume, after the index, p. 5 5.

 

Cementarius, or Sirnentarius before and " fremason " after, 1396, are found in the Fabric Rolls of Exeter Cathedral. In the Roll for 1426 (the 5th year of Henry VI), which is composed of parchment sheets joined continuously, about 15 feet in length and i i in breadth, occurs the following entry Johi Harry fremason opanti ibim p septiam . 3s.

 

Johi Umfray fremason p hanc septiam . nl. q, hic recessit.

 

James Jerman of Exeter, who supplied the preceding reference and the late Rev. H. Reynolds (the Chapter librarian), vainly searched the Fabric Roll of 1396 for the name of " William Foundyng, freemason," mentioned by Britton in his Exeter Cathedral, 1827, p. z6.

 

As already observed, Lathomus is appended to William de Wynneford's portrait at Winchester College; and, somewhat later, amongst the latimi at Durham, one is specially called a " ffremason." " Thereafter," continues Papworth, " mason and freemason are terms in constant use down to the present time. From these details three facts are obtained, ‑the first, that the earliest use of the English term Freemason was in 1396, without any previous Latin word. The second is, that the word freestone, or its equivalent Latin term, had been employed from the beginning of the previous century, i.e. I2I2 ; and the third fact, if that word be permitted, is, that the term Freemason itself is clearly derived from a mason who worked freestone, in contradistinction to the mason who was employed in rough work." Papworth cites William Horwode, freemason, Fotheringay, 143 5 ; John Wode, MEDIEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY 135 masoun, who contracted to build the tower of the Abbey Church of St. Edmundsbury, " in all mannere of thinges that longe to free masonry," 143 S ; John Stowell, ffremason, Wells, 1470; William Este, fremason, Oxford, 1494; John Hylmer and William Vertue, freemasons, Windsor, 1507. In the sixteenth century the term free mason becomes more common. The words cementarius and latomus are repeatedly found in the two volumes of Vocabularies, dating from the tenth to the sixteenth century, edited by the late Thomas Wright, privately printed, x857 and 1873. Many extracts from this work were given by W. H. Rylands, in The Freevnason of September 3, 1881. Papworth says : " that the terms magister lapicida and liberi muratores are nowhere to be met with in documents relating to England, thus there is not sufficient authority for that constant use of them observable in writers of former years." The terms architect, ingeniator, supervisor, surveyor, overseer, keeper of the works, keeper of the fabric, director, clerk of the works and devizor, are all oú comparatively recent date, at least in their general use and application. That these medixval terms are not yet clearly comprehended may be gathered from an amusing quotation in the case of Richard of Wolveston, cited as a prudens architectus in a register of the period of Bishop Pudsey of Durham, early in the twelfth century. In a charter relating to an exchange of lands, this Richard is styled ingeniator and the translator, commenting upon the term, writes, " Dick the Snarer, then, doubtless, a title of honour ; a gin is still technically called an engine or ingene " ; though, as Papworth observes, such a sobriquet would now, however applicable, be deemed the reverse of complimentary, if bestowed on the gamekeeper of a bishop. It has been urged, however, that this surname (ingeniator) was not uncommon in the North of England at the period and was applied to any person who manifested genius in his vocation. (See Transactions R.I.B.A., 1861‑2.) Many interesting papers have been read before the Institute of British Architects, followed by discussion and debate, the object of which was to clear up the mystery attending the real architects of the great medixval buildings, in which three principal theories were maintained (Transactions R.I.B.A., i856‑6o, pp. 38‑51 ; 1861‑2, pp. 37‑6o; and 1863‑4, PP‑ 130‑46)‑one being the old popular notion that the architects were the monks themselves ; another, that they were the master masons ; and the third, that there existed, as at present, a regular order of architects who worked in precisely the same way as men in the profession do now; but, in spite of a great deal of argument and learning, the grand crux, as Digby Wyatt observed at the close of one discussion, " remains unsolved." It seems, however, that the difficulty encountered at this point of the research arises (i) from the fact of different words being used at different times to signify the same thing, a fact which is too often disregarded ; (2) from not sufficiently contrasting the modes in which trades and professions were carried on at periods of time remote from our own; and (3) from too hasty a generalization upon imperfect data, without pausing to reflect that customs and ideas have been influenced both by nationality and locality and that because one set or description of men were numerously employed, 136 MEDIEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY this by no means precluded the employment on other occasions of a very different class and that the former‑although, even in this instance, often with exceptionsmay have been more constantly in requisition in one time and place than in another.

 

The medixval builders and designers whether called magistri, maestri, maistres ; whether priests or laymen; or whether a combination of both, i.e. of the highly cultured and more or less practical amateur and the more or less refined and en lightened master workman, were evidently of a class very different from those whom we are now accustomed to style architects autres temps, autres maurs‑the clergy, or at least some of that body, instead of being mere dilettanti, were earnest students and workers ; the architects were very closely connected with and, indeed, often sprang from, the ranks of their workmen. It must never be forgotten that in the Middle Ages, more especially in the earlier portion of them, matters were not as they are now, for two things are especially characteristic of social progressone the continued subdivision of labour, the other the increasing power of capital; hence, while at the one end of the scale, the operative was not so very different from the master, so, at the other, the architect was not so very distinct from the artificer.

 

The fact must not be lost sight of that the primary meaning of architect is " master workman " ; and it would appear that architects were formerly such in the original sense of the word, i.e. the artificers arranged their materials according to their needs, giving the forms into which they cast them such beauty, adding such embellishments as lay in their power. Hence architects embodied as a rule the particular tendencies of their race and age. The Greek architects of the best period were sculptors and their art was, more or less, plastic; those of the Romans, when they were not Greek architects, in the modern and received sense of the term (rhetoricians in stone), were, in all probability, civil engineers ; and those of the Middle Ages were probably a combination of priest or monk and mechanic, or, to speak more accurately, a partnership between the two, worked for a common end. At the Renaissance, however, Italian or modern architecture took its rise and, in Italy, architects seem to have been, at least many of the greatest of their number, painters. Hence arose the school of designers, as opposed to that of constructors, i.e. men who sketch out a building on a drawing‑board as they would the outline of a picture on a canvas, instead of constructing it, i.e. putting it together, piece by piece, in the most beautiful form, as necessity required. The two methods are totally different and the latter will be found very much simpler and easier, besides being very much more effective, than the former. Many architects are equally pattern designers, e.g. Matthew Wyatt designed carpets for an eminent firm; and one of the greatest of our modern architects, if not the greatest, used to design lace and embroidery patterns for the late Duchess of Sutherland and her daughters. But the great truth should never be forgotten that true architecture is decorated construction, as opposed to constructed decoration. This is the real secret and keystone of the whole matter. Medixval architecture was the first, modern architecture the second‑hence the difference and the comparative failure of the latter. The medixval builders thought in stone and the result is obvious, inasmuch as most, if MEDIEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY 137 not all, modern buildings betray their origin, i.e. having been conceived on paper or a flat surface and then translated into solid material. This does not necessarily demand that skill in drawing which is supposed to be essential to the modern architect, nor does it by any means always require professional training. Inigo Jones was an artist and a designer of Masques ; his works betray his scenic taste and training, especially the kind of cloister under Lincoln's Inn Chapel ; Wren may be best qualified as an F.R.S., though he had certainly travelled and studied in France ; Perrault, the designer of the magnificent eastern colonnade of the Louvre, was a physician; Vanburgh was at least as much a play writer as an architect; and both Lord Burlington and Aldridge, dean of Christ Church, were, in the last century, competent to erect beautiful buildings by their own unaided talents. To turn to the kindred profession of engineering, Rudgerd and Winstanley, the builders of the first two Eddystones, were both silk mercers ; Brindley was a blacksmith ; Smeaton, a watch and mathematical instrument maker; Telford, a mason; Stephenson rose from the lowest ranks. To Horne Tooke belongs the original credit of the great cast‑iron bridge over the Wear, at Sunderland, a single span, at great height, of z.38 feet. The only one of the great early engineers who was an engineer from his youth up, was Rennie ; and he taught himself; he certainly, as far as is known, could not draw; his son, Sir John Rennie, very little, yet they designed the finest series of bridges ever imagined or erected ; and the Victualling Yard at Plymouth, the combined work of Sir John and his brother, is a building which, for simple grandeur and appropriateness, leaves far behind the works of most professional architects.

 

It has often been lamented that the names of so many of these medixval builders should have perished; and it has been asserted that they were content to merge their identity from a pious humility which forbade them to exalt their own indivi duality and made them content with the furtherance of the divine glory. But a moment's reflection will convince us that, for some reason or another, the names of both architects and engineers are and always have been, doomed to popular oblivion. The Greek artists are infinitely better known by their sculptures than by their temples, though the evidences of the latter are far more manifest than those of the former. Only one Roman architect, Vitruvius, is really famous and he owes his celebrity to the fact that, having apparently failed in his profession, he consoled himself, like many more of his brotherhood, by writing a book. Their successors, the great architects of Italy, are, like the Greeks in sculpture, known more for their paintings than their buildings ; even Michael Angelo is more associated with the Sistine Chapel than with St. Peter's. Palladio is the only pure Italian architect whose " name is in everybody's mouth." So it is with France and Germany. In England, beyond Inigo Jones and Wren, Chambers and Barry are the sole popular names. Vanburgh is remembered more for his comedies than for the magnificent palaces of Blenheim and Castle Howard; while, if a man can enumerate any of the works of Hawksmoor and Gibbs, of Soane, of Smirke and of Wyatt, he passes for more than ordinarily instructed in the history of English art.

 

138 MEDIEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY But of all the works with which our country is covered, how few perpetuate their designers' names and how difficult it is to recover them, except by a search in obscure guide‑books and county histories 1 Apparently, the " upper ten," so to speak, among the building trades gathered themselves together in more regular and elaborately constituted bodies about the close of the fourteenth and beginning of the fifteenth centuries in both Germany and England and, at the same time, began, in the latter country, to be called Freemasons, though from what that name is derived and how far the new name was connected with the new organization, we shall be in a better position to determine when the statutes relating to the building trades and the circumstances immediately preceding what, in Masonic annals, is termed the " Revival " (1717), have passed under review. Mason's work seems to have become more. scientific, as is seen from the fan vaulting in England; and Fergusson asserts that the manipulation of stone by the German Freemasons is marvellous, while he inveighs against the ill effects produced upon art by the supremacy of this body, like the injurious influence which academies have been often asserted to have had upon literature. (See History of Architecture in All Countries, 1865, vol. i, p. 48o.) Digby Wyatt has expressed an opinion that working masons formerly wandered about in search of work, depending upon the protection which their lodge, grips and passwords afforded them; that this custom, after having decayed, was revived again under a somewhat different form by the Freemasons in the fifteenth century; in this Fergusson agrees with him. The functions of the maistre de Pauvre in the thirteenth century are difficult to define. There is no document before the fourteenth century and here Parchitecte n'est appele que comme un homme de Part que l'on indemnise de son travail personnel. Materials, labour, etc., were found by those at whose expense the work was done, i.e. he was not a contractor. " After the fourteenth century," Viollet le Duc continues, " the architect lost his importance and every kind of tradesman was called in to do his share, without one controlling head; hence deterioration followed as a matter of course." Medixval architecture fell from natural causes, like the fall of monasticism and all things medixval and the one followed suit on the other. No more churches were built, hence the builders died out; and, with them, to a great extent, appears to have died the skill in arch and vault building which was, perhaps, the great characteristic of the builders of the Middle Ages. Scarcely a single stone vault was constructed in the long period between the Reformation and Wren; those of Lincoln's Inn Chapel are plaster; the ceiling of the great gallery of Lanhydrock, near Bodmin, in Cornwall, is a plaster vault, with elaborate plaster pendants in the centre. Add to this the great influx of foreign architects, in the modern sense of the word‑and, it may be, of foreign masons as well, also the possibility that the Reformation was a much greater revolution than people are aware of‑enough has been said to account for the complete and rapid disappearance of medixval operative masonry, at least in England. Gothic, however, never quite died out; there was an attempt at revival, temp. James I and Charles I, especially MEDIEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY 139 at Oxford, while it still lingered in remote country districts till the dawn of the revival under Walpole and Batty Langley. Besides Wren's professedly Gothic imitations at Westminster Abbey, St. Michael's, Cornhill and St. Dunstan's in the West, there are traces of Gothic mullions in the tower windows of St. Clement Danes. It is curious that the art which fell in England with the fall of Roman Catholicism should have, after lingering with it here and there, commenced to revive almost simultaneously with the dawn of toleration and have proceeded since pari passu.

 

The review of medixval operative masonry here terminates. The subject has been examined in the buildings themselves, rather than by an exclusive dependence upon books, which, as the literature of Freemasonry may well remind us, is in every way unreliable. Undoubtedly the operative masons had a much larger share in the construction of these buildings than is usually supposed, inasmuch as they were to a very large extent the actual designers of the edifices on which they worked, not the mere servants of the ecclesiastics. Some isolated unions of these men, in their later development, which, from causes we cannot trace, contrived to escape the great cataclysm of the Reformation, may have survived in the Four Old Lodges, the parents of modern Freemasonry ; and, if this supposition is well founded, their descent from the medixval builders being legitimate, their pride is equally so.

 

There is in existence to‑day a very keen body of Freemasons, including several well‑known Grand Lodge officers, who employ a ritual which they claim they have every reason to believe is identical with that which was worked by the members of, at least, one of the four Lodges which formed the Grand Lodge of England in 1717. Two interesting articles on the subject, from the pen of Bernard H. Springett, appeared in The Freemason, March z8 and April 4, 1925. He points out that, in Scotland, all the older Lodges show distinct traces in their Minute Books of having gradually changed over from Operative to Speculative and that, in 17o8, no fewer than fifty members of No. i Lodge of Edinburgh, known, generally, as St. Mary Chapel, seceded from their Mother Lodge on account of the increasing number of admissions of men who were not craftsmen; they formed a Lodge of their ownthe Lodge of Journeymen, No. 8. Until 1840, this new Lodge insisted on one‑tenth only of its members being non‑craftsmen. Candidates for initiation, as in all Operative Lodges, had to undergo a rigorous examination as to their physical capacity, for which purpose they were stripped completely and then were clothed in a long, white garment, a practice still observed in some countries, England excepted.

 

As the result of a lengthy and painstaking investigation, B. H. Springett is able to state that even to this day Operative Stonemasons are quietly working a ritual, greatly abbreviated from that in vogue in days gone by, which they clearly derived by oral transmission from medixval times and that, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, many such Lodges were in existence. He has traced records of 191 of these Lodges in England and Wales and 17 in Ireland, all of which were subject to a Grand Lodge, while there were certain intermediary District Lodges.

 

140 MEDIEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY These latter met quarterly, while the Grand Lodge met twice a year, for many years at Huddersfield, afterwards at Manchester, always with the greatest possible secrecy. In support of his claim, Springett quotes from R. W. Postgate's work, The Builders' History, as follows The various Acts passed between 1799 and 181 o, under which all combinations were forbidden and heavy penalties for infraction from time to time enforced, drove those trades whose organizations did not disappear, to more secret organiza tion. Some, such as the London tailors, went in for a semi‑military system. The Building Unions practised the oaths and initiations, which played such a large part in their later history. Without, like some trades, seeking to extend their clubs beyond the limits of a small town, they confined themselves to the little local clubs, which were the predecessors of the modern Trade Union movements. These did not disappear. All over England and Scotland the skilled craftsman continued to hold the fortnightly meetings of his trade club at the public‑house and the records and rules of some of these clubs have survived. The old traditions were very strong and the desire for mutual improvement, as men and as craftsmen, was very marked. The Falkirk Society excluded all lewd, disorderly and fractious persons and drunkards, swearers and Sabbath‑breakers. Other societies, such as the Newcastle Operative Masons, stressed the improvement effected in man's nature by association. In some cases there was also a rule against the introduction of politics as destructive of harmony.

 

The festive nature of these gatherings must not be forgotten. The Masons' Society and the two Carpenters' Societies, which existed at Newcastle, had rules to the effect that two pence per night must be spent on beer by every member, while the first entries in the Preston Joiners' Cash‑book, 18o7‑perhaps the oldest remaining Trade Union document‑relate to the purchase of beer.

 

There is also the following quotation from Sidney Webb's History of Trade Unionism The Operative Builders did not rest content with an elaborate constitution and code. There was also a ritual. The Stonemasons' Society has preserved amongst its records a manuscript copy of a " Making Parts Book," ordered to be used by all Lodges of the Builders' Union on the admission of members. Under the Combination Laws, oaths of secrecy and obedience were customary in the more secret and turbulent Trade Unions, notably that of the Glasgow Cotton Spinners and the Northumbrian Miners. The custom survived the repeal and admission to the Builders' Union involved a very lengthy ceremony, conducted by the officers of the Lodge: the outside and inside Tylers, the Warden, the President, the Secretary and the Principal Conductor and taken part in by the candidates and the mem bers of the Lodge. Besides the opening prayer and the religious hymns sung at intervals, these " Initiation parts " consisted of questions and answers by the dramatic personae, in quaint doggerel and were brought to a close by the new members taking an oath of secrecy. Officers clothed in surplices, inner chambers into which the candidates were admitted blindfolded, a skeleton, drawn sword, battle‑axes and other mystic properties enhanced the sensational solemnity of this fantastic performance. Ceremonies of this kind, including what were described, in Home MEDIEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY Office Papers of 1834, as " oaths of an execrable character" were adopted by all the national and general unions of the time. Thus, we find items "I for washing surplices " appearing in the accounts of various Lodges of contemporary societies.

 

Webb, referring to a printed edition of The Initiating Parts of the Friendly Society of Operative Masons, issued from Birmingham, in 1834, in which the name of Solomon is substituted for that of King Edward the Third, says The actual origin of this initiation ceremony is unknown. John Tester, who had been a leader of the Bradford Woolcombers, in 1825, afterwards turned against the Unions and published, in the Leeds Mercury of June and July, 1834, a series of letters denouncing the Leeds Clothiers' Union. In these he states " the mode of initiation was the same as practised for years before by the flannel‑weavers of Rochdale, with a party, of whom the thing, in the shape it then wore, had at first originated. A great part of the ceremony, particularly the death scene, was taken from the Oddfellows, who were flannel‑weavers at Rochdale, in Lancashire and all that could be well turned from the rules and lectures of the one society into the regulations of the others was so turned, with some trifling verbal alterations." Springett gives lengthy extracts from the MS. Ritual of the Stonemasons, of the " Form of Making " adopted and the facsimiles of two pages of the Accountbook of the Warrington Stone Masons' Lodge, 183 z ; and he remarks : " It is an interesting coincidence that one of the first initiations recorded, that of Elias Ashmole, took place in an Operative Masons Lodge at Warrington, in 1645." But was that an Operative Lodge ? All the names made public by Ashmole are those of landed gentry and county people.

 

MASONS' MARKS GEORGE GODWIN, F.R.S., F.S.A., editor of the Builder, has justly claimed that, in early days, he noticed the fact, now well known, but not so then, that the stones of many old churches bore peculiar marks, the work of the original builders ; and that, so long ago as 1841, he submitted a communication on the subject to the Society of Antiquaries, which, with a second memoir on the same subject and transcripts of 158 of the marks from England, France and Germany, was printed in the Archaologia (Transactions R.LB.A., 1868‑9, pp. 135‑44). Godwin's letters brought these signs under public observation and, in the interval between the dates upon which they were written‑December 16, 1841 and February z, 1843‑M. Didron of Paris communicated a series of observations on marks to the Comite historique des Arts et Monuments, which Godwin notices in his second letter to Sir H. Ellis, F.R.S. (Archaologia, 1844, vol. xxx, pp. I I3‑zO). The marks collected by M. Didron divide themselves, according to his opinion, into two classes‑those of the overseers and those of the men who worked the stones. The marks of the first class consist generally of monogrammatic characters and are placed separately on the stones ; those of the second class partake more of the nature of symbols, such as shoes, trowels, mallets, etc. It is stated that at Rheims, in one of the portals, the lowest of the stones forming one of the arcades is marked with a kind of monogrammatic character and the outline of a sole of a shoe. The stone above it has the same character and two soles of shoes ; the third the same character and three soles ; and so on, all round the arcade. The shoe mark he found also at Strasburg and nowhere else; he accounts for this by the fact that parts of the cathedral of Rheims were executed by masons brought from Strasburg.

 

The marks on both English and French buildings, for the most part, vary in length from z to 7 inches, those found at Cologne from il‑ to z inches ; and were chiefly made, Godwin believes, to distinguish the work of different individuals. At the present time the man who works a stone (being different from the man who sets it) makes his mark on the bed or other internal face of it, so that it may be identified. The fact, however, that in the ancient buildings it is only a certain number of the stones which bear symbols‑that the marks found in different countries (although the variety is great) are in many cases identical ; and, in all, have a singular accordance in character, in the opinion of the same writer‑seems to show that the men who employed them did so by system and that the system, if not the same in England, Germany and France, was closely 14z MASONS' MARKS 143 analogous in one country to that of the others. Moreover, adds Godwin, many of the signs are evidently religious and symbolical and agree fully with our notions of the body of men known as the Freemasons. In a paper, read at the Institute of British Architects, March 14, A36, published in the Architectural Magazine, vol. iii, p. 193 (on the " Institution of Free‑Masonry," by George Godwin, architect), the author quotes extensively from the Parentalia, Pownall and Hope's Essays and Dallaway's Discourses and was evidently deeply imbued with the erroneous teaching which reached its culminating point in the attractive pages of Hope.

 

Godwin's communications gave a great impetus to the study of this branch of archxological research: he remarks with good reason, in 1869, " It is curious how long a thing may remain unseen until it has been pointed out " ; and records the observation of an old French priest, to whom he had shown the marks with which the walls of his church in Poictiers were literally strewn : " I have walked through this church four times a day, twenty‑eight times a week, for nearly forty years and never noticed one of them; now I cannot look anywhere but they flit into my eyes." Chalmers (A50) thought that mason's marks had, if they have not now, a mystical meaning, their primary use being to denote the work of each mason employed in hewing or preparing stones for any building: first, that, if paid by the piece, each man may have his work measured without dispute; second, that if work be badly done, or an error made, it may at once be seen on whom to throw the blame and by whom, or at whose expense, the fault is to be amended.

 

It was a law in St. Ninian's Lodge at Brechin that every mason should register his mark in a book and he could not change that mark at pleasure. The marks differ in no respect in character from those which were brought into notice by Godwin. To the inquiry, on what principle, or according to what rule, these marks were formed, Scottish masons generally replied, " That they probably had in early times a meaning now unknown and are still regarded with a sort of reverence ; that the only rule for their formation is, that they shall have at least one angle; that the circle must be avoided and cannot be a true mason's mark unless in combination with some line that shall form an angle with it [Fallon asserts that the apprentice Steinmetzen, at the conclusion of his term, received a mark, which always contained one right angle or square‑Mysterien der Freimaurer, p. 68] ; that there is no distinction of ranks‑that is, that there is no particular class of marks set apart for and assigned to master masons as distinguished from their workmen ; and if it should happen that two masons meeting at the same work from distant parts should have the same mark, then one must for a time assume a distinction, or, as heralds say, ` a difference' " (Patrick Chalmers, F.S.A., " On the Use of Mason Marks in Scotland," Archaologia, 18 S z, vol. xxxiv, pp. 3 3‑6). An intelligent English stonemason once stated to G. W. Speth, " We choose a mark and then, if on our travels, we find that some other mason uses a similar one, we alter ours in some slight particular." 144 MASONS' MARKS The Irish craftsmen and masons of the Middle Ages, it is said, not only had private marks, but also a dialect called Bearlagair‑na‑Sair, which was unknown to any but the initiated of their own callings ; and the writer who is responsible for this statement asserts that this dialect is still in use among masons (though not exclusively confined to them) in the counties of Limerick, Clare, Waterford and Cork (E. Fitzgerald, architect, On Ancient Mason Marks at Youghal and Elsemhere ; and the Secret Language of the Craftsmen of the Middle Ages in Ireland (Transactions, Kilkenny Archxological Society, vol. ii, new series, p. 67).

 

Upon the question as to whether or not marks were heritable by descent from father to son, the highest authority on Scottish Masonry says, " We have been able to discover in the Mary Chapel records only one instance of a craftsman having adopted his deceased father's mark " (Lyon, History of the Lodge of Edinburgh, pp. 68, 69).

 

Lyon continues, " Whatever may have been their original signification as exponents of a secret language‑a position which is assigned to them by some writers‑there is no ground for believing that in the choice of these marks the sixteenth‑century masons were guided by any consideration of their symbolical quality, or of their relation to the propositions of Euclid." A view which has been very generally received is that the shorthand signatures or markings which masons have for centuries been in the habit of cutting on the stones wrought or hewn by them, may be all included in two classes : the false or blind mark of the apprentice, displaying an equal number of points and the true mark of the fellow‑craft or passed mason, consisting of an unequal number of points (Proceedings Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 1863, vol. iv, p. 548). Indeed, the late E. W. Shaw, who had made a collection of i i,ooo marks, professed his ability to discriminate between the marks of the master masons, fellow‑crafts and apprentices and the " blind marks," as he termed them, of those hired to work, but who were not members of the guild. Two marks not infrequently occur on the same stone, showing, according to one view, that it had been hewn by the apprentice and finished or passed as correct by the mason; and, in the opinion of other authorities, that the second mark belonged to the overseer (Didron, Godwin and Papworth). The Chevalier da Silva, in a memoir presented at a meeting of the Institute of British Architects (Transactions R.LB.A., 1868‑9, p. 139), gave 522 marks from ancient buildings in Portugal and the design of his paper was to show that the opinion of those who have believed that these marks have a Masonic signification cannot for a moment be entertained. The Chevalier's strongest reason for this belief‑although, as Godwin well puts it, English archxologists hardly need any argument to convince them that the marks are not symbolical ‑is thus expressed Adepts were summoned from all parts to work at the buildings in Portugal; and as the works progressed but slowly, not only on account of the enormous size of the edifices, but more especially because cut stones of small dimensions were employed and, all buildings being constructed with stones faced on every side, the MASONS' MARKS 145 hand labour was greatly increased; the only means available to avoid this inconvenience and hasten the works and, at the same time, to benefit the workmen, was to make them cut the stones as piecework, according to the dimensions given and designs drawn by the architect. To enable payments to be made to so large a number of workmen without mistake, to know exactly those who had done the various duties assigned to them, the workmen shaped their blocks one after another; and, to avoid confusion in their work, were in the habit of marking each block with a given sign, as representing their signature, so as to show how much was due to them.

 

If, however, we admit the probability, or, as Godwin expresses it, the fact, that the guilds adopted existing forms and symbols without considering the marks symbolical, we may yet believe that they owe their wide diffusion to the existence of associated guilds. " The general similarity which they present all over Europe, from, at any rate, the eleventh century to the sixteenth and, indeed, to the present day," points, as Godwin well observes, " to a common origin and continued transmission." Inasmuch, indeed, as monograms or symbols were adopted in all countries from very early times as distinctive devices or " trade marks," whereby the work or goods of the owners or makers could be identified, it is fairly inferential that masons' marks have been brought more prominently under notice from the simple fact of their having been impressed upon more durable material than was the case with the members of other trades.

 

Merchants, ecclesiastics and other persons of respectability, not entitled to bear arms, adopted " marks or notes of those trades and professions which they used and merchants (for their more honour) were allowed to bear the first letters of their names and surnames interlaced with a cross " (Favyn, Le Thedtre d'Honneur, Paris, 1623).

 

In the yard or'garden of the convent of the Franciscans or Greyfriars, now called the Hosvf (" a place of frequent resort," Jamieson's Scottish Dictionary) of Dundee, may still be seen many tombstones ornamented with both armorial and mercantile emblems and monograms, those of burgesses bearing, in many instances, carvings of objects illustrative of their crafts or trades. Thus, the scissors or goose is found on the tomb of the tailor; the glove, on that of the skinner ; the hammer and crown or anvil, on that of the blacksmith; the loom or shuttle, on that of the weaver; the compasses and square, on that of the mason; the expanded compasses or saw, on that of the wright, etc.

 

Some of the older monuments present the more interesting figures known as monograms or merchants' marks. Both are objects of high antiquity, particularly the monogram or cypher, which is formed of interlaced letters. Soon after the introduction of printing into England, both monograms and merchants' marks were pretty generally adopted and placed by artists in the corners of paintings and engravings ; by printers and publishers, on the first and last pages of the books they issued; and tradesmen in general used them, not only as signs or distinguishing 146 MASONS' MARKS marks over the doors of their shops, but as stamps and labels on the cloth or other goods in which they dealt. (See A. Jervise, Memorials of An gus and the Mearns, 1864, pp. 193, 195‑7‑) In two statutes of uncertain date, one of which has been variously ascribed to the fifty‑first year of Henry 111 (1266) and the thirteenth of Edward I (1285) while the other is stated, in some copies, to have been enacted in the fourteenth of Edward I (iz86), occur very early allusions to the custom or requirement of affixing a mark. The former of these laws ordains, that " every baker shall have a mark (signum) of his own for each sort of his bread " ; and the latter, which, on a deficiency of freemen, allows " the best and most discreet bondsmen " to serve on an inquest, stipulates that " each shall have a seal " (e ke checun eyt seal). In 1363, it was enacted, that every master goldsmith " shall have a mark by himself " (un merche a par lui) and set it to his work; in 1389‑go, "that the workers, weavers, and fullers shall put their seals (lour signer) to every cloth that they shall work " ; and in 1444‑5, that no worsted weaver shall make any worsted, " except he put upon the same his sign." A similar duty was imposed upon workers in the precious metals, by the statutes of Edward IV and Henry VII respectively. In 1477‑8, it was ordained, " that things wrought of silver were to be marked with the Leopard's Head and the workman's mark or sign (marke ou signe) " ; and in 1488‑9, that " every fyner of golde and sylver put his severall merke upon such, to bere witnes the same to be true." In 1491, " the chief officer for the tyme beying in every cite towne, or borough," was required to have " a speciall marke or seal, to marke every weight and mesure to be reformed." The last enactment in the reign of Henry VII, bearing upon this subject, has the singular title of " Pewtrer's Walkying " and is levelled against travelling tinkers and traffickers in metal, the prototypes in fact of our modern " Marine‑store Dealer." They are described as " possessing deceivable and untrue beams and scales, whereof one of them would stand even with twelve pounds weight at one end against a quarter of a pound at the other end " and the law requires, " that the makers of all hollow wares of pewter, shall marke the same with [the] severall marks of their owne." The last statute to be quoted is of date 15 31 and by it brewers were restrained from " occupying the mystery of a cooper," or making any vessel for the sale of beer, which, in all cases, were to be made " by the common artificers of coopers " ; it being further enacted, " that every cooper mark his vessell with his owne marke." In the City of London, by various ordinances, confirmed by the civic authorities, the blacksmiths (1372), bladesmiths (14o8) and braziers (1416), of London, were required " to use and put their own mark upon their own work." I. Although the first two sets of marks on the accompanying plate are taken from English buildings, with scarcely an exception, the same may be found in all parts of the world. The seven earliest numbers have been selected by Godwin as the marks most widely used, which are to be met with in different countries. The hour‑glass form (1) is perhaps the most common of all types and, whilst employed in nearly every land as a cypher by operative workmen, appears never‑ MASONS' MARKS 147 theless in a large proportion of the ancient inscriptions and alphabets that have come down to us (Arcbaologia, vol. xxx, pl. iii). Many examples of this mark are given in these plates, of which perhaps the most curious is No. ioo (opposite page 150).

 

The letter N symbol which appears on the coins of the Ariarathes, a series of Persian kings who lived before Christ, is infinitely diversified. Of this an instance is presented in No. 44, a mark also found at Kilwinning Abbey, Canterbury and other places, as well as amongst the Arab " Wasm " and upon gnostic gems. In this figure or letter Dove thinks we have something like an equivalent for the sexual union of the V and the A on the feminine and masculine symbols of the Egyptians (Builder, June 6, 1863).

 

The Vesica Piscis, which has already been referred to, was constantly used as a builder's emblem. Fort suggests that the fish was typified by ancient notions and appropriated by the Christians with other Pagan symbols (Early History of Free masonry, p. 3 5 7), but the origin of this emblem must be looked for in the Hindu sectarial marks, denoting the followers of Siva and Parvati (93), which, in their general form, symbolize the female principle of nature. The trident is one of the attributes of Parvati and this form (io) is of very frequent appearance in the East; two varieties are shown in the examples of Arab Wasm (105, 107) and others are to be found amongst the marks collected by Sir W. Ouseley and W. T. Creed (Transactions, Cumberland and Ilestmorland Antiquarian and Archeological Society, 1880).

 

II. The second set of marks is from Carlisle Abbey, selected from the 316 specimens published in the paper last cited. The fourth in this row (14) is a curious form, unlike any other English mark that has come under notice, though it possesses some affinity with Nos. 33 and ioi, also with a mark of the Kilwinning Lodge, given by Lyon at p. 67 of his history and, to a greater extent, with one of the specimens from Jedburgh Abbey, published by Dr. Smith. In a closely analogous formed out of lines set at various angles to each othe7,r intermingled with dots, which is frequently met with on gnostic gems, Bellermann professes to trace the sacred divining‑lots‑figures produced by the accidental juxtaposition of little sticks and balls.

 

III. This series exhibits some curious varieties of the hour‑glass or " lama " form. No. 23, which also occurs at St. Giles's Church, Edinburgh, Furness Abbey and elsewhere, is identical with No. 88. (See Arcbaologia, vol. xxxiv, pl. iii.) IV. The Irish specimens present some novel features. The three first (31‑3) in their general character resemble the Arab Wasm (XI). No. 37 constitutes a type of itself and the last three figures (38‑4o) are singularly unlike any thing to be found in the collections' (Transactions, Kilkenny Archaological Society, vol. ii, new series, p. 67).

 

V. The French examples are taken from the Annales Archeologiques, but ampler varieties have been reproduced by Godwin in the publications already mentioned.

 

148 MASONS' MARKS VI. The German types (ArcbTologia, vol. xxx, pl. x) are abundantly illustrated by the collector drawn upon for the specimens annexed (5 i‑6o) (Transactions R.LB.A., 1868‑9). The fifth mark (55) in this row‑a form of the figure 4‑may be traced throughout many ramifications in the collections from which quoted. No. 56, a cross cramponnee, or two intersecting straight lines with angled arms, is a noted Hindu symbol (98). It is also known as the Swastika and Fylfot and a specimen appearing on a Roman altar in Alnwick Castle has been described by Lord Broughton as denoting the hammer or mace of the Scandinavian god Thor. It is seen with Thor on various medals and on Runic monuments and also occurs in the minster at Basle. With reference to the connexion of the Scandinavians with Italy, Sir William Betham (Etrurio Celtica) shows an Etruscan coin with this symbol on it. Besides the Roman stones worked in rude patterns with the pick, either in straight lines, diamond pattern, or basket‑work, as occasionally found on Hadrian's Wall, some are marked with a plain St. Andrew's Cross (J. Collingwood Bruce, The Roman Ball, 1867, p. 83). Bruce, when figuring some of the marks on Roman stones, thus remarks on those taken by Horsley to be numeral letters, denoting the number of the cohorts In all probability, the marks in question are the result of the caprice of the stonemasons. The editor has seen many examples of stones scored in the way which Horsley represents (some of which are shown in the woodcuts), but which he thinks partake more of the nature of masons' marks than of Roman numerals. Sometimes a simple cross will be observed, sometimes two parallel strokes, occasionally, as in Horsley's No. XVII, a " broad arrow." One of the examples which our great antiquary gives under No. XVI is what masons call diamond broaching and is very common. Stones thus scored occur chiefly in the separations of the wall and the stations. The stones used in Hadrian's original erection are severely plain.

 

The late Thomas Wright, M.A. (The Celt, the Roman and the Saxon, 1875,p'. 183), mentions that the " masons' marks are often found on Roman buildings and resemble most closely those of the masons of the Middle Ages. Sometimes they consist of a letter, perhaps the initial of the mason's name, but they are more usually crosses, triangles and other geometrical figures." Though enough has been said to show that such were in use by the Romans in Britain, one more example may be quoted, if indeed it be a mason's mark. It is found on an altar at Habitancum and dedicated to the goddess Fortuna by Julius Severinus, on the completion of a bath (Bruce, The Roman Wall, 1867, p. 335). The incised figure or mark resembles a cross potent fitchde, as a herald would call it, except that the crutch ends are only on the side‑arms, the uppermost arms being a distinct cross, thus, The Romans also marked their building tiles, but for the most part with an inscription indicating the troops or officials by whom or under whose directions the buildings were erected.

 

MASONS' MARKS 149 VII. These (ArcbTologia, vol. xxxiv, pl. iv) are the marks of a Lodge of Freemasons. Numerous examples of this class of cypher are given by Lyon in his noted work. An early instance of a "mason" who was not an operative being elected to rule over his Brethren, is afforded by the records of the Lodge of Aberdeen, 1670, under which year appears the mark of Harry Elphingston, " Tutor of Airth and Collector of the Kinges Customes," master, or a past master, of the Lodge. At the same date is found also the cypher of Maister Georg Liddell, " Professor of Mathematickes." VIII. The marks of the Strasburg architects are taken from the Annales Archeologiques. The seal from which figure No. 71 is extracted is described as that of " Pierre Bischof d'Algesheim, one of the master stone‑cutters (maitres tailleurs de Pierre) who were received into the new brotherhood (confrerie) of the year 1464. Bischof, one of the chief promoters of this association, was afterwards master of the works (maitre‑d'oeuvre) of the city " (Strasburg). The two following marks are those respectively of Masters Mark Wendlind and Laurent de Vedenheim. Nos. 75‑9 are from monograms and emblems on tombstones at the Hozvf of Dundee. No. 75, which appears on a monument referring to the Mudie family, is identical with the craft cyphers of Scottish and German stonemasons (24, 83) ; and the anchor (76) fitly marks the last resting‑place of a sailor. The 4 mark (77), differing but slightly from a cypher in St. Giles's Cathedral, Edinburgh (Lyon, History of the Lodge of Edinburgh, photo facing p. 67, fig. 3), is of date 15 82. The marks of John and James Goldman, father and son, A.D. 1607, are represented in figure 78. Next follows the monogram of William Chaplane (79), from a monument erected in memory of his wife (1603).

 

The last of this series is the cypher of Telford, the celebrated engineer, of whom Smiles records, that " many of the stones composing the bridge over the Esk, at Langholm, were hewn by his hand and, on several of the blocks forming the land‑breast, his tool‑mark is still to be seen " (Life of Thomas Telford, 1867, p. 116). Telford's mark is almost exactly presented in one of the alphabets, which the erudite Von Hammer claims to have rescued from oblivion (Von Hammer, The Alphabets of the Seven Planets, sec. v, pp. 10, 51) t . Yet probably no one would be more astonished than the worthy engineer, were he still amongst us, to hear of the similarity.

 

IX. The fourth mark of the SteinmetZen is taken from Heimsch (Masonic Monthly, July 188z), the preceding ones from Stieglitz (Ober die Kirche der Heiligen Kunigunde, Leipzig, 1829, Appendix iii). For those of the carpenters No. 85 is the mark of John Fitzjohn, master, 1573, from a book of that date ; the others from a handsomely carved mantelpiece, of 1579, erected during the mastership of Thomas Harper (86) and the wardenship of Anthonie Bear (87). The marks of the tylers and bricklayers are from Godwin's collection.

 

X. The Hindu symbols (Moor, Hindu Pantheon, pl. ii) present many forms with which Freemasons are familiar. The U figure (92) occurs very frequently 150 MASONS' MARKS in Spain and has also been copied by Sir W. Ouseley from an ancient palace near Ispahan (Travels in Various Countries of the East, 1823, pl. lxxxii). In others the sexual origin of all things is indicated (93‑7), the most prevalent being the equi lateral triangle. The Hexalpha (95) represents the two elements in conjunction; and with a right angle bisected by a line (97), worshippers of Sacti, the female principle, mark their sacred jars, as in like manner the votaries of Isis inscribed the sacred vase of their goddess before using it at her rites (Transactions R.LB.A., 1859‑6o, p. 97). The latter symbol, which is to be found in the Lycian and other alphabets, also corresponds with the broad arrow, used to denote Crownproperty, formed one of the apprentice " marks " in the Lodge of Aberdeen, 167o and occurs in all countries where masons' marks are perceptible.

 

The Rose (99) is uncommon, yet amongst the weapons belonging to the stone period found in Denmark are many flint mallets, cross‑shaped, presenting this appearance, with a hole at the intersection for the haft to be inserted. An exact counterpart of the Hindu symbol was found by Hughan in the crypt of Canterbury Cathedral; but with these two exceptions, the mark under examination is unknown to Western collectors. The last three specimens in this series (98‑loo) are rare forms of the Hindu sectarial marks and belong rather to certain great families than to religious sects.

 

XI. These graffitti, or scratchings, are characters adopted by Arabs to distinguish one tribe from another, commonly used for branding the camels on the shoulders and haunches, by which means the animals may be recovered, if straying and found by Arabs not hostile to the owners. They are found also scratched upon the walls in many places frequented by Bedawin, as, for instance, in the ruined convents, churches, etc., on the plain of the Jordan ; occasionally, as at Amman, several such cyphers are united into one complex character (James Finn, Byways in Palestine, 1868, Appendix A, pp. 453, 454). The custom, however, has many interpretations. According to some, it denotes the terminus of a successful raid ; others make it show where a dispute was settled without bloodshed; but as a rule it may be regarded as an expression of gratitude (R. F. Burton, The Land of Midian, 1879, vol. i, p. 320 ; vol. ii, p. 156). Burton says, " that the Wasm in most cases showed some form of a cross, which is held to be a potent charm by the Sinaitic Bedawin " and is further of opinion that the custom is dying out.

 

Describing the ruins of Al Hadhr, W. F. A. Ainsworth observes Every stone, not only in the chief buildings, but in the walls and bastions and other public monuments, when not defaced by time, is marked with a character, amongst which were very common the ancient mirror and handle, 9 (io2, io8), emblematical of Venus, the Mylitta of the Assyrians and Alitta of the Arabians, according to Herodotus ; and the Nani of the Syrians (Travels and Researches in Asia Minor, etc., 1842, vo1. ii, p. 167).

 

The last cypher (iio) is styled by Burton the "Camel stick." XII. The examples of compound marks are mainly taken from Godwin's collection (Transactions R.LB.A., 1868‑9, pp. 135‑44) ; the Scottish specimen MASONS' MARKS 151 is from the plate attached to Dr. Smith's paper, already referred to ; and the three last figures, from East of the Jordan, by Selah Merrill (1881), pp. 5 5, 151. M. da Silva thought, " that the second mark, added to the special sign used by them, was always the same for an entire family, these marks being usually a zero, p ; a triangle, a disc, o ; or a small cross, +." In the examples given from Portugal and Spain the second mark is chiefly a circle, but in England the N form and the acute angle, <, have by Godwin been generally found to be so used. This careful observer has met with four stones in one wall, nearly close together, each bearing two marks, wh ilst no two of the eigh marks were alike.

 

Ainsworth says that the marks at Al Hadhr were carefully sculptured, one in the centre of every stone but, as a general rule, the cyphers are traced without any regard to uniformity or position. At the mosque and reservoir at Bozrah Merrill noticed many stones with marks upon them, but there were only four varieties : (i) r was on those of the north wall; (z) % on those of the east wall; (3) O on those of the south wall; (4) f on those of the west wall. In the west wall he counted upwards of one hundred and sixty stones which had this mark. It is singular and noteworthy that many of the stones, however, bore no mark at all.

 

That workmen have been accustomed to mark the product of their labour from very early times is indisputable. In default of stone, the Chaldeans used bricks, sometimes of unbaked clay hardened by the heat of the sun. The curious archaic characters, with which they stamped on the bricks the name of the king who built the temple, the name of the god or goddess to whom it was dedicated, taken separately, might very well pass for masons' marks of a later age. Like the Chaldeans, the Assyrians, in all probability, stamped the inscription upon their bricks with a solid stamp. But, unlike the Chaldeans, who impressed the characters on a small square near the centre of the broad faces of the bricks, the writing of the Assyrians either covered the whole face or else ran along the edge.

 

The Babylonians, like the early Chaldeans, seem to have used almost entirely bricks in their constructions and, like them, impressed the inscription on the broad face of the brick, in a square, with a solid stamp.

 

The Egyptians stamped their bricks with the cartouche of the king, or with the name and titles of a priest or other influential person (Voyage en 1gyyte, 1830‑6, Paris, pls. lxxxviii‑xci). A number of these marks are figured by Rifaud and represent hieroglyphic characters, numerals, etc. They are supposed to date from about the fourth dynasty and the marks were traced upon the bricks with the finger. The bricks bearing cartouches impressed with a stamp date from the eighteenth dynasty ; but we must not forget the masons' marks, scrawled in red pigment, within the great pyramid, the cartouche of King Cheops, etc., etc.

 

In the fifth dynasty, the porcelain tiles were marked on the back with numerals, 152 MASONS' MARKS to facilitate their arrangement; those found at Tel‑el‑Yahoudeh bear on the back both hieroglyphics and, in some instances, Greek letters.

 

Each Roman brickmaker had his mark, such as the figure of a god, a plant, or an animal, encircled by his own name, often with the name of the place, of the consulate, or the owner of the kiln or brickfield (Seroux d'Agincourt, Rec. de Fragmens, pp. 8z‑8). No marks of this kind have been observed on any brick or tile found at York, though many of these have the inscription, Leg. vi, or Vic., or Leg. ix, His. or Hisp., stamped upon them. In the same city, however, several fragments of amphorx have been discovered, from which it appears that the name of the potter was commonly stamped on one of the handles or the neck. This vessel was used for holding olives, oil, or honey, but especially wine (Wellbeloved, Eboracum, pp. 118, 121).

 

An eloquent writer has described the finding of masons' marks at Jerusalem as one of their " capital discoveries," coming upon the explorers " like flashes of morning light " (Hepworth Dixon, Gentleman's Magazine, October 1876). Emanuel Deutsch arrived in Jerusalem while the shaft was open and went down it to inspect this record of his race. In the port of Sidon he afterwards found marks of the same kind and, after careful weighing of the evidence, came to the following conclusions : (i) The marks on the temple stones are Phcenician ; (z) they are quarry‑signs, not writings or inscriptions.

 

As Herod employed Greek artisans, who knew nothing of Phcenician letters and numerals, Hepworth Dixon is probably right in alluding to the " masons' marks " as " one of their capital discoveries," because, as he contends, in the first place, they settle the question of whether the work was Solomonic or Herodean ; and, in the second place, they prove the literary accuracy of the text in Kings, that workmen from Tyre were employed in quarrying these stones for the Temple wall. Josephus gives two accounts of Solomon's buildings on the Temple hill and these accounts unhappily disagree, which has led Lewin to the charitable conclusion that the Jewish historian made his first statement before he had studied his subject with much care. A difficulty is admitted, but our discovery removes suspicion from the sacred text, " Solomon's builders and Hiram's builders did hew them." In the presence of our Phoenician marks, it is impossible to doubt that Hiram's builders did also help to hew these stones (Gentleman's Magazine, October 1876, p. 491).

 

In inquiries of this character one cannot be too careful not to confound what may be the effect of chance or idle amusement, with letters or syllabic characters. Truter relates, that in the southern extremity of Africa, among the Betjuanas, he saw children busy in tracing on a rock, with some sharp instrument, characters, which bore the most perfect resemblance to the P and the M of the Roman alphabet ; notwithstanding which, these rude tribes were perfectly ignorant of writing (cited in Humboldt's Researches, vol. i, p. 154). Probably nothing would have more astonished the workmen of past ages, than the interpretation which has been placed on their ancient signatures. For any practicable purpose, collections of marks MASONS' MARKS 153 are alone valuable in determining whether the same workmen were employed, to any great extent, upon buildings in the same countries. To settle this point, the resemblance between the most frequently recurring marks should be carefully noted. To do this effectually, however, many thousand specimens would have to be collated and it seems more than probable that until a successor to the late Mr. Shaw, in zeal and assiduity, arises, no comprehensive study of " Masons' Marks," or, as King styles them, " enigmatical symbols," will be either practicable or desirable. Many communications on this subject, accompanied in some instances by tracings or copies of marks, have been published in the Builder and in the Masonic journals ; of these, the disquisition by Dove in the former (1863) and the papers of the late Dr. Somerville (Freemason's Quarterly Magazine, 1851, p. 450 ; 1852, p. 316) in the latter, will well repay perusal. In the Keystone (Philadelphia) of January ig, 1878, reference is made to Dr. Back's collection of stone marks copied by him from German churches and other edifices, but of this work there is no copy in the British Museum or other libraries to which access is easy.

 

THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS HE only evidence of the existence of Freemasonry in England before the initiation or admission of Elias Ashmole in 1646, lies scattered in the Old Charges, or Constitutions, the records of the building trades and the statutes of the realm.

 

In preceding chapters all the manuscripts with which Freemasons have any direct concern have been examined and an effort has been made to trace the actual designers of those marvels of operative masonry that have come down, by means of the mute yet eloquent testimony of the structures themselves, which amply attest the ingenuity, if not in all cases the individuality, of the skilled workmen by whom they were designed.

 

Since the year 1686, when Dr. Plot, in his History of Staffordshire, cited the stat. 3 Hen. VI, c. i, no Masonic work which has appeared is without this reference Yet there is scarcely an instance of the research having extended beyond this par ticular statute, even to those relating to the same subject‑matter. The law of 1425 was one of the long series familiarly known as the Statutes of Labourers, which, originating with the Plantagenets, continued in operation until the present century.

 

The great plague of 1348 and the consequent depopulation gave origin to the Ordinance of Labourers, A.D. 1349, afterwards by stat. 3 Rich. II, st. I, c. viii, made an Act of Parliament or statute and described as stat. 23 Edw. III.

 

In the twenty‑fifth year of the king, the Commons complained in Parliament that this ordinance was not observed; wherefore a statute was made ordaining further regulations on the subject. It has been asserted that the laws now under consideration were passed in punishment of the contumacious masons at Windsor Castle, assembled there by Edward III under the direction of William of Wykeham, the comptroller of the royal works, who refused their wages, and withdrew from their engagements (see Dallaway, Discourses upon Architecture, p. 425). The king's method of conducting the work has been referred to by Hume (History of England, 1822, vol. ii, p. 472) as a specimen of the condition of the people in that age. Instead of engaging workmen by contracts and wages, he assessed every county in England to send him a certain number of masons, tilers and carpenters, as if he had been levying an army (see Ashmole's History of the Garter, p. 12q, and Stow's London, 1720, vol. i, p. 79). There were, however, many influences combining to bring into play the full machinery of the legislation it is proposed to examine. Between the Conquest and the reign of Edward III there had sprung up a middle class of men, who, although they did not immediately acquire the full 154 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS 155 power of selling their labour to the best bidder, nevertheless were exempt from the imperious caprices of a master and the unconditional services of personal bondage (Eldon, State of the Poor, 1797, vol. i, p. 12). From a dialogue, written by Thynne, Lancaster Herald, dedicated to James I, in which the point is discussed, whether the king can confer knighthood on a villein, it would appear that some few of these bondmen still continued after the reign of Queen Elizabeth (Daines Barrington, Observations on the more Ancient Statutes, 1796, p. 309). Still the process of manumission had been very general from the twelfth year of Edward III, whose long wars in France obliged him to confer freedom upon many of his villeins, in order to recruit his exhausted armies and, if a bondman could escape the pursuit of his lord for a year, he became free for ever. With the liberation of the bond handicraftsmen from bondage proper, many of the companies into which they had been ranged passed gradually over into the number of free craft guilds. The freemen of rank and large possessions, who felt themselves powerful enough to secure their own protection, found, as the strong are ever wont to do, their interest to be more in a system of mutual feuds, that is, of free competition among themselves, than in associations and mutual pledges. But the less powerful, the small freemen, sought, as the weak always do, protection for themselves in confederating into close unions and formed the guilds for that purpose (Brentano, On the History and Development of Gilds, p. 5 3). The struggle between the rising craft‑guilds of London and the body of the citizens has been carefully narrated by Brentano, by whom the triumph of the former over the latter is stated to have been fully achieved in the reign of Edward III.

 

The privileges which they had till then exercised only on sufferance, or on payment of their fermes (dues), were now for the first time generally confirmed to them by a charter of Edward III. The authorities of the city of London, who had in former times contended with all their might against the craft guilds, now approved of their statutes; and, in the fourteenth century, a large majority of the trades appeared before the mayor and aldermen to get their ordinances enrolled. At the same time they adopted a particular livery and were hence called Livery Companies. Edward III himself actually became a member of one of them‑that of the Linen‑armourers‑and his example found numerous imitators amongst his successors and the nobility of the kingdom " (cf. Herbert, Companies of London, vol. i, pp. 28‑9).

 

The visitation of the Black Death, a dreadful pestilence which first appeared in Asia and, thence, spread throughout the world, brought the opposition between the interests of the working‑class and the employers for the first time on a large scale to a crisis. Of the three or four millions who then formed the population of England, more than one‑half were swept away. The whole organiza tion of labour was thrown out of gear. There was a great rise of wages ; the farmers of the country, as well as the wealthier craftsmen of the towns, saw themselves threatened with ruin by what seemed to their age the extravagant demands of the labour class. But sterner measures were soon found to be necessary. Not 156 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS only was the price of labour fixed by the Parliament of 13 5 o, but the labour class was once more tied to the soil (Green, History of the English People, 1877, pp. 4z9‑3I). Even before the reign of Edward I, says Sir F. Eden (Eden, State of the Poor, vol. i, pp. i z‑i 5 ), the condition of the villein was greatly meliorated. He was indeed bound to perform certain stipulated work for his lord, generally at sowing time and harvest; but, at other times of the year, he was at liberty to exercise his industry for his own benefit. As early as the year 1257, a servile tenant, if employed before midsummer, received wages ; and, in Edward I's reign, he was permitted, instead of working himself, to provide a labourer for the lord; from which it is obvious, that he must have sometimes possessed the means of hiring one; and it is natural to suppose that the labourers so hired were not pure villeins, but rather tenants by villeinage, who could assist their neighbours on their spare days, or free labourers, who existed‑although, perhaps, not in great numbers‑long before the parliamentary notice taken of them in the Statute of Labourers, passed in 1350.

 

We thus see that, already fully occupied with foreign conquest and Scottish incursions, the depopulation of the country from the ravages of the " Black Death " cast upon Edward the attempted solution of many problems, at once social and political, which it is no disparagement to that great monarch to say that he utterly failed in comprehending.

 

The regulation of wages has been very generally viewed as a device confessedly framed by the nobility and, if not intended, certainly tending to cramp the exertions of industry (Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, vol. ii, p. 27; Hume, History of England, vol. ii, p. 479). Sir Fortunatus Dwarris (A Treatise on the Statutes, pp. 866‑7) aptly remarks " It was easier to enact than to enforce such laws " ; and he stigmatizes, in terms of much severity, " the machinery employed, to carry into effect an obnoxious, unjust and impossible law." On the other hand, however, Brentano maintains (On the History and Development of Gilds, p. 78) it had become the fashion to represent these wage‑regulations as a policy contrived for the oppression of the labourer.

 

To give such a character to these statutes is, however, in my judgment, a complete misrepresentation of the real state of the case. These regulations of wages were but the expression of the general policy of the Middle Ages, which considered that the first duty of the State was to protect the weak against the strong, which not only knew of rights, but also of duties of the individual towards society and condemned as usury every attempt to take unseemly advantage of the temporary distress of one's neighbour.

 

The Cottarii, or Coterelli, according to Spelman (Glossarium Archaologicum), appear to have been much on the same footing with villeins regardant, being employed in the trades of smith, carpenter and other handicraft arts necessary in the country, in which they had been instructed at the expense of their masters, for whose benefit they pursued their several occupations.

 

It is reasonable to conclude, that the new system of working for hire, being more profitable to the great proprietors than the labour of slaves, had, to a great THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS 157 extent, superseded the absolute dependence of workmen upon their employers, at about the period which followed the Great Plague. Yet it is doubted by Eden, whether the owners of the soil fully comprehended the beneficial effects of this important revolution and he considers it not unnatural that they should have striven to preserve some affinity between the new class of labourers and the old class of villeins, by limiting their earnings, as they had before controlled their persons (State of the Poor, vol. i, p. 40).

 

Evasions of the statutes were very numerous, as indeed might be expected, for, had the wages fixed by law been adhered to, the pay of a labourer or artificer must have been the same from 13 S o to 13 70 ; yet, in the course of that period, the price of wheat per quarter varied from zs. to úi 6s. 8d.

 

" In spite of fines, imprisonment and the pillory," says Green (History of the English People, p. 15 7), " the ingenuity and avarice of the labourers contrived to elude the provisions of the proclamation ; during the harvest the most exorbitant wages were demanded and given." The statutes hereafter quoted appear in the first version of these enactments, published by the authority of Parliament, of which vol. i, extending to stat. 50, Edw. III, was printed in 18io.

 

Amongst the numerous difficulties which are encountered in a study of our statute law, its prodigious and increasing development first arrests our attention. " There is such an accumulation of statutes," complains Lord Bacon, " concerning one matter and they so cross and intricate, that the certainty is lost in the heap." Yet when this complaint was uttered the whole of the statutes of the realm occupied less than three volumes, within which compass it would now be difficult to compress the enormous bulk of legislation which has, in the present day, collected round many special departments of our law. Happily, indeed, with the legislation of comparatively recent times we are only indirectly concerned, but the more ancient statutes present some peculiar features of their own, in which, though differing widely from the puzzles that confront us when we essay an interpretation of their modern counterparts, are found sources of equal difficulty and obscurity. The language in which they were enacted or proclaimed varies continually, whilst, if we turn for assistance to the commentaries of sages of the law, these prove for the most part to have been written on imperfect data, before any version of the statutes was published by authority.

 

Many of the old statutes do not at all express by what authority they were enacted, so that it seems as if the business of making laws was left principally in the hands of the king, unless in instances where the lords or commons felt an interest in promoting a law, or the king an advantage in procuring their concurrence; and, in such cases, probably it was that their assent was specially expressed (Reeves, History of the English Law, Finlayson, vol. ii, p. zz8).

 

The statutes appear actually to have been made by the king, with a council of judges and others who were summoned to assist him. " The usual time for making a statute was after the end of every parliament and after the parliament 158 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS roll was engrossed, except on some extraordinary occasions. The statute was drawn out of the petition and answer and penned in the form of a law into several chapters, or articles, as they were originally termed. The statute being thus drawn up into divers heads or articles, now called chapters, it was shown to the king ; and upon His Majesty's approbation thereof, it was engrossed‑sometimes with a preamble to it and a clause of observari volumus at the conclusion and sometimes without any preamble at all‑and then by writs sent into every county to be proclaimed." (From a treatise in the British Museum, intituled Ex peditionis Billarum Antiquitas, attributed to Elsyng, Deputy Clerk of the Parliaments, 1620 and later.) It is evident from the Mirror of Justice (La Somme, Appelle Mirrori des Justices, factum per Andrean Horne‑of whom it is said in the preface that he wrote the book before 17 Edw. II‑ ch. v) that laws were often made in this way; for the author of that book complains that ordinances are only made by the king and his clerks and by aliens and others who dare not contradict the king, but study to please him (see Reeves, History of the English Law, Finlayson, 1869, vol. ii, p. 227). " Many inconveniences happened to the subject by the antient form, in framing and publishing of the statutes‑viz., sometimes no statute hath been made, though agreed on; many things have been omitted; many things have been added in the statute; a statute hath been made, to which the Commons did not assent, and even to which neither Lords nor Commons assented." (See i Hale, P. C., 394 ; 3 Inst., 4o‑1 ; i z Rep., 57 ; and Introduction to the Statutes (18 i o), p. xxxv.) The chapters were short and the manner of expression very often too general and undefined. Offenders were generally directed to be punished " at the king's pleasure, to make grievous ransom to the king, to be heavily amerced " and the like ; whilst sometimes‑as will presently be seen‑the acts are merely admonitory or prohibitory, without affixing any penalties, or prescribing any course of process for prosecuting, hearing and determining the offences (ibid., vol. ii, p. 2z8 ; Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes, 1830‑1, p. 26).

 

Down to the accession of Edward I the statutes are in Latin, but in the third year of the king they began to be in French also ; and, from this period to the beginning of the reign of Henry VII, are sometimes in Latin and sometimes in French. From that time the language employed has been uniformly English. Occasionally there occurs a chapter in one language, in the midst of a statute in another; and there is one instance of an article or chapter partly in French and partly in Latin. Attempts have been made by many learned persons to explain this variety of languages in the earlier periods of our legislation. Nothing, however, is known with certainty on this subject and, at the present day, it is utterly impossible to account in each instance for the appearance of the statute in French or in Latin. It has been suggested that many of the Latin statutes were first made in French, thence translated into Latin (A. Luders, Essay on the use of the French Language in our Ancient Laws and Acts of State, tract vi, 18io), whilst by Daines Barrington (op. cit., p. 6z) the continuance of our laws in French from the third year of Edward I has been attributed to there being a standing committee THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS 159 in parliament to receive petitions from the provinces of France, which formerly belonged to England; and as these petitions, therefore, were in French and the answers likewise in the same language, a reason was afforded why all the parliamentary transactions should be in French by way of uniformity. The same commentator perceives a further cause for the statutes being in French, in the general affectation which prevailed at this time of speaking that language, insomuch that it became a proverb, "that Jack would be a gentleman if he could speak French." But the strongest reason of all for permitting our laws to be in the French language, Barrington finds in the habit of the English and the inhabitants of the French provinces under our dominion considering themselves in a great measure as the same people. In the opinion of the same authority, " the best general rule which can be given with regard to an act of parliament being in Latin or French is, that when the interests of the clergy are particularly concerned, the statute is in Latin " (op. cit., pp. 6z‑5). But, as was justly observed by one great legal writer and adopted by another, this theory would require so many exceptions as almost to destroy the rule (Reeves, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 228 ; Dwarris, A Treatise on the Statutes, p. 627). " Perhaps," says Reeves, " the legislature was governed by no general principle in choosing the languages of their statutes ; both the Latin and the French were the language of the law and probably were adopted according to the whim of the clerk or other person who drew up the statute." On the whole, it may, perhaps, safely be concluded that, for a long period of time, charters, statutes and other public instruments were drawn up indiscriminately in French or Latin and generally translated from one of those languages into the other before the promulgation of them, which, in many instances, appears to have been made at the same time in both languages (see Statutes of the Realm, Introduction, p. xlii).

 

It is a curious circumstance that, though the ancient laws of some other European nations are indeed in the Latin language‑in which there was a peculiar convenience from the frequent appeals to the Pope‑there is no other instance of any country in Europe permitting their laws to be enacted in a modern European language and that not their own (Barrington, Observations on the IvIore Ancient Statutes, p. 6o). " The laws of Sweden and Denmark were originally in their own languages, but have within the last century been translated into Latin. The ordinances of Spain are in Spanish. The ancient laws of Sicily are in Latin; as were also those of the other Italian States " (ibid., p. 61). The ancient ordinances of Scotland are in Latin ; those of the Saxons in the Saxon tongue ; and the ancient statutes of the Irish Parliament, which began with the Statute of Kilkenny in the reign of Edward II, are in English ; while those of England continued to be in French. Curiously enough, having been subsequently adopted, the use of the French language in statutes was preserved rather longer in Ireland than in England. The statute‑roll of the Irish Parliament, 8 Hen. VII, is in French; in those of the 16 and 23 Hen. VII, the introductory paragraphs are in Latin ; after which follows an act or chapter in French ; and all the other acts of the session are in English (Introduction to the Statutes, p. xlii).

 

16o THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS The distinction between statutes and ordinances, which in unsettled times were frequently confounded, is, that the latter want the consent of some one or more of the constituent parts of a parliament. These are the king, lords and commons (Dwarris, op. cit., P. 3). " Whatever is enacted for law by one, or by two only of the three, is no statute." But though no statute, this is the exact description of an ordinance, which, as Lord Coke expresses it, " wanteth the threefold consent and is ordained by only one or two of them" (4 Inst., 24). According to the manuscript treatise already cited, an ordinance could not make new or permanent law, nor repeal any statute; but temporary provisions, consistent with the law in force, might be made by way of ordinance and one ordinance could be repealed by another without a statute (Expeditionis Billarum Antiquitas ; see also Harleian MSS., 305, 4273, 6585). It has been well observed, that when statutes were framed so long after the petition and answer, it is not to be wondered at that they did not always correspond with the wishes of the petitioners, but were modified according to some after‑thought of the king's officers who had the care of penning statutes. The commons often complained of this. It would appear that the parliament, upon the petitions of the commons, exercised two branches of authority, by one of which it legislated or made new laws ; by the other, it interpreted the then existing law. It is in this way that the following words of stat. 15, Edw. III, c. vii, are to be understood : " That the petitions showed by the great men and the commons be affrrmed according as they were granted by the king ; that is to say, some by statute (les pointZ adurer par estatut) ; and the others by charter or patent and delivered to the knights of the shires, without paying anything." This clearly indicates that there was another way of settling the law than by statutes and that way must have been by means of the charters and patents mentioned in the above act. Laws of this sort had no other sanction than the parliament roll, where the answer was written; and these were probably what were called ordinances, being of equal force and validity with statutes, but less solemn and public, because they were only a declaration and not an alteration of the law (Reeves, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 436). Ordinances were never proclaimed by the sheriff, as in the case of statutes, but it was sometimes recommended by the king to the commons‑probably by a charter or patent‑to publish them in their county) (see Introduction to Statutes of the Realm, p. xxxii ; Reeves, History of the English Law, W. F. Finlayson, 1869, vol. ii, p. 436 ; and Dwarris, A Treatise on the Statutes, p. i4). According to Lord Coke, " Acts of Parliament are many times in form of charters or letters‑patent " ; and many such have been inserted in all editions of the statutes. This great lawyer also observes, " There are many Acts of Parliament that be in the rolls of Parliament and neveryetprinted" (2 Inst., 525 ; 4 Inst., 50). The method in which the various laws‑statutes or ordinances‑were proclaimed and notified will again claim attention, in connexion with some remarks by Kloss and other German writers, which latter, as will be shown, are based upon a total misapprehension of the tenor and import of our Acts of Parliament. A statute was an ordinance and something more; therefore, though statutes may sometimes be called ordinances, yet no in‑ THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS 161 attention to language would excuse the converse of the proposition. Though an ordinance could be altered by a statute, yet a statute could not be altered by an ordinance. After all, perhaps, the principal mark of a statute was its being entered on the statute‑roll (Reeves, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 437) The earliest of the printed editions or collections of the statutes is supposed to have been published before 1481 ; but it is believed that no complete chronological series, either in their original language or in English, nor any translation of the statutes from i Edward III to 1 Henry VII, appeared before the publication by Berthelet in 1543, of " the statutes in English, from the time of Henry III to 1 g Henry VII inclusive." No authorized version of the statutes was published until 181 o, in which year the first volume of a new edition, drawn up from original records and authentic manuscripts, was printed by command of George III at the request of the House of Commons.

 

In the introduction to this work it is stated, that prior to its appearance no complete collection had ever been printed, containing all the matters, which, at different times and by different editors, were published as statutes. The earliest editions of entire statutes were printed at the latter end of the fifteenth century. The statutes of Henry III, Edward I and Edward II were not printed entire until the beginning of the sixteenth century and then in small collections by themselves in their original language. Later editions, which combine the period previous to Edward III, with that of this and subsequent kings, omit the original text of the statutes previous to Henry VII, of which they give translations only. Even the more modern editions‑still used in private libraries and generally consulted by non‑legal writers‑which, in some instances, insert the original text of the statutes previous to Richard III, from the statute roll and ancient manuscripts, omit the translation of many parts of them ; and, in other instances, give a translation without the text, also omit many acts in the period subsequent to Henry VII.

 

In the words of the learned editors of The Statutes of the Realm‑" Many errors and inconsistencies occur in all the translations, resulting either from misinterpretation, or from improper omissions or insertions ; and there are many antient statutes of which no translation has ever yet been printed." The authorized version of the statutes, besides containing many charters not previously printed, affords, in every instance, a faithful transcript from originals or entries thereof, in characters representing the manuscript with its contractions or abbreviations, so far indeed as these could be accomplished by printing types. The translation in each case appears side by side with the words of the original and all quotations from the statutes which appear in this chapter are made from the text of the authorized version.

 

The first enactment which will come under notice is the law of 1349. As already observed, a great public calamity having thinned the lower class of people, servants and labourers took occasion to demand very extravagant wages ; rather 162 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS than submit to work upon reasonable terms they became vagabonds and idle beggars. Their number, it is probable, being largely augmented by the gradual emancipation of the villeins, which had been proceeding ever since the Conquest ; and who, before the end of Edward III's reign, were sufficiently powerful to protect one another and to withhold their ancient and accustomed services from their lord (Reeves, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 272 ; Eden, op. cit., vol, i, p. 30). It was found necessary to take some compulsory method in order to reduce the poorer classes to subordination ; and an ordinance was therefore made by the king and council, to whom it was thought properly to belong as an article of police and internal regulation, especially as the parliament were prevented from sitting by the violence of the plague (Barrington, op. cit., p. 264).

 

Having regard to the importance of the ordinance of 1349 and the statute of the following year‑comprehensively described as the " Statutes of Labourers " ‑each chapter or section will be noticed; two only, however, chapters S in the earlier and 3 in the later act, being given in their entirety. Each statute, of which a summary is given in the text, will be distinguished by a number, to which subsequent reference will be made by a parenthesis.

 

I. THE ORDINANCE OF LABOURERS, A.D. 1349 (23 EDW. III) The necessity of the regulations embodied in this Ordinance is thus vindicated in the preamble: " Because a great part of the people and, especially of workmen and servants, late died of the pestilence, many seeing the necessity of masters and great scarcity of servants, will not serve unless they may receive excessive wages and some rather willing to beg in idleness than by labour to get their living." i. Every man and woman, free or bond, able in body and within the age of threescore years, not living in merchandise, nor exercising any craft, nor having of his own whereof he may live, shall be bound to serve for the wages accustomed to be given in the twentieth year of our reign, or five or six common years before. The Lords to be preferred before other in their bondmen or land tenants, but to retain no more than may be necessary for them; and if any such man or woman will not serve, that proved by two true men before the sheriff, bailiff, lord, or constable of the town where the same shall happen to be done, he shall be committed to the next gaol.

 

2. If any reaper, mower, or other workman or servant, do depart from service without reasonable cause or licence before the term agreed, he shall have pain of imprisonment and that none under the same pain presume to receive or to retain any such in his service.

 

3. That no man pay, or promise to pay, any servant any more wages than was wont.

 

4. If the lords of the towns or manors presume in any point to come against this ordinance, then pursuit shall be made against them for the treble pain paid or promised by them.

 

THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS 163 S . "Item, that sadlers, skinners, whitetawers, cordwainers, taylors, smiths, carpenters, masons (cementarii), tilers, boatmen, carters and all other artificers and workmen, shall not take for their labour and workmanship above the same that was wont to be paid to such persons the said twentieth year and other common years next before, as afore is said, in the place where they shall happen to work ; and if any man take more, he shall be committed to the next gaol, in manner as afore is said." 6. Butchers, fishmongers, hostelers, brewers, bakers, pulters and all other sellers of all manner of victual, shall be bound to sell the same for a reasonable price.

 

7. Because that many valiant beggars refuse to labour, none, upon the said pain of imprisonment, shall give anything to such.

 

The conclusion of this ordinance, styled by Barrington " the last chapter," but not numbered in the copy quoted, disposes in a somewhat unusual manner of the penalties imposed by a preceding part of the law ; they are not given to the informer, as in more modern times, to enforce the execution of a statute, but in aid of dismes and quinZimes granted to the king by the commons.

 

Whether the neglect of this ordinance arose from this improper distribution of the penalty, or more probably from the severity of the law, the parliament, two years afterwards, attempted to carry it into more rigorous execution and, likewise, added some new regulations, fixing the price of not only the wages of the labourer, but almost every class of artisan.

 

II. THE STATUTE OF LABOURERS, A.D. 1350 (25 EDW. III) i. That carters, ploughmen, shepherds, swineherds, deies (the lowest class of servants in husbandry) and all other servants, shall take liveries and wages accus tomed in the said twentieth year, or four years before; and that they be allowed j to serve by a whole year and not by the day ; and that none pay in the time of sarcling or haymaking but a penny the day; and that such workmen bring openly in their hands to the merchant towns their instruments and these shall be hired in a common place and not privy.

 

2. That none take for the threshing of a quarter of wheat or rye over ii d. ob. ; and that the same servants be sworn two times in the year before lords, stewards, bailiffs and constables of every town, to hold and do these ordinances ; and that none oú them go out of the town, where he dwelleth in the winter, to serve the summer, if he may serve in the same town ; and that those who refuse to make such oaths, or to perform that they be sworn to or have taken upon them, shall be put in the stocks by the said lords, stewards, bailiffs and constables of towns, or sent to the next gaol.

 

3. " Item, that carpenters, masons, and tilers and other workmen of houses, shall not take by the day for their work, but in such manner as they were wont ; that is to say, a master carpenter iii. d., and another ii. d. ; a master freestone mason (mestre mason de franche pere) iiii., and other masons iii. d., and their servants i. d., ob. ; 164 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS tylers iii. d., and their knaves (garceons) i.d., ob. ; plasterers and others workers of mud walls and their knaves, by the same manner, without meat and drink, i. s. from Easter to Saint Michael and from that time less, according to the rate and discretion of the justices, which should be thereto assigned; and that they that make carriage by land or water shall take no more for such carriage to be made than they were wont the said xx year and iiii. years before." 4. That cordwainers and shoemakers shall not sell boots and shoes, nor none other thing touching their mystery, in any other manner than they were wont; that goldsmiths, sadlers, horse‑smiths, sporriers, tanners, corriers, tawers of leather, taylors and other workmen, artificers and labourers and all other servants here not specified, shall be sworn before the justices, to do and use their crafts and offices in the manner they were wont to do the said xx year and in the time before, without refusing the same because of this ordinance ; and if any of the said servants, labourers, workmen, or artificers, after such oath made, come against this ordinance, he shall be punished by fine and ransom and imprisonment, after the discretion of the justices.

 

S. That the said stewards, bailiffs and constables of towns be sworn to inquire of all them that come against this ordinance and to certify the justices of their names, so that they make fine and ransom to the king and, moreover, be commanded to prison, there to remain till they have found surety to serve and do their work and to sell things vendible in the manner aforesaid. And that the same justices have power to inquire and make due punishment of the said ministers, labourers, workmen and other servants ; and also of hostlers, harbergers and of those that sell victual by retail, or other things here not specified.

 

6. That no sheriffs, constables, bailiffs and gaolers, the clerks of the justices, or of the sheriffs, nor other ministers whatsoever, take anything for the cause of their office of the same servants for fees, suit of prison, nor in other manner.

 

7. That the said justices make their sessions in all the counties of England at the least four times a year‑that is to say, at the feast of the Annunciation of our Lady, Saint Margaret, Saint Michael and Saint Nicholas ; and also at all times that shall need, according to the discretion of the said justices ; and if any of the said servants, labourers, or artificers do flee from one county to another, the sheriffs of the county where such fugitive persons shall be found shall do them to be taken at the commandment of the justices of the counties from whence they shall flee ; and that this ordinance be holden and kept, as well in the city of London as in other cities and boroughs and other places throughout the land, as well within franchise as without.

 

This statute was always held to apply only to those who worked with their hands (Reeves, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 274). It is somewhat singular that a large number of the cases preserved in the year books had reference to chaplains. In an action against one of this class, it was contended that, though retained for a year to do divine service, the defendant had departed within the year and it was held that the writ was not maintainable by the statute, " for you cannot compel a chaplain to THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS 165 sing at Mass, for at one time he is disposed to sing and another not; wherefore you cannot compel him by the statute." In another case the defendant pleaded that he was retained to collect rents and so was not a labourer, which was held to be a good plea.

 

The commission to execute the statute of labourers was usually directed to the same persons who were in the commission of the peace; the due ordering of such persons as were the objects of this statute being one of the most important articles in the police of the county.

 

" From the 25th of Edward the Third," says Sir F. Eden, " the laws concerning wages and other visionary regulations, which, however impracticable, were perseveringly adhered to by successive legislatures, afford us the means of tracing, with chronological exactness, the variations either of improvement or of deterioration in the condition of labourers for hire, who may now be considered as the persons composing that class by which the works of agriculture, of handicraft trades, or of manufacture were carried on." III. In 136o the Statute of Labourers received parliamentary confirmation and its observance was enforced under stronger penalties. Labourers were declared no longer punishable by " fine and ransom " and the Lords of Towns were em powered "to take and imprison them for fifteen days" (34 Edw. 111, c. .ix). Fugitive labourers and artificers absent either from their work or their places of abode, were " to be burnt in the forehead with the letter F in token of Falsity," i.e. of having broken the oath they were compelled to take under the previous statute; and magistrates were directed, in case they fled into towns, to deliver them up, under penalty of ~io to the king and C5 to the masters who should reclaim them. Wages were again regulated. None whatever were to be taken on the festival days, and it was declared, " That as well carpenters and masons (Maceons) be comprised in this ordinance, as all other labourers, servants and artificers ; and that the carpenters and the masons take from henceforth wages by the day, not by the week, nor in other manner ; and that the chief masters (chiefs mestres) of carpenters and masons take fourpence by the day and the other threepence or twopence, according as they be worth; and that all alliances and covines of masons and carpenters and congregations, chapters, ordinances and oaths betwixt them made, or to be made, shall be from henceforth void and wholly annulled; so that every mason and carpenter, of what condition that he be, shall be compelled by his master to whom he serveth to do every work that to him pertaining to do, or of free stone, or of rough stone; and also every carpenter in his degree; but it shall be lawful to every Lord or other, to make bargain or covenant of their work in gross, with such labourers and artificers when please them, so that they perform such works well and lawfully according to the bargain or covenant with them thereof made." In this statute (and not before) a standing authority to hear and determine and to take sureties for good behaviour, was given to " the keepers of the peace " ; 166 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS but it is afterwards in the stat. 36 Edw. III, stat. I, c. xii, that they are styled justices. The last‑mentioned statute enacts that in the commissions of justices of the peace and of labourers, express mention should be made that they hold their sessions four times in the year ; but it was expressly and properly declared in the 34 Edward III, that besides the most worthy persons in the county (des meullz vaueZ) the commission should include " some learned in the law." With the exception of Dr. George Kloss, this statute has been singularly neglected by Masonic writers and yet, as Papworth long since pointed out, it presents very instructive features (Transactions R.LB.A., 1861‑2). The " alliances, covines and chapters " will be passed over for the time being, as they can be more conveniently discussed in connexion with the subsequent legislation of the year 1425. The object of this statute seems to have been to benefit the master, rather than the servant, by fixing a maximum for wages; and, although it pointed out a mode by which its provisions might be avoided, by making it lawful " to every lord or other to make bargain or covenant of their work in gross with such labourers and artificers when please them," it has been conceived that it was only optional in the master to adopt this mode of hiring and that the labourer or artificer was obliged to work for the statute wages, by the day or the year, unless his employer could persuade him to work by the piece for less (Eden, op. cit., vol. i, p. 37).

 

At this point, it may conveniently be observed, that, in the building trades of the Middle Ages, there were fewer persons who carried on the industry on their own account and a greater number of dependent workmen, than in the other trades. The ordinances of the London masons point to relations such as are still greatly abhorred by workmen of the present day ; and naturally, those relations led then to the same differences between workmen and their employers as they lead now (Brentano, On the History and Development of Gilds, p. 81). " Thus," says Brentano, " in England the royal mandate as to the workmen who had withdrawn from the works at the Palace of Westminster tells us of a strike amongst the workmen in the building trades ; and the two laws enacted there in the Middle Ages against combinations, congregations and chapters of workmen‑the 34th Edw. III, c. ix (III) and 3rd Henry VI, c. i (XVI), were directed against workmen in the building trades only " (ibid., and Riley, p. 271).

 

IV. REGULATIONS FOR THE TRADE OF MASONS, 3o EDW. III, A.D. 1356 (Riley, Memorials of London and London Life, 1868, pp. z8o‑2) " At a congregation of mayor and aldermen, holden on the Monday next before the purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary (znd February), in the thirtieth year of the reign of King Edward III, etc., there being present Simon Fraunceys, the mayor, John Lovekyn and other aldermen, the sheriffs and John Little, Symon de Benyngtone and William de Holbeche, commoners, certain articles were ordained touching the trade of masons, in these words I. " Whereas Simon Fraunceys, Mayor of the City of London, has been given to understand that divers dissensions and disputes have been moved in the said THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS 167 city, between the masons who are hewers, on the one hand and the light masons and setters on the other: because that their trade has not been regulated in due manner by the government of folks of their trade in such form as other trades are ; therefore the said mayor, for maintaining the peace of our Lord the King and for allaying such manner of dissensions and disputes and for nurturing love among all manner of folks, in honour of the said city and for the profit of the common people, by assent and counsel of the aldermen and sheriffs, caused all the good folks of the said trade to be summoned before him to have from them good and due information hove their trade might be best ordered and ruled, for the profit of the common people.

 

2. " Whereupon the good folks of the said trade, chose from among themselves twelve of the most skilful men of their trade, to inform the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs, as to the acts and articles touching their said trade,‑that is to say, Walter de Sallynge, Richard de Sallynge, Thomas de Bredone, John de Tyryngtone, Thomas de Gloucestre and Henry de Yeevelee, on behalf of the masons' hewers ; Richard Joye, Simon de Bartone, John de Estone, John Wylot, Thomas Hardegray and Richard de Cornewaylle, on behalf of the light masons and setters ; the which folks were sworn before the aforesaid mayor, aldermen and sheriffs, in manner as follows 3. " In the first place, that every man of the trade may work at any work touching the trade, if he be perfectly skilled and knowing in the same.

 

4. " Also, that good folks of the said trade shall be chosen and sworn every time that need shall be, to oversee that no one of the trade takes work to complete if he does not well and perfectly know how to perform such work, on pain of losing, to the use of the commonalty, the first time that he shall, by the persons so sworn, be convicted thereof, one mark; and the second time, two marks ; and the third time, he shall forswear the trade for ever.

 

5. " Also, that no one shall take work in gross [wholesale, or by contract] if he be not of ability in a proper manner to complete such work ; and he who wishes to undertake such work in gross, shall come to the good man of whom he has taken such work to do and complete and shall bring with him six or four ancient men of his trade, sworn thereunto, if they are prepared to testify unto the good man of whom he has taken such work to do, that he is skilful and of ability to perform such work and that if he shall fail to complete such work in due manner, or not be of ability to do the same, they themselves, who so testify that he is skilful and of ability to finish the work, are bound to complete the same work well and properly at their own charges, in such manner as he undertook; in case the employer who owns the work shall have fully paid the workman [meaning the contractor]. And if the employer shall then owe him anything, let him pay it to the persons who have so undertaken for him to complete such work.

 

6. " Also, that no one shall set an apprentice or journeyman to work, except in presence of his master, before he has been perfectly instructed in his calling and he who shall do the contrary and by the person so sworn be convicted thereof, 168 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS let him pay, the first time to the use of the commonalty, half a mark; and the second time one mark; and the third time zo shillings; and so let him pay zo shillings every time that he shall be convicted thereof.

 

7. " Also, that no one of the said trade shall take an apprentice for a less time than seven years, according to the usage of the city ; and he who shall do to the contrary thereof, shall be punished in the same manner.

 

8. " Also, that the said masters so chosen, shall oversee that all those who work by the day shall take for their hire according as they are skilled and may deserve for their work, and not outrageously.

 

9. " Also, if any one of the said trade will not be ruled or directed in due manner by the persons of his trade sworn thereunto, such sworn persons are to make known his name unto the mayor; and the mayor, by assent of the aldermen and sheriffs, shall cause him to be chastised by imprisonment and other punishment, that so other rebels may take example by him, to be ruled by the good folks of their trade. io. " Also, that no one of the said trade shall take the apprentice of another, to the prejudice or damage of his master, until his term shall have fully expired, on pain of paying, to the use of the commonalty, half a mark each time that he shall be convicted thereof." V. Reverting to the parliamentary statutes, we find that the Legislature, having failed in controlling the wages of industry, next attempted, by statutes equally impracticable, to restrict the workman in the disposition of his slender earnings (Eden, op. cit., vol, i., p. 37). In the year 1363 (37 Edw. III) several laws were passed for the regulation of the diet and apparel of servants, artificers and yeomen (yomen) and it was enacted that merchants should deal in one sort only of merchandise and that handicraftsmen should use only one trade, which they were to choose before the next Candlemas. (The restriction placed on the merchants was removed in the following year.) " This," says Brentano, " was a legal recognition of the principle of the trade policy of the craftsmen, namely, that provision should be made to enable every one, with a small capital and his labour, to earn his daily bread in his trade freely and independently, in opposition to the principle of the rich, freedom of trade " (Brentano, op. cit., p. 6o).

 

VI. The Statute of Labourers was again confirmed in 1368 (4z Edw. III, c. vi) ; and the jealousy with which the increasing efforts of the handicraftsmen to free themselves from the restrictive fetters imposed upon them by the Legislature was regarded, is curiously illustrated by an enactment of the following year, wherein, at the request of the " Black Prince," whose revenue in his principality of Guion had been diminished by a law limiting the exportation of wines into England to aliens, it was decreed " that all Englishmen, Irishmen and Welshmen, that be not artificers, may pass freely into Gascoigne, to fetch wines there" (43 Edw. III, c. ii).

 

VII. Richard II was but eleven years old when he became King of England, THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS 169 on the death of his grandfather. The first statute of this reign recites that the villeins (viileyns) and land‑tenants in villeinage had assembled riotously in considerable bodies, endeavouring, by the advice of certain evil counsellors and abettors, to withdraw their services from their lords, not alone those which they owed to them by tenure of their lands, but also the services of their bodies ; that they chiefly attempted to evade these services under colour of certain exemplifications from Domesday‑Book, with relation to the manors and towns in which they lived ; and that, by false interpretation of these transcripts, they claimed to be entirely free. The statute, therefore, enacts that commissions shall issue under the Great Seal, upon application of any lord (seigneur), to inquire into the offences of these refractory villeins ; and that they shall be immediately committed to prison, without bail or main‑prize, if their lords shall so insist. With regard to the exemplifications from Domesday, it is likewise declared that the offering them in evidence shall not be of any advantage to him who shall so produce them. Nothing could be more severe than this law in every part of it ; and we find, by different records in Rymer, that this oppression was in reality the occasion of the famous insurrection under Wat Tyler and Jack Straw, as well as the great opposition to John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster; aided, it may well have been, by the poll‑tax of three groats imposed in 138o upon both sexes above the age of fifteen. This assessment was a heavy exaction upon the poor, many of whom were ill‑used bondmen ; and the harsh and brutal manner in which it was collected made it still more hateful. Many of the serfs or villeins had already been made free by becoming copyholders, or even by escaping from thraldom and living a year and a day within the walls of a town; but this only served to excite the envy of the rest (Chepmell, Short Course of History, p. 183). The city records, under date z5th April iz88, contain a claim by the Earl of Cornwall and another, upon five persons as their bondmen born, of whom they were seized until one month before the day of St. Michael (zgth September) 12.87, when they ran away. And they ask that they be not admitted to the freedom of the city (Riley, Memorials of London, p. 2.4).

 

If we follow Barrington, the minor king had been advised, by one part of his Council, to increase the power of the lower people (in the fifteenth year of this king, the barons petitioned that no villein should send his son to school ; to which the king gave the proper and dignified answer : Le roy s'avisera (Barrington, Observations on the More Ancient Statutes, p. 300 ; Dwarris, A Treatise on the Statutes, p. 878)) and to lessen that of the barons ; in consequence of this a proclamation was issued, which among other things directed, " quod nulla acra terra qua in bondagio vel servagio tenetur, altus quam ad quatuor denarios haberetur ; et si qua ad minus antea tenta fuisset, in posterum non exaltaretur" (Barrington, op. cit., P‑300). John of Gaunt put himself at the head of the barons' faction and procured a repeal of this proclamation in the year following (Rymer, Fadera, vol. iii, p. 12.4).

 

The tenure of villeinage, which the insurrection of 13 81 operated powerfully in diminishing, though extremely burdensome to the villein, was of little advantage to the master. The produce of a large estate was much more conveniently disposed 170 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS of by the peasants themselves who raised it, than by the landlord or his bailiff, who was formerly accustomed to receive it. A commutation was therefore made of rents for services and of money‑rents for those in kind ; and as men in a subsequent age discovered that farms were better cultivated where the farmer enjoyed a security in his possession, the practice of granting leases to the peasants began to prevail, which entirely broke the bonds of servitude, already much relaxed from the former practices (Hume, History of England, vol. iii, p. 295).

 

As half the lands in England were anciently held by the tenure of villeinage, it is not more remarkable as a fact, that this tenure (and status) should have entirely passed away, without being abolished by any statute, than that its decline should have been so insensible, that historians and antiquaries, with the utmost diligence, can very faintly trace its declension to that period, when it suited the mutual convenience of the lord and the vassal to drop the servile tenure (Barrington, p. 301 ; Dwarris, p. 878 ; Eden, vol. i, pp. 3o, 6o).

 

These considerations are of some importance, as there can be little doubt that the earliest laws as to artificers, labourers and vagrants had reference to the state of villeinage or serfdom and the efforts of the villeins to escape from it (Reeves, vol. iii, p. 587). The earliest vagrants were villeins ; and the villeins were constantly wandering away from their lords in order to escape the bondage of forced labour, which brought no profit to themselves, for even property, the result of their own labour, could be seized by their lords; hence it was not to be wondered at that they should in various ways try to escape so hard a thraldom and that many of them should lapse into a state of vagrancy. Vagabondage, in short, grew out of villeinage and these laws arose out of vagabondage. The result of it was, that the lords found their own villeins, to whose labour they had a right, constantly lost, while they were surrounded by numbers of vagrants, most of whom, there could be little doubt, were villeins of other lords. The process of seeking for and reclaiming the villeins was troublesome and costly ; and instead of it parliament passed these acts as to labourers and others, the effect of which was to enable the lords to put vagrants to labour, as a substitute for the loss of the labour of their villeins.

 

The conditions of the times and the turn of manners which prevailed towards the close of the fourteenth century, made it desirable and necessary for great lords to supply the defection in their villeins and land‑tenants by other expedients. It accordingly had become the custom to retain persons in their service to be at call when their lord's affairs needed their support; and, in order to distinguish different partisans, as well as to give a splendour to such retinue, they used to dress them in liveries and hats of a particular make or colour. Men openly associated themselves, under the patronage of some great baron, for their mutual defence. They wore public badges, by which their confederacy was distinguished. They supported each other in all quarrels, iniquities, extortions, murders, robberies and other crimes (Hume, History of England, vol. iii, p. 5 9). Besides those who were retained by great men, fraternities used to be formed of persons concurring in the THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS 171 same sentiments and views, who bound themselves to support each other on all occasions and denoted their union by similarity of dress (Reeves, History of the English Law, 1869, vol. ii, p. 444). These confederacies became a terror to the government and were the occasion of the statutes of liveries passed in this and the following reigns. The first of these is stat. i, Rich. II, c. vii, which ordains that no livery be given by any man for maintenance of quarrels and other confederacies upon pain of imprisonment and grievous forfeiture to the king. Some immaterial alterations were made in this statute both by Richard and his successors ; but in substance it remained as now enacted. The successive acts were very little enforced in this reign, or that of Henry VI ; and it was reserved for the stricter and sterner rule of Henry VII really to put them into execution. For this reason, and also because the laws relating to liveries, passed in the reign of the first Tudor king (.

 

III), have been strangely misinterpreted by our most trustworthy Masonic teachers, the examination of this series of statutes is postponed until the legislation of the reign of Henry VII passes under review.

 

VIII. In the year 1378 the commons complained that the statutes of labourers were not attended to, but that persons employed in husbandry fled into cities and became artificers, mariners, or clerks, to the great detriment of agriculture ; and, in consequence of these representations, it was enacted that the statutes passed in the preceding reign should be firmly kept and put in due execution (z. Rich. II, stat. I, c. viii).

 

IX. In 1388 these statutes were again confirmed and it was further directed that no servant or labourer should depart at the end of his term to serve or dwell elsewhere, or under pretence of going a pilgrimage, without a letter patent speci fying the cause of his departure and the time of his return, which might be granted at the discretion of a justice of the peace ; and that " as well artificers and people of mystery (gent.Z de ivistier) as servants and apprentices, which be of no great avoyr (avoir), and of which craft or mystery a man hath no great need in harvest time, shall be compelled to serve in harvest to cut, gather and bring in the corn." The wages of servants in husbandry were fixed by the same statute, after reciting " that the hires of servants and labourers had not been put in certainty before this time." And it was decreed that " no servant of artificer nor victualler within city shall take more than the servants and labourers above named after their estate." Penalties were imposed on those giving or taking higher wages ; and for a third offence, treble the value of the excess given or taken, or forty days' imprisonment. Persons having served in husbandry until the age of twelve years were declared incapable of " being put to any mystery or handicraft " and all covenants of apprenticeship to the contrary were declared void.

 

To prevent disorders, it was ordained that no servant, labourer, nor artificer should carry a sword, buckler, or dagger, except in time of war or when travelling with their masters ; but they might have bows and arrows, and use them on Sundays 172 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS and holidays. They were required to leave off playing at tennis or football and to refrain from quoits, dice, skittles and other such importune games. This is noticeable for being the first statute that prohibited any sort of games and diversions (Reeves, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 455)ò X. In the following year, at the request of the Commons that the Statutes of Labourers should be enforced, it was enacted, that " forasmuch as a man cannot put the price of corn and other victuals in certain," the justices should, at Easter and Michaelmas, make proclamation according to the dearth of victuals, how much every mason, carpenter, tiler and other craftsmen, workmen and other labourers should take by the day with meat and drink, or without meat and drink, between the two seasons and " that every man obey to such proclamations from time to time as a thing done by statute." Shoemakers and cordwainers were prohibited from being tanners and vice versa ; artificers and others were restrained from keeping dogs or using ferrets.

 

In the twelfth year of Richard II, writs were sent to all the sheriffs in England to make proclamation for the sending up of the returns from guilds and crafts, called for by the Parliament of Cambridge. The masters and wardens of " guilds and brotherhoods " were required to furnish full information " as to the manner and form of the oaths, gatherings, feasts and general meetings [" the distinction between the `gatherings ' (con gregationes) and ` general meetings ' (assemblies) is seen at a glance in most of the ordinances. The guild brethren were bound to gather together, at unfixed times, on the summons of the dean, for special purposes ; but, besides these gatherings upon special summons, general meetings of the guilds were held on fixed days in every year, for election of officers, holding their feasts," etc. (Toulmin Smith, English Gilds, p. i28)] of the brethren and sistreen " ; also, as to their liberties, privileges, statutes, ordinances, usages and customs ; and to lay before the king and his council their charters and letters patent, where such existed. The words si quas babent (in original) are conclusive, as Smith observes, upon the point, " that no licence nor charter of the crown was necessary to the beginning of any of the social guilds. Any guild might, or it might not, have such charters " (Smith, English Gilds, p. 128).

 

The masters, wardens and overlookers of the mysteries and crafts, who held any charters or letters patent, were in like manner required to exhibit them.

 

XI. In the fourth year of Henry IV, an act was passed prohibiting carpenters, masons (cementers), tilers and other labourers from being hired by the week and forbidding them to receive any wages on feast‑days, or more than half a day's wages when they only worked on the eve of a festival " till the hour of 1Vone " (al beurede None). It is probable that in taking service by the week and receiving wages at the rate of seven days' work, although, from the intervention of the Sabbath and the frequency of festivals, they only worked four or five days in the week, the provisions of former statutes had been effectually frustrated by the labourers.

 

THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS 173 XII. Henry IV, in the seventh year of his reign, 1405‑6, confirmed the Statutes of Labourers ; and the law of 1388, which he made more stringent, by ordering that no one should put his child to serve as apprentice to any craft or other labour within a city or borough, unless he possessed an annual income of zos. from land or rent. Labourers and artificers were to be sworn in their respective leets, once in each year, " to serve and take for their service after the form of the statutes " and any refusing so to do were to be put in the stocks. To facilitate this it was provided that every town or seignory not having stocks should be fined a hundred shillings.

 

XIII. Two statutes, enacted in the reign of Henry V, demand notice. The act of 1414 extended the authority of justices of the peace, by empowering them to send their writs to take fugitive labourers in any county. All the Statutes of Labourers were to be exemplified under the Great Seal; an exemplification was to be sent to every sheriff to make proclamation in full county and deliver it to the justices of the peace named of the quorum, to remain with them for the better execu tion thereof. These justices were to hold their sessions four times a year, and were authorized to examine labourers, servants and artificers, with their masters, upon their oaths.

 

XIV. In 1416, an act was passed limiting the penalties of the 12 Rich. II, c. iv, for excessive wages to the takers only, it being somewhat humorously recited " that the givers, when they have been sworn before the justices of the peace, will in no wise present such excesses to eschew their own punishments." XV. Matters, however, were replaced on the old footing in 1423 and the justices once more empowered to proceed against the masters as well as the servants. They were also authorized " to call before them by attachment masons, carpenters, tilers, thatchers, daubers and all other labourers and to examine them " ; and any of these found to have taken contrary to the laws and ordinances were " to have imprisonment of a month." The same authorities had power to call before them in a similar manner tailors, cordwainers, tanners, bochers, fishers, hostilers and " all other artificers and victuallers " and to assess them under penalties, " to sell and take after the discretions of the justices." This ordinance extended to cities and boroughs as well as counties and was " to endure until the parliament next to come." The preceding chapter or article, which is of considerable importance in this inquiry, was first printed from the Statute Roll in Hawkins' edition, 1734‑5 and, no translation having appeared until 1816, it has not been noticed by the numerous commentators upon the subsequent law of 1425.

 

" The legislature, in the reign of Henry VI," says Reeves (op. cit., vol. ii, p. 5 z8), " as in the time of his two predecessors, was rather employed in furthering and improving the policy of some statutes made in the preceding period, than in intro ducing any novelties." Although legal writers are all of the same opinion as Reeves and, indeed, only notice the statute of 1425, from the fact of its having added to the list of offences punishable as felony ; at the hands of Masonic 174 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS historians it has experienced very different treatment and the speculations to which it has given rise will next claim attention.

 

Before, however, proceeding to examine the glosses of the innumerable commentators who have professed to explain this enactment, it will be convenient to consider a little more closely than hitherto the circumstances of the previous reign, together with any collateral facts that may aid in illustrating the subject of our investigation.

 

The wars of Henry V, however glorious to his arms, placed only a " fruitless crown " upon his head ; and, as it has been well expressed, " the lilies of France were purchased too dearly with the harvests of England." A convincing proof of the devastation made by the sword amongst the gentry is afforded by the language of a statute passed in 142.1 : it states, " that at the making of the act of the 14th of Edward 1110340), there were sufficient of proper men in each county to execute every office ; but that, owing to pestilence and wars, there are not now a sufficiency of responsible persons to act as sheriffs, coroners, and escheators." There cannot be a doubt but that greater numbers of the lower classes perished from the operation of similar causes. Indeed, it has been advanced, that the great drain of men occasioned by Henry V's wars and the subsequent bloody contest between the houses of York and Lancaster, materially contributed to render the whole nation free (Eden, op. cit., vol. i, p. 66).

 

The condition of the realm, at the period of Henry VI's accession, himself an infant, will be best understood by a brief reference to the military operations of the previous reign. Henry V, in 1415, landed near Honfleur at the head of 6,ooo men‑at‑arms and z4,ooo foot, mostly archers and, putting the casualties of war on one side, had lost half his force by disease before the memorable battle of Agincourt. Two years later he was again in France with z5,0oo men and, in 142.1, he levied a new army of z4,ooo archers and 4,ooo horsemen (Hume, vol. iii, pp. 99, 104, 111). The withdrawal of so many men from the kingdom, especially when we consider the sparseness of the population at that period, must have rendered labour even more scarce than it had hitherto been ; and the return to peaceful avocations of any of the soldiery could not have been an unmixed advantage, since the high rate of wages paid by Henry V to his troops (Hume, p. 118; Rymer, Fcdera, vol. ix, p. z58) must have for ever dissatisfied them with the paltry remuneration assessed by the justices, whose scale of payments, indeed, cannot have been one whit more acceptable to the artisans who plied their crafts unmolested by the king's levies.

 

But the drain upon the population of England for soldiers did not cease with the life of Henry V. His brother, the Duke of Bedford, the most accomplished prince of his time, remained in France. The whole power of England was at his command ; he was at the head of armies inured to victory and was seconded by the most renowned generals of his age.

 

At the battle of Verneuil there fell about 4,000 of the French and i,6oo of the English‑a loss esteemed at that time so unusual on the side of the victors, that the Duke of Bedford forbade all rejoicings for his success (Hume, vol. iii, p. 12.0.

 

THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS 175 In the same year, 1424, further levies were drawn from England, though, much to the chagrin of the Duke of Bedford, the succours which he expected from his native land were intercepted by his brother, the Duke of Gloucester and employed in Holland and Hainault.

 

About this period gunpowder had passed into constant use, both in the attack and defence of places. The pieces were called guns and culverins. The first threw stone balls, sometimes 26 inches in diameter ; the second threw plummets or balls of lead. The powder was of a different sort for each. The guns were worked by a master gunner, with varlets under him. Masons and carpenters were attached to them (Lingard, History of England, 184, vol. iv, p. 24).

 

It is noteworthy that the two laws enacted in the Middle Ages against combinations, congregations and chapters of workmen, the 34 Edw. III, c. ix (III) and the 3 Hen. VI, c. i (XVI), were directed against the craftsmen above named and, as a factor at least in our final judgment upon these statutes, must be assumed the possibility of both masons and carpenters having, to some extent, acquired by military service abroad a higher opinion of the rights of labour and of the inherent freedom of every class of artisan to barter the product of their skill or industry for its full money value.

 

XVI. 3 HENRY VI, C. 1, A.D. 1425 Eu primes come par les annuelx con‑ FIRST, Whereas by the yearly Con gregacions et confederacies faitz par les gregacions and Confederacies made by Masons en lour generalx Chapitres as‑ the Masons in their general Chapiters semblez, le bon cours et effect des assembled, the good Course and Effect estatutz de Laborers sont publiquement of the Statutes of Labourers be openly violez et disrumpez en subversion de la violated and broken, in Subversion oú leye et grevouse damage of tout le the Law, and to the great Damage of all commune; nostre Seigneur le Roi the Commons: Our said Lord the King viollant en ces cas purvoir de remedie, willing in this Case to provide Remedy par advis et assent suisditz et a la by the Advice and Assent aforesaid and, especial request des ditz Communes ad at the special Request of the said Comordinez et establiz que tieux Chapitres mons, hath ordained and established, et Congregacions ne soient desore tenuz ; that such Chapiters and Congregations et si ascuns tielx soient faitz soient ceux shall not be hereafter holden ; and, if qi fount faire assembler et tenir iceux any such be made, they that cause such Chapitres et congregacions sils ent soient Chapiters and Congregations to be as convictz adjuggez pur felons ; et que sembled and holden, if they thereof be toutz les autres Masons qi viegnent as convict, shall be judged for Felons ; tielx Chapitres et congregacions soient and that all the other Masons that come puniz par emprisonement de lour corps to such Chapiters and Congregations, et facent fyn et raunceon a la volunte du be punished by Imprisonment of their Roi. Bodies, and make Fine and Ransom at the King's Will.

 

176 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS The first writer who associated this statute with the Freemasons was Dr. Plot, who, in his Natural History of Staffordshire, ridicules the idea of the charges of the Society having been approved by King Henry VI, observing Yet more improbable is it still, that Hen. the 6 and his Council should ever peruse or approve their charges and manners and so confirm these right Worshipfull Masters and Fellows as they are call'd in the Scrole : for in the third of his reigne (when he could not be 4 years old) I find an act of Parliament quite abolishing this Society. Which Statute though repealed by a subsequent act in the 5 of Eliz. (.

 

XIII), 'tis still to be feared these Chapters of Free‑Masons do as much mischief as before, which, if one may estimate by the penalty, was anciently so great, that perhaps it might be usefull to examin them now.

 

The next commentary upon the statute will be that of Dr. James Anderson, who, in 17z', " fault having been found with the old Gothic Constitutions," was ordered by the Grand Lodge " to digest the same in a new and better method." On the performance of his task, " fourteen learned brothers were appointed to examine the MS. and to make report," which proving favourable, the Grand Lodge desired the Grand Master to have it printed ; and, on the 17th January 1723, it is recorded that " Grand Warden Anderson produced the new book of Constitutions, which was again approved." With the book itself is bound up the printed " approbation " of the Duke of Wharton, Grand Master, as well as of the Masters and Wardens of twenty Lodges; whilst, in a graceful dedication to the Duke of Montagu from the pen of Dr. Desaguliers, the learned natural philosopher, the erudition and accuracy of the compiler are especially borne witness to.

 

Dr. Anderson says: "Now, though in the third year of King Henry VI, while an Infant of about four years old, the Parliament made an Act, that affected only the working Masons, who had, contrary to the Statutes for Labourers, con federated not to work but at their own Price and Wages ; and because such Agreements were suppos'd to be made at the General Lodges, call'd in the Act Chapters and Congregations of Masons, it was then thought expedient to level the said Act against the said Congregations : yet, when the said King Henry VI arriv'd to Man's Estate, the Masons laid before him and his Lords the above‑mention'd Records and Charges, who, 'tis plain, review'd them and solemnly approved of them as good and reasonable to be holden : Nay, the said King and his Lords must have been incorporated with the Free‑Alasons, before they could make such Review of the Records ; and, in this Reign, before King Henry's Troubles, Masons were much encourag'd. Nor is there any Instance of executing that Act in that, or in any other Reign since and the Masons never neglected their Lodges for it, not even thought it worth while to employ their noble and eminent Brethren to have it repeal'd ; because the working Masons, that are free of the Lodge, scorn to be guilty of such Combinations ; and the free Masons have no concern in trespasses against the Statutes for Labourers " (Anderson, Constitutions, 1723, pp. 34, 35).

 

The author, or compiler, of the Constitutions adds, in a footnote, that " by THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS 177 tradition it is believ'd that the Parliament‑Men were then too much influenc'd by the illiterate clergy, who were not accepted Masons, nor understood Architecture (as the clergy of some former Ages), yet thinking they had an indefeasible Right to know all Secrets, by vertue of auricular Confession and the Masons, never confessing anything thereof, the said Clergy were highly offended and represented them as dangerous to the State." Dr. Anderson then gives in full the words of the statute‑or rather of its translation‑which he takes from Coke; speaks of the " Congregations and Confederacies made by the Masons in their General Assemblies " ; and cites the opinion of the learned Chief justice, that all the Statutes of Labourers were repealed by the statute of 5 Elizabeth, chapter 4.

 

As Preston and all other Masonic writers, with the solitary exception of Dr. George Kloss (1848), have followed Anderson in their interpretation of this statute, it is unnecessary to repeat the arguments already quoted, but some of the con clusions which have been advanced by independent authorities, whose speculations, though equally erroneous, are less open to suspicion, as being uninfluenced to any appreciable extent by writers of the Craft, may be adduced.

 

Governor Pownall says: " These Statutes of Labourers were repeatedly renewed through several reigns down to Henry VI and as repeatedly disobeyed by the Freemasons, until in the 3 rd of Henry VI an ordinance was, by the advice of the Lords, on the petition of the Commons, made. This statute ascertains these facts : first, that this corporation held chapters and congregations, assuming, as to the regulating of their work and wages, to have a right to settle these matters by their own bye‑laws. The statute declares this to be a subversion of the law of the land and grievous damage to the community; secondly, it ascertains that this body of masons were a set of artists and mechanicks, the price of whose labour and work ought to be regulated by those Statutes of Labourers ; thirdly, instead of dissolving this corporation, which would in effect have acknowledged it as legal prior to such dissolution, it forbids all their chapters and other congregations to be held and declares all persons assembling or holding such to be felons.

 

" This statute put an end to this body and all its illegal chapters and pretences. It should seem, however, that societies of these masons met in mere clubs, wherein continuing to observe and practise some of their ceremonies which once had a reference to their constitutions and to the foundation of powers which no longer existed and were scarcely understood, they only made sport to mock themselves, and by degrees their clubs or lodges sunk into a mere foolish, harmless mummery " (Archaologia, vol. ix, pp. 118, 119).

 

It is greatly to be regretted that this diligent antiquary should have regarded the law of 1425 so decisive of the position he took up, as to render unnecessary a publication of the historical proofs with which he avowed himself prepared. It has been already shown that in the opinion both of Governor Pownall and Hope, the Freemasons were a close corporation under the protection of the Pope, thereby claiming exemption from the Statutes of Labourers, became the subject 178 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS of special legislation in the third year of Henry VI. Indeed, the latter of these authorities maintains that " as soon as, in different countries, a general increase of learning, of industry, or skill, of jealousy in the native sovereigns, of the intrusion of foreigners, to the disparagement of their authority and the detriment of their subjects ; a general corresponding diminution of the papal influence and of the support given by it to Freemasonry, caused the bodies of Freemasons everywhere successively to dissolve, or to be expelled, until they at last ceased to exercise their original profession ; nothing remained of them but an empty name and organization and formulary, which other men laid hold of and appropriated to themselves to carry on and conceal other purposes ; no trace or tradition of their peculiar principles or method continued to be observed " (Hope, Essay on Architecture, PP. 243, 244)ò By other writers stress has been laid on the terms " congregations, confederacies and general chapiters " and, from their employment in the statute, it has been deduced that the body of Freemasons met in one general assembly, which was convoked " after the manner of a chapter." Though, as a sceptical‑or perhaps a less uncritical‑commentator well observes, " if the chapters or assembling of Freemasons had been injurious to the State by fomenting insurrections, it is scarcely probable that such fact would have been totally overlooked, not only by the English historians, but in the statutes " (Dallaway, Discourses on Architecture, p. 427).

 

With regard to the tenor of the series of enactments, of which the law under examination is but an intermediate manifestation, the general meaning and intention of the various regulations comprehensively classed as the " Statutes of Labourers," will have been fairly disclosed by the summary already given. They were designed to repress extortion, to keep down the prices of provisions and restrain the wageearning classes from profiting unduly by the dearth of labour and the necessities of a nascent civilization. That the legislature failed in its laudable aim we can. now perceive, but we should bear in mind that political economy, as at this day we understand it, has only been evolved after a long experience of legislative and economical experiments, amply illustrated in the early history of Great Britain, which in part the statutes under review put very plainly before us. The fanciful interpretation placed upon the law of 1425 by Governor Pownall and Hope will be passed over without further comment but, in the terminology of this statute, there are a few expressions which are worthy of more detailed examination.

 

In the first instance let us consider the phrase, en lour general chapiters assemble! ; in their general chapters assembled‑which, until the authorized edition of the statutes in 18 i o, was almost invariably translated, " in their general chapters and assemblies." Few commentators troubled themselves to consult the original Norman‑French and, as a natural consequence‑even when one did not copy directly from another, as was probably the case in the majority of instances‑the commentary, or annotation, was applied to a garbled or falsified version of the record it professed to explain. Doctors Plot and Anderson, Preston, Dallaway, THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS 179 Findel and, even Kloss, cite the statute and, in each instance, the word assemblies appears. Not to pursue this point to an unnecessary length, it may be observed that perhaps about one‑half of the erroneous conclusions that have been drawn from the verbiage of this enactment, arise out of the substitution of a noun for a participle and it has been too hastily concluded that the language of the " Old Charges " is here reproduced, and that the masons, whose illegal conventions it was the object of the statute to repress, met in precisely the same kind of " general assemblies " as those alluded to in our manuscript constitutions. Whilst, indeed, it is very possible that they did, still the enactment will not bear this construction, except inferentially, and, as it has been already overweighted with the conceits of the learned, it will be best to prefer evidence to conjecture and to content ourselves with an examination of the terms actually employed, rather than waste time in vainly speculating upon the meaning and significance of a form of expression which had its origin in the imagination of the translator.

 

The word " chapters," which occurs in two statutes (III, XVI), describes what in the vernacular were termed conventicles. The latter expression occurs in 1383, in a proclamation of the mayor, sheriffs, and aldermen of the city of London (Riley, Memorials of London, p. 48o) ; again, in 1415, in an ordinance published by the same corporate body ; and, still later, in the fifteenth century, appears in a petition to parliament against an Exeter guild in the twenty‑second year of Edward IV (Smith, English Gilds, p. 3 1 i).

 

" The commission " (of a justice), says Lambard, " gives power to enquire of Conuenticles. Yet unlawful Conuenticles be not all of one sort ; for sometimes those are called Conuenticles wheerin many do impart with others their meaning to kill a man, or to take one another's part in all things, or suchlike " (Eirenaneba, or The Offrces of the Justices of the Peace, edit. 161 o, p. i73).

 

Shakespeare would appear to have had this definition present to his mind, when in Part II of his play, Henry VI, he makes Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, the king's uncle‑on being arrested for treason in the presence of Cardinal Beaufort and other noblemen‑utter the following complaint Ay, all of you have laid your heads together. Myself had notice of your conventicle r And all to make away my guiltless life.

 

The word, in the sense of an " assembly for worship," does not appear in the statutes until 1592‑3, when by the 3 5 Eliz., c. i, persons above the age of sixteen were forbidden to be present " at anye unlaufull assemblies, conventicles, or meetings, under colour or pretence of any exercise of Religion." The view presented is strengthened by the language of two statutes, enacted in 14oo and i 5 zg respectively. The earlier of these (in Latin) is directed against the Lollards, who are charged with making unlawful conventicles (conventicula) and confederacies ; and the other (in English) forbids " artyficers or handycraftes men " from assembling " in any company, felowship, congregacion, or conventycle." 18o THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS Kloss mentions, that by the Golden Bull of the Emperor Charles IV, promulgated in 1371, `.` conspirationes," " conventicula " and kindred associations were forbidden. From the evidence adduced it will become quite clear, that, in 1425, there was an English word in common use‑conventicle‑denoting precisely the same kind of clandestine meeting as those which the statute was enacted to suppress and readers may form their own conclusions, upon the point whether the persons, to whom the phraseology of the statute was entrusted, had in their minds the seditious assemblies of which examples have been given, or whether the term they used had reference to societies, meeting " after the manner of a chapter," which, indeed, are not otherwise mentioned in the statute‑book.

 

The interest pertaining to this statute has been heightened by the common assertion that Henry VI was himself a Freemason. Indeed, Preston carefully records the year of his initiation (Illustrations of Alasonry, 1792, p. 19q) and, in nearly every Masonic work may be seen a singular catechism " concerning the mysterie of ma5onrye, writtene by the hande of Kinge Henrye, the sixthe of the name." Of any real connexion, however, between this Prince and the Freemasons, no trace exists except in the catechism alluded to, which will presently be examined. We are apt to attach an imaginary value to MSS. which have been destroyed, as we are precluded from making a collation of the copy with the original. Most of the documents of the Freemasons are in this melancholy category and, upon the alleged destruction, by Nicholas Stone, of many valuable manuscripts belonging to the society, it has been remarked, " perhaps his master, Inigo Jones, thought that the new mode, though dependent on taste, was independent of science; and, like the Caliph Omar, held what was agreeable to the new faith useless and what was not ought to be destroyed 1 " (Archaologia, vol. xvii, p. 83).

 

Henry's long minority and weakness of understanding when he arrived at more mature years, made him incapable of any character whatsoever, in any relation of life. " Such a King," in the opinion of Daines Barrington, " could possibly be of no other use than that of the Roman Consuls, in the fall of the empire‑to mark the year " (Barrington, Observations on the More Ancient Statutes, p. 416). It has been stated that he was an adept in the science of alchemy (Rymer, Fadera, vol. ii, pt. iii, p. 24) and Sir John Davis says, it was conceived that he had purchased the secret from the famous Raymond Lully (Barrington, op. cit., p. 416). Miracles, indeed, are alleged to have been performed at the tomb of Henry VI, though Widmore says, " that the Court of Rome asked too much for his canonization, so that he never became a complete saint." XVII. In 1427, the Statutes of the twelfth and thirteenth years of Richard II (IX, X) having been pronounced ineffectual, the former as being " too hard upon the masters " and the latter, from the absence of any penalty for wrong‑doing, it was ordained " that the justices of the peace in every county, the mayor of the City of London and the mayors and bailiffs in every city, borough, or town, having such power and authority as justices of the peace have, shall, henceforth, have power and THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS 181 authority to make proclamation in their full sessions, once a year, how much every servant of husbandry shall take for the year next following and that they make two times (deux foit~) proclamation in two sessions, to be holden betwixt the feasts of Easter and St. Michael and in every borough and market town, how much every artificer and workman shall take by the day and by the week : and that every proclamation so to be made, be holden as a thing ordained by statute." Infractions of the law were declared punishable by fine or imprisonment and the justices, mayors, and bailiffs were authorized " to hear and determine such offences and to examine by their discretion, as well such servants, artificers, and workmen, as their masters," to punish offenders, to direct sheriffs to imprison them : " and that all the mayors and bailiffs which be keepers of the peace (queux count Gardeins du pees) in any cities, towns, or boroughs, shall have like power, correction and execution of the [Statute] and of all Statutes of Labourers within the said towns, cities and boroughs, as the justices of the peace have in their counties." This statute has been minutely criticized by Dr. Kloss, who considers that, from its phraseology, certain obscure passages in the Halliwell poem " acquire sense and confirmation." This writer observes, that the justices of the peace had hitherto been the sole assessors of the rate of wages and judges of all offences against the respective statutes‑the sheriffs, bailiffs and their subordinates, the keepers of gaols, being only mentioned as having to execute the warrants, orders, and resolutions of the justices. But, by this new law, besides the justices, the mayor of the city of London, the mayors and bailiffs of every chief city, borough, or county town, all persons of position and rank, are for the first time, empowered to participate in the settlement of the rate of wages and to make proclamation thereof twice a year. Conjointly they are charged to hear and decide all infractions and to issue and grant warrants of arrest, which were to be executed by the sheriff.

 

" At last," says Kloss, " we glean why the Masons were to appear at the general assembly at a certain place once a year, to hear the rate of wages, on account of gret ryolte‑that is, by royal command. We learn the meaning of the presence at the session of the grete lordes, knyghtes, sgwyers and other aldermen, of the meyr of that syte and also of the scheref of that contre, as administrators of the law and what is meant by ruche ordynances as they maken there " (Findel, History of Freemasonry, p. 30).

 

Upon the evidence of this statute, therefore, Kloss contends that the Halliwell poem could not have been written before 1427, nor‑from the testimony presented by a later enactment, presently to be examined‑after 1444‑5.

 

It is no reflection upon Kloss's learning or ability to say that he has altogether failed to grasp the true meaning of this enactment and, thereby, to comprehend the intention of the legislature. The range of his inquiry could hardly be expected to extend over the whole field of English law.

 

The rules by which the sages of the law, according to Plowden, have ever been guided in seeking for the intention of the legislature are maxims of sound interpretation, which have been accumulated by the experience, and ratified by the approbation, of ages.

 

18z THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS First in importance is the consideration, what was the rule at the common law ? " To know what the common law was, before the making of a statute, whereby it may be seen whether the statute be introductory of a new law, or only affirmative of the common law, is the very lock and key to set open the windows of the statute" (z Inst., 301 ; 3 Rep., 13 ; Hob., 83).

 

The language of the enactment under review (XVII) clearly shows that the officials associated with the justices already possessed equal powers with the latter. But who were the justices of the peace ? The peace, in the most extensive sense of the word, took in, perhaps, the whole of the criminal law; and, as most offences were said to be against the peace, all those magistrates who had authority to take cognizance of such offences, might be considered as a sort of guardians of the peace ex officio : such were the king's justices, inferior judges and ministers of justice, as sheriffs, constables, tythingmen, head boroughs and the like (Reeve, History of the English Law, 1869, vol. ii, p. 3z8). Others were conservators of the peace by tenure or prescription. Besides these, extraordinary ones were appointed occasionally by commission from the king. In the first year of Edward III certain conservators of the peace were nominated by the Crown, as auxiliary to those who were such by the titles above mentioned.

 

So beneficial was the establishment of " keepers of the peace " considered by the people, that it became a favourite in the country and was exalted in preference to some institutions that were more ancient (Reeve, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 330).

 

In conformity with many statutes and petitions, commissions were at various times framed, assigning certain persons to execute the powers which the statutes authorized the king to confer. " In the twenty‑fifth of Edward the Third," says Reeves, " by the statute called the statute of labourers, we find that justices were to be assigned for the execution of that act. It is most probable the persons assigned justices to execute this statute were the keepers of the peace " (III). Thus we find, that the justices and their coadjutors in the statute under review, were virtually one and the same class‑that is to say, the former, eo nomine, specially assigned by the king, the latter‑long since keepers, now justices of the peace, virtute officio, being specially reminded of responsibilities, gradually increasing, from the natural tendency of recalcitrant labourers and workmen to seek refuge in the towns. The language of the earlier statutes fully bears out this view ; and, indeed, these, in a definite shape, seem to amount to this‑That the repeated mention of the sheriff, the mayors, the bailiffs, constables, etc., must, by means of the numerous proclamations, have made the lower classes far more familiar with the names of these officials than with those of the new‑fangled " justices " (I, II, IX). The view presented is supported by the absence, in the Halliwell poem, of any reference to the latter. From this fact alone an inference may be deduced the opposite of that drawn by Dr. Kloss, namely, that the presence of " great lords, mayors and sheriffs " points to a fourteenth‑century origin of the poem, as claimed for it by the antiquary who made known its existence.

 

It seems that the " father " of Masonic criticism has here gone wholly off the THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS 183 track. The Halliwell poem, we must assume, was intended for the instruction and guidance of town or of country masons. The entire tenor of this production, the class of persons to whom it was addressed‑far superior in their way to the villeins, the labourers in husbandry and the rude artificers of the shires, the regulations for behaviour at the common meal, all seem to point to its connexion with some urban craft. If this view be accepted, the Statutes of Labourers have very little bearing upon the question at issue. These enactments were especially framed with regard to the powers and wants of the landed proprietors (Brentano, p. xii). In towns, labour was generally regulated by municipal ordinances (IV). Thus in 1350, contemporaneously with the Parliamentary Statute of that year, were ordained by the mayor, aldermen and commonalty of London, various regulations as to wages and prices in the city, " to amend and redress," in the words of the preamble, " the damages and grievances which the good folks of the city, rich and poor, have suffered and received within the past year, by reason of masons, carpenters, plasterers, tilers and all manner of labourers, who take immeasurably more than they have been wont to take" (Riley, Memorials of London, p. 253).

 

A word is necessary as to the position of sherif. Dr. Kloss appears to think that this official received an accession of authority by the law of 1427. Such was not the case. The tourn, the great criminal court of the Saxons, was still presided over by each sheriff in his county; and it was not until 1461, that from what Reeves calls " a revolution in an ancient branch of our judicial establishment," his jurisdiction was restrained (Reeves, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 5).

 

It is possible, indeed, that by some the opinion may be held, that the most ancient of our manuscript charges or constitutions, referred either partly or wholly to country Masons. Taking their view of the case, we are, however, faced by the conclusion of an eminent authority, who believes the " artificers," whom the 25th Edward III and later statutes " expects to flee from one county to another," to have been workmen employed on the country manors of lords. " Each country manor," says Brentano, " had in the Middle Ages its own artificers, who supplied the common wants of their lords, whilst the latter resorted only for their more refined wants to the craftsmen of the towns " (op. cit., Introduction, p. xii).

 

It can scarcely be believed that the masons who plied their trade in remote villages and hamlets at about the early part of the fifteenth century were, either by education or intelligence, capable of comprehending the Halliwell poem had it been rehearsed to them. But, putting conjecture wholly aside and, contenting ourselves with the actual expressions to be met with in that ancient manuscript, one would have expected to find in a document of this character relating to artificers of the counties written between 1427 and 1444‑some reference or allusion to the justices of the peace, whose authority was gradually being extended, by whom, no doubt, many regulations were made which have not survived and who, by charters, letters patent and ordinances of the reigning king‑not entered on the Statute Roll‑must have been constantly charged with the proper execution of the Statutes of Labourers in particular counties where their provisions had been evaded.

 

184 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS XVIII. Although following a common practice, the operation of the enactment just reviewed (XVII) was limited to the end of the next parliament, in the very next statute of this reign it was made permanent. This capitulary consists of twenty nine chapters, which have little connexion with each other‑one only besides that already cited demands our attention. On the complaint of the civic authorities that they had been " grievously vexed and inquieted by colour of an article in the statute of 14o6 " (XII), it was ordained in 1429 " that the ancient manner, form, and custom of putting and taking of apprentices, used and continued in the city of London, be from henceforth kept and observed." Upon this, Dr. Kloss observes, " it justifies the conclusion that the usages and customs of London, as the capital, were either adopted and followed by the rest of the kingdom, or that the Halliwell poem was about this period composed expressly by and for the Londoners " and adds, " that the first assumption obtains increased probability by the law of 15 6z," which definitely fixes a seven years' apprenticeship for the whole kingdom, " according to the custom and usage of the capitalLondon." XIX. In 1437 the king and his parliament applied themselves still more vigorously to mitigate the growing abuses of the craft guilds ; yet, in the very course adopted, we may perceive that the sweeping condemnation of the right of the crafts men to govern their trades by regulations of their own devising (III, XVI) had been ineffectual, as it was now sought to control a system which the legislature was powerless to suppress. Accordingly, on the ground that " the masters, wardens and people of many guilds, fraternities and other companies, make among themselves many unlawful and unreasonable ordinances " of things (inter alia), " which sound in confederacy (sonnent en confederacie) for their singular profit and common damage to the people." All letters patent and charters were required to be exhibited to the justices in counties, or the chief governors of cities, boroughs and towns, without whose sanction no new ordinances were to be made or used and by whom the same could be at any time revoked or repealed (.

 

V). The cumulative effect of these restrictions, at a time‑the middle of the fourteenth century‑when the villeins were rushing in great numbers into the towns, to take up trades, must have prevented a great number‑and in several trades the majority ‑of workmen from themselves becoming independent masters ; thus there arose a real working‑class, with separate views and interests (Brentano, p. 76). In England, the craft guilds gradually hardened into the same narrow‑mindedness as in Germany and France, with the same favours to the sons of masters as regards the term of apprenticeship, entrance fees and, in some cases, of masterpieces (Lyon, History of the Lodge of Edinburgh, p. zo).

 

Ludlow, in what a high authority terms " one of the best papers ever written on trade unions " (Brentano, p. 1oi), has well stated, that " from the moment that to establish a given business more capital is required than a journeyman can easily accumulate within a few years, guildmastership‑the mastership of the masterpiece‑ THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS 185 becomes little more than a name. The attempt to keep up the strictness of its conditions becomes only an additional weight on the poorer members of the trade; skill alone is valueless and is soon compelled to hire itself out to capital." The same writer‑and his commentary is the more valuable, because the masons could no more have been present to his mind's eye than any other class of workmen to which his essay refers‑cites the Act of 136o (III), the earlier of the two enactments mentioning the chapters of the masons and observes : " This statute is remarkable as showing the co‑existence of the two masterships‑that of skill and capital; thus, the ` chief masters ' of carpenters and masons are to receive fourpence a day and the others threepence or twopence, according as they be worth; but every mason and carpenter, ` of whatever condition he be,' is to be compelled by ` his master whom he serves ' to do every work that pertains to him." " Where," continues Ludlow, " as it seems to me, the guild‑masters are designated by the former expression, and the capitalist‑masters by the latter" (Macmillan's Magazine, vol. iii, 1861, p. 315).

 

.

 

. The increasing opulence of the towns, by withdrawing both workmen and labourers from the country, led to further legislation in 1444‑5, when the wages of labourers and artificers were again assessed, those of a " free mason " (,frank mason) or master carpenter being limited to 4d. a day, with meat and drink, and 5d. without and their winter wages to 3d. and 4d. respectively. It is, however, expressed that the same form shall be observed of wages of servants being with hostlers, victuallers and artificers in citees, burghs and elsewhere ; and such as deserve less shall take less and also, in places where less is used to be given, less shall be given from henceforth.

 

The enforcement of this statute was left to the justices of the peace in their counties, who were to hear and determine all offences, to proclaim twice a year all unrepealed Acts of Parliament relating to labourers, artificers, etc. and to punish by fine or imprisonment.

 

Dr. Kloss lays great stress on the circumstance of the execution of this law being solely confided to the justices and considers that the presence of the mayors of cities and other officials named by the Act of 1427 (XVII), having been " silently dispensed with," we are thereby enabled to fix more accurately the period at which the Halliwell poem was written and, as the attendance of these authorities, along with the justices, would, he thinks, have been, to say the least, superfluous, it is assumed, that the words of the manuscript point to an earlier date and that, consequently, it could not have been written after 1444‑5.

 

During the reign of Edward IV very little notice was taken by the legislature of the labouring classes of the community, except by the statutes for regulating apparel. Servants in husbandry, common labourers and artificers, were forbidden to wear any cloth, whereof the broad yard exceeded the price of 2s. The solitary parliament which assembled at the bidding of his brother and successor, enacted that no alien should be a handicraftsman (artificer ou handcraftiman) unless as a servant to the king's subjects.

 

186 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS The accession of Henry VII to the throne may be considered as the commencement of an era of internal tranquillity and industry. The statutes enacted in the reigns of his immediate predecessors, sent in each county to the justices of the peace, for them to proclaim and execute, including those against signs and liveries, routs and forcible entries and, for the regulation of the lower classes, were adequate to their intended purpose and only required to be firmly put into execution. To effect this object, Henry, feeling the futility of merely enacting that the laws should be enforced, without providing a power to compel their enforcement, began by raising the formidable power of the Star Chamber and then proceeded to call upon the local magistracy, under terror of that power, to enforce the laws. The utility of this court is extolled by Lord Bacon and, although even during the age of that historian, men began to feel that so arbitrary a jurisdiction was incompatible with liberty and, as the spirit of independence still rose higher in the nation, the aversion to it increased ; still it is tolerably clear that the establishment of the Star Chamber, or the enlargement of its power in the reign of Henry VII, might have been as prudent as the abolition of it in that of Charles 'I (Reeves, op. cit., vOl. iii, p. 124).

 

The local magistracy were thus strengthened and stimulated to put the laws in execution, more especially those directed against that which was the main mischief of those times, offences of force and violence and combinations or retainers of men for unlawful purposes. The principal of these laws were, first, the statutes against liveries and retainers and, next, those relating to forcible entry. These statutes were enacted prior to Henry's accession and, when Hume says, " there scarcely passed any session during this reign without some statute against engaging retainers and giving them badges or liveries, a practice by which they were in a manner enlisted under some great lord and were kept in readiness to assist him in all wars, insurrections, riots, violences and even in bearing evidence for him in courts of justice," he apparently forgets that they were only in pursuance of older statutes passed in earlier reigns.

 

The subject of liveries has already been noticed and its further examination will now be proceeded with.

 

.

 

I. The stat. i Rich. II, c. vii, recites‑" Because that divers people of small revenue do make great retinue of people, giving to them hats (chaperons) and other liveries, of one suit by year, taking of them the value, or the double value of the same livery, by such covenant and assurance that every of them shall maintain other in all quarrels, be they reasonable or unreasonable." It confirms the statutes against maintenance; forbids, under pain of imprisonment, the giving of liveries for the maintenance of quarrels or other confederacies and directs the justices of assize " to diligently enquire of all them that gather them together in fraternities (en fraterniteZ) by such livery, to do maintenance; and that they which thereof shall be found guilty, shall be duly punished, every man after the quantity of his desert." THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS 187 In 1392‑3 it was further enacted that " no yeoman (yoman) nor other of lower estate than an Esquire, from henceforth shall use nor bear no livery, called livery of company (livere de compaignie), of any lord within the realm, if he be not continually dwelling in the house of the said lord." The earliest of this series, the statute of " Liveries of Hats " (1377), was confirmed in 1396, chapter ii of the Confirmatory Act, ordering‑" Item, that no varlets called yeomen (vadletZ appelle!Z yomen), nor none other of less estate than Esquire, shall use or bear no badge or livery, called livery of company of any Lord within the realm, unless he be menial or continual officer of his said Lord." In the first year of King Henry IV, lords of whatever estate or condition were forbidden to " use nor give any livery of Sign of Company (Signe de Compaigne), to no Knight, Esquire, nor Yeoman, within the Realm and that no valet called yeoman (vadlet appelle_yoman) take nor wear any livery of the King." In the following year this statute was confirmed and certain privileges were conceded to knights, esquires and all above those ranks ; and the Prince of Wales was permitted to " give his honourable livery of the Swan to lords and his menial gentlemen." In 1405‑6 the statutes of 1377 (Livery of Hats) and 1399 were confirmed and f a fine of C5 imposed upon any knight or person of less estate " who gives a livery i of Cloth or Hats " and of 40s. upon the recipient. It also forbids congregations and companies from using any such liveries, " the guilds and fraternities, also the II people of mysteries (gentZ de mestere), of cities and boroughs within the realm " alone excepted.

 

Liveries are once again mentioned in this reign, namely, in 1411, when the statutes passed respectively in the first and seventh years of this King and in the first of Richard II are confirmed.

 

All the statutes in force are recited in a very long enactment, passed early in the reign of Henry VI ; further powers are given to the justices of assize and of the peace; and persons are prohibited from wearing, even at their own cost, liveries for maintenance in quarrels.

 

In 1468 the existing statutes were once more confirmed and every person restrained from giving livery or badge (livre ou signe) to other than his menial servant, officer, or man learned in the one law or the other; and the mayors, sheriffs, bailiffs, or chief officers, who, in particular cities, boroughs, towns, or ports, have authority " to hear and determine pleas personal, are empowered to hear and determine, as well by examination as by trial, all things done " and to put the ordinance in execution. By a subsequent Act of this reign, Edward, Prince of Wales, was empowered to give his livery and sign.

 

.

 

II. The preamble of the act of parliament, by which Henry VII enlarged the power of the Star Chamber, is remarkable and presents a clear picture of the condition of the nation at that period. " The king, our sovereign lord, remembereth how by unlawful maintenances, giving of liveries, signs and tokens, retainers by 188 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS indentures, promises, oaths, writings and other embraceries of his subjects, untrue demeanings of sheriffs in making panels and untrue returns by taking money by juries, by great riots and unlawful assemblies, the policy and good rule of this realm is almost subdued." It will be seen that Henry, so early as the third year of his reign, fully recognized the comparative anarchy of his kingdom. His great object was to enforce the existing laws and put down all power of resistance to the royal authority. This object was steadily pursued throughout the reign.

 

A story of the king's severity is related by Hume (vol. iii, p. 390) which seems to merit praise, though commonly cited as an instance of his avarice and rapacity. The Earl of Oxford, having splendidly entertained him at his castle at Henningham, with all his servants and retainers wearing liveries and badges, Henry thanked him for his good cheer, but said, " I cannot allow my laws to be broken in my sight, my attorney must speak with you." His regard for the laws tended, in this instance, to what Blackstone holds to have been the great and immediate object of all his regulations‑namely, to the emolument of the exchequer, as it is said the Earl paid a composition of 15,000 marks for his offence.

 

.

 

III. The statute enacted in the eleventh year of the king (1495) was a veritable capitulary, consisting of sixty‑five chapters or laws, ranging through sixty‑eight folio pages of the Statutes of the Realm, in which we obtain a foretaste of the appetite for legislation which our ancestors gradually acquired with increasing freedom. Chapter III in the series of 1495 deals with the evils complained of in the preamble of the law of 1487 and speaks of " gevyng and receyvyng of lyverees, signees and tokyns, unlaufully." The preamble of the statute of 1487 (.

 

II) appears to have escaped the research of Masonic historians, but upon identical phraseology, which occurs in the subsequent legislation of 1495, a very singular interpretation has been placed. The signs and tokens have been regarded as signs of recognition and grips of salutation! Even Kloss falls into this error, though, as he himself does not fail to perceive, these essential features of a secret society " must in such case have been usual with many trades." He might, indeed, have gone even further, for it is quite clear that the persons who received the liveries, signs and tokens, mentioned in the statute, were people of all classes, even the lowest ; consequently, therefore, if these expressions were capable of the meaning ascribed to them, secret modes of recognition, by operation of gesture and hand‑shaking, must have been common throughout England in the Middle Ages. English Masonic writers, except of late years, when they have been content to follow the German school, even in the interpretation of their own history, much as they have erred, never got quite so far as this.

 

In the pursuit of Masonic antiquity, possibility rather than probability was their watchword; yet there is such a thing as proving too much and, in the present instance, the identity of the signs and tokens of the Freemasons, with the signs and tokens which it was the object of these early statutes to repress, instead of confirming THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS 189 the Masonic body in the position of superiority it has arrogated to itself, would necessarily drag it down to the level of the meanest persons by whom these modes of recognition were commonly possessed.

 

In his History of Freemasonry‑wherein Findel may be said to have popularized Kloss, although he has lessened the authority of that eminent writer, by intermingling his remarks with those of less critical historians‑the author says, " as in the case of the German stonemasons, so did the English masons at an early period form fraternities or associations, the members of which recognized each other by secret signs and tokens. . . . In 1495, all artisans and workmen were again forbidden to use liveries, signs and tokens " (History of Freemasonry, pp. 78, 80).

 

Of the Tudor policy against liveries, retainers, etc., it has been observed by a learned writer, " nothing indicated more clearly that the elements of society were about to be thrown into new combinations, than the perseverance with which previous statutes against giving liveries and tokens were enforced and with which their deficiencies were made good by new enactments. All the considerable landholders still regarded themselves as chieftains. All their inferiors in their neighbourhood were their retainers, to whom they gave liveries and tokens and who, in other words, wore their uniform and rallied to their standard. A common gift from chief to retainer seems to have been a badge [sign] to be worn in the cap. Thus one of the Stanleys was in the habit of giving to his followers ` the eagle's foot' and one of the Darcies `the buck's head.' These tokens were sometimes of silver and sometimes gilt and were, no doubt, highly prized by those who received them " (L. O. Pike, History of Crime in England, vol. i, p. 7 ; ii, 604).

 

The badge, cognizance, or sign of company, as it was variously termed, served as a recognition and distinction of party, of feudal allegiance and dependency, to both friends and foes. It was worn on the arm or cap. The signs and tokens mentioned in the statute (.

 

III) were badges and cognizances ; badges were the masters' device, crest, or arms, on a separate piece of cloth‑or, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, on silver, in the form of a shield, worn on the left sleeve by domestics and retainers and even by younger brothers, who wore the badge of the elder. This was generally continued till the time of James I, after which it was only worn by watermen and servants of persons of distinction. The royal watermen still wear it. " Cognizanes " were sometimes knots or devices worn in the caps or on the chest, some of the royal servants wore the king's arms both on the breast and on the back. " Reteyndres " appear to have been the agreements, verbal or written, by which the retainers, sometimes called " Retinue," were engaged or retained.

 

.

 

IV. We now approach what is virtually the last in the long series of enactments regulating with extreme precision the wages of labourers and artificers, which presents any features of originality, before the successive laws on this subject were codified by the 5 Elizabeth, c. iv.

 

The wages of artificers were again fixed,‑ a free mason, master carpenter and 1cgo THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS rough mason were to take per day 4d. with diet and 6d. without, between Easter and Michaelmas and, during the rest of the year, 3d. and 5d. respectively. Master masons and master carpenters, taking charge of work and having under them six men, were to receive 5d. with diet and 7d. without. The penalty for taking more was 2os. ; and for giving more, 40S. During the summer half‑year, each workman and labourer was to be at work before 5 a.m., to have half an hour for his breakfast, an hour and a half for his dinner, at such time as sleeping was permitted him; but at other times, then but one hour for his dinner and half an hour for his " none .,neat " (XI). Bricklayers and glaziers are mentioned for the first time.

 

From the words, that " if any of theym offende in any of theis articles, that then their defautes be marked by hym, or his deputie, that shall pay their wages," Kloss infers that we have here officials corresponding with our present foremen and wardens. It may be so ; but whether or not any complete analogy can be established between the two sets of persons, the observation is so illustrative of the commentator's microscopic examination of these, now, happily, obsolete laws, that I have much pleasure in quoting it.

 

.

 

V. In the nineteenth year of the king, on the petition of the commons, that the stat. 15 Henry VI, c. vi (XIX) had expired, it was ordained that masters, wardens and fellowships of crafts or mysteries and the rulers of guilds and fraterni ties, should make or enforce no new ordinances without the approval of the chancellor, a chief justice, three judges of the land, or before both the justices of assize in their circuit.

 

At this point it will be convenient to cast a backward glance upon the two chief statutes aimed at the working masons, viz. the laws of 136o and 1425 (III, XVI) and the later Act of 1437 (XIX). Throughout these there is one common feature‑the desire of the legislature to curb the increasing independence of the craft guilds and to restrain them from passing articles or regulations for their internal government, which were at variance with the course of policy steadily pursued from the reign of Edward III down to that of Queen Elizabeth. It may be convenient, however, at this stage of our inquiry, to consider a little more closely the class, or classes, of persons whose earnings and liberty of action were chiefly affected by the provisions of the long series of laws known as the Statutes of Labourers.

 

These enactments‑though all launched in the furtherance of a common object, the repression of extortion partook, nevertheless, of a mixed character. In general, they seem to have been dictated by the wants of the country districts, whilst those specially referring to practices‑the making of ordinances, the holding of conventicles, and the like‑only possible in towns, or in places where many workmen were assembled, must have been evoked, either by a persistence in these forbidden customs, or by complaints that country artificers, fugitives from their counties, were harboured in the cities, and there admitted to the freedom of their trades. Even in London, where the rules respecting the freedom of the city were very THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS 191 rigid, workmen and labourers, who, in 13 5 3, had left the king's palace at Westminster without leave, were allowed to follow their occupations and this licence was only withdrawn in obedience to a peremptory mandate of the king. In other cities and towns, we may infer that fugitives were similarly received ; and it is, therefore, in the highest degree probable that, wherever a statutory obligation is cast upon the mayors or chief governors of towns to see the laws relating to labourers duly executed ‑except in the few instances to which attention has already been called‑these officials were only required to supplement the duties of the justices in counties, by promptly arresting fugitives and delivering them up for punishment.

 

In the words of a famed historian (Hume, vol. iv, p. z43), " If there were really a decay of commerce and industry and populousness in England, the statutes passed in the reign of Henry VIII, except by abolishing monasteries and retrenching holidays, circumstances of considerable moment, were not in other respects well calculated to remedy the evil." The fixing of the rate of wages was attempted; luxury in apparel was prohibited by repeated statutes ; and probably without effect. The chancellor and other ministers were empowered to fix the price of poultry, cheese and butter. A statute was even passed to fix the price of beef, pork, mutton and veal. Beef and pork were ordered to be sold at a halfpenny a pound, mutton and veal at a halfpenny half a farthing, money of that age (Hume, vol. iv, p. z43) .

 

VI. The first law of this reign with which we are concerned was passed in 1514 and is a re‑enactment verbatim of the Act of 1495 (.

 

III), which we have seen was only in force one year; miners, diggers for coal and makers of glass, alone were exempted from its provisions.

 

Sir George Nicholls says, " The twenty years which had since elapsed seem to have called for no change in the rate of wages then fixed and which differed little from those prescribed in 1444 by the z3 Hen. VI (.

 

) ; so that, after an interval of seventy years, we find no material difference in the rates of remuneration prescribed for labour " (History of the English Poor Law, 1854, vol. i, p. 110).

 

.

 

VII. In the following year, however, " on the humble petycyon of the freemasons, rough masons, carpenters " and other artificers " wythin the Cytie of London " and, in consideration of the heavy expenses to which they were subject, it was enacted that, except when employed on the king's works, the artificers, labourers and their apprentices, working within the city or the liberty of the same, might take the same wages which they had been in the habit of doing prior to the statute of 1514. By the last clause of this Act, the penalty imposed upon the giver of excessive wages by the previous law was repealed.

 

Although the remaining laws enacted in this reign, relating to journeymen, apprentices and artificers, were rather calculated for particular trades and employments, under particular circumstances, some few were of more general import and, therefore, demand attention.

 

192 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS .

 

VIII. The exaction of high fees for the admission of apprentices to their freedom was guarded against. No master was to compel his apprentice to engage by oath or bond not to open a shop ; and, in this, as well as in the previous statute (.

 

VII), the practice of guilds, crafts and fraternities in making " actes and ordynannces," without submitting them for confirmation, is denounced and forbidden.

 

The laws just cited prove that the custom of travelling, or as Dr. Kloss expresses it, " the wandering years of the finished apprentice," was not usual in this country, yet we should go too far were we to assume, from the absence of this distinctive feature in the career of the young craftsman, that, with ceremonies at all resembling those of the French and German journeymen, he must have been necessarily unfamiliar. Journeymen fraternities sprang up in England as in other countries and, though the evidence is not conclusive as to the perpetuation of these societies, the balance of probability seems to affirm it. Dugdale, in his account of Coventry, observes that, in the reign of Henry V, " the young people, viz., journeymen of several trades,‑observing what merry meetings and feasts their masters had by belonging to fraternities and wanting themselves the like pleasure, did of their own accord assemble together in several places of the city, which occasioned the mayor and his brethren in 3 Hen. VI (XVI) to complain thereof to the king, alleging that the said journeymen, in these their unlawful meetings, called themselves St. George his gild, to the intent that they might maintain and abet one another in quarrels, etc. ; had made choyce of a master, etc., to the prejudice of the other gilds " (Antiquities of IYarzvicksbire, 1675, p. 130).

 

In London these organizations met with little favour from the authorities and when, in 1387, three journeymen cordwainers endeavoured to establish a fraternity they were committed to Newgate, having confessed " that a certain friar preacher, `Brother William Bartone 'by name, had made an agreement with their companions and had given security to them, that he would make suit in the court of Rome for confirmation of that fraternity by the Pope ; so that, on pain of excommunication and of still more grievous sentence afterwards to be fulminated, no man should dare to interfere with the well‑being of the fraternity. For doing the which he had received a certain sum of money which had been collected among their said companions " (Riley, Memorials of London, p. 495).

 

In 1396, the serving men oryomen of the trade of saddlers were charged by the masters with having " under a certain feigned colour of sanctity " influenced the journeymen among them and formed covins with the object of raising their wages greatly in excess. Although this fraternity possessed its own livery and had existed for thirteen years, it was suppressed (ibid., p. 542).

 

The same fate befell, in 1415, the brotherhood oryomen taillours, charged with holding assemblies and conventicles (XVI), who were forbidden " to live together in companies by themselves," or to wear an especial suit or livery without permission of the masters and wardens of the trade (ibid., p. 6og).

 

Two years later, however, the brotherhood was still in existence, as they then THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS 193 petitioned the city authorities that the " fellows of that fraternity of yomen " might be allowed to hold annual religious services for the souls of the brethren and sisters deceased and " to do other things which theretofore they had been wont to do." The entry in the records here abruptly ceases, so that the result of this petition does not appear, but it is probable that it was refused.

 

In deciding the question whether there existed special organizations of the journeymen within the crafts, an ordinance of the clothworkers' company is worthy of consideration: " The master, wardens and assistants shall choose the warden of the yeomandry, they shall governe the yeomandry and journymen in such sort as in former times hath been used." Commenting upon this ordinance, Brentano observes : " Were these wardens of the yeomanry the same as the masters who, as in the German gilds, were delegated to the fraternities of journeymen ? And may we therefrom form a conclusion as to the existence of fraternities of like nature in England ? The ceremonies which were customary among the trade unions in the woollen manufacture down to the thirtieth year of the present century, show such a striking similarity to those of the German fraternities of journeymen, that the supposition suggests itself of a derivation of those trade unions from the old journeymen fraternities " (Brentano, p. 95).

 

As militating, however, against this hypothesis, it is contended that, in England, the journeymen were never obliged by the guild ordinances to travel for a certain number of years, whilst, in Germany, and France all journeymen's associations owed their origin to this system of travelling. But, in the first place, there is some evidence that the practice of travelling in search of work was, to say the least, not unknown in England (IX). In 11794 there was a club among the woolcombers and, out of a hundred workmen, there was not one to be found who did not belong to it. Every member had to pay contributions according to the wants of the society and its object was to assist journeymen travelling in search of work when work was scarce, to relieve the sick and to bury the dead members (Brentano, p. 96, note i).

 

" It will be seen," says Brentano, " that the objects of this club were the same as those of the German Gesellenladen and the French compagnons. If we add to this that the just quoted records of ceremonies among trade unions refer to woolcombers also, the suggestion already made seems greatly corroborated ; and the fact that the modern trade unions call the assistance given to members out of work simply donation, the translation of the Geschenk of the German journeymen's fraternities, seems also worth noticing " (Brentano, p. 99).

 

Secondly, the term of apprenticeship extended over a longer period in England than in either France or Germany and, in point of duration, corresponded pretty closely with the stages or gradations through which the foreign craftsman worked his way towards the common goal. Thus the English workman found his preliminary servitude in no respect abridged by the absence of any trade regulation compelling him to travel and whilst, as we have seen (XIX, .

 

VIII), the number of masters was rigorously kept down and the obstacles to attaining freedom of the trade at least as great in the case of English as of foreign artisans (Brentano, p. 86), 194 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS the former, from the very circumstances of their position, that is to say, by the mere fact of a more extended probation, would be induced to form local fraternities for social and trade purposes. That they did so, is matter of history and Stow records the rising of the London apprentices because some of their brotherhood had been unjustly, as they averred, cast into prison and punished (Strype's Stow, 1720, PP‑ 332, 333).

 

During this reign, so great was the number of foreign artisans in the city, that, at least, fifteen thousand Flemings alone were at one time obliged to leave it, by an order of Council. Whatever trade societies or fraternities were in general use on the Continent, must have passed over to this country about the period of the Reformation. It might be imagined, that the foreign artificers who settled in England were least affected by the usages of the trades and preserved greater freedom of action between the period following the abolition of guilds, preceding the enactment of the stat. 4 Eliz., c. v. Inasmuch as, with the exception of the London companies, who purchased exemption from the statutes of spoliation (Herbert, Companies of London, i, p. 114) and, moreover, were at all times specially legislated for (.

 

XII), the ordinances of the craft‑guilds‑invariably directed against the competition of non‑freemen‑were inoperative. Yet such was not the case and, even in London, where the jealousy of foreign workmen was at its height, we find that, owing, no doubt, to their surpassing the English in dexterity, industry and frugality, they were not only tolerated, but, in spite of vexatious laws, attained such a pitch of prosperity as to incur the most violent animosity of their English rivals. There were serious insurrections in 1517 and 1586 and, in 1641, the feeling of exasperation which had been engendered gave rise to a petition to parliament from the London apprentices, complaining of the intolerable hardships to which they were subject, " where we, by coercion, are necessarily compelled to serve seven or eight years at least before we can have the immunity and freedom of this city to trade in those which are mere strangers do snatch this freedom from us and pull the trades out of our hands, so that by these means, when our times are fully expired, we do then begin in a manner to suffer a second apprenticeship to them, who do thus domineer over us in our own trades." A remarkable circumstance of the statutes of Henry VIII is the prodigious length to which they run. " The sense," says Reeves, " involved in repetitions, is pursued with pain and almost escapes the reader; while he is retarded and made giddy by a continual recurrence of the same form of words in the same endless period " (History of the English Lazv, vol. iv, p. 428). Happily, we are but slightly concerned with the further legislation of this reign, which, though of surpassing interest to the general student, bears only indirectly upon the subject of our investigation.

 

.

 

IX. The " small abbeys, priories and other religious houses of monks, canons and nuns " were suppressed in 15 36 ; and, three years afterwards, the dissolution of the larger abbeys and monasteries was decreed by the 31 Hen. VIII, THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS 195 c. xiii, which, as Barrington expresses it, " laid the axe to the root of popery " (Barrington, Observations on the Most Ancient Statutes, p. 507). The preamble of this statute recites a voluntary and free surrender by the ecclesiastical houses and the enactment is, in consequence, added by the same commentator, " without hesitation, to the list of statutes which recite falsehoods " (see Pike, History of Crime in England, vol. ii, p. 68).

 

It is calculated that about fifty thousand persons were wont to lead an idle and useless life in the English monastic institutions and that, by the dissolution of these establishments and the abrogation of clerical celibacy together, about a hundred and fifty thousand persons of both sexes heretofore withdrawn from marriage, were added to the force by which the population is kept up (Nicholl, History of the English Poor Lazy, vol. i, p. i zq).

 

.

 

X. The last remains of superstitious establishments were destroyed by the first statute of the following reign. The i Edw. VI, c. xiv, gave to the king all chantries, colleges and free chapels, all lands given for the finding of a priest for ever, or for the maintenance of any anniversary, obit, light or lamp in any church or chapel, or the like ; all fraternities, brotherhoods and guilds (except those for mysteries and crafts), with all their lands and possessions (Reeves, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 45 6).

 

In support of the position, that the working class in England, as in Germany and France, was completely organized and, even to a certain extent governed itself under the superintendence of the masters, the following statute of this reign, passed in 15 48, has been much relied on .

 

XI. 2 AND 3 EDWARD VI, CHAPTER XV, A.D. 1548 An Acte tozvchinge Victuallers and Hand ycraftes men FORASMUCHE as of late dayes diverse sellers of vittayles, not contented withe moderate and reasonable gayne but myndinge to have and to take for their vittayles so muche as lyste them, have conspyred and covenanted together to sell their vittells at unreasonable price ; and lykwise Artyficers handycraftsmen and laborers have made confederacyes and pmyses [promises], and have sworn mutuall othes, not onlye that they shoulde not meddle one withe an others worke, and pforme [perform] and fynishe that an other hathe begone, but also to constitute and appoynt howe muche worke they Shoulde doe in a daye, and what howers and tymes they shall worke, contrarie to the Lawes and Statutes of this Realme, to the greate hurte and ympoverishement of the Kinges Majesties Subjectes.

 

i. For Reformacon thereof it is ordeyned and enacted by the Kinge our Soveraigne Lorde the Lords & Comons in this present Parliament assembled, and by thauctoritie of the same, that yf any Bochers, Bruers, Bakers, Poulters, Cooks, Costerdmongers, or Frewterers, shall at any tyme from and after the first daye of Marche next comynge, conspire coven ante promyse or make any othes that they shall not sell their vittelles but at certan prices ; or yf any. Artificers Workemen 196 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS or Laborers doe conspire covenante or promyse together or make any othes that they shall not make or doe their workes but at a certeyne price and rate, or shall not enterprice or take upon them to fynishe that another hathe begonne, or shall doe but a certen worke in a daye, or shall not worke but at certen howers and tymes, that then everie person so conspiring cavenantinge swearinge or offendinge beinge laufullye convicte thereof by witnes confession or otherwise, shall forfeyt for the first offence tenne pounds to the King's Highness, and yf he have sufficient to paye the same and doe also paye the same within sixe dayes next after his conviccion, or ells shall suffer for the firste offence twentie dayes ymprisonment, and shall onely have bread and water for his sustenance ; and for the seconde offence shall forfeyt twentie poundes to the Kinge, yf he have sufficient to paye the same and doe pay the same within sixe dayes next after his conviccion, or ells shall suffer for the seconde offence punyshement of the pillorye ; and for the third offence shall forfeyt fourtye pounds to the Kinge, yf he have sufficient to paye the same and also doe paye the same within sixe dayes next after his conviccion, or ells shall sytt on the pillorye and lose one of his eares, and also shall at all tymes after that be taken as a man infamous and his sayinges, deposicons or othe, not to be credyted at anye tyme in any matters of judgement.

 

And yf it fortune any suche conspiracye covenante or promyse to be had and made by any socyetie brotherhed or companye, of any crafte mysterie or occupacion of the vyttellers above menconed, withe the presence or consent of the more parte of them, that then ymediatly upon suche acte of conspiracy covenante or promise had or made, over and besides the particular punyshment before bythisacteappoynted for the offendor, their corporacion shalbe dissolved to all intents construccions and purposes.

 

2. And it is further ordeyned and enacted by the authoritie aforesaide, that all and singuler justices of Assise Justices of Peace Maiors Bayllies and Stewards of Leets at all and everye their Sessions Leets and Courts, shall have full power and auctoritie to enquyre heare and determyne all and singuler offences comytted againste this Statute, and to punyshe or cause to be punyshed the offendor accordinge to the tenor of this Estatute.

 

3. And it is ordeyned and enacted by thauctorite aforesaid, that noe pson or psons shall at anye tyme after the firste daye of Aprill next comynge, interrupte denye lett or disturb any Fremason roughmason carpenter bricklayer playsterer joyner hardhewer sawyer tyler pavyer glasyer lymeburner brickmaker tylemaker plumber or laborer, borne in this Realme or made Denizon, to worke in anye of the saide Crafts in anye cittie Boroughe or Towne corporate withe anye pson or psons that will retain him or them ; albeit the sayde pson and psons so reteyned or any of them doe not inhabyte or dwell in the Cittie Boroughe or Towne corporate where he or they shall worke, nor be free of the same Cittie Boroughe or Towne ; any Statute, Lawe, Ordeynaunce, or other thinge whatsoever, had or made to the contrarie in any wise notwithstandinge ; and that uppon payne of forfeyture of fyve pounde for everie interrupcion or disturbaunce done contrarie to this estatute, THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS 197 the one moytie of everye suche forfeyture to be to the Kinge, and thother moytie therof to be to him or them that will sue for the same in anye of the Kings Courts of Recorde by bill pleint accion of dett or informacion wherin noe wager of lawe essoyne not protection shal be allowed.

 

This enactment forms the last link in the chain of statutes relating to combinations and confederacies to enhance the wages of labour, which it is the purpose to review (III, XVI, XIX, .

 

V). In the opinion of Sir George Nicholl, the restric tions which the legislature endeavoured to put down " were imposed on workmen by the artisans themselves, prescribing who should and who should not work, the quantity of work which each man should perform and the particular times he should be employed " (Nicholl, op. cit., vol. i, p. 13 8). A contrary interpretation is, however, placed on the act by Brentano, who contends that as all regulations forbidden in the statute recur frequently in the by‑laws of companies, they origin ated quite as much in agreements of masters as of workmen. " Moreover," he continues, " whilst the word labourer certainly does not refer to the skilled workmen of the crafts and, probably, to servants in husbandry only, the prohibition of confederacies of artificers and handicraftsmen is directed as much against the masters as against the workmen of the crafts. And the Act forbids, in the same breath with the confederacies of the craftsmen in general, all conspiracies of ` divers sellers of victuals ' for raising prices. The act, therefore, does not refer at all to combinations similar to those of our working men of the present day, but is simply an attempt to check the increasing abuses of the craft gilds and this especially in the trades providing for men's daily wants, where such abuses would be felt most keenly " (Brentano, p. 94).

 

.

 

XII. The fourth clause of this statute (.

 

XI) was repealed in the following year, on the ground that it bore with undue severity upon the artificers and craftsmen of the city of London, whence it has been erroneously concluded that the legislation of 1549 referred solely to the metropolis. The stat. 3 and 4 Edw. VI, c. xx, first recites in full the particular section of the earlier enactment which it is intended to repeal, and continues And Forasmuche as in the Cittie of London beinge the Kinges chambre and most auncyent Cittie of this Realme, the Artificers and Crafts men of the Artes crafts and mysteries aforesaide are at greate costs and charges, as well in bearinge and payinge of Taxes tallages subsidyes Scott lott and other charges, as well to the Kings Majestie as to the saide Cittie, and at manye and sondrye tryumphes and other tymes for the Kings honor, and that yf forrens sholde come and worke amongst them within the libtyes of the said Cittie contrarye to their auncyent priveleges, that the same shoulde be a great decay of conynge, and an ympoverishment and drivinge awaye of the free men being Artificers of the Crafts artes and mysteries aforesaide within the saide Cittie of London, to the great hurte or destructyon of the saide Cittie : For reformacion whereof the Kings Majestie ys pleased and contented that it be enacted by thauctoritye of this present parlia‑ 198 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS ment withe the assent of the Lords Spirituall and temporall and of the Comons of this present parliament assembled, that the saide Acte, onely touchinge the article and clause aforesaide and all and everie sentence and braunche conteyned in the .side Acte concemynge the same Article, shall from henceforthe be resumed repealed adnulled revoked adnichilated and utterlye made voyde for ever: Anye thinge conteyned in the saide former Acte towchinge the Clawse or Article aforesaide to the contrarie notwithstandinge.

 

A later chapter of the same statute requires every person who has three apprentices in the crafts of clothmen, weavers, tailors and shoemakers, to keep one journeyman.

 

.

 

XIII. The Statutes of Labourers, which had been accumulating from the time of Edward III, but had been in general too oppressive to be executed, were codified by the 5 Eliz., c. iv and made applicable to all the trades then existing. It is, in fact, a selection from all the preceding enactments on the subject of labour ; those provisions deemed useful being retained, others modified and the rest repealed (Nicholl, op. cit., vol. i, p. 157).

 

The persons affected by it may be divided into four classes‑artificers, menial, servants, labourers and apprentices. The following is an abstract of its provisions 3, 4. No one shall be retained for less than a year in certain trades (Scyences, Craftes, Mysteries, or Artes) and every person unmarried and every married person under thirty years of age, brought up in the said trades, or having exercised them for three years, not having lands of clear 40s. per annum, nor goods to the value of úio and so allowed by two justices, or the mayor or head officer of the peace where he last dwelt for a year; nor being retained already in husbandry, or the above trades, nor in any other; nor in service of any nobleman, gentleman, or other; not having a farm whereon to employ himself in tillage; such person shall serve in the trade he has been brought up in, if required.

 

5. No person shall put away such servant, nor shall the servant depart unless for reasonable cause to be allowed before two justices, the Mayor, or other chief officer.

 

12, 13. Respecting artificers and labourers being hired for wages by the day or week, certain orders are made about their time of work and rest ; and as to those " retained in and for the building or repairing of any church, house, ship, mill, or every other piece of work taken in great, in task, or in gross, or that shall hereafter take upon him to make or finish any such thing or work, shall continue and not depart from the same, unless it be for not paying their wages," or without licence of the master or owner of the work, or of the person having charge thereof, before finishing, under pain of a month's imprisonment, and forfeiture of 'C5.

 

I5‑19. As to the wages, whether of servants, labourers, or artificers, either working by the year, day, or otherwise, they are to be settled yearly at the Easter sessions, by the Justices of the Peace, within the limits of their several commissions, " the Sheriff of that county, if he conveniently may, and every Mayor, Bailiff, or other THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS 199 head officer within any city or town corporate, wherein is any justice of the Peace " (XVII, .

 

), to be certified on parchment to the chancellor and afterwards proclaimed on market‑day and fixed up in some open place. Persons giving more wages than allowed by the proclamation are to be imprisoned ten days ; and those taking more, twenty‑one days.

 

Zz. The justices, also the Constable, upon request, may compel such artificers and persons " as be meet to labour," to serve in harvest of hay or corn, in mowing and reaping ; and if any refuse, he is to be put in the stocks for two days and one night.

 

z6. Every householder, being twenty‑four years of age, living in a city or town corporate and exercising any art, mystery, or manual occupation, may have the son of any freeman, not occupying husbandry, nor being a labourer and living in that or some other city or town corporate, as an apprentice, after the custom of London, for seven years at least, so as the term do not expire before the apprentice shall be of the age of twenty‑four years.

 

27. Merchants not to take apprentices, except their own sons and those whose parents possess an estate of freehold, of the annual value of 40s.

 

z8. In market towns not corporate, any householder of twenty‑four years old, exercising any art, mystery, or manual occupation, may have as apprentice the child of any other artificer, dwelling in any market town in the same shire.

 

3o. The son of any person, though his father has no lands, may be put apprentice to a smith, wheelwright, plough‑wright, mill‑wright, carpenter, " roughe mason," plasterer, sawyer, lime‑burner, brckmaker, bricklayer, tiler, slater, " healyer," tile‑maker, linen‑weaver, turner, cooper, miller, earthen‑potter, woollenweaver, fuller, burner of ore and thatcher or shingler.

 

31. To encourage this kind of service, it was further enacted, that no one shall exercise any craft, mystery, or occupation, then used, or occupied within the realm of England or Wales, except he shall have been brought up therein seven years at the least as an apprentice, nor set any person on work in the same, except an apprentice, or one who, having served as an apprentice, becomes a journeyman, or is hired by the year.

 

33. Every cloth‑maker, fuller, sheerman, weaver, tailor, or shoemaker, having three apprentices, shall retain and keep one journeyman; and for every apprentice above three, one other journeyman.

 

3 S . Any person required by a householder to become an apprentice in husbandry, or in any other kind of art, mystery, or science, may, upon refusal to serve, be committed to ward till he consents, but 36. No person shall be bounden to enter into any apprenticeship, other than such as be under the age of twenty‑one years.

 

40. The citizens and freemen of London and Norwich may take, have and retain, apprentices there, in such manner and form as they have previously done. The Statute of Apprentices (.

 

XIII), though requiring in very unequivocal words, a seven years' apprenticeship, in all trades then followed in England, where‑ 200 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS soever they should be carried on, has been held to extend only to cities and markettowns and that a person may exercise as many trades as he pleases in a country village, although he has not served a seven years' apprenticeship to each ; also that a man who had been duly apprenticed, might go anywhere and was not compelled to practise his trade only where he happened to have been apprenticed (Reeves, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 594).

 

The strict limitation of the statute to such trades as were established in England before the 5th of Elizabeth, gave rise to some singular distinctions. For example, a coachmaker could neither himself make, nor employ journeymen to make, his coach‑wheels and was compelled to buy them of a master wheelwright ; the latter trade having been exercised in England before the 5th of Elizabeth. But a wheelwright, though he had never served an apprenticeship to a coachmaker, might either himself make, or employ journeymen to make, coaches ; the trade of a coachmaker not being within the statute, because not exercised in England, at the time it was made.

 

So long, however, as the regulations of the Statute of Apprentices were maintained, the position of the journeymen was secure and, whilst obtaining what they chiefly desired‑regularity of employment and in the time of plenty " a con venient proportion of wages," the hours of employment were not excessive and the restrictions as to apprentices prevented skilled workmen from being degraded to the level of common labourers (Brentano, p. 104).

 

To the non‑observance, indeed, of these regulations has been attributed the origin of trade unions, which appear to have succeeded the craft guilds, very much in the same manner as the latter were formed by the free handicraftsmen, as barriers against the aggressions of the more opulent guild members (Brentano, p. 131).

 

It is highly probable that, for the earliest appearance of this new organization, we must consult the records of the building trades (1II, XVI) ; but the subject, though deeply interesting, lies beyond the scope of our present inquiry.

 

Returning to the stat. 5 Eliz., c. iv, one clause, the 3oth, demands further attention. It enumerates many varieties, or branches, of a single trade, e.g., smith, wheelwright, plough‑wright, mill‑wright ; brickmaker, bricklayer; tiler, slater, healyer, tilemaker and shingler ; yet, although in previous statutes the term Freemason occurs, we here find a solitary definition, rough mason, representing the class either of stone workers or cutters, to whom apprentice could be bound. The omission from the statute, of the appellation by which the superior of the two divisions of masons was commonly described, is curious and perhaps significant. It may point to the several uses of the word Freemason, becoming gradually absorbed within that one having special reference to freedom of the trade. On the other hand, the explanation may simply be, that cutters of free‑stone were, comparatively, so limited in number as to render any notice of their craft or industry, in the statute, inexpedient or unnecessary. Yet, if the latter solution be accepted, why the wearisome changes which are rung upon the varieties of the tiler's trade, in the same clause of the Act ? Brewer, quoting the stat. 6 Hen. VIII, c. iii (.

 

VI), speaks THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS 201 of " superior workmen, or freemasons " (Letters and Papers, etc., temp. Henry TV111, vol. i, 1862, preface, p. cxii). The word in the same sense is used by a high authority, who says : " Every kind of artisan's work, if on an extensive scale, was superintended by a master in the craft‑he is the master carpenter of the freemason " (J. E. T. Rogers, History of Agriculture and Prices in England from ‑1z59 to 1793 (1886), vol. i, p. 509).

 

Had the generic term " masons " been used by the framers of the statute, the inference would be plain‑that it referred to both the superior and the inferior classifications of the trade ; but the employment of the expression rough mason, in a code, moreover, so carefully drawn up, almost forbids the supposition that it was intended to comprise a higher class of workmen, and rather indicates that the term Freemason‑as already suggested,‑though, perhaps, in common or successive use, applied to denote a stonecutter, a contractor, a superior workman, a passed apprentice or free journeyman, and a person enjoying the freedom of a guild or company, had then lost‑if, indeed, it ever possessed‑any purely operative significance and, if for no other reason was omitted from the statute, as importing a sense in which it would have been generally misunderstood.

 

According to Brentano, " Wherever the craft gilds were legally acknowledged, we find foremost, that the right to exercise their craft and sell their manufactures depended upon the freedom of the city " (Gilds, p. 131).

 

A pamphlet of the year 1649, referring to the constitution of the Clothworkers' Company, as amended in the twenty‑third year of Henry VII and then existing, presents an interesting picture of the classes or gradations into which this association was divided.

 

" The first degree was Apprentices of the Craft. These were not to take wages, or work journey‑work, by their Ordinances.

 

" The second degree was Freemen ; they presented, admitted to work by journeys, or journey‑work. These sometimes called the Yeomandry ; some times, the Company of Batchelors. They entred Bond not to worke with any Forraigner, but with Freemen of the Craft and this was according to their Ordinances too.

 

" The third degree was Householders they admitted.

 

" The fourth degree was a Livery of Cloathing, such as wore Gown and Hood. This was called the fellowship.

 

" The fifth degree was Warden.

 

" All were under the government, rule and punishment of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen for the time being. Such as rebelled were bound in recognizance to the Mayor's Court." 201 202 CHAPTER IX APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS AMONGST the documentary evidence that has been adduced in support of the high antiquity of the Masonic Craft, there is one kind which demands more than a passing notice, viz. the series of fabricated writings and charters ‑‑often distinguished by a strong family likeness‑relied upon at different periods and in different countries to establish claims of a varied character, but marked by the common feature of involving in their settlement the decision of important points having a material bearing upon the early history of Freemasonry.

 

Two of the manuscripts examined in this chapter are grouped by Krause amidst " the three oldest Professional Documents of the Brotherhood of Freemasons " ; whilst of a third (the Charter of Cologne), Kloss aptly remarks that, if authentic, all Masons, subsequent to 1717, have resorted to spurious rituals, customs and laws.

 

There are six documents in particular which fall within the category of Apocryphal Manuscripts. These will be considered according to priority of publication, with the exception of the Larmenius Charter (181 o), with which, being only indirectly Masonic, the chapter will conclude.

 

I. THE LELAND‑LOCKE MS.

 

This document cannot be traced before 1753, in which year it was published in the Gentleman's MagaZine, being described as a copy of a small pamphlet printed at Frankfort in 1748. It is headed‑" Certayne Questyons, with Awnsweres to the same, concernynge the Mystery Of MACONRYE ; wryttenne by the hande of Kynge HENYRE, the Sixthe of the Name and faythfullye copyed by me JOHAN LEYLANDE, ANTIQUARIus, by the commaunde of his Highnesse." [Henry VIII, by whom Leland was appointed, at the dissolution of the monasteries to search for and preserve such books and records as were of value.] The following is an abstract of this catechism " The Mystery of Maconrye " (i.) is expressed to be " the Skylle of nature ; " (z.) " Ytt dyd begynne with the fyrste menne in the Este ; " (3 .) "The Venetians [Phenicians] dyd brynge ytt Westlye ; " (4.) " Peter Gower [Pythagoras], a Grecian," in his travels, " Wynnynge entraunce yn al Lodges of Maconnes, and becommynge a myghtye Wyseacre, framed a grate Lodge at Groton [Crotona], and maked manye Maconnes, some whereoffe dyde journeye yn Fraunce, wherefromme the arte passed yn Engelonde ; " (5 .) " Maconnes hauethe communycatedde to Mannkynde soche of her Secrettes as generallyche myghte be usefulle," keeping back such as might zoz APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS 203 be " harmefulle " in improper hands, including " soche as do bynde the Freres more strongelyche togeder, bey the Proffytte, and commodytye commynge to the Confrerie herfromme ; " (6.) amongst the " Artes " taught by the " Maconnes " to " i\‑Ian. kynde " are " Agricultura, Architectura, Astronomia, Geometria, Numeres, Musica, Poesie, Kymistrye, Governmente and Relygyonne ; " (7.) the " Maconnes " are such good teachers, because they possess the " Arte of fyndynge neue Artes, whyche the ffyrste Maconnes receaued from Godde ; " (8.) " Thay concelethe the Arte of kepynge Secrettes, of lFunder?verckynge, of fore sayinge thynges to comme, of chaunges the Wey of Wynnynge the Facultye of Abrac, the Skylle of becommynge gude, and the Universelle Longage of Maconnes ; " (9.) those in search of instruction will be taught if found worthy and capable of learning ; (io.) masons enjoy special opportunities for the acquisition of knowledge; (i i.) " yn the moste Parte, thay be more gude then thay woulde be yf thay war not Maconnes ; " and (I2.) they love one another " myghtylye, for gude Menne and treu, kennynge eidher odher to be soche, doeth always love the more as thay be more Gude." According to Dallaway the passage (S) quoted " seems to authorize a conjecture that the denomination of Free‑masons in England was merely a vernacular corruption of the FRERES‑MACRONS established in France." But the same writer freely admits that the view thus expressed is not borne out by their appellation on the Continent; which he gives as follows : " Frey‑Maureren, German; Liberi Muratori, Italian; Fratres Liberales, Roman ; Franc‑macrons, French ; Fratres Architectonici, lllodern Inscription " (Discourses upon Architecture, p. 434). If, in the adoption of a similar derivation for the word Freemason without the concluding reservation‑Fort (Early History and Antiquities of Freemasonry, pp. 192, 437) in 1876 and the Rev. A. S. Palmer (Folk‑Etymology, a Dictionary of Verbal Corruptions) in i882, have leant on the authority of Dallaway, as seems probable in the first instance and possible in the second‑the speculations of these two writers rest upon no other foundation than the verbiage of the literary curiosity which is being examined in the text.

 

It will be seen that many of the pretensions advanced in this interlocutory discourse‑which are put forward by the dialogist, who replies to questions addressed him by an inquirer‑conflict with the tenor of the ordinary Masonic documents.

 

Prefacing the catechism is a letter [expressed to be] from the learned Mr. John Locke, to the Right Hon. [Thomas] Earl of [Pembroke], (the names are not given in the Gentleman's ilfagaZine and were filled in by a subsequent copyist), bearing date 6th May, 1696 [Sunday]. The philosopher states that, by the help of Mr C[olli]ns, he has, at length, procured a copy of that MS. in the Bodleian Library, which the Earl was anxious to see and adds The MS., of which this is a copy, appears to be about i6o years old; yet it is itself a copy of one more ancient by about ioo years, for the original is said to be in the handwriting of K. Henry VI. Where that prince had it, is at present an uncer tainty; but it seems to me to be an examination (taken perhaps before the king) of some one of the brotherhood of masons; among whom he entred himself, as 'tis said, when he came out of his minority, and thenceforth put a stop to a persecution zoo APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS that had been raised against them (Dallaway, Discourses upon Architectitre, p. 429; Masonic Magazine, October 1878, p. 148 ; Notes and Queries, 4th series, 1869, vol. iv, p. 45 5).

 

Locke then goes on to say that " the sight of this old paper " has so raised his curiosity as to induce him to " enter the fraternity the next time he goes to London " ; and, if we believe Preston, " the favourable opinion this philosopher conceived of the Society of Masons before his admission, was sufficiently confirmed after his initiation! " (Illustrations of Masonry, 1792, P‑ I 6z).

 

Notwithstanding the suspicious circumstances connected with its first appearance in this country, the MS. was very generally accepted as an accredited document of the Craft and is given in extenso in most of the Masonic works‑including the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England‑published during the last half of the eighteenth century. The first critic who exposed its pretensions was Lessing, in his Ernst and Falk (1778) and, though the document was considered to be a genuine one by Krause and Fessler, later German writers‑including Kloss, Keller, and Findel‑regard it as a palpable fraud and wholly unworthy of the critical acumen which has been lavished upon its simulated antiquity.

 

A learned writer has observed the orthography is most grotesque and too gross ever to have been penned either by Henry the Sixth or Leland, or both combined. For instance, we have Peter Gowere, a Grecian, explained in a note by the fabricator‑for who else could have solved it ?‑to be Pythagoras ! As a whole, it is but a clumsy attempt at deception and is quite a parallel to the recently discovered one of the first Englishe Mercurie (Halliwell, op. cit., p. 43)ò It remains to be noticed that, among the Masonic annalists of modern times, there yet lingers a solitary believer in the credibility of this MS. " A careful examination of the pamphlet," says Fort, " convinces me that it is genuine and entitled to full credence " (Fort, p. 417). Yet few, perhaps, will be in agreement with this brilliant writer, when he states that " whoever wrote the document in question was profoundly learned in the secrets possessed by the Craft"; inasmuch as the extent to which this nameless fabulist was versed in the arcana of Masonry, can only be determined approximately by a perusal of the mysterious document‑which all authorities, except Fort, concur in regarding as an impudent forgery. A possible conclusion is, that the catechism must have been drawn up at some period subsequent to the publication of Dr. Anderson's Constitutions ; and it is not improbable that the memoir of Ashmole, given in the Biographia Britannica (1747) may have suggested the idea of practising on the credulity of the Freemasons.

 

II. THE STEINMETZ CATECHISM This curious document derives whatever importance it may possess to the use that has been made of it by Fallou and writers of this school, who dwell at length upon the resemblance‑which, in their eyes, it bear's‑to the examination of an entered APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS 205 apprentice Freemason. This conclusion has been arrived at, in the case of the original German text, by persistently ignoring the ordinary as well as the technical meaning of words peculiar to the trade. The Englisb version has endured a similar maltreatment, aggravated, it may be observed, by the inherent defects of a faulty translation.

 

The earliest publication of this catechism appears to have been that of Schneider (Konstitutions Bucb der Loge Arcbimedes, Altenburg, circa 1803, p. 144), who says, " that he obtained it from operative masons in Altenburg after much trouble, on account of the secresy they maintain." From some notes of Krause (Die drei Aeltesten Kunsturkunden, vol. ii, pt. ii, p. 2 5 8), it would appear that Schr6der and Meyer both possessed manuscript exemplars of this examination, but he does not state whether they ever published them. He himself gives us a copy of Schneider's version and, bearing in mind his scrupulous veracity and conscientious exactitude, we may take this to be a literal transcript of the earliest published form.

 

From Schneider it was copied by Stock (Grundzuge der Verfassung, etc.) and from the latter by Berlepsch (Cbronik der Gewerbe). Fallon (Mysteries der Freimaurer, pp. 363‑5), in giving it, remarks that he has before him one manuscript and two printed copies : the printed copies were probably those of Stock, Krause, or Schneider, so that we are again reduced to Schneider's authority;, as to the MS. he does not say how or whence he obtained it. Findel gives it in the appendices to his History of Freemasonry and Steinbrenner (Origin and Early History of Masonry, p. 146) presents us with an English translation immediately following the " Examination upon entrance into a Lodge," from the Grand Mystery of Free‑masons discovered, declaring " The one is a counterpart. of the other." With the greatest desire to appreciate the full bearing of his argument, it is not possible to see more resemblance than this, viz. that they are both in dialogue form. Finally we find the examination published once more in the Masonic Magazine for February 1882, this time giving the German and English versions in parallel columns.

 

Its antiquity is a difficult matter to determine. To judge by the orthography and construction, it seems to be quite modern‑say eighteenth century: but it is evident that Schneider may have taken it from the mouth of an eighteenth‑century workman and the absence of all archaic expressions and spelling would thus be accounted for. Again, the fact of its being the examination of a Salute‑Masonas distinguished from a Letter‑Mason‑points to a date subsequent to the fusion of the Steinmetzen with the bricklayers and others ; though, on the other hand, it may have been communicated to these new bodies by the old Steinmetzen and slightly altered to suit the circumstances. Steinbrenner, however, is certainly not justified in calling it the " Examination of a German Steinmetz during the Middle Ages " ; he adduces no proof of such a high antiquity; and disproof of course is equally wanting. The age of the catechism becomes, therefore, a matter of conjecture rather than of opinion. The document may be of recent origin, or a survival of something more ancient; though in its present form it is, without doubt, of quite modern date.

 

zo6 APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS It has already been observed that the English translation is faulty. By this a false impression is occasioned. The catechizer is denominated throughout " War den." The German word is Alt gesell, denoting properly the " old fellow," or " Elder," viz. the elected officer of a journeymen fraternity, not a " Warden," who was appointed by the Master to preside over the lodge.

 

This slight but important correction transfers the scene of action from the stonemasons' " lodge " to the journeymen's " house of call." In Germany the craft guilds ultimately divided into two bodies, one being formed of masters, the other of journeymen or gesellen. The latter chose one or more of their own class to preside at their meetings (Altgesell). The Steinmetzen, who did not divide into two bodies, were presided over by the Werkmeister ; who appointed his " parlierer, pallierer, or polir," as the expression has been differently rendered. He was the Master's alter ego, his overseer and the word will rightly bear in English the sense of Warden. The following distinction may, therefore, be drawn. The " parlierer " or " warden " was appointed by the Master's sole authority‑the Alt gesell or " Elder " was elected by his fellows‑and the latter term will not bear the construction (Warden) that has been placed upon it.

 

The next point which claims attention is the singularity of the reply made to the query‑" for what purpose " the " stranger " is travelling ?‑the answer being (in the English version) " for honourable promotion, instruction, and honesty." The word " promotion " has a peculiar significance and at once suggests the idea of there being a series of degrees to be conferred. The German word is Beforderung‑literally advancement and figuratively promotion. But a closer examination of the subject reveals the fact that that term has been and still is the only one used by German workmen of all trades to signify employment. A scavenger or chimneysweep, equally with a SteinmetZ, was and is befordert by his employer. The expression probably grew out of the practice of journeymen working under a master for a few days, whereby they were enabled to earn sufficient money to carry them to the next town. They were, in fact, furthered or advanced, but in no sense promoted. We are next informed that " instruction and honesty " are the " usages and customs of the craft." What answer more natural from a workman ? He travels for instruction, i.e. to acquire the technics or usages of the craft; and his honesty consists in maintaining its peculiar customs and obeying its statutes. But, again, in this instance, the translation is imperfect.

 

Honesty in German is Ehrlichkeit ; whilst the word here used is Ehrbarkeit, indicating that peculiar quality which causes a man to be generally esteemed by his fellows. For this, if we read its somewhat harsh equivalent in the vernacular honourableness or worthiness what answer more appropriate from the mouth of a trade‑unionist ? And it has been shown that the craftsman was always such, although the name itself was unknown.

 

We are next told that these usages and customs commence with the termination of his apprenticeship and finish with his death. This is a bare statement of the truth, as the ordinances show it. " We recognize a mason by his honesty." APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS zoo Bear in mind a previous definition of honesty, i.e. a strict conformity with craft customs and this answer will also cease to imply the existence of any hidden doctrine or mystery.

 

The questions concerning the date of the institution of the trade and the introduction into the catechism of Adonhiram and Tubal Cain have already been noticed, but it is desirable to add that, according to Krause (Die drei Aeltesten Kunsturkunden, 2nd edit., vol. ii, pt. ii, pp. z61‑3), the names of the worthies last cited do not appear in the manuscripts of Schroder and Meyer. He also points out that even if they did, the Steinmetzen would only be following the example of all trades, which invariably derived their proto‑craftsman from some Biblical character. A metrical tradition of the German carpenters would read thus in English When Adam suffered heat and cold He built a hut, so we are told.

 

The " father of the human race " is also referred to by our own gardeners, in a familiar distich, of which the antiquated original is given in the Curalia Miscellanea of Dr. Pegge When Adam dolve and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman ? The next question with which we are concerned is the following: " What is secresy in itself ? " To which reply is made Earth, fire, air and snow, Through which to honest promotion (employment) I go.

 

In German as in English this forms a doggerel rhyme and was probably a mere catch‑phrase. It alludes evidently to a journeyman's tramp through the land; but taking into consideration the word " secresy " in the question, those who insist on a mystic interpretation, must give " promotion " its figurative meaning and they may turn it into an allusion to the grave and the life to come. The respondent next states that under his hat ‑ i.e. in his head ‑ he carries " a laudable wisdom " (Fine hoch1Wiche Veisheit). It is now impossible to transfuse into the English language the sense of the German word Weishet, by translating it differently; but this was not the case in former days and, unless the catechism is endowed with a real flavour of antiquity, it will cease to interest us. Anciently, Weishet would have been best defined as " the power of applying to proper purposes, the most appropriate means" (Adelung, Dictionary of the German Language, Leipzig, 178o‑6), or, to vary the expression, skill or cunning in their original signification.

 

Replying to further questions, the Stranger (Fremder) says, that " under his tongue he carries truth " ; and " the strength of the craft," he declares to be " that which fire and water cannot destroy." The last phrase probably alludes to the Steinmetzen fraternity. The triad‑skill, truth, and strength‑is obtained ; but its accidental resemblance to the Masonic formula‑wisdom, strength, and beauty‑ 208 APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS pace Fallou and his disciples, fails to impress a belief in there being any real connection between the two.

 

The last question and answer are as follows Altgesell.‑" What is the best part of a Wall ? " Fremder.‑" Union " (Verband).

 

Anything more mystifying than this (in its present form) is hardly conceivable. The translation is again defective, though, in justice to whoever may be responsible for this production, it must fairly be stated that he has conveyed the exact sense in which the answer has been understood by the Germans themselves. Verband, however, cannot in any circumstances be translated " Union " ; the nearest approach to it would be " a bandage." Jacobsson's Tecbnologiscbes Wo'rterbucb informs us that Verband means the different manners of laying bricks to ensure solidity. The Globe Encyclopaedia gives " Bond, in brickwork, the method of laying bricks so that the vertical joints in adjacent courses may not occur immediately over each other and so that by placing some bricks with their length across the wall (headers) and others with their length parallel to its face (stretchers), the wall may have the greatest attainable stability in both directions." Replace the word " Union " by " the bond " and what more matter‑offact answer could be expected from a stonemason or bricklayer ? Viewed by the light of common sense, there appears nothing in the preceding "examination" that is capable of sustaining the claims to mysticism which have been advanced on its behalf.

 

III. THE MALCOLM CANMORE [COAN‑MORE OR GREAT‑HEAD CHARTER The first appearance of this charter, according to W. P. Buchan‑to whom the Craft is mainly indebted for its antecedents and character becoming so fully knownwas in the year i 8o6, when its opportune discovery was utilized to support the claim of the Glasgow Freemen Operative St. John's Lodge to take precedence of the other Lodges in the Masonic procession at the laying of the foundation‑stone of Nelson's Monument on Glasgow Green, although at that time it was an independent organization. The title thus asserted was successfully opposed by Lodge Glasgow St. Mungo, then the senior in the Province, on two grounds: That the claimant body was not under the sheltering wing of the Grand Lodge; and that the document upon which the members relied to vindicate their claim was a " pretended Charter." This view was shared by the then Grand Secretary (William Guthrie) and the Provincial Grand Master (Sir John Stuart), yet, somehow or other, the St. John's Lodge came off victorious in i 8 i o, when the foundation‑stone of the Glasgow Asylum for Lunatics was laid with " Masonic honours," some asserting that the charter granted by Malcolm III, King of Scots, gave the members priority over all the other Lodges in Scotland (Dr. Cleland, Annals of Glasgow, 1816, vol. ii, P‑483). Dr. Cleland states that "the members of this Lodge having lately discovered an old musty paper in their Charter chest, procured a translation of it, when it turned out to be a Charter in their favour," etc.

 

APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS 2009 The important character of the document gradually dawned upon the minds of its possessors and ultimately led a prominent member of the Lodge to declare, that had " our predecessors in office done their duty, every Lodge in Scotland would have required to get a charter from them " (Glasgow Herald, June 17, 1870 ; Freemason's Maga.Zine, July 9, 1870). The precise nature of the dereliction of duty imputed to their Masonic ancestors and the evidence necessary to substantiate the claim to a sovereignty over the Scottish Lodges, were not alluded to at the time, nor is any information yet forthcoming upon two points of so much importance.

 

1051 (A.D.) was first announced as the year of origin of the charter, then 105 7, but, later on, in deference to considerable criticism, A.D. 1157 was substituted and Malcolm the third was changed to the fourth of that name. According, however, to more recent and accurate investigations, the correct date is approximately some seven centuries and a half later than the year 1057 It is difficult to understand how the authenticity of this so‑called Malcolm Charter can be upheld, when the Eglinton MS. of December z8, 1599, provides, on the authority of William Schaw, " Master of Wark, Warden of the Maisonis " for Scotland, that the Lodge of Kilwinning shall have its warden present " at the election of the Wardenis within the boundis of the Nether Waird of Cliddisdaill, Glasgow, Air and boundis of Carrik " and that the warden and deacon of Kilwinning Lodge shall convene the other wardens and deacons within the bounds aforesaid (viz. the West of Scotland), whenever circumstances demanded and gave them authority to assemble anywhere within that extensive jurisdiction.

 

Now, the pseudo‑charter recites that none in my dominions shall erect a lodge until they make application to the Saint John's Lodge, Glasgow (By‑Laws of the Lodge of Glasgow St. John, 1858, p. 6) and contains, moreover, a number of clauses respecting fees, dues and special privileges wholly inconsistent with the regulations known to be in force during subsequent centuries, all of which are silent as to the pre‑eminence claimed for this Lodge.

 

The whole subject of the charter and its relation to the St. John's Lodge was discussed at great length in the pages of the Freemasons' Magazine (1868) and, in the controversy which then took place, Buchan posed first of all as a believer in the genuineness of the document, but having subsequently made a more careful scrutiny of its contents, became its most destructive critic and was chiefly instrumental in administering the death‑blow to its pretensions.

 

During the process of investigation Buchan obtained the opinion of Professor Cosmo Innes, the eminent Scottish archxologist, who had examined the " charter " in 1868 and pronounced it " a forgery executed within the last 150 years, or taking plenty of time, within zoo at the utmost." He also stated that " it was made up of pieces taken out of different charters and stuck together." In a letter to Buchan, the same excellent authority observes that our first corporate Charters were to Burghs and, not till long after, came those to the Gilds and Corporations within and under Burghs; but we have no Charters 210 APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS to Burghs till William the Lion (1165‑IzI4), so you see it did not require much sagacity to stamp the Charter of Malcolm, full of the phraseology and the minute distinctions of a much later day, as a forgery.

 

The members of Lodge Glasgow St. John finally determined to test the strength of their position by petitioning the Grand Lodge of Scotland and particularly appealed against the action of the Grand Master in awarding precedency to the Lodge of Journeymen, Edinburgh, 8, on the occasion of meeting in Glasgow Cathedral previous to laying the foundation‑stone of the Albert Bridge, June 3, 1870, thus infringing upon their ancient rights and privileges, secured to them by the Malcolm Canmore Charter. The decision of the Grand Lodge was pronounced on February 6, 1871, which, proving adverse to the claims of the memorialists, the members of St. John's Lodge solaced their wounded feelings, by sentencing Buchan, their senior warden‑who had opposed the prayer of the petitioners in Grand Lodge ‑to a term of five years' suspension from his Masonic privileges. It is almost unnecessary to add that, on appeal, this decree was reversed.

 

IV. KRAUSE'S MS. OR PRINCE EDWIN'S CONSTITUTION OF 926 The crux for those who maintain the authentic character of the documents under review is satisfactorily to bridge over the period between the dates of their alleged origin and of their actual publication as MSS. relating to the Craft. In this respect the Krause MS. is no better off than its companions, though its internal character is, in many points, superior to any of them. Had some portions of its text been presented, as appertaining to the latter part of the seventeenth century, it is probable that no objections could reasonably have been urged against their reception, inasmuch as absolute correctness is not to be expected or required, it being essential only that the general character of these Constitutions should be such as to accord with known versions written about the same period. There is, however, much more involved than this, in allowing the claim made by the apologists of the Krause MS., for it is either the " Constitution completed by the pious Edwin " and the " Laws or Obligations " are those " laid before his Brother Masons " by the same Prince, or the document is an imposture. Then again, " the old obligations and statutes, collected by order of the King in the year 1694," are declared to have been issued by " command of the King " (William III) and other regulations were " compiled and arranged in order, from the written records, from the time of King Edred to King Henry VIM" These pretensions are based upon no foundation of authority. The only evidence applicable to the inquiry, tends to show that many clauses of this composite document differ most suspiciously from any that appear in the veritable Old Charges of the last century, while others could not have been circulated, if at all, until some thirty years subsequent to 1694. Yet, with all these drawbacks, there remain a considerable number that might fairly pass muster, if removed from their objectionable surroundings, the resemblance to the early Constitutions of England and Germany being frequently so marked as to suggest that a varied APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS 211 assortment of authentic Masonic records lay conveniently at hand, whilst the compilation or fabrication of the MS. was being proceeded with. It was probably from the close similarity, in places, of the Krause MS. to the ordinary text of the Old Charges, that the genuineness of this anachronistic rehearsal of Craft legends and regulations was, at first, very commonly believed in ; albeit, a careful collation of the points of agreement between the Edwin and the attested Constitutions, only brings into greater relief the divergences of narrative and description, which stamp the former as an impudent travestie of the Old Charges of British Freemasons.

 

True it is, the MS. is not always at variance with the recognized text, but it must have more to recommend it than a mere agreement now and then, especially when, side by side with such resemblances, are several statements and clauses wholly irreconcilable with its claim to be either Edwin's Constitution in part, or even a version of some seven centuries later date. The Constitution is more elaborate and exact in its details than any other of known origin, many of the particulars being singular in character and clearly out of place in a document of the tenth century. The second division, entitled the History of the Origin and Progress of Masonry in Britain, is equally singular and precise in its verbiage as compared with the scrolls of the Craft, from which it differs materially, especially in the introductory observations common to the latter, respecting the assembly at York and the laws then promulgated.

 

The " Laws of Prince Edwin " (?) are sixteen in number, the first of which enjoins " that you sincerely honor God and follow the laws of the Noachedxans." The latter reference, as already mentioned, is also to be found in Dr. Anderson's Constitutions of A.D. 173 8, but was omitted in all subsequent editions and does not appear in any other known version of the Old Charges. The third and fifth regulations ordain respectively, that friendship is not to be interrupted by a difference of religion and that the sign is to be kept from every one who is not a brother; whilst the fifteenth, further requires that " every mason shall receive companions who come from a distance and give him the sign " (Hughan's Old Charges). These allusions are sufficient of themselves to demonstrate the essentially modern character of the MS. and it will be unnecessary to multiply the evidence‑already conclusive on this point‑by citing discrepancies which cannot fail to strike the least observant reader, who compares the apocryphal document No. 51 in the chapter on the Old Charges, with any of the forms or versions of those ancient writings, which there preceded it in the enumeration.

 

The " old obligations for the year 1694 " again refer to the sign; and the " regulations " declared to be counterparts of the "written records from the time of King Edred to King Henry VIII," inter alia, affirm: I, III. " All lawful brotherhoods shall be placed under patrons, who shall occasionally examine the brotherhoods in their lodges." IV. The numbers of a brotherhood shall be fifty or sixty, " without reckoning the accepted masons." VI. " The master of a lodge can found a new lodge." IX. Each year the lodges shall assemble on St. John the Baptist's day. XII. Those who wish to be made Masters must register their 212 APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS application " several months before"; all the brethren of the lodge to vote on the occasion. No more than five new brethren to be accepted at one time.

 

The Latin certificate which follows, runs thus: " This manuscript, written in the old language of the country and which is preserved by the venerable Architectural Society in our town, agrees exactly with the preceding Latin translation," it is confirmed by " Stonehouse, York, January 4, 18o6." Inasmuch as there was no society of the kind in existence at York in the year named ; also that the deponent Stonehouse cannot be traced as having ever resided at that ancient city, it would be a waste of time to carry this examination any further. In conclusion, it may be stated that the fidelity of the German translation is attested by C. E. Weller, an official at Altenburg, after it had been compared with the Latin version by three linguists.

 

The original document, as commonly happens in forgeries of this description, is missing and how, in all the circumstances of the case, Krause could have constituted himself the champion of its authenticity, it is difficult to conjecture. Possibly, however, the explanation may be that in impostures of this character, credulity on the one part is a strong temptation to deceit on the other, especially to deceit of which no personal injury is the consequence and which flatters the student of old documents with his own ingenuity.

 

V. THE CHARTER OF COLOGNE In the year 1816, Prince Frederick, Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of the Netherlands, received a packet of papers, accompanied by a letter, written in a female hand and signed " C., nee von T.," stating that the manuscripts had been found amongst her deceased father's effects and that she believed he had received them from Van Boetzelaer [Grand Master of Holland]. In 1818 the Grand Master caused copies to be made of the documents and sent the Latin text with a Dutch translation to all the Lodges in the Netherlands. He also had all the manuscripts carefully examined by experts in writing, who, at once, expressed doubts as to their authenticity. Some Lodges, however, could not be divested of a belief in their genuineness and the three‑hundredth anniversary of the alleged promulgation of the charter was actually celebrated by the Lodge La Bien Aimee at Amsterdam in 1835.

 

The legend runs thus : From 1519 to 16o1 there was a Lodge at Amsterdam named Het Vredendall, or the " Valley of Peace," which, having fallen into abeyance, was revived in 1637 under the title of Frederick's Vredendall, or Frederick's Valley of Peace. The Lodge‑chest, according to a protocol dated January 29, 1637, contained the following documents:' (1) The original warrant of constitution of the Lodge Het Vredendall, written in the English language; (2) A roll of the members, 1519‑i6oi ; and (3) The Charter of Cologne, i.e. a document in cipher, signed by nineteen master masons in Cologne, June 24, 15 3 5.

 

These papers passed from one person to another, until 1790, when they were presented to Van Boetzelaer, the Grand Master of the Dutch Lodges.

 

The so‑called charter appears to have been first printed in the Annales Nlafon‑ APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS 213 niques, 1818 and many German versions of and commentaries upon its text have since appeared (Heldmann, 1819 ; Krause, 18 21 ; Bobrik, 1840 ; Eckert, 18 5 z ; Kloss and others). It is also accessible to the English reader in many popular works (Dr. J. Burnes, Sketch of the History of the Knights Templar, 1840 ; Findel, History of Freemasonry, p. 69z ; Lyon, History of the Lodge of Edinburgh, p. 316 ; Masonic Alaga !Zine, January 188 z). It consists of a preamble and thirteen clauses on articles, the latter being lettered in due sequence from A to N.

 

The charter is a manifesto of " the chosen masters of the St. John's fraternity, heads of the lodges in London, Edinburgh, Vienna, Amsterdam, Paris, Lyons, Frankfort, Hamburg, Antwerp, Rotterdam, Madrid, Venice, Ghent, Konisberg, Brussels, Dantzic, Middleburg, Bremen and Cologne, addressed to their fellow labourers and to the unenlightened world." The absence of deputies from the chief lodges of the stonemasons in Strasburg, Zurich and Utrecht‑as well as from Bruges, during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the central emporium cif the whole commercial world‑detracts from the skill of the compiler ! A. That the order of Freemasons is more ancient than that of the Knights Templar, having existed in Palestine, Greece and the Roman Empire, even before the Crusades and the time when the Knights Templar went to Palestine.

 

B. That the fellowship (consociatio) then, as in former times, embraced the degrees of Disciple, Fellow and Master, the last‑named class comprising Elect and Most Elect Masters.

 

C. That one person was selected from the body of Elect Masters to assume authority over the rest and to be reverenced (though known to very few) as the Supreme Elect Master or Patriarch (Qui ut summus magister electus vel patriarcha veneraetur).

 

D. The government of the society was confided to the highest Elect Masters. E. That the society of brethren began to be called " the fraternity of Freemasons, A.D. 1450 (in the Deuchar text, i44o), at Valenciennes in Flanders, prior to which date they were known by the name of " brethren of St. John." F. None are admitted into the order, but those who are professedly Christians. No bodily tortures are employed at initiation.

 

G. Amongst the duties which must be undertaken on oath, are fidelity and obedience to secular rulers.

 

H. The aim of the society is expressed in the two precepts :‑to love all men as brothers ; to render to God what is God's‑and to Cxsar what is Cxsar's.

 

I. The secrets and mysteries conduce to this end‑that, without ostentation, the brethren may do good.

 

K. Every year a feast is held in honour of St. John, patron of the community. L. The ceremonies of the order, though represented by signs or words, or in other ways, differ entirely from ecclesiastical rites.

 

M. He alone is acknowledged as a brother of the society of St. John or Freemason, who in a lawful manner, under the direction of an Elect Master, assisted by at least seven brethren, is initiated into the mysteries and is ready to prove his adoption by the signs and tokens (signs et tesseris) practised by the brethren. In which are included those signs and words (signis et verbis) customary in the Edinburgh 214 APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS lodge or tabernacle (mansione vel tabernaculo) and in those affiliated with her. Also in Hamburg, Rotterdam and Venice.

 

N. As a general conformity it is necessary in the lodges ; therefore the " charter " shall be transmitted to all the colleges of the order.

 

[Signed] Harmanus f : Carlton : Jo. Bruce : Fr. Von Upna : Cornelis Banning De Coligni : Virieux : Johann Schrdder : Hofmann, 1 5 3 5 : Icobus [Jacobus] Prxpositus : A. Nobel : Ignatius de la Torre : Doria : Jacob Uttinhove : Falk : Niclaes Van Noot : Philippus Melanthon : Huyssen : Wormer Abel.

 

From the conclusions of commentators, who have rejected the charter as an historical document, there are the following : Bobrik remarks (Findel, History of Freemasonry, p. 697)‑(I) The motive for the supposed meeting did not exist (z) The purpose of the document and the form in which it is carried out, do not correspond; for, in order to refute a thing publicly, writing in cipher is resorted to and, to conceal a matter, the signatures are written in common italics. Neither can we conceive any documents legal without a seal. (3) The signatures are suspicious in the highest degree. (4) The assembly of the nineteen individuals cited is extremely doubtful; for Hermann would have preferred the town of Bonn to that of Cologne, where he had many enemies. (5) Melanchthon's participation is especially problematical, as well as that of the other subscribers. (6) The records of 1637, which are cited, cannot suffice as proofs, as there is nothing to show that there existed a Lodge Vredendall at that period.

 

The same critic believed the term " Patriarch " (C) to be an allusion to the " General " of the Jesuits, a view to which colour is lent, if the date of the forgery be placed at 1816, by which time, the Jesuits, after their restoration in 1814, had again succeeded in establishing their influence, which, in Holland, could only be accomplished by indirect means. Dr. Schwetschke, in a pamphlet published in 1843 (Paleographic Proofs of the Spuriousness of the Cologne Freemason Document of 15 3 5 ; Halle, 1843 ; cf. Lyon, History of the Lodge of Edinburgh, p. 3zz), remarks that after a careful comparison of the signature of Jacobus Prxpositus at the end of the document and the handwriting existing of his, proved to be genuine, the most glaring discrepancy is apparent; also that the real signature of Archbishop Hermann and that represented to be his, are most dissimilar. He examines closely the way in which the document is written and points out that different characters are used for U and V, a distinction unknown before the middle of the sixteenth century; also that in the Cologne cipher the K is wanting, which letter was to be met with in all the alphabets of the Middle Ages.

 

VI. THE LARMENIUS CHARTER, OR THE CHARTER OF TRANSMISSION It is immaterial whether the French Order of the Temple is a revival of La Petite Resurrection des Templiers‑a licentious society established in 168z‑or an offshoot of the Lodge Les Chevaliers de la Croix, 18o6. The Charter of Trans mission, upon which rest the claims of this body to being the lineal successors of APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS 215 the historic Knights Templar, was not published until between 1804 and i 8io and its earlier history, if, indeed, it has one, is so tainted with impostures, as to remove any possibility of unravelling the tangled web of falsehood in which the whole question is enveloped. It is said that an Italian Jesuit, named Bonani, at the instigation of Philip Duke of Orleans, fabricated the document now known as the Charter of Larmenius and, with its aid, contrived to attach the society of La Petite Resur rection des Templiers to the ancient order of the Temple. After many vicissitudes and a lengthened period of abeyance, a revival of the order took place about 1804, full particulars of which are given in the following works (Dr. J. Burnes, Sketch of the History of the Knights Templar ; C. A. Thory, Acta Latomorum, 1815, vol. ii, p. 139; Mackey, Encyclopardia ; Temple and Findel, History of Freemasonry, p. 681). The following is a translation of the charter, which is given in Latin by both Burnes and Thory I, brother Johannes Marcus Larmenius of Jerusalem, by the Grace of God and by the secret decree of the venerable and most holy Martyr, the Master of the Knights of the Supreme Temple (to whom be honour and glory), confirmed by the common council of the brethren, over the whole order of the Temple, decorated by the highest and supreme Master (I publish) these letters to be seen of one and all‑Salutem, Salutem, Salutem.

 

Be it known to all, as well present as to come, that strength failing on account of extreme age and weighed down by the want of means and the onerousness of my office, to the greater glory of God, for the guardianship and preservation of the Order, the Brethren and the Statutes, I, the aforesaid Humble Master of the 2 Militia " of the Temple, have resolved to resign into more efficient hands the Supreme Mastership.

 

Therefore, God helping and with the unanimous consent of the Supreme Assembly of Knights, I have conferred the Supreme Mastership of the Order of the Temple, my authority and privileges, to the eminent Commendator and dearest brother, Franciscus Thomas Theobaldus of Alexandria and, by the present decree, I confer for life, with the power of conferring the supreme and chief Mastership of the Order of the Temple and the chief authority upon another brother, famous for his nobility of education and mind and the integrity of his character; This I do to preserve the perpetuity of the Mastership, the unbroken line of successors and the integrity of the statutes. But I command that the Mastership cannot be transmitted without the consent of the General Assembly of Companions of the Temple, so far as this Supreme Assembly shall will to be collected together and, this being so, that a successor be elected at the nod of the Knights.

 

In order that the functions of the chief office may not languish, let there be now and always four chief Master‑Vicars, having supreme power, eminence, and authority over the whole Order, saving the right of the chief Master; and let the Master‑Vicars be elected from the seniors according to the order of their profession. Which was decreed according to the above mentioned vow of our most holy, venerable and most blessed Master, the Martyr, entrusted to me and the brethren (to whom honour and glory). Amen.

 

I then, by the decree of the Supreme Assembly of the brethren in accordance with the supreme authority committed to me, will, declare and command the Scotch 216 APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS Templars deserters of the Order, struck with anathema, both them and the brethren of St. John of Jerusalem, the spoilers of the domains of the " Militia " (on whom may God have mercy), to be without the pale of the Temple, now and in time to come.

 

I have therefore instituted signs unknown and not to be known by pseudobrothers, to be handed down by the Companions by word of mouth and in whatever way it may now please the Supreme Assembly that they should be transmitted.

 

But these signs may only be revealed after due profession and knightly consecration, according to the statutes, rites and usages of the companions of the Temple, communicated by me to the above mentioned Commendator, just as I received them into my hands from the Venerable and most Sacred Martyr Master (to whom be honour and glory).

 

Be it as I have said. Be it, Amen.

 

Then follow the signatures of Larmenius and his immediate successor Alexandrinus, after which come the acceptances and signatures of the twenty‑two succeeding grand masters‑the last under the date of 1804.

 

In the notice of the Order of the Temple by Foraisse (cited in the Acta Latomorum, vol. ii, Paris, 1815, pp. 139 et seq.), the secrets learned by Moses when he was initiated in Egypt are said to have been transmitted through the chiefs of the Hebrews to John the Baptist, St. John the Evangelist, St. Paul and the other apostles and, being received from them, were preserved without alteration by the Freres d'Orient. The Christians persecuted by the infidels conveyed the secret to Hugo de Paganis and such, we are told, was the origin of the foundation of the Order of the Temple, which, thus instructed in the esoteric doctrine and the formulas of initiation of the Christians of the East, was clothed with patriarchal power and placed in the legitimate order of the successors of St. John the Baptist ! This knowledge is said to have descended to Jacques de Molay, who, foreseeing the troubles to which the order was to be subjected, elected as his successor John Marc Larmenius. To this Larmenius is attributed the document upon which so much has been based.

 

It is much to be regretted that no facsimile of so valuable and curious a record as the Tabula Aurea, or Charter of Transmission, has been published (an imperfect copy is given in Les Sectes et Societes Secretes, by J. H. E. Comte le Couteulx de Canteleu, 1863, p. 259). The printed copies are all given in full, with no contracted words, which would, in all probability, exist in any writing of the period claimed. The text is merely that of a charter arranging for the election of the Grand Master and officers ; although there might have been the names of witnesses, there is nothing in it to require a roll of Grand Masters being added. In fact, the Latin, the form of document, the decorations, etc., are not at all what would be expected in 1324 and it is difficult to understand why Larmenius, of whom no mention is found in any of the veritable Templar Records, should have considered it necessary to break through the rules and traditions of his Order, in executing this document, when his supposed immediate predecessor, Jacques de Molay, an undoubted Templar, better versed in its customs, deemed no such action needful. It is only a matter of surprise that APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS 217 any one should have been deceived by the Tabula Aurea and more, that, when it was fabricated, the Act of Transmission was not at once taken from the fountain head and registered as having been given by the celebrated Jacques de Molay, the last of the historic Grand Masters.

 

A few remarks on the history of the true Knights of the Temple will not be out of place. According to Matthew Paris (Roger of Wendover, Flowers of History, translated by Dr. Giles Bohn, vol. i, p. 469. See also the History of William of Tyre, who died about 1118) and the early chroniclers, the year 1118 is usually assigned as that of the foundation of the Order‑the outcome of religious pilgrimages, the only mission of the knights being to defend pilgrims from the cruelty and barbarity of the infidels and to keep open the roads through the Holy Land over which the pilgrims had to pass. At first they lived entirely on alms; and, for nine years, Hugues de Paganis and Geoffrey de St. Aumer, with their seven companions, of whom the names are now lost, remained the only members of the Order. On this point Raynouard and Wilcke are at variance; following the latter (Geschichte des Tempelherrensordens), though without quoting his authority, the Comte le Couteulx de Canteleu, op. cit., p. 81, gives the names of the seven knights as Roral, Godefroy Bisol, Pagan de Montdidier, Archambault de Saint‑Aignan, Andre de Montbard, Gondemar and Hugues de Champagne.

 

In 1128, when the Synod of Troyes was held, under Pope Honorius II, St. Bernard, then Abbe of Clervaux, who was present, was charged by the Council to arrange the Rule desired by the Order. This Rule has unfortunately not come down to us in its perfect form. The Council, moreover, bestowed upon them a white dress, to which was added by Eugenius III, in 1146, a red cross, to be placed upon their cloak, worn by all members of the Order. At this time, as stated by William of Tyre, the Templars numbered at Jerusalem more than three hundred knights, not including the serving brethren ; and their property was immense, their riches placing them on an equality with kings. It was this fact, Du Puy considers, that made them, through arrogance and pride, cast off their obedience to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, from whom they had received the first gifts which enabled them to found the Order. 'Much of the hatred towards them was, he says, caused by their having seized upon the belongings of the churches and disturbed their ancient possessions.

 

In a few years after they had received formal recognition as a religious military order, their possessions were enormous and, before 1140, they held fortresses and other buildings in almost every country. Before 1150 they had founded the Temple at Paris ; and, during the reign of Richard I, they bought from that king the island of Cyprus. Whatever their faults may have been, it is certain that they were looked upon by kings and popes alike as one of the. bulwarks of the Church and that the history of the Crusades abounds in instances of their exploits. When driven out of Asia, like the other Christians, they established themselves at Cyprus and in other islands ; and, in 13o6, the Grand Master, with all the chiefs of the Order, came to France, bringing their treasure and archives and established themselves in Paris. On October 13, 1307, all the Templars then in Paris and the other provinces of 218 APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS France were " arrested in a moment " (Du Puy, vol. ii, pp. 3ocg et seq.) and charged with the most sacrilegious and horrible crimes which the brains of their accusers were capable of framing. These have often been enumerated and the examinations printed more or less in extenso ; it is therefore needless, as it would be out of place, to include them in this summary.

 

The Order was suppressed in 1312, at a Council held at Vienna, under Pope Clement V. Bulls were launched against the Knights (Du Puy, vol. i, p. 181) ; their lands and goods were seized and made over to the Hospitallers (ibid., vol. i, pp. 186, 18q); and they themselves, in many instances, after having suffered the horrors of an inquisition, were burned. Jacques de Molay, the Grand Master, together with the brother of the Dauphin, still persisting to the last in the innocence of the Order (Gurtler, Historia Templariorum, 1703, pp. 412, 413), after having been kept in prison, were burned alive in 1313, at Paris.

 

Much has been written both for and against the charges urged against the Templars ; perhaps the real explanation is best summed up by Voltaire‑that the terrible condemnation was the crime of a king avaricious and vindictive ; of a Pope cowardly and betrayed ; of Inquisitors jealous and fanatical.

 

Reference has already been made to the Rule formulated by St. Bernard, of which only an abstract has come down to us. Fosbroke,‑in the List of Rules of the Orders which obtained in England, gives a summary of these regulations (British Monachism, 1802, vo1. i, p. 72 ; Gurtler, op. cit., pp. 8o et seq. ; Du Puy, vol. i, pp. 230 et seq.). Candidates for the Order must have been born in wedlock and were required to be of noble birth, free from any vow or tie and of sound body (Memoires historiques sur les Templars, par Ph.G., Paris, 1805, p. ii, based on the work of Prof. Munter).

 

The Grand Master of the Templars ranked as a Prince when in the presence of kings but, when in councils, he took his place before the ambassadors and after the archbishops. The other officers of the Order were the grand prior, the seneschal, the marshall, the treasurer, the drapier (literally clothier), the turcopolier (the commander of light cavalry, which was called in the East, turcopole) and the bailli (judge) of Jerusalem. There were also visitors‑general, whose office was only temporary.

 

The provincial masters, who provisionally held great power, took, at the time of their election, a special oath. Below them were baillis and priors or masters. The master of Jerusalem was always the grand treasurer.

 

The internal government was managed by a council composed of the Grand Master, the other dignitaries, the provincial masters, the assistants of the grand master and the chevaliers summoned by him. This council was of course subject to the general chapters, which were very secret and, on account of the cost, very seldom held. It is evident that this government of the Grand Master, who took the place of God and held the title of vicar‑general of the Pope, was largely despotic.

 

The Order possessed many peculiar privileges granted by the Popes Alexander III, Urban III and Innocent III.

 

Like most of the other Orders, religious or military, the Templars had some APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS 219 secret form of initiation through which a candidate gained admission to the Order. The following is given by Raynouard (Monumens historique, pp. 3‑G), but the very contradictory and imperfect statements made in the replies of the Templars render it quite impossible to arrive at anything like a correct idea of what really took place at the reception. When a new chevalier was to be received, the Chapter assembled. The ceremony usually took place during the night, in a church.

 

The candidate waited without. The chief, who presided over the Chapter, deputed, three separate times, two brothers, who demanded of the candidate if he desired to be admitted into the Order of the Soldiers of the Temple. After his reply, he was brought in. He asked three times for bread, water and the society of the Order.

 

The chief of the Chapter then said to him: " You come to enter into a great engagement ; you will be exposed to much trouble and danger. It will be necessary to watch when you would sleep ; to sustain fatigue when you would be at rest ; to suffer thirst and hunger when you would drink and eat ; to pass into one country when you would remain in another." Then these questions were put Are you a knight ? Are you of sound body? Are you not married, or faance ? Do you not belong already to another Order? Have you not debts which you are not able to pay yourself, or with the help of friends ? When the candidate had replied in a satisfactory manner, he made the three vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. He dedicated himself to the defence of the Holy Land and received the mantle of the Order. The knights present gave him the kiss of brotherhood.

 

The form of oath, Raynouard states, is given by Henriquez (Privilegia Ord. Astercensis, p. 479) and was found among the archives of the Abbey of Alcobaza, as follows I swear to consecrate my discourse, my strength and my life to the defence of the belief in the unity of God and the mysteries of the faith, etc. I promise to be submissive and obedient to the Grand Master of the Order. . . . Whenever he shall be in need, I will pass over the sea to go and fight; I will give my help against infidel kings and princes ; and in presence of three enemies I will not flee, but alone I will oppose them, if they are infidels.

 

Charges were made about certain objects used in the ceremony of reception. The Idol, as it is called, which the Templars are said to have worshipped, appears to have been nothing more than a human figure or bearded human head, said to have borne the name of Baffomet, or, as it has been explained, Mahomet. Possibly it was nothing more than a relic or relic case, venerated by the Templars (Raynouard, Monumens historique, p. 399), in like manner as such objects were and are now, 220 APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS reverenced by religious societies and, for this reason, exhibited with the regalia at all important meetings of the Order.

 

Another object of their worship is stated to have been a cat, kept by the Templars for that purpose‑but of this little need be said. It was, according to one witness, the devil in the form of a cat, who roamed round a head held by the President of the Chapter, talked to the brothers and promised them riches and all the good things of the earth! This was at Nismes ; but an English Templar denied the worship in England, although he had heard it positively stated that both cat and " idol " were worshipped at places beyond the sea (Wilkins, Concilia, vol. ii, p. 384).

 

Michelet, in his History of France, has explained the ceremonies said to have been enacted by the Templars, as being borrowed from the figurative mysteries and rites of the Early Church‑i.e. the renunciation by the candidate of his past sinful life and his being received into a higher state of faith.

 

In parting with the subject it may be observed, that whilst those who have no power to judge of past times but by their own, should always doubt their conclusions, yet the present age has much difficulty in accepting as facts any statements that rest on no foundation whatever of authority. " Anonymous testimony to a matter of fact," says Sir George Lewis, " is wholly devoid of weight; unless, indeed, there be circumstances which render it probable that a trustworthy witness has adequate motives for concealment, or extraneous circumstances may support and accredit a statement, which, left to itself, would fall to the ground " (On the Influence of Authority in Matters of Opinion, 1849,P.23). Blind manuscripts, according to Warburton, are always at hand to support still blinder criticisms (Divine Legation, vol. ii, p. 2z7); and the dictum is fully borne out in the literature of Freemasonry. The learned author of the Kunsturkunden represents the Leland‑Locke and the Krause MSS. as being two of the oldest and most authentic records of the Craft. Dr. Oliver, in his Historical Landmarks (1846, vol. ii, p. 19), affirms, on the authority of the Charter of Cologne, that, a few years after 15 19, there were nineteen Grand Lodges in Europe ! Lastly, Dr. (afterwards Sir James) Burnes observes of the so‑called Tabula Aurea, or Charter of Transmission Startling as is the assertion, there has been a succession of Knights Templar from the twelfth century down even to these days ; the chain of transmission is perfect in all its links. Jacques de Molay, the Grand Master at the time of the perse cution, anticipating his own martyrdom, appointed as his successor, in power and dignity, Johannes Marcus Larmenius, of Jerusalem and, from that time to the present, there has been a regular and uninterrupted line of Grand Masters. The charter by which the supreme authority has been transmitted, is judicial and conclusive evidence of the Order's continued existence ! (Sketch of the History of the Knights Templar, 1840, PP. 39, 40).

 

CHAPTER X THE QUATUOR CORONATI THE FOUR CROWNED OR FOUR HOLY MARTYRS HE history, legendary or otherwise, of the four patron saints of the medixval building trades must always possess a peculiar interest for the Masonic body, even though it be impossible fairly to deduce those arguments which some have sought to derive from it. This, together with the confusion and obscurity that exists on the subject, a confusion and obscurity which arose almost immediately after the martyrdom itself, will be the excuse for entering somewhat more into detail than the importance of the subject, as bearing upon Masonic history, may, at first sight, seem to warrant.

 

The outline of the story may be told in a very few words. Four officers of the Roman Imperial Court and five sculptors were martyred for their faith in Christianity, in the reign and, apparently, by the direct orders of Diocletian and were interred in the same spot on the Via Labicana, a little outside Rome, on the road to Prxneste. The names of the five having, in process of time, become forgotten, it was ordered that the entire nine should bear the appellation of the Four Crowned or Holy Martyrs (although it was always known that there were two distinct sets of martyrs). The names of the five were subsequently recovered, but the whole nine still retained the original title and the church, built over their relics, to which the bodies of other saints were subsequently removed, thus forming a kind of Christian Pantheon, after having been more than once destroyed and rebuilt, subsists to the present day. Hence has arisen a certain amount of confusion, the names of the martyrs and the priority of the respective martyrdoms having been occasionally mistaken the one for the other, while it happens strangely enough that the four officers of the Imperial Court have become the patron saints of the building trades instead of the five sculptors as, in strict propriety, it should have been, while the trade or profession of the five has survived under the name of the four. This confusion has, as will be seen in the sequel, been somewhat further increased by the fact of the names of one or two of them having been common to other martyrs with whom they had no real connexion.

 

The first mention of these martyrs occurs in some of the ancient martyrologies, the earliest of which now extant, that of St. Jerome, was written about A.D. 400. After this, at a considerable interval, come those of Bede, 730; Florus, 830 ; Wandel bertus, 844; Hrabanus Maurus, 845 ; Ado, 858 ; the Romanum Parvum, 873 ; Usuardus, 875 ; and Notker, 894. Besides these, there are for the Greek Church the work of Simon Metaphrastes and the Greek Menxon, which have, as dealing 221 222 THE QUATUOR CORONATI with the oriental legends, no immediate interest. Among the former, at least Bede, Wandelbertus, Ado, Usuardus and Notker mention the legend now under consideration. All these notices are of the briefest.

 

Gregory the Great‑1073‑85‑in his Sacramentary, has the following for their feast day These are the names of the four crowned martyrs, Severus, Severianus, Victorinus and Carpophorus, the day of whose martyrdom having been neglected through carelessness and been forgotten, it was decreed that the celebration of their martyr dom should take place in the church of those five martyrs whose names are celebrated in the mass, so that their memory‑i.e., of the four‑should be honoured at the same time as that of the others‑i.e., the five.

 

VI. IDES OF Nov. (9TH). MARTYRDOM OF THE FOUR CROWNED ONES Be pleased, we beseech Thee, Almighty God, that we, acknowledging the constant faith of the glorious martyrs, Claudius, Nicostratus, Simphorianus, Castorius, may reap the benefits of their holy intercession in Thy presence, for Jesus Christ's sake. Amen.

 

At the Oblation Let Thy bountiful blessing, O Lord and may our gifts be acceptable in Thy sight, through the intercession of Thy Saints and may it be unto us a sacrament of redemption for Jesus Christ's sake. Amen.

 

Preface‑before receiving the Sacrament It is very meet, right, just and salutary that we should at all times and in all places, give thanks unto Thee, O Lord, Holy Father, Almighty and Everlasting God, when we celebrate the Passion of Thy Holy Crowned Martyrs, since while we magnify the glory of Thy name, through them we may grow in the increase of our faith through Jesus Christ. Amen.

 

After receiving the Sacrament Being refreshed with the heavenly sacraments, we do beseech thee, O Lord God, as suppliants, that of those whose triumphs we celebrate, by their help we may be sustained through Jesus Christ, His sake. Amen.

 

The Roman Martyrology (date uncertain) The octave is the Passion at Rome, on the Via Lavicana, at the third milestone from the city (at the North‑East on the road leading to Prxneste) of the holy martyrs, Claudius, Nicostratus, Symphorianus, Castorius and Simplicius, who, having been first imprisoned, were then most severely scourged and, since their faith in Christ could not be shaken, were thrown headlong into the river (Tiber) by order of Diocletian. Also on the Via Lavicana occurred the martyrdom of the four holy Crowned brothers, Severus, Severianus, Carpophorus and Victorinus, who were beaten to death with scourges loaded with lead by order of the same Emperor. But since their names, which, after a subsequent lapse of years were revealed by God, could not be found, it was decreed that their anniversary together with that THE QUATUOR CORONATI 223 of the other five, should be celebrated under the title of the Four Crowned Ones, which custom was continued in the Church even after their names had been revealed.

 

Next in chronological order comes the Golden Legend of Jacobus a Voragine, which may be termed the loveliest collection of medixval sacred fairy tales, although the subjoined account is very inferior to most of those which have been described or adorned by his pen. (Opus Aureunr. Lugdini, 1519, sm. fo.).

 

The four crowned ones were Severus, Severianus, Carpophorus and Victorinus. They were beaten to death by order of Diocletian, with whips armed with lead. Their names were lost for many years, until discovered by a revelation from on high; it was therefore ordered that their memory should be honoured with those of the five other martyrs, Claudius, Castorius, Nicostratus, Symphorianus and Simplicius, who suffered two years after the martyrdom of the former. These exercised the sculptors' art and, as they refused to sculpture an idol commanded by Diocletian, or to sacrifice to false gods, they were by command of the same Emperor enclosed alive in leaden coffers and thrown into the sea in the year of Our Lord 287. They were honoured with the other four martyrs whose names had been forgotten, whom Pope Melchiades (or Milthiades, 310‑14) ordered to be designated under the title of the Four Crowned Ones; when later their names became known the above denomination continued in use.

 

We now come to the various Breviaries, that of Rome, of course, ranking first. The date of the one used is the Breviarium secundum usum Romanum Tenet, 1477, but the sources from which it has been compiled must be far older. Breviaries took their origin in the earliest times and gradually grew and expanded, varying in different places and countries until Pius V, by a Bull dated July 15 68, published one authorized version which has ever since been continued to be enforced to the exclusion of all others. (Rev. W. llaskell, 1llonunrenta Ritualia Ecclesice Anglicana, 1846, vol. ii, p. xxi.) The legend is as follows In Sanctoruirr AIartyrum Ouatuor Coronatorum Prayer Grant, O God, that the glorious martyrs, Claudius, Nicostratus, Symphorianus, Castorius and Simplicius, whom we acknowledge as steadfast in their faith, may intercede for us with Thee.

 

I. It came to pass, that when the Emperor Diocletian journied to Pannonia, in order that in his presence metals might be taken from the rocks ; that when he had assembled together all the masters in metals, he found among them men endowed with great experience in the art‑Claudius, Castorius, Symphorianus and Nicostratus, who were marvellously learned in the art of cutting stone (in arte quadrataridquadratacid, 1518‑). These men were secretly Christians, who observed the commands of God and did all things which as sculptors they executed, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

II. It came to pass, however, that, one day, by command of the Emperor Diocletian, the artificers were preparing to make a statue of the Sun‑god with his four horses and all things thereunto belonging, the chariot and the horses out of 224 THE QUATUOR CORONATI Thasian stone. At the same time when all the artificers and philosophers were meditating thereupon, the former began to speak in dissenting terms.

 

III. And when they had found a great block of Thasian stone, they did not think it fit for the statue, according as the Emperor Diocletian had commanded and, for many days thereafter, a great contention arose between the artificers and the philosophers (masters of the work and native masters, 15 18). However, on a certain day, all the artificers (6zz in number) and the five philosophers, assembled together in order to examine the structure of the stone and the veins thereof and there arose a prodigious contention between the artificers and the philosophers.

 

IV. Then began the philosophers to dispute with Claudius, Symphorianus and Simplicius and said, 4' )Wherefore obey ye not, with your skill, the commands of the most devout Emperor Diocletian, and fulfil not his desire ? " Claudius answered and said, " Because we may not blaspheme Our Creator and sin against him, because we may not be found guilty in his sight." Then said unto them the philosophers, 4` Hence it seemeth that ye are Christians " ; and Castorius answered and said, " Verily we are Christians." V. Then the philosophers chose other artificers and stone cutters (artifices quadratarios) and caused them to make a statue of Asclepius out of the Proconnesian stone, which was brought unto the philosophers after thirty‑one days. Thereupon the philosophers informed the Emperor Diocletian that the statue of Asclepius was finished and he straightways commanded that it should be brought before him that he might look upon it. When he beheld the statue he marvelled much and said, " Verily, this is a testimony of the skill of those who have our approbation in the art of sculpture." VI. Then the philosophers said, " Most sacred Emperor, know that those whom your majesty has declared to be most learned in the art of cutting stone, Claudius, Symphorianus, Nicostratus, Simplicius and Castorius, are Christians and, by their magic words, subject the human race." Diocletian said unto them, " If they may not obey the commands of the law and if the charges of your accusation be true, then may they suffer the penalty of the law " (sacrilegii).

 

VII. Then Diocletian, in consideration of their skill, commanded the tribune Lampadius, and said, 4' If they will not offer sacrifices to the Sun‑god, then take them and scourge them with stripes and scorpions ; but if they will consent, then lead them to submission." Five days afterwards Lampadius sat in judgment in that place and commanded the herald to summon them before him and showed them terrible things and all sorts of instruments of martyrdom. When they had entered, he turned to them and said, " Hearken unto me, and avoid martyrdom, be submissive and friendly to the noble prince and sacrifice to the Sun‑god, for hereafter I may not speak unto you in gentle words." VIII. Claudius and his fellows answered with great confidence, 4` This may the Emperor Diocletian know, that verily we are Christians and turn not aside from the worship of our God." Exasperated at this reply, the tribune Lampadius commanded them to be stripped naked and scourged with scorpions, while the herald proclaimed, " Ye shall not contemn the commands of the prince 1 " In that same hour Lampadius was seized with an evil spirit; he was rent asunder with cramps and died in his chair of judgment.

 

IX. When his wife and household heard these things, they ran to the philosophers with a great outcry, so that it came to the ears of Diocletian ; and when he THE QUATUOR CORONATI z25 heard of the occurrence, he said, " Make leaden coffins, put them alive into the same and cast them into the river." Thereupon Nicedus, a senator (togatus), a coadjutor of Lampadius, did that which Diocletian had commanded. He caused leaden coffins to be made, put them alive therein and ordered them to be cast into the river.

 

Here ends the legend in the Breviarium Romanum, 1477. The edition of 1474 agrees exactly with the above up to Lectio III, but varies slightly in the concluding portion. The translation of the Roman German Breviary by Jacob Wog, Venice, 1518, likewise agrees with the above version, with the exception of two passages noted in the text (I, III), and concludes with the following additional paragraph When, however, the holy Cyril heard these things, being in prison, he was filled with grief because of the death of these saints and departed thus from this world to the Lord.

 

The Breviarium Spirense, 1478, varies as follows IV. Claudius, Castorius, Nicostratus and Simphorianus, ingenious artists in the art of cutting stone and sculpture (mirafici quadrandi et sculpendi artifices), being secretly Christians, obeyed the commands of God and made all their work in the name of Christ. A certain Simplicius, who was also experienced in the same art, marvelled much at their skill and works, for they surpassed all the architects of the Emperor, who were six hundred and twenty‑two in number. He was himself still a pagan and, when he worked with them, his work succeeded not, but his own tools broke daily. Therefore he said unto Claudius, " I pray thee, sharpen my tools, so that they break not." Claudius took the tools into his hands, and said, " In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, be this iron strong and proper for work." From that hour Simplicius finished everything that belonged to the ars quadrataria with his iron tools, as did the others and brought it to completion.

 

V. He then asked Symphorianus in what manner he had sharpened them, for the edge of his tools never broke, as had previously been the case. Symphorianus and Castorius answered and said, " God, who is the Creator and Lord of all things, has made His creation strong." Simplicius asked, " Has not god Zeus done this ? " Then answered Claudius, and said, " Repent, my brother, for you have blasphemed God, who has created all things, whom we acknowledge; but we do not acknow ledge as God him whom our hands have made." With these and words like unto them, they converted Simplicius to the faith of Christ, so that he, despising all the images of the gods, went with them to the Bishop Cyril of Antioch, who was then lying bound in prison, because of the name of Christ and had for three years been tortured by many blows, in order to be baptized by him. When they were returned and he had again resumed his task, they all laboured together and made the sign of the cross in the name of Christ, while they worked. They were, however, accused by the philosophers of being Christians, because they would not make a statue of Asclepius of marble, as the emperor had commanded; whereupon, Diocletian, full of rage, spoke, " Make leaden coffers and shut them up alive therein and cast them into the river." But Nicodemus, a Christian, after forty‑two days, raised the chests and the bodies and brought them to his house.

 

VI. The four crowned martyrs were so called, because their names were not 226 THE QUATUOR CORONATI known. For when Diocletian commanded that all should sacrifice to Asclepius, who was called the god of health, because he had been a good physician, these four refused ; whereupon they were scourged to death with leaden scourges and their bodies cast into the streets to be devoured by dogs. So they laid five days and were then buried by St. Sebastian and the Bishop Melchiades. Their names were afterwards revealed as follows : Severus, Severianus, Carpophorus, Victorianus ; before which time, however, the holy Melchiades ordained that the anniversary of their martyrdom should be kept on the same day with that of the holy Claudius, Nicostratus, Symphorianus, Castorius and Simplicius, who were cast into the river in leaden coffins.

 

According to the Breviarium secundum consuetudinem domus Hospitalis Hierosolymitanus Sancti jobannis, Spirx, 1495, the bodies were raised after five days and secretly interred in the Via Lavitana by St. Sebastian.

 

In the Breviarium Ultrajectense (Utrecht), Venet, 1497, we find the legend much the same as in the Breviarium Romanum, but considerably more briefly narrated. Lampadius executes the five martyrs and dies suddenly. Forty days afterwards Nicodemus raises the coffins and buries them in his house. Then follows II. Eleven months afterwards Diocletian ordered a temple to be erected to Asclepius in the Thermx Trajani and a statue of the god to be made of Proconnesian stone. As all the people were commanded to sacrifice, there were present several tribunes (cornicularii). When their opposition was made known to the Emperor Diocletian, he ordered them to be slain with leaden scourges before the statue of the god. After they had been scourged for a long time, they gave up the ghost.

 

The III and last Lectio agrees with the VI of the Breviarium Spirense. The precise date of the martyrdom is given in the Modus orandi secundum ecclesiam Herbipolensem, 1450, which states, " that these holy martyrs suffered for the name of God in the year 287, on the 8th day of Nov." (sextoydus Novembris). But more than one date is current and the two martyrdoms occurred at an interval of eleven months, or, according to some authorities, two years. The account given by Baronius in his Annales Ecclesiastici runs as follows A.D. 303. To these (other martyrs previously cited) were added the five martyrs, Claudius, Nicostratus, Symphorianus, Castorius and Simplicius, who were followed to the martyrs' crown two years ,after by Severus, Severianus, Carpophorus and Victorinus, who excelled in the art of statuary. For they, having refused on the ground of their Christianity to carve images of the gods, were first beaten with scorpions and, finally, being enclosed in leaden coffins (loculis plumbeis), were thrown alive into the river on the 8th Nov., on which day they are entered on the lists of the Holy Martyrs, by reason of their famous memory; on which day also is kept the celebration of the finding of their bodies. It is remarkable how the art of statuary decayed through the ever‑increasing members of the Christians ; for the possessors of this art having been almost without exception converted to Christianity, held it disgraceful to consider as gods the things which they had fashioned with their hands and preferred to die rather than that they should sculpture gods or things dedicated THE QUATUOR CORONATI 227 to gods. Hence the art of statuary, being deprived of almost all its followers, came to and remained in, a state of complete collapse; a proof of which may be clearly and plainly seen by all, in those statues which still exist at Rome which are obviously of rude workmanship, very inferior to those of the (true) ancients. To give but one example out of many, we may refer to those which all can see at Rome on the triumphal arch which shortly after this martyrdom Constantine erected to celebrate his victory over Maxentius, which, on account of the dearth of sculptors, was obliged to be mainly constructed from portions of the memorials of Trajan, Marcus Aurelius and other noble monuments of the city, while the remaining figures which were carved at the time are so rude and shapeless as‑if we may use a poetic simile‑to appear, when compared with the others, like the neck of a horse joined on to the head of a man. (Annales Ecclesiastica cum Antonii Pagii critica, Luccx, 1738‑46, vol. iii, p. 365.) The above statement as to the inferiority of late sculpture is perfectly true. It is usually referred to the general degeneracy of the times, but still the reasons given by Baronius are weighty.

 

The other great and, in some respects, greater, ecclesiastical historian, Tillemont, has The martyrs called by the name of the Four Crowned Ones are famous in the Church but, as regards their history, we have nothing but what is written in the Mar~Tologies and in the Acts of SS. Symphorian, Claudius, Castor, Nicostratus and Simplicius, whose authority is at the best but very middling (fort mediocre). All concur in saying that they (the four) were officers attached to the prefect of Rome, named respectively Severus, Severianus, Carpophosus (sic) and Victorinus, who, having refused to sacrifice, were condemned by Diocletian to be beaten to death with scourges armed with lead.

 

This festival is marked for the 8th Nov. in the Martyrologies of Jerome, Bede and others of later date. It is also found in the Sacramentary of St. Gregory, in the Roman Missal of Thomasius and in the Calendar of Father Fronto. In these three last and in Bede, they are only mentioned by the name of the Four Crowned Ones. We find also the same saints on the 7th and 8th August in the Calendar of Bucherius and in the Martyrologies of St. Jerome, save that the first is called Secundus or Secundinus and not Severus. It is stated that their festival was held at Albano, on the road to Ostia, where their bodies reposed. There was at Rome a Title (church from which a title was derived) and a church of the Four Crowned Ones and it still exists (1698). It was the station of the fifth Monday in Lent. Anastasius says that Pope Honorius built and dedicated a church in their name; and that Leo IV, having found their bodies about the year 849, rebuilt their church, which was falling into ruin and placed their bodies under the altar, together with those of several other martyrs.

 

The account given by the hagiographer Surius is very copious. It is apparently derived from the same source as those in the Breviaries, which it much resembles, if, indeed, it be not the source itself, for Surius, although he wrote considerably later, yet derived his materials from, or rather reprinted, the most ancient and 228 THE QUATUOR CORONATI authentic lives whenever he was fortunate enough to find any. His account is as follows The martyrdom of SS. Claudius, Nicostratus, Symphorianus, Castorius and Simplicius, also of the Four Crowned saints, from the Martyrology of Ado, who compiled the story which, up till then, had existed in various manuscripts and which was until then obscure in many places and abounding in falsehoods.

 

A.D. 290. I. Rome is the scene of the martyrdom of the holy martyrs Claudius, Nicostratus, Symphorianus, Castorius and Simplicius, under the reign of Diocletian and Maximian. These men being very famous workmen and marble workers of the first reputation, stood very high in the esteem of Diocletian. Hence, when, on a certain occasion, they were at work carving marble and hallowed their labours with the sign of the cross, that the work might turn out according to their wishes, one of them, Simplicius, who was still hampered with the errors of paganism, said to the other four, " I adjure you by the Sun‑god, tell us who is that God in whose name you work so well." To whom Symphorianus answered, " If you are able to believe, we will tell you and soon you will not only be able to follow the art as well as we do, but you will also be able to obtain everlasting life." The blessed Cyril confirmed him in the faith to their satisfaction, then baptized him and declared that he believed in Christ the Lord.

 

II. Not long afterwards they were accused by the philosophers of being Christians and because they refused to carve a statue of the god zEsculapius out of porphyry and serpentine (Proconissian) as the Emperor had ordered them, he directed a certain tribune named Lampadius to hear them with moderation. To whom said Lampadius, " Adore the Sun deity in order that you may baffle the designs of these philosophers." To whom they replied, " We will never adore the work of our own hands, but we adore the God of Heaven and earth, who rules for all eternity, Jesus Christ, the Son of God." They were on this relegated to the public prison. From whence, since they refused to change their faith in Christ, they were brought, stripped by order of Lampadius and most severely beaten with leaden scourges.

 

Shortly afterwards Lampadius, being seized by devils, expired. When Diocletian heard this, he was filled with intense rage and ordered one Nicetius, an officer of rank, to see them shut up in leaden chests and, in this fashion, thrown into the river. Forty‑two days after, a certain Nicodemus, a Christian, came and raised the bodies of the martyrs in these leaden chests and deposited them honourably in his house. They were martyred on the sixth of the Ides of November (8th Nov.).

 

IV. It is also the day of martyrdom of the Four Crowned ones, that is, of Severus, Severianus, Carpophorus and Victorinus. These men, on being urged to sacrifice, struggled against it and, by no means yielding their consent to the wishes of the impious, persevered in the faith. But on this being told to the Emperor Diocletian, he immediately ordered them to be beaten to death with scourges loaded with lead, before the shrine of /Esculapius (Asclepius) and that their bodies should be thrown to dogs in the public square, where they lay for five days, until some pious Christians came and, having collected the remains, buried them by the side of the Via Lavicana at the cemetery (or catacomb, literally sandpit), close to the bodies of the holy martyrs Claudius, Nicostratus, Symphorianus, Castorius and Simplicius. They suffered on the 6th of the Ides of Nov. (8 Nov.), but two years after the passion of the five other martyrs. But when their names could no longer be found, THE QUATUOR CORONATI 229 the blessed bishop (Pope) Melchiades determined that the anniversary of the Four Crowned ones should be celebrated under the names of the five holy martyrs. Yet, after the lapse of years, their names also were revealed to a certain pious individual; still the festival as before appointed continued to be celebrated under that of the other martyrs, while the place became celebrated as the resting‑place of the Four. (Laurentius Surius, Vita Sanctorum, etc., Colonix Agrippinx 1617‑18, vol. vi, p. zoo.) It is very clear, then, that whatever confusion may have arisen in the minds of the original writers and those who have at a later period drawn up their compilations, whatever may be the slight discrepancy of date‑a. thing by no means uncom mon or improbable in the chronologies of these early times‑or the divergences that exist in giving priority sometimes to one martyrdom and, sometimes, to the other and the various other discrepancies which may be observed,‑yet that the main story is perfectly consistent and perfectly probable, namely, that there were, as stated in the first instance, two distinct sets of martyrs, four officers of the Roman Court, or of the Prefect of the city and five who were sculptors and, apparently, of humble position, whose names might hence be more easily forgotten, who perished first according to the generally received opinion‑that these having been buried together became confused and, while the name of the first group was continued to the second, the attributes of the latter were alone preserved. These simple entanglements have been to some extent further complicated, at least to superficial writers and readers, by the martyrdoms of St. Carpophorus, St. Victorinus and St. Severianus on the road to Albano and Ostia, on October 7. This is all Ruinart (Les Veritables Actes des Martres, traduits par Drouet de Maupertay, Paris, 1732, tome ii, p. 575) gives concerning them and his reference to the four martyrs is confined to the following 9 Nov. St. Clement, St. Sempronian, St. Claudius, St. Nicostratus, for which he quotes an 11 ancient Roman Calendar compiled under Pope Liberius towards the middle of the 4th cent.," but without giving any further reference, for which reason it has not been placed at the commencement of this chapter. Ribadaneira (Les Fleurs des Vies des Saints, mises en Fra%ais par R. Gaultier, Rouen, 1631, tome ii, Juillet 29) has the following 29 July. Lives of the Saints Simplicianus, Faustinus and Beatrix, martyrs. On the same day as St. Martha, the Church commemorates the holy martyrs Simplicianus, Faustinus and Beatrix, their sister, who suffered at Rome for the faith of Christ in the persecution of the Emperors Diocletian and Maximian. Simplician and Faustinus were first taken and, as they were found to be constant in the faith, they were put to the torture by a Lieutenant of the Emperor and, afterwards, be headed and their bodies thrown into the Tiber. Their holy sister Beatrix recovered, and interred their remains.

 

Ribadaneira does not make any mention of the Four Martyrs or of any of those included under that generic nacre. But he gives, as does Ruinart, Symphorianus of Autun.

 

The very short notice by Alban Butler, a book so easily accessible, which is 230 THE QUATUOR CORONATI but a very short abstract of some of the facts recapitulated above, needs no further allusion.

 

Lastly, we come to the vast compilation known by the name of the Acta Sanctorum ; or, Lives of the Saints par excellence, or sometimes by that of the Bollandists, from Bollandus, the originator, a Jesuit of Liege in the seventeenth century, who had Henschenius and Papebrochius as his principle coadjutors. Probably no work has ever displayed greater learning, patient industry and critical acumen. It is, perhaps, the most astonishing monument of human power that has ever appeared. The best and earliest lives, often several, are given, but it is the dissertations prefixed to the lives of the various saints, which often constitute the lives themselves, no original documents being forthcoming, that constitute the especial merit of the work. Nothing in the power of skill, research, or candour is omitted and, when one never rises from the perusal of any one of them without feeling that if, according to the old saying, what Salmasius did not know, was beyond the power of human knowledge, so with much greater truth it may be observed that what, on their particular subject, is omitted by the Bollandists, is beyond the reach of human research. It may be remarked that English proper names are invariably given correctly, a thing most rarely to be found in works of Continental origin; one is often surprised to find descriptions of English localities, given with a clearness and accuracy which would seem to imply personal knowledge. On the 29th July appears Simplicius, who, with Faustinus and their sister Beatrix, were martyred on that day by Diocletian, as mentioned above. This martyrdom is also in Surius, tome iii, p.136. That of Symphorianus of Autun, martyred under Aurelian‑some say Marcus Aurelius is given under date the 22nd August; also in Surius, tome iv, p. z s i. They also have under date the 7th August Exanthus, Cassius, Carpophorus, Severinus, Secundus, Licinius, soldiers and friends of the Emperor Maximian, martyred by him on that day at Milan; also under date the 9th September Severianus martyred in the same persecution at Sebaste (Samaria), inserted both in the old Greek and in the Russian calendars.

 

In one portion of their work they have, however, the following verses on the Four Senas ornantes Idus merito atque cruore, Claudi, Castori, Simplici, Simphoriane, Et Nicostrate, pari fulgetis luce corona ; O Claudius, Castorius, Simplicius, Simphorianus and Nicostratus, you shine with equal light in your crown, adorning the sixth Ides by your virtues and your blood.

 

Having thus accomplished the history of the lives or rather the deaths of these martyrs, we will now turn our attention to that of their relics.

 

i. In the very ancient sacred Martyrologies, the blessed and adorable martyrs, Claudius, Nicostratus, Symphorianus and Simplicius (Castorius is omitted), together with the Four Crowned ones, are said to have been buried on 8th November by the side of the Via Lavicana ; and, indeed, Bede, in his 1Vlartyrology, asserts this plainly in the following words: " At Rome is the scene of the martyrdom of the Four THE QUATUOR CORONATI 231 holy crowned martyrs Severus, Severinus, Victorinus and Carpophorus, who, being urged to sacrifice against their will and, in no way giving their consent, persevered in the faith. This was reported to the Emperor Diocletian, who thereupon ordered that they should be beaten to death with scourges loaded with lead before the statue of AEsculapius, who further directed their bodies to be thrown to the dogs in the public square (platea), where they remained untouched for five days. The Christians then came and, having collected the bodies buried them on the Via Labicana (or Lavicana, the b and v being interchangeable) at the third milestone from the city, near the bodies of the holy martyrs Claudius, Nicostratus, Symphorianus, Castorius and Simplicius. But, two years after the passion of these four martyrs, when their names were almost forgotten (as might possibly happen in a time of fierce persecution and frequent massacres), the blessed Melchiades, the bishop, ordained that the anniversary of the Four Crowned ones should be kept under the name of the Four Holy Martyrs. In the lapse of time, however, the name of each individual saint was revealed, but the festival, as had been ordained, continued to be celebrated on the festival of the other martyrs and the place became celebrated as the burial‑place of the Four Crowned ones, as in the original MSS." So far Bede, with whom Ado agrees, also their own Acta in the Vatican, where it is added that their bodies were collected and buried in the catacombs (or cemetery), near the Via Labicana, by the blessed martyr St. Sebastian and by Melchiades when bishop, before the latter's elevation to the papacy. The following also occurs in these Acta Whose bodies he (the Emperor) ordered to be thrown to the dogs in the public square, where they remained five days. Then the blessed Sebastian came by night with Melchiades, the bishop, collected the bodies and buried them by the side of the Via Labicana, somewhere about the third milestone from the city of Rome, together with other saints in the same cemetery (always arenaria, lit. sand‑pit).

 

But since a cemetery of this kind is said to have existed near the third milestone from the city on the Via Labicana, which was equally the burial‑place of SS. Marcellinus and Peter (not St. Peter, the Apostle), we may be permitted to conjecture that this one was either contiguous to, or, at least, very near to the other, for there is no mention of it elsewhere.

 

z. Moreover, the precious relics of these martyrs were preserved in the above cemetery until the time of the blessed Pope Leo IV, who, having been when a priest raised to the rank of cardinal by the designation of that of the Four Crowned Martyrs, on attaining the dignity of Supreme Pontiff (A.D. 841) honoured their title with no unsparing hand and, having exhumed many bodies of holy martyrs from the cemeteries and catacombs, piously transferred them to this spot, especially those of the Four Crowned ones, which, together with other ever‑to‑be‑venerated bodies of saints and other relics, he deposited with all honour under the high altar of the church, as the librarian (Anastasius), speaking of Leo, relates in these words He, indeed, the ever blessed Pope, and the favoured of God, being animated by the greatest zeal and divine love, collected together in a marvellous manner, within the 232 THE QUATUOR CORONATI walls of the blessed city, the bodies of numerous saints which had long remained neglected. For he discovered, by skilful inquiries, the bodies of the Four Crowned Holy Martyrs and, for the great affection which he bore them, he reconstructed the church, which was consecrated to their memory and which church, until he was raised to the Papacy, he had governed with the greatest wisdom, but which had become shattered by the defects of old age and the lapse of time, so that, broken to ruins, it had long proclaimed its antiquity and, being fractured, retained nothing of its former excellence except tottering craziness. This church, I say, he rebuilt from the foundation in a more beautiful and sumptuous manner and, for the glory of God, collected and placed under the sacred altar their most sacred bodies, namely, those of Claudius, Nicostratus, Symphorianus, Castorius and Simplicius ; also Severus, Severianus, Carpophorus and Victorinus, who were the Four Crowned brothers; also Marius Audifax and Abacus, Felicissimus Agapitus Hippolytus and his servants to the number of 18, Aquilinus, Aquila, Prisca, Narcissus, Marcellinus, Felix Symmetrius, Candidus, Paulina, Anastasius, Felix Apolion, Benedict Venantius, Felix, Diogenes, Liberilis, Festus, Protus, Cxcilia, Alexander Sixtus, Sebastian, Praxides the Virgin, together with many others whose names are known to God alone. Over this (tomb) he raised a cibarium to the glory of God of extraordinary beauty and workmanship, fabricated of the purest silver gilt, and studded with emeralds and sapphires (amethysts ?), the whole weight being 313 lbs. 1.

 

After this the Bibliothecarius (Anastasius) goes on to relate the list of gifts presented to the same church, which church became afterwards greatly ruined, more especially when Robert Guiscard, prince of Salerno, during the papacy of Gregory VII, burned all the region which lies between the amphitheatre and the Lateran, but was again entirely repaired by Pope Paschal II (iogg‑iii 8) and restored to its former beauty, to which the Bibliothecarius refers in these words In like manner, he consecrated the Church of the Four Crowned Martyrs, which had been destroyed in the time of Robert Guiscard, prince of Salerno, after having rebuilt it from the foundation. He consecrated it in the 17th year of his Pontificate on the zoth of January.

 

From which accounts of the churches of the holy martyrs, when the city, being surrounded with armed men, was forced to submit to the enemy's fury, we may understand that the ruin was effected with no slight loss to things sacred and to relics.

 

3. Before, however, the said Pope Paschal had solemnly consecrated the church, i.e. in the twelfth year of his pontificate and, while occupied with its restoration, he came upon two urns (urnas) under the high altar, one of porphyry, the other of Proconnesian stone commonly called serpentine, in which were preserved the relics of the same blessed martyrs ; these chests (areas) he surrounded with a solid wall, an altar being placed above and beneath was a stone of very great size, having in its middle a window shaped like an arch and which opened on the relics. On the right hand of the same stone was the former place of interment of the bodies of these revered martyrs, which had been erected by Pope Leo IV, whereof the Biblio‑ THE QUATUOR CORONATI 233 thecarius speaks, on which was recorded a marble inscription; on the left hand all that happened at the same period might be read at length in an inscription on marble written in similar characters. These most sacred bodies, now no longer clearly known to any and enclosed by walls, remained hidden for a length of time until the last century, when Garzius Millinus, who took his title of cardinal from the church, who was also urban vicar to Paul V (1605‑21), proceeded to restore and adorn this very ancient shrine from the great love he bore to the blessed martyrs and, while wholly occupied with the work, he suddenly came upon these extremely ancient stone chests and in them the most precious bodies of the martyrs, together with very many relics of other holy martyrs, some of which were of great value. This discovery was the source of the greatest rejoicing to himself, the people and to the Supreme Pontiff, who was zealous in adorning the monuments of sacred antiquity. Wherefore, being animated by a singular accession of devotion, because, under the golden era of his pontificate, new treasures of sacred things hitherto invisible had, by the especial revelation of heaven, beer made manifest as well to the city as to the world, he, accompanied by a noble attendance of cardinals, by the leaders of the Roman Court and by a great multitude of the Roman people, proceeded with all convenient speed to the sacred and venerable relics. Further, Fedinus, canon of St. Maria, Maggiore, a counsellor of the aforesaid Cardinal Millinus and an eye‑witness of the above events, gave a public account, diligently drawn up as usual of the worshipped and adorable finding of these relics, also a most excellent account sufficiently detailed to satisfy the curiosity of individuals, to which we refer the reader who may be desirous of further information. And so much for these things.

 

There is a short notice in Le Cose Maravigliose Di Roma, per Giacomo Mascardi, 1622, which differs slightly, inasmuch as it makes Adrian I to have preceded Leo IV as restorer of the church. The Mirabilia Urbis Rome, 1618, with which the former is sometimes bound up, makes no mention of the founder Melchiades or of Adrian I, but says, " Honorius I xdificavit, collapsam fere restituit S. Leo IV, instauravit deinde Paschalis II." Precisely the same statement appears in Las Cosas Maravillosas De la Sancta Ciudad De Roma, 1589. Of the present state of the edifice we have the following description (J. Donovan, D.D., Rome Ancient and ffodern, 1842, vol. i, p. 631) .

 

SS. Quattro Coronati. The church of the Four Crowned Brothers is situated on the summit of the Cxlian hill between the hospital of St. John Lateran and St. Clements. It was first built, according to Panvinio, by Pope Melchiades in the fourth century; it derives its name from the four martyrs, Severus, Severianus, Carpophorus and Victorinus, who suffered in the persecution of Diocletian, whose bodies were deposited here by Leo IV in the ninth century (Anas. Biblioth. Vit. Leon IV). It was subsequently repaired by several Pontiffs, also by Cardinal Carillo in the time of Martin V, as is recorded by an inscription in its inner vestibule. The annexed Camaldolese convent was converted by Pius IV in 15 6o into a female orphan‑house, placed under the care of resident Augustinian nuns.

 

It is entered by a rude vestibule and two atria with porticos, in the inner one of which is a door to the right opening into a very ancient chapel dedicated to St. Sylvester, 234 THE QUATUOR CORONATI now belonging to the confraternity of sculptors. On its walls are several paintings of the seventh and eighth centuries, illustrative of the life of Constantine. The church is divided into a nave and two small aisles by eight granite columns, over which rises a sort of superstructure in the manner of the ancient basilicas, adorned with eight similar but smaller columns. The floor, which is much worn, has been a handsome specimen of opus Alexandrinum or mosaic. Over the first altar, to the right, is a painting of St. Augustin learning, as a child, the exhaustless depth of the profound mystery of the Blessed Trinity. Next comes the handsome monument of Mons. Aloysio d'Aquino, who died in 1679. The flight of steps which we meet next, also the corresponding one on the opposite side, lead down to the subterranean chapel, inside the altar of which repose the bodies of the Four Crowned martyrs, together with those of several other saints. In the tribune, the under range of paintings represents the conversion, martyrdom, etc., of the five sculptors,.Claudius, etc., whose relics are preserved in this church. The second range represents the sufferings and death of the four Crowned martyrs and, above, the cornice is a glory, much admired for the excellence of the design and the freedom of the execution, all by Manozzi, called Giovanne da S. Giovanni. Over the next altar, in the left aisle, is a St. Sebastian by Baglioni : the head of the martyr is preserved over the altar, having been enclosed in a silver case by Gregory IV, and placed here by Leo IV. Over the last altar is the Annunciation by some obscure hand. The Station occurs on the 27th day of Lent and the festival on the 8th Nov.

 

The observations which next follow have been forwarded from Rome by Shakespeare Wood.

 

The church, or rather Basilica, was dedicated to the 11 Quattro Coronati ed i Cinque Scultori Martiri " jointly.

 

The Holy Martyrs, of whom the legend speaks, were probably the Cinque. But as the Basilica was generally called and known by the first part only of its name, i.e. " The Quattro Coronati," so, as time passed, the memory of the five sculptors or masons became, so to say, blended in that of the Four Crowned ones and these latter to be considered as the patrons of masons.

 

The oldest inscription in the Basilica states" The blessed Leo IV (who rebuilt the church 847‑55) replaced beneath the altar the bodies of the Holy Martyrs, Claudius, Nicostratus, Sinforian, Castor and Simplicius, and of the Holy Quattro Coronati, Severus, Severianus, Carpophorus and Victor." This inscription gives the post of honour in point of priority to the five sculptors and it is to be noted that they are described as ` i Santi Martiri,' as in the legend, while the other four, who were soldiers‑trumpeters corniftces‑are called ` i Santi Quattro Coronati,' as in the MS.

 

They were called Coronati because of the manner of their martyrdom. Moreover, in the inscription, the soldiers are grouped as the Quattro Coronati, while the masons are simply described in the plural as the " Holy Martyrs." These sculptors or masons suffered martyrdom in the reign of Diocletian rather than make a statue of ~Esculapius. Their bodies were thrown into the Tiber and, on being recovered, were placed in the catacomb " ad duos lauros " on the Via Labicana.

 

The four soldiers also suffered martyrdom later in the same reign and their bodies were laid by St. Melchiades in the catacomb " ad duos lauros," next to the THE QUATUOR CORONATI 235 bodies of the Holy Martyrs, Claudius, Nicostratus, Sinforian, Castor and Simplicius ‑i.e. the bodies of the five sculptors or masons.

 

Some years later Melchiades became Pope, 310; then he removed [persecution was now over] the bodies of the Holy Martyrs and of the Quattro Coronad to a Basilica on the Cxlian he had built and dedicated to their memory. This church must have been one of the very earliest built in Rome, for the reason that it was only in A.D. 3 ‑1 3 that Constantine the Great emancipated the Christians from the disabilities weighing upon them and it became possible for them to build churches without falling under the provisions of the penal code; and Melchiades died on the loth of Dec. of that same year.

 

Melchiades may have been a " Mason " (?). He was an African, but from what part I cannot ascertain and it is curious that among other church regulations he ordered that two candlesticks should stand upon the altar.

 

I find that St. Bernard wrote a life of Melchiades, the MS. of which is said to have been placed in the Library of Benet's College, Cambridge‑i.e. Corpus Christi. The Basilica of the Quattro Coronati in Rome was, therefore, built 300 years before that bearing the same name was founded at Canterbury‑but it is noteworthy that the primitive Basilica in Rome was rebuilt by Honorius I A.D. 622, that in Canterbury was founded A.D. 6‑1;,.

 

There may have been some special revival of the veneration of those particular saints at that time‑or a connecting link of some kind. On the death of Pope Sergius II A.D. 847, the clergy and people, who had then their part in the Pontifical election, assembled in the " Sand Quattro " and, taking the Cardinal Titular of the Basilica, carried him with great applause to the Patriarchal Basilica of St. John Lateran close by and acclaimed him Pope. He took the name of Leo IV and, as I have said, rebuilt the church with greater magnificence.

 

In A.D. ‑1084, it was burned down when Robert Guiscard took Rome and was again rebuilt for the third time, a palatial residence being added to it by Paschal II A.D. ‑1‑1‑16.

 

When 'the Lateran Palace was destroyed the Popes lived for some time in the Palace of the Quattro Coronati. Several Popes were elected there and several of the Titulars of the Basilica were, like Leo IV, elevated to the Pontifical throne. The day assigned to the Quattro Coronati and the Cinque Scultori Martiri is the 8th of Nov., which closes the octave of All Saints' and their office‑one of the oldest in the Breviary‑is ascribed to Pope Melchiades. If this be well founded, it must first have appeared in the Breviaries of his day.

 

St. Gregory I held the Basilica in great esteem and transferred to it the Station for the 4th Monday in Lent, as still observed.

 

The honour in which the Basilica was held was such that the Pontiff, when present in it on the Saints' Day‑the 8th Nov.‑wore his Tiara.

 

The very ancient oratory of St. Sylvester in the portico of the Basilica was the chapel of the confraternity of sculptors and masons, founded in the time of Innocent VII A.D. ‑1406, " under the invocation of the Holy Quattro Coronati and of the other five Holy Martyrs who had followed the profession of sculptors." The members of the confraternity wore a dress of red with blue sashes. They now assemble in the Church of St. Andrea in Vinchi, near the Piazza Montanara, on the side of the Capitoline Hill, as being more convenient than the old oratory. Since what date this change was made, I cannot at the moment tell, except that it was anterior, but THE QUATUOR CORONATI perhaps not long anterior to 1756. The primitive basilica of the Quattro Coronati was built before the Patriarchal Basilica of St. John Lateran, the cathedral of Rome, which was consecrated by St. Sylvester, the successor of Melchiades, A.D. 3i9.

 

In a subject of much antiquarian interest and in which some little but, considering all the circumstances, by no means excessive, confusion exists, it is better to give every possible authority at length, to use a common phrase, without note or comment,‑and now, having arrived at the tolerably safe conclusion that at first five sculptors‑clearly not masons‑and shortly after four soldiers or officers, civil or military, were martyred, probably on the same day and interred, certainly, in the same spot, whereof one set supplied the name and the other the emblems to future generations,‑we now come to the consideration of what these emblems were, after which will be added a few general observations on the whole subject.

 

The emblems of these martyrs, since they became patrons of the building trades, consist of the saw, hammer, mallet, compasses and square ; these instruments, especially in Belgium, are sometimes found surmounted by a small crown, to signify their intimate connexion with the Four. These latter are also represented with a dog or a wolf, to signify the animals who either refused to eat their corpses or prevented others from eating them, when exposed for five days in the public thoroughfare. The hammer, etc., is used by various trades, such as carpenters and joiners ; hence they have taken these saints for their patrons. In Brussels, shoemakers have even, as it were, ranged themselves under their banner. But there are later innovations, which were adopted when the Flemish trades were gradually reorganized in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, from motives of public policy. To what do the crowns of the Four Crowned ones refer ? It may have been to certain distinguishing ornaments which, when alive and holding their offices, the martyrs wore upon their heads, but their position was, perhaps, too obscure for such a distinction ; it is more likely to refer to the crown of martyrdom, which, in process of time, became more peculiarly attached to them;‑as in the case of St. George, the dragon originally meant sin and the saint trampling on the beast represented the triumph of the martyr over sin. Viewed in this light, it is a very common attribute of the earlier pictures of saints, especially of St. Mary Magdalen, but it has since become the more or less exclusive property of St. George.

 

A good deal has been made of the Four Martyrs, taking the name for the whole, from a Masonic point of view, but, possibly, erroneously. These martyrs were the patron saints of particular trades, chosen, like the patron saints of all other trades, long after the event of martyrdom, when the trades acquired some corporate or other organized form and, when, in consequence, they chose for patrons those who had some kind of affinity, more or less remote, with their own pursuits. Hence the antiquity of the legend of the Four does not prove the antiquity of the Masonic body; taken in its medixval, i.e. working, sense, it merely shows that, as might naturally be expected, the building trades chose those saints whose calling had some THE QUATUOR CORONATI 237 kind of connexion with their own and, as they could not actually get bricklayers and stonemasons, they not unnaturally chose sculptors. No account makes them masons and the Masonic tinge in Germany has evidently been given by Masonic influence.

 

It is a curious fact, however, that in dioceses where, at the time, great cathedrals were being erected, as at Spires, 1477 ; Utrecht, 1497 ; and Wurzburg, 148o, the Breviaries contain ample details of the Four; whilst they are barely mentioned in those of Basle and Constance, 148o; Salzburg, 148z ; Liittich,149z ; and Erfurt 1495. The medixval masons did not, probably, perfect their organization until the fifteenth century. All the instances given by the German authorities, as far, at least, as can be ascertained, relate to this period. The statutes of the stonemasons of Strasburg, said to be the earliest, date from 1459. Then come the regulations of 146z. Merzdorf, in his Medals of the Freemasons, mentions a copper medal, probably emanating from the Society of the Four Crowned Martyrs at Antwerp, the date of which is 1546; they are also mentioned in the Missale Coloniense, 148o and in the Passio Sanctorum quatuor Coronatorum, printed by Wattenbach at Vienna in 18 5 3, from a MS. in the Ducal Library at Coburg, but of which the date is not given. Schauberg, in his work on the Symbolism of Freemasonry, states that the Meister tafel (master table) at Basle had on each of its sides a representation of one of the Four Crowned Martyrs. Neither of these two instances appears to be late. We have seen above that the confraternity of the sculptors and masons at Rome did not occupy the chapel at the Quattro Coronati at Rome until 1406. So, in England, all tends to the conclusion that the Masonic body took its complete and final form in the same century. In Moore's Freemason's Monthly Magazine (Boston, U.S.A., April 1863), it is said that " it is impossible at this day to decide with certainty which of these Breviaries is the original source from which this legend has been taken." If Freemasons would only cease reading in a circle and take counsel of some other writers besides those within the mystic pale, they would see that the legend of the Four, besides being perfectly natural and authentic, is of immeasurably higher antiquity than anything of which the building or any other trades can boast. It will be tolerably evident to those who take the trouble to reason calmly and correctly, that when the guilds, trade unions, or by whatever name the associations of workmen may have been called, were formed, that, according as was the fashion of the times, they chose patron saints and that the building trades chose the sculptors, under the generic name of the Four Holy Martyrs, as being the nearest approach to men of their own calling. All references to the ars quadrataria, their being masons, etc., are clearly the invention of those trades whose patrons they had become, to bring them more closely en rapport. Cahier says that the Carpophorus and Severinus, whose martyrdom, together with that of others, was celebrated the 7th August (vide supra), were, in reality, martyred at Como and that their being confused with two out of the Crowned was the cause of the latter having been considered as the patron saints of Como. But both Surius and the Bollandists concur in fixing the martyrdom of the above Severinus and his comrades at Milan, which, though tolerably near to, is emphati‑ 238 THE QUATUOR CORONATI cally not the same place as, Como. The Magistri Comacini were celebrated as builders in the earlier portion of the Middle Ages ; it is probable, though apparently there is no proof of it, that it was here that the Four, again speaking generally, became the patrons of the building trades. When did these Magistri Comacini flourish ? The sole authority is Muratori, who in the commencement of one of his dissertations merely says, speaking of progress in Italy, that the masons of Como became so famous that the name was used in other countries as synonymous with a skilled mason (Lombardo, as a generic name, certainly existed in Spain). But what date was this ? Muratori gives none, not the clue to any and it may be said of Muratori as of the Bollandists, that what was beyond the power of his research may fairly be given up as beyond investigation. Still, it could not have been very early and the influence of Lombard and Byzantine architecture in Western Europe will, on examination, be found to be exceedingly mythical.

 

The generality of guilds, whether an entirely new invention, or imitated from the Roman Collegia, or their revival after they had been hidden, like seed in the ground, among obscure meetings of the people during a long period of ignorance and barbarism, do not, apparently, date much before the year 1000 A.D., for the same reason that, prior to that period, society was not in a sufficiently settled or advanced stage, as to admit of any great progress in the arts and, consequently, to induce any extended trades organizations; and this would be more especially the case among the building trades. It has, indeed, been said that St. Augustine officiated in the Church of the Four Martyrs at Rome before coming to England and, as a church dedicated to the same martyrs, is casually mentioned by Bede, speaking of a fire that occurred in Canterbury, A.D. 619 ; it has been sought to connect the two events ; and, to deduce from them a kind of strange theory that, in some way or another, St. Augustine was instrumental in introducing Masonry into Britain. Now, in the first place, it is as well that readers should disabuse their minds once and for all of the idea that the Catholic Church had ever any connexion with Masonry. The employer and the mistress of the operative masons in the Middle Ages, she has been the unflinching antagonist of Speculative Masonry in modern times; but has never been the ally or the originator of either, unless, in the sense of a demand creating a supply, in the Middle Ages. Next, who built the church at Canterbury ? Three hundred years almost, if not quite, elapsed between the martyrdom of the Four, an event whichwas almost contemporaneous with the establishment of theChristian as the State religion and the coming of Augustine. Why should we assume that the church was necessarily built in the twenty years or so between the coming of Augustine and the fire, not in the 300 years before ? It must not be forgotten that, as may indeed be gathered from the legends, these saints were in early times exceedingly popular‑for saints have their fashion and popularity, as well as persons ; take St. George, who after all was a very ordinary kind of martyr; and it is therefore exceedingly likely that a church built in those times would be dedicated to them, whether erected by St. Augustine or not. Moreover, Augustine was a Benedictine monk, therefore, could not well belong to the Church of the Four at Rome, which THE QUATUOR CORONATI 239 was not connected with the Benedictine (then the sole religious) fraternity. Lastly, even taking the most extravagant supposition, assuming that Augustine did come from the Church of the Four at Rome and did build the church at Canterbury, it only proves that he remembered his former home and does not prove any connexion with building trade organizations that sprang up hundreds of years later, at which time only the connexion, such as it was, between the masons and the Four began.

 

Ireland names the churches of St. Martin and of the Four Crowned Martyrs as the oldest ecclesiastical edifices in Canterbury. To the former he assigns the earlier date and thinks that the latter, which stood on ground now occupied by the church of St. Alphage, was erected about the time of St. Augustine, A.D. 5 97, its name (Four Crowned Martyrs) being conferred by one of the earliest archbishops, of whom the three first were Romans (History of the County of Kent, 1828, vol. i, pp. 157, 166). On the other hand, however, the view already presented in the text is supported by the arguments of a learned writer, which are the more conclusive from the fact of being penned without special reference to the point in dispute. According to Coote, Britain in the fifth century was abundantly furnished with churches and the Christianity of this island was continued without a break from the date of St. Alban's martyrdom (A.D. 303) down to the arrival of St. Augustine (The Romans of Britain, 1878, pp. 417, 419).

 

The Germans assume that, because the Four appear in their early ordinances, therefore our Masons must have derived their origin from them. The argument, which is well worthy of a German, runs as follows: " Muller and Smith both rejoice in the Christian name of Charles, therefore Mullet is not only senior to, but either father or uncle to, Smith." On the same principle it might be contended that, because the old churches at Yarmouth and Brighton are both dedicated to St. Nicholas, the patron saint of fishermen, that, therefore, the Brighton fishermen must necessarily be descended from those of Yarmouth. It might equally well be the other way ; but, of course, the truth simply is, that fishermen being under the general protection of St. Nicholas, that class of men usually invoked his protection, wherever found and without any sort of cohesion or connexion and the attempt to assume a universal body of fishermen, sprung from one common origin, actuated by one common impulse, ruled by one common head, is about equivalent to supposing the same in connexion with the building trades. It has never been suggested of the one trade and, indeed, its absurdity would strike anyone at once and it is only misplaced ingenuity, false pride and narrow learning which has ever caused the idea to be entertained concerning the other. But, as it happens, Smith is, as far as we know, really older than Mullet‑i.e. the earliest Masonic document yet discovered, in which mention is made of the Four, is English and not German; and, as we have seen, the Crowned Martyrs were the patron saints of a British Church, many centuries, at least, before there is historic proof of the legend of their martyrdom having acquired currency in Germany.

 

Halliwell considers the MS. he has published, of a date " not later than the latter part of the fourteenth century," i.e. more than half a century before the 240 THE QUATUOR CORONATI Strasburg Constitutions. The following are the lines relating to the Four (Early History of Freemasonry in England, pp. 31, 32) Ars quatuor coronatorum.

 

Pray we now to God almyght, And to hys swete moder Mary bryght, That we mowe keepe these artyculus here, And these poynts wel al y‑fere, As dede these holy martyres fowre, That yn thys craft were of gret honoure ; They were as gode masonus as on erthe shul go, Gravers and ymage‑makers they were also.

 

For they were werkemen of the beste, The emperour hade to hem gret Juste ; He wylned of hem a ymage to make, That mowt be worscheped for his sake ; Such mawmetys lie bade yn hys dawe, To turne the pepul from Crystus lawe. But they were stedefast yn Crystus lay, And to here craft, withouten nay; For they nolde not forsake here trw fay, An byleve on hys falsse lay.

 

The emperour let take hem sone anone, And putte hem ynto a dep presone ; The sarre he penest hem yn that plase, The more yoye wes to hem of Cristus grace. Thenne when he sye no nother won, To dethe he lette hem thenne gon ; Whose wol of here lyf yet mor knowe, By the bok he may hyt schowe, In the legent of scanctorum, The names of quatuor coronatorum. Here fest wol be withoute nay, After Alle Halwen the eyght day.

 

CHAPTER XI THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON HE original grant of arms to the " Hole Crafte and felawship of Masons," dated the twelfth year of Edward IV [1472‑14731, from William Hawkeslowe, Clarenceux King of Arms, is now in the British Museum (Addl. MSS. 19, 13 5). No crest is mentioned in the grant, although one is figured on the margin (see Masonic Magazine, vol. ii, p. 87, where the text of the document is given at length), with the arms, as follows :‑Sable on a chevron engrailed between three square castles triple‑towered argent, masoned of the first, a pair of compasses extended silver. Crest, on a wreath of the colours a castle as in the arms, but as was often the case slightly more ornamental in form.

 

This grant was confirmed by Thomas Benolt, Clarenceux, twelfth Henry VIII or 1520‑z1 and entered in the Visitation of London made by Henry St. George, Richmond Herald in 1634.

 

At some later time the engrailed chevron was changed for a plain one and the old ornamental towered castles became single towers, both in the arms and crest. The arms thus changed are given by Stow in his Survey of London, 1633 and have been repeated by other writers since his time. A change in the form of the towers is noticed by Randle Holme in his Academie of Armory, 1688 (P. zoo verso. See also Masonic Magazine, January 18 8z). " Of olde," he says, " the towers were triple towered " ; and to him we are indebted for the knowledge that the arms had columns for supporters. These arms he attributes to the " Right Honored and Right Worshipfull company of ffree‑Masons." Seymour in his Survey of the Cities of London and ilestminster (vol. ii, b. iv, p. 381), 173 5, gives the date of the incorporation of the company " about 141 o, having been called Free‑Masons, a Fraternity of great Account, who having been honour'd by several Kings and very many of the Nobility and Gentry being of their Society," etc. He describes the colour of the field of the arms, azure or blue.

 

Maitland in his History and Survey of London (p. 1248), 1756, describes the arms properly and adds that the motto is " In the Lord is all our Trust." Although of considerable antiquity, he says that the Company was " only incorporated by Letters Patent on the 29th of Charles II, 17th September, anno 1677, by the name of the Master, Wardens, Assistants and Commonalty of the Company of Masons of the City of London," etc.

 

Berry in his Encyclopedia Heraldica (vol. i, " Masons ") states that it was incorporated zd of Henry II, 1411, which may be a misprint for i zth of Henry IV, I41o‑11, following Stow (1633), or for the date at which the arms were granted 241 242 THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON 12th Edw. IV. He adds that the Company was re‑incorporated September 17, i 7th Charles II, 1677. Here is again an error. By no calculation could the i 2th Charles II be the year 1677 ; it was the 29th regnal year of that king as stated by Maitland from the Patent Roll.

 

On the annexed plate will be found the arms of the companies as given by Stow in 1633 ; and with them a number of arms of the French and German companies of Masons, Carpenters and joiners taken from the magnificent work of Lacroix and Sere, Le Moyen Age et la Renaissance (1848‑51). The latter show the use of various building implements, the square, compasses, rule, trowel, in the armorial bearings of the Masons, etc., of other countries. To these are added in the plate, for comparison, the arms as painted upon two rolls of the Old Charges, both dated in the same year, viz. 1686,‑one belonging to the Lodge of Antiquity, No. 2 ; and the other preserved in the museum at Duke Street, St. James's, S.W. It is interesting to note that the arms are precisely similar to those figured by Stow in 163 3 and that, in each case, they are associated with the arms of the City of London, proving beyond doubt that both these rolls, which are handsomely illuminated at the top, were prepared originally for London Lodges of Masons or Freemasons.

 

One important misstatement which has acquired general currency, through its original appearance in a work of deservedly high reputation (Herbert, Companies of London, vol. i, p. 34), stands in need of correction. Reginald R. Sharpe, who, in 1879, was kind enough to search the archives of the City of London for early references to the terms Mason and Freemason, says Herbert in his Companies of London refers to " lib. Ix., fo. 46 " among the Corporation Records for a list of the Companies who sent representatives to the Court of Common Council for the year 5o Edw. III [1376‑1377]. He probably means Letter Book H., fo. 46 b., where a list of that kind and of that date is to be found. In it are mentioned the " Freemasons " and " Masons," but the representatives of the former are struck out and added to those of the latter.

 

The term " Fre[e]masons " never varies; " Masons " becomes Masouns in Norman French; and Cementarii in Latin.

 

The preceding remarks are of value, as they dispel the idea that in early civic days the Masons and Freemasons were separate companies. The former body, indeed, appears to have absorbed the Merblers [i.e. workers in marble], of whom Seymour (following Stow) says The Company called by the Name of Marblers, for their excellent knowledge and skill in the art of inscuiping Figures on Gravestones, Monuments and the like, were an antient Fellowship, but no incorporated Company of themselves, tho' now joined with the Company of Masons.

 

Arms :‑Sable, a chevron between two Chissels in Chief, and a Mallet in Base, Argent. (See Robert Seymour, A Survey of the Cities of London and Westminster, 1735, bk. iv, P‑ 392‑) THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON 243 Down to the period of the Great Fire of London, the Company of Carpenters would appear to have stood at least on a footing of equality with that of the Masons. If, on the one hand, we find in the early records mention of the King's Freemason, on the other hand there is as frequent allusion to the King's Carpenter (see E. B. Jupp, Historical Account of the Company of Carpenters, 1848, p. 16 S ; and Transactions Royal Institute of British Architects, i861‑z, pp. 37‑6o) and promotion to the superior office of Surveyor of the King's Works was as probable in the one case as in the other. (In the reign of Henry VIII, the office of Surveyor of the King's Works was held successively by two members of the Carpenters' Company. See Jupp, op. cit., p. 174.) The city records show that, at least, as early as the beginning of the reign of Edward I (127 z), two master Carpenters and the same number of master Masons, were sworn as officers to perform certain duties with reference to buildings and walls and the boundaries of land in the city, evidently of much the same nature as those confided to a similar number of members of these two companies, under the title of City Viewers, until within little more than a century ago. In the matter of precedence the Carpenters stood the 25th and the Masons the 31st on the list of companies. Nor was the freedom of their craft alone asserted by members of the junior body. If the Masons styled themselves Free Masons, so likewise did the Carpenters assume the appellation of Free Carpenters, though there seems to be no instance of the latter adopting the common prefix, otherwise than in a collective capacity.

 

According to a schedule of wages for all classes of artificers, determined by the justices of the peace in 161o, we find that the superior or Master Freemason was hardly on a footing of equality with the Master Carpenter, e.g.

 

With Meat. Without Meat. s. d. s. d.

 

A Freemason which can draw his plot, work, and set accord ingly, having charge over others‑ Before Michaelmas, 8 o 12 0 After Michaelmas, 6 o io 0 A master carpenter, being able to draw his plot, and to be master of work over others‑ Before Michaelmas, 8 o 14 0 After Michaelmas, 6 o io 0 " With meat," a Freemason and master bricklayer were each to receive 6s. ; " a rough mason, which can take charge over others," 5 s. ; and a bricklayer, 4s. (The Rates of Wages of Servants, Labourers and Artificers, set down and assessed at Oakham, within the County of Rutland, by the Justices of the Peace there, the z8th day of April, Anno Domini, 16io‑Arrbaologia, vol. xi, pp. zoo, zo3).

 

Of course, the details just given do not possess anything more than an operative significance ; but the classification into " rough masons capable of taking charge over others," Freemasons simpliciter and Freemasons who can draw plots‑by justices of the peace, in a sparsely populated county‑‑affords a good illustration of the difficulties which are encountered when an attempt is made to trace the actual meaning of the operative term, by which the members of our speculative society are now described.

 

244 THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON After the Great Fire of London, the demand for labour being necessarily great, " foreigners " as well as freemen readily obtained employment, much to the prejudice of the masons and carpenters, as well as to other members of the building trades. By a Statute of 1666, entitled " An act for Rebuilding the Citty of London " (18 and 19, Car. II, c. viii, s. xvi), it was ordained That all Carpenters, Brickelayers, Masons, Plaisterers, Joyners, and other Artificers, Workemen, and Labourers, to be employed on the said Buildings [in the City of London], who are not Freemen of the said Citty, shall for the space of seaven yeares next ensueing, and for soe long time after as untill the said buildings shall be fully finished, have and enjoy such and the same liberty of workeing and being sett to worke in the said building as the Freemen of the Citty of the same Trades and Professions have and ought to enjoy, Any Usage or Custome of the Citty to the contrary notwithstanding : And that such Artificers as aforesaid, which for the space of seaven yeares shall have wrought in the rebuilding of the Citty in their respective Arts, shall from and after the said seaven yeares have and enjoy the same Liberty to worke as Freemen of the said Citty for and dureing their naturall lives. Provided alwayes, that said Artificers claiming such priviledges shall be lyeable to undergoe all such offices, and to pay and performe such Dutyes in reference to the Service and Government of the Citty, as Freemen of the Citty of their respective Arts and Trades are lyeable to undergoe, pay, and performe.

 

This statute materially affected the interests, and diminished the influence, of the two leading companies connected with the building trades. In 1675, Thomas Seagood, a tiler and bricklayer, was chosen by the Court of Aldermen as one of the four City Viewers, an innovation upon the invariable usage of selecting these officials from the Masons' and Carpenters' Companies. As three years later there occurred a similar departure from the ordinary custom, it has been suggested that as the fire of London had occasioned the erection of wooden houses to be prohibited, the Court of Aldermen considered that a bricklayer would be a better judge of the new buildings than a carpenter, and as good a judge as a mason ; though it may well excite surprise that a Glazier, a Weaver, and a Glover were successively chosen Viewers in the years 1679, 1685, and 1695. (See Jupp, op. cit., p. 19z.) The masons, carpenters, bricklayers, joiners, and plasterers of London, feeling themselves much aggrieved at the encroachments of " foreigners " who had not served an apprenticeship, made common cause, and jointly petitioned the Court of Aldermen for their aid and assistance, but though the matter was referred by the civic authorities to a committee of their own body, there is no evidence that the associated companies obtained any effectual redress.

 

These details are of importance, for, however immaterial, upon a cursory view, they may seem to the inquiry we are upon, it will be seen as we proceed, that the statutory enactments passed for the rebuilding of London and of St. Paul's Cathedral, by restricting the powers of the companies, may not have been without their influence in paving the way for the ultimate development of English Freemasonry into the form under which it has happily come down to us.

 

THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON 245 It was the subject of complaint by the free carpenters and their grievance must have been common to all members of the building trades, that by pretext of the Stat. 18 and 19, Car. II, c. viii, a great number of artificers using the trade of car penters procured themselves to be made free of London, of other companies ; whilst many others were freemen of other‑ companies, not by the force of the said Act and yet used the trade of carpenters. Such artificers, it was stated, refused to submit themselves to the by‑laws of the Carpenters' Company, whereby the public were deceived by insufficient and ill workmanship. Even members of the petitioners' own company, it was alleged, had " for many years past privately obtained carpenters free of other companies to bind apprentices for them and cause them to be turned over unto them," there being no penalty in the by‑laws for such offences. " By means whereof," the petition goes on to say, " the carpenters free of other companies are already grown to a very great number; your Petitioners defrauded of their Quarterage and just Dues, which should maintain and support their increasing Poor; and their Corporation reduced to a Name without a Substance." (See Jupp, op. cit., Appendix I. See also The Ancient Trades Decayed, Re paired Again. Written by a Country Tradesman, London, x678, p. 51, where the hardship endured by a person's trade being different from that of the company of which he is free, is pointed out ; and it is contended that " it would be no prejudice to any of the Companies, for every one to have his liberty to come into that Company that his trade is of, without paying anything more for it.") The charter granted to the Masons' Company in the 29th year of Charles II (x677)‑confirming, in all probability, the earlier instrument which was (in the opinion of John Hunter, for many years clerk of the company) burnt in the Great Fire‑provides that the privileges of the Masons' Company are not to interfere with the rebuilding of the Cathedral Church of St. Paul.

 

At that time, except by virtue of the operation of the statute before alluded to [18 and 19, Car. II, c. viii, s. xvi], no one could exercise the trade of a mason without belonging to, or by permission of, the Masons' Company.

 

Incidental to the jurisdiction of the company were certain powers of search, which were exercised so late as 1678. In the early part of that year the minutes record that " a search was made after unlawful workers " and various churches appear to have been thus visited, amongst others, St. Paul's. On April 25 in the same year a second search was made, which is thus recorded: "Went to Paul's with Mr. Story, and found 14 foreigners." Afterwards and, apparently, in consequence of the proceedings last mentioned, several " foreigners " were admitted members and others licensed by the Masons' Company.

 

The " Freedom " and " Court " books of the company alike, commence in 1677, which has rendered the identification of some of its members exceedingly difficult, inasmuch as, unless actually present at the subsequent meetings, their connexion with the company is only established by casual entries, such as the binding of apprentices and the like‑wherein, indeed, a large number of members, whose admissions date before 1677, are incidentally referred to. Still, it is much to be 246 THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON regretted that an accurate roll of the freemen of this guild extends no higher than 1677. One old book, however, has escaped the general conflagration and, though it only fills up an occasional hiatus in the list of members preceding the Great Fire, it contributes, nevertheless, two material items of information, which in the one case explains a passage in Stow (ed. 1633, p. 630) of great interest to Freemasons, and in the other by settling one of the most interesting points in Masonic history, affords a surer footing for backward research than has hitherto been attained.

 

The record, or volume in question, commences with the following entry [162o].‑" The ACCOMPTE of James Gilder, William Ward, and John Abraham, Wardens of the company of ffremasons." The title, " Company of Freemasons," appears to have been used down to the year 165 3, after which date it gives place to " Worshipful Company," and " Company of Masons." The point in Masonic history which this book determines is " that Robert Padgett, Clearke to the Worshippfull Society of the Free Masons of the City of London," in 1686, whose name‑together with that of William Bray, Freeman of London and Free‑mason‑is appended to the MS. Constitutions (23) in the possession of the Lodge of Antiquity, was not the clerk of the Masons' Company. The records reveal, that in 1678 " Henry Paggett, Citizen and Mason," had an apprentice bound to him. Also, that in 1709, James Paget was the Renter's Warden. But the clerk not being a member of the company, his name was vainly searched for by Hunter in the records post‑dating the Great Fire. The minutes of 1686 and 1687 frequently mention " the clerk " and the payments made to him, but give no name. The old Accompte Book, however, already mentioned, has an entry under the year 1687, viz. " Mr. Stampe, Cleark," which, being in the same handwriting as a similar one in 1686, also referring to the clerk, but without specifying him by name, establishes the fact that " the Worshippfull Society of the Free Masons of the City of London," whose clerk transcribed the " Constitutions " in the possession of our oldest English Lodge, and the " Company of Masons " in the same city, were distinct and separate bodies.

 

Whether Valentine Strong, whose epitaph has been given in an earlier chapter, was a member of the Company, cannot positively be determined, but as Hunter entertains no doubt of it, it may be taken that he was. At all events, five of his sons, out of six, undoubtedly were, viz. Edward and John, admitted April 6, 168o, the latter " made free by service to Thomas Strong," the eldest brother, whose own admission preceding, it must be supposed, the year 1677, is only disclosed by a casual entry; Valentine on July 5, 1687; and Timothy on October 16,16go. Also Edward Strong, junior, made free by service to his father in 1698.

 

In terminating the extracts from these records, it is only necessary to observe, that no meeting of the Masons' Company appears to have taken place on March 1 i, 1682. Neither Ashmole, Wren, nor Anthony Sayer were members of the company. The books record nothing whatever under the years 16gi or 1716‑17, which would lend colour to a great convention having been held at St. Paul's, or tend to shed the THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON 247 faintest ray of light upon the causes of the so‑called "Revival." The words " Lodge " or " Accepted " do not occur in any of the documents and, in all cases, members were " admitted " to the freedom. Thomas Morrice (or Morris) and William Hawkins, Grand Wardens in 1718‑19, and 1722 respectively, were members of the company, the former having been " admitted " in 1701, and the latter in 1712.

 

The significance which attaches to the absence of any mention whatever of either William Bray or Robert Padgett, in the records of the Masons' Company, will be duly considered when the testimony of Ashmole and his biographers has been supplemented by that of Plot, Aubrey and Randle Holme, which, together with the evidence supplied by our old manuscript Constitutions, will enable us to survey seventeenth‑century Masonry as a whole, to combine the material facts and to judge of their mutual relations.

 

Before, however, passing from the exclusive domain of operative masonry it may incidentally be observed that, by all writers alike, no adequate distinction between the Freemasons of the Lodge and those of the guild or company, has been maintained. Hence, a good deal of the mystery which overhangs the early meaning of the term. This, to some slight extent, may be dispelled and, by extracts from accredited records, such as parish registers and municipal charters, the actual positions in life of those men who, in epitaphs and monumental inscriptions extending from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries, are described as Freemasons may be indicated.

 

To begin with, the Accompte Book, of the Masons' Company informs us that from 1620 to 165 3 the members were styled " ffremasons." If there were earlier records, they would doubtless attest a continuity of the usage from more remote times. Still, the extract given by Sharpe from the City Archives carries it back, inferentially, to the reign of Edward III.

 

In The Calendar of State Papers (Domestic Series, 1603‑10, p. 163) will be found the following entry: " 1604, Oct. 31.‑Grant of an incorporation of the Company of Freemasons, Carpenters, Joiners and Slaters of the City of Oxford." Richard Maude, Hugh Daives, and Robert Smith, " of the Citty of Oxon, Freemasons," so described in a receipt given by them, December 2o, 1633, the contractors for the erection of " new buildings at St. John's College," were probably members of this guild. This rests on the authority of some extracts from documents in the State Paper Office, sent to the Duke of Sussex by (Sir) Robert Peel, April 26, 1830 and now preserved in the archives of the United Grand Lodge. Hughan published the extracts in the Voice of Masonry, October 1872, A charter of like character was granted by the Bishop of Durham, April 24, 1671, to " Miles Stapylton, Esquire, Henry Frisoll, gentleman, Robert Trollap, Henry Trollap " and others, " exerciseing the severall trades of ffree Masons, Carvers, Stone‑cutters, Sculptures [Marblers], Brickmakers, Glaysers, Penterstainers, Founders, Neilers, Pewderers, Plumbers, Mill‑wrights, Saddlers and Bridlers, Trunk‑makers and Distillers of all sorts of strong waters." A transcript of the original was made by W. H. Rylands. On the dexter margin of the actual charter 148 THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON are the arms of the [Free] Masons and, on the sinister margin, those of the Sculptures [Marblers].

 

This ancient document has some characteristic features. In the first place, the Freemasons occupy the post of honour, and the two Trollops are known by evidence aliunde to have been members of that craft. On the north side of a mausoleum at Gateshead stood, according to tradition, the image or statue of Robert Trollop, with his arm raised, pointing towards the town hall of Newcastle, of which he had been the architect, and underneath were the following quaint lines Here lies Robert Trowlup Who made yon stones roll up When death took his soul up His body filled this hole up.

 

(See R. Surtees, History and Antiquities of the County of Durham, 1820, vol. ii, p. 120. According to the Gateshead Register, " Henry Trollop, free‑mason," was buried November 23, 1677 and "Mr. Robert Trollop, masson," December i 1, 1686. See further, T. Pennant, Tour in Scotland, 1790, vol. iii, p. 310.) The bishop's charter constitutes the several crafts into a " comunitie, ffellowshipp and company " ; names the first wardens, who were to be four in number, Robert Trollap heading the list and subject to the proviso, that one of the said wardens " must allwaies bee a ffree mason " ; directs that the incorporated body " shall upon the fower and twentieth day of June, comonly called the feast of St John Baptist, yearely, for ever, assemble themselves together before nine of the clock in the fore noone of the same day and there shall, by the greatest number of theire voices, elect and chuse fouer of the said fellowshippe to be theire wardens and one other fitt person to be the clarke ; . . .‑. and shall vpon the same day make freemen and brethren ; and shall, vpon the said fover and twentieth day of June and att three other feasts or times in the yeare‑that is to saie, the feast of St Michael the Archangel, St John Day in Christeninas and the five and twentieth day of March, . ‑ . for ever assemble themselves together, .‑. .‑. and shall alsoe consult, agree vpon, and set downe such orders, acts, and constitucons .‑. .‑. as shall be thought necessarie." Absence from " the said assemblies " without " any reasonable excuse " was rendered punishable by fine, a regulation which forcibly recalls the quaint phraseology of the Masonic poem And to that semble he must nede gon, But he have a resenabul skwsacyon, That ys a skwsacyon, good and abulle, To that semble withoute fabulle. (Halliwell MS. (i) line i i r.) The charter and funds of the corporation were to be kept in a " chist," of which each warden was to have a key. Lastly, the period of apprenticeship, in all cases, was fixed at seven years. " The very soul of the Craft‑Gild was its meetings, which were always held with certain ceremonies, for the sake of greater solemnity. The THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON 249 box, having several locks, like that of the trade‑unions and containing the charters of the Gild, the statutes, the money and other valuable articles, was opened on such occasions, when all present had to uncover their heads " (Brentano, On the History and Development of Gilds, p. 61). It maybe useful to state that all references to Brentano's work are taken from the reprint in a separate form, not from the historical Essay prefixed to Smith's English Gilds.

 

The value of this charter is much enhanced by our being able to trace two, at least, of the persons to whom it was originally granted. Freemason and mason would almost seem, from the Gateshead Register, to have been words of indifferent application, though, perhaps, the explanation of the varied form in which the burials of the two Trollops are recorded may simply be, that the entries were made by different scribes, of whom one blundered‑a supposition which the trade designation employed to describe Robert Trollop does much to confirm.

 

The annual assembly on the day of St. John the Baptist is noteworthy, not less so the meeting on that of St. John the Evangelist in lieu of Christmas Daythe latter gathering forming as it does the only exception to the four yearly meetings being held on the usual quarter‑days.

 

In holding four meetings in the course of the year, of which one was the general assembly or head meeting day, the Gateshead Company or fellowship followed the ordinary guild custom. Toulmin Smith gives at least twenty‑three examples of quarterly meetings. " Every Gild had its appointed day or days of meeting‑once a year, twice, three times, or four times, as the case might be. At these meetings, called 'morn‑speeches,' in the various forms of the word, or ` dayes of spekyngges tokedere for here comune profyte,' much business was done, such as the choice of officers, admittance of new brethren, making up accounts, reading over the ordinances, etc.‑one day, where several were held in the year, being fixed as the ` general day ' " (English Gilds, introduction, by Lucy Toulmin Smith, p. xxxii). Cf. Fabric Rolls of York, Minster, Surtees Soc., vol. xxxv (pleghdai), p. I I ; Harl. 11S. 6971, fol. i z6 ; and Smith, English Gilds, pp. 8, 31, 76, and 274. The " making of freemen and brethren " is a somewhat curious expression, though it was by no means an unusual regulation that the freedom of a guild was to be conferred openly. Thus No. .

 

XVI of the Ordinances of Worcester directs " that no Burges be made in secrete wise, but openly, bifore suiciaunt recorde." (See Smith, English Gilds, p. 39o.) The rules of the " Gild of St. George the Martyr," Bishops Lynn, only permitted the admission of new‑comers at the yearly general assembly and, by assent of all, save good men from the country.

 

Whether the words " freemen and brethren " are to be read disjunctively or as convertible terms, it is not easy to decide. In the opinion of Toulmin Smith, the Craft Guild of Tailors, Exeter, " reckoned three classes," namely‑(i) the Master and Wardens and all who had passed these offices, forming the livery men; (z) the shop‑holders or master tailors, not yet advanced to the high places of the Guild; and (3) the " free‑sewers " or journeymen sewing masters, who had not yet become shop‑holders. The Ordinances of this Craft Guild, which, in their general 250 THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON tenor, date from the last half of the fifteenth century, enact, " That all Past Masters shall be on the Council of the Guild and have the same authority as the Wardens; also, that the Master, and not less than five Past Masters, together with two of the Wardens, must assent to every admittance to the Guild." oIt is consistent with this analogy, that the " brethren " made at Gateshead, on each 24th of June, were the passed apprentices or journeymen out of their time who had not yet set up in business on their own account; and the parallelism between the guild usages of Exeter and Gateshead is strengthened by the circumstance that the free‑sewers,‑i.e. stitchers‑or journeymen sewing masters, are also styled " ffree Brotherys " in the Exeter Ordinances. Besides Free Masons, Free Carpenters, Free Sewers and the " Free Vintners " of London, there were the " Free Dredgers " of Faversham, chartered by Henry II and still subsisting as the corporation of " free fishermen and free dredgermen " of the same hundred and manor in 1798. Each member had to serve a seven years' apprenticeship to a freeman and to be a married man, as indispensable qualifications for admission (E. Hasted, Historical and Topographical Survey of Kent, 1797‑18oi, vol. vi, p. 3 5 2) ; also the " ffree Sawiers," who in 1651 " indited a fforreine Sawier at the Old Bayly " (Jupp, op. cit., p. i6o) ; " Free Linen Weavers " (Minutes, St. Mungo Lodge, Glasgow, Sept. 25, 1784) ; and lastly, the " Free Gardeners," who formed a Grand Lodge in 1849, but of whose prior existence there is trace, in the " St. Michael Pine‑Apple Lodge of Free Gardeners in Newcastle," established in 1812 by warrant from the " St. George Lodge " of North Shields, which was itself derived from a Lodge " composed of Soldiers belonging to the Forfar Regiment of Militia " (E. Mackenzie, A Descriptive and Historial Account f Newcastle‑upon‑Tyne, 1827, vol. ii, p. 597).

 

These regulations ordain that " alle the ffeleshyppe of the Bachelerys " shall hold their feast " at Synte John‑ys day in harwaste,"‑the principal meeting thus taking place as at Gateshead, on the day of St. John the Baptist‑every shopholder was to pay 8d. towards it, every servant at wages 6d., and " euery yowte (out) Broder " 4d. (See Smith, English Gilds, p. 313.) There were four regular days of meeting in the year and, on these occasions, the Oath, the Ordinances and the Constitutions were to be read (ibid., p. 315).

 

It is improbable that all apprentices in the Incorporated Trades of Gateshead attained the privileges of " full craftsmen " on the completion of the periods of servitude named in their indentures and their position, mutatis mutandis, must have approximated somewhat closely to that of the Tailors of Exeter; on the other hand and in a similarly incorporated body, i.e. not composed exclusively of Masons, we find by a document of 1475, that each man " worthy to be a master " was to be made " freman and fallow." It may be mentioned, moreover, that in the Records of the Alnwick Lodge (1701‑48), no distinction whatever appears to be drawn between " freemen " and " brethren." Wyatt Papworth has suggested, that as there is sufficient evidence to support the derivation of " Freemason " from " Free Stone Mason," Free‑man mason and Free‑mason‑i.e. free of a Guild or Company‑it is possible that these THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON 251 deductions may afford satisfaction to every class of theorist. Before, however, leaving this philological crux, some additional examples of the use of the word " Freemason " will not be out of place and, taken with those which have been given in earlier chapters, will materially assist in making clear the conclusions arrived at. It is singular that the word " Freemason " is not given in Johnson's Dictionary, 1st edition, 175 5.

 

The earliest use of the expression in connexion with actual building operations ‑so far, at least, as research has yet extended‑occurs in 1396, as we have already seen and we will pass on to the year 1427 and, from thence, proceed downwards, until the list overlaps the formation of the Grand Lodge of England. It may, however, be premised, that the examples given are, as far as possible, representative of their class and that, to the best of belief, a large proportion of them appear for the first time in a collected form. For convenience' sake, each quotation will be prefaced by the date to which it refers. Arranged in this manner, we accordingly find under the years named 1427.‑John Wolston and John Harry, Freemasons, were sent from Exeter to Beere to purchase stone. From the Exeter Fabric Rolls ; published in Britton's Hist. and Antiq. of the Cath. Ch. of Exeter, 1836, p. 97 ; also by the late E. W. Shaw in the Freemasons' Mag., April 18, 1868 ; and in the Builder, vol. xxvii, p. 73. John Wolston was Clerk of the Works there in 1426.

 

1490, Oct. 23.‑" Admissio Willi Atwodde Lathami." The Dean and Chapter of Wells granted to William Atwodde, " ffremason," the office previously held in the church by William Smythe, with a yearly salary. The letter of appointment makes known, that the salary in question has been granted to Atwodde for his good and faithful service in his art of " ffremasonry." Nos dedisse et concisse IVillielmo Atwodde ffremason, pro suo bono et diligenti servicio in arte sua de ffre‑ masonry," etc. (Rev. H. E. Reynolds, Statutes of Dells Cathedral, p. 180).

 

1513, Aug. 4.‑By an indenture of this date, it was stipulated that John Wastell, to whom allusion has been already made, should " kepe continually 6o fre‑masons workyng " (Malden, Account of King's College, Cambridge, p. 8o).

 

15 3 5.‑" Rec. of the goodman Stefford, ffre mason for the holle stepyll wt Tymbr, Iron and Glas, xxxviijl" (Records of the Parish of St. Alphage, London Wall, City Press, August 26, 1882).

 

15 36.‑John Multon, Freemason, had granted to him by the prior and convent of Bath " the office of Master of all their works commonly called freemasonry, when it should be vacant" (Transactions R.LB.A., 1861‑2, pp. 37‑6o).

 

15 5 o.‑" The free mason hewyth the harde stones, and hewyth of, here one cod a pece, & there another, tyll the stones be fytte and apte for the place where free ma‑ he wyll laye them. Euen so God the heavenly free mason, buildeth a son. christen churche and he frameth and polysheth us, whiche are the costlye and precyous stones, wyth the crosse and afliiccyon, that all abhomynacyon & wickednes which do not agree unto thys gloryous buyldynge, myghte be remoued & 252 THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON taken out of the wage . i. Petr. ii." (Werdmuller, A Spyrytuall and Aloost Preq~ouse Pearle, tr. by Bishop Coverdale, 15 5 0, fol. xxi).

 

1590‑1, March i g.‑" John Kidd, of Leeds, Freemason, gives bond to produce the original will of William Taylor, junr., of Leeds." From the Wills Court at York, cited in the Freemason's Chronicle, April 2, 18 81.

 

15 94.‑On a tomb in the church of St. Helen, Bishopsgate Street, are the following inscriptions South side " HERE I LYETH THE BODIE OF WILLIAM KERWIN OF THIS CITTIE OF LON FREE MASON WHOE DEPARTED THIS LYFE THE 26 H DAYE OF DECEMBER ANO North side " 'Edibvs Attalicis Londinvm qui decoravi : Me dvce svrgebant alijs regalia tecta Exigvam tribvvnt hanc mihi mihi fata dome : Me dvce conficimr ossibvs vrna meis : " (" The Fates have afforded this narrow house to me, who hath adorned London with noble buildings. By me royal palaces were built for others. By me this tomb is erected for my bones.") (See W. H. Rylands, An Old Mason's Tomb, Masonic Magazine, September 1881.) A brief notice of Kerwin's epitaph will also be found in the European Magazine, vol. lxiv, 1813, p. Zoo.

 

Although the arms of the Kerwyn family appear on the monument, " the west end presents, from a Masonic point of view, the most interesting portion of the tomb. In a panel, supported on each side by ornamental pilasters, is represented the arms of the Masons as granted by William Hawkeslowe in the twelfth year of Edward IV (1472‑3) :‑On a chevron engrailed, between three square castles, a pair of compasses extended‑the crest, a square castle, with the motto, God is our Guide. It is interesting to find the arms here rendered as they were originally granted, with the chevron engrailed and with the old square four‑towered castles, not the plain chevron and single round tower, as now so often depicted." In the opinion of W. H. Rylands, this is the earliest instance of the title " Freemason " being associated with these arms. From Stow we learn more of the tomb and the family of William Kerwin ; he writes :‑" In the South Ile of this Church, is a very faire Window with this inscription : ' This window was glazed at the charges of Joyce Eeatly, Daughter to Villiam Kerwyn Esquire and Wife to Daniel Eeatly, D.D. Anno Domini 163 2 ' " (Remaines, a supplement to the Survey, 163 3, p. 8 3 7).

 

1598.‑The Will of Richard Turner of Rivington . co. Lanc . dated July 1, proved Sept. i9. An inventory of Horses, Cows, Sheep, tools, etc. ; total C57. 16 . 4. (See W. H. Rylands, MS. Collection, now in the Bodleian Library, Oxford.) 1604, Feb. 12.‑" Humfrey son of Edward Holland ffremason bapt[ized.]" 161 O‑‑I 3.‑Wadham College, Oxford, was commenced in 161 o and finished in 1613. In the accounts " the masons who worked the stone for building are called Free masons, or Freestone Masons, while the rest are merely called labourers. It is curious that the three statues over the entrance to the hall and chapel were cut by one DON I S 94..

 

THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON 253 of the free masons (William Blackshaw)." (Orlando Jewitt, The Late or Debased Gothic Buildings of Oxford, 18 5 0.) 1627‑8.‑Louth steeple repaired by Thomas Egglefield, Freemason, and steeple mender. (Archceologia, vol. x, p. 70.) 163 8.‑The will of Richard Smayley of Nether Darwen. co. Lane. ffree Mayson (apparently a Catholic), dated the 8th, proved the 3oth of May. In the inventory of his goods‑,C65. 9. o‑‑with horses, cattle, sheep and ploughs, there occur, "one gaveloeke [spear], homars, Chesels, axes and other Irne [iron] implemts belonging to a Mayson." (Rylands, MS. Collection.) 1689.‑On a tombstone at Wensley, Yorkshire, appear the words, " George Bowes, Free Mason." The Masons' Arms, a chevron charged with a pair of open compasses between three castles, is evidently the device on the head of the stone. (T. B. Whytehead, in The Freemason, August 27, 1881, p. 3 86.) 1701.‑The orders (or rules) of the Alnwicke Lodge are thus headed:Orders Orders to be observed by the Company and Fellowship of Free Masons att a lodge held at Alnwick Septr. 29, 1701, being the genll. head meeting day." From the account of this lodge, published by Hughan in the Masonic Magazine, vol. i, p. z14; and from the AIS. notes taken by F. Hockley from the Alnwicke records. The 12th of the " Orders," referred to in the text, is as follows :‑" Item, thatt noe Fellow or Fellows within this lodge shall att any time or times call or hold Assemblys to make any mason or masons free : nott acquainting the Master or Wardens therewith, For every time so offending shall pay L3 . 6 . 8." 1708, Dec. 27.‑Amongst the epitaphs in Holy Trinity Churchyard, Hull, is the following under the above date:‑" Sarah Roebuck, late wife of John Roebuck, Freemason." (T. B. Whytehead, in The Freemason, citing Gent's History of Hull, P. 54‑) 1711, April 29.‑" Jemima, daughter of John Gatley, freemasson, Bapt[ized]." (W. H. Rylands, in The Freemason, citing the registers of the parish church of Lymm, Cheshire. It will be remembered that Richard Ellam was styled of " Lyme (Lymm), Cheshire, freemason.") 1722, Nov. 25.‑In the churchyard of the parish of All Saints at York there is the tomb of Leonard Smith, Free Mason. (G. M. Tweddell, The Freemason, July 22, 1882, citing Thomas Gent's History of York,, 1730.) 1737, Feb.‑In Rochdale Churchyard, under the date given, is the following epitaph:‑" Here lyeth Benj. Brearly Free Mason." (James Lawton, Freemason's Chronicle, February 3, 1883.) The derivation of the term " Freemason " lies within the category of Masonic problems, respecting which, writers know not how much previous information to assume in their readers and are prone in consequence to begin on every occasion ab ovo, a mode of treatment which is apt to weary and disgust all those to whom the subject is not entirely new.

 

In this instance, however, an endeavour has been made to lead up to the final stage of an inquiry presenting more than ordinary features of interest, by considering 254 it from various points of view in earlier chapters. The records of the building trades, the Statutes of the Realm, and the Archives of Scottish Masonry have each, in turn, contributed to our stock of information, which, supplemented by the evidence last adduced, will now be critically examined as a whole.

 

Wyatt Papworth contends " that the earliest use of the English term Freemason " was in 1396. That the word " Freemason " appears then for the first time in any records that are extant, relating directly to building operations, is indeed clear and indisputable. In the Sloane Collection, No. 4595, page 50, is the following copy of the original document, dated 14th June, 19th Richard II, or A.D. 1396.

 

THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON 14 June. Pro Archiepiscopo Cantuar.

 

(Pat. icg R. 2. p 2. m. 4.) Rex omnibus ad quos &c. Salutem Sciatis quod concessimus Venerabili in Christo Patri Carissimo Consanguineo nostro Archiepiscopo Cantuar. quod ipse pro quibusdam operationibus cujusdam Collegii per ipsum apud Villam Maidenston faciend. viginti et quatuor lathomos vocatos ffre Maceons et viginti et quatuor lathomos vocatos ligiers per deputatos suos in hac parte capere et lathomos iilos denariis suis eis pro operationibus hujusmodi rationabiliter solvend. quousque dicti operationes plenarie facte et complete existant habere et tenere possit. Ita quod lathomi predicti durante tempore predicto ad opus vel operationes nostras per officiarios vel ministros nostros quoscumque minime capiantur.

 

In cujus &c.

 

Teste Rege apud Westm xiiij die Junii Per breve de Privato Sigillo.

 

But the same descriptive term occurs in other and earlier records. In 1376‑7 ‑5o Edw. III‑the number of persons chosen by the several mysteries to be the Common Council of the City of London was 148, which divided by 48‑at which figure Herbert then places the companies‑would give them an average of about 3 representatives each. Of these the principal ones sent 6, the secondary 4, the small companies 2. (Companies of London, vol. i, pp. 33‑4.) The names of all the companies are given by Herbert, together with the number of members which they severally elected to represent them. The Fab`m. chose 6, the Masons 4, the Freemasons 2. The Carpenters are not named, but a note explains Fab'm. to signify Smiths, which, if a contraction of Fabrorum, would doubtless include them. The earliest direct mention of the Carpenters' Company occurs in 1421, though as the very nature of the trade induces the conviction that an association for its protection must have had a far earlier origin, Jupp argues from this circumstance and from the fact of two Master Masons and a similar number of Master Carpenters having been sworn, in 1272, as officers to perform certain duties with regard to buildings, that there is just ground for the conjecture that these Masons and Carpenters were members of existing guilds. (History of the Carpenters' Company, p. 8.) This may have been the case, but unquestionably the members of both the callings‑known THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON 255 by whatever name‑must have been included in the Guilds of Craft, enumerated in the list of 1376‑7.

 

Verstegan, in his Glossary of Ancient English Words, s.v. Smithe, gives us To smite hereof commeth our name of a Smith, because he Smitheth or smiteth with a Hammer. Before we had the Carpenter from the French, a Carpenter was in our Language also called a Smith, for that he smiteth both with his Hammer, and his Axe ; and for distinction the one was a Wood‑smith and the other an Iron‑smith, which is nothing improper. And the like is seen in Latin, where the name of Faber serveth both for the Smith and for the Carpenter, the one being Faber ferrarius and the other Faber lignarius. (See Restitution of Decayed Intelligence in Antiquities concerning the .. English Nation, 1634, p. 231.) As it is almost certain that the Company of Fab`m. comprised several varieties of the trade, which are now distinguished by finer shades of expression, we may safely infer that the craftsmen who in those and earlier times were elsewhere referred to as Fabei lignarii or tignarii, must have been included under the somewhat uncouth title behind which we have striven to penetrate. The only other branch of carpentry represented in the list of companies (1375) appears under the title of Voodmogs, which Herbert explains as meaning Woodsawyers (mongers). This company had two representatives.

 

In this view of the case, the class of workmen, whose handicraft derived its raison d'etre from the various uses to which wood could profitably be turned, were in 1376‑7 associated in one of the principal companies, returning six members to the common council. It could hardly be expected that we should find the workers in stone, the infinite varieties of whose trade are stamped upon the imperishable monuments which even yet bear witness to their skill, were banded together in a fraternity of the second class. Nor do we ; for the Masons and the Freemasons, the city records inform us, pace Herbert, were in fact one company and elected six representa tives. How the mistake originated, which led to a separate classification in the first instance, it is now immaterial, as it would be useless to inquire. It is sufficiently clear, that in the fiftieth year of Edward III there was a use of the term Freemason and that the persons to whom it was applied were a section or an offshoot of the Masons' Company, though in either case probably reabsorbed within the parent body. Inasmuch, however, as no corporate recognition of either the Masons or the Freemasons of London can be traced any further back than 1376‑7, it would be futile to carry speculations any higher. It must content us to know, that, in the above year, the trade or handicraft of a Freemason was exercised in the metropolis. It is probable that the Freemasons and Masons of this period‑i.e. those referred to as above in the city records‑were parts of a single fraternity and, if not then absolutely identical, the one with the other, from this period they doubtless became so. In support of this position there are the oft‑quoted words of Stow (Survey of London, 1633, p. 630), the masons, otherwise termed, free‑masons " were a society of ancient standing and good reckoning; " the monument of William Kerwin ; and the records of the Masons' Company; not to speak of much indirect evidence, which 256 THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON will be considered in its proper place. If Valentine Strong was a member of the London Company of Masons, the title " Freemason " on his monument (1662) would be consistent with the name used in the company's records down to 165 3 ; but even if the connexion of the Strong family with the London Guild commenced with Thomas Strong, the son, it is abundantly clear that Valentine, the father, must have been a member of some provincial company of Masons.

 

Whilst, however, contending that the earliest use of " Freemason " will be found associated with the freedom of a company and a city, the existence of other channels through which the term may have derived its origin may readily be admitted. The point, indeed, for determination is not so much the relative antiquity of the varied meanings under which the word has been passed on through successive centuries, but rather the particular use or form, which has merged into the appellation by which the present Society of Freemasons is distinguished.

 

The absence of any mention of Freemasons in the York Fabric Rolls is rather singular and, by some, has been held to uphold what has been termed the guild theory,‑that is to say, that the prefix free was inseparably connected with the free dom of a guild or company. The references to masons, on the contrary, are very numerous ; the following, taken from the testamentary registers of the Dean and Chapter, being one of the most curious :‑" Feb. 12, 1522‑3. Christofer Horner, mason, myghtie of mynd and of a hooll myndfulness. To Sanct Petur wark all my tuyllis [tools] within the mason lughe [lodge]." However, if the records of one cathedral at all sustain this view, those of others (Exeter, Wells and Durham; see under the years 1427 and 149o) effectually demolish the visionary fabric which has been erected on such slight foundation. The old operative regulations were of a very simple character ; indeed Papworth observes‑" The ` Orders ' supplied to the masons at work at York Cathedral in 13 5 5 give but a poor notion of there being then existing in that city anything like a guild claiming in virtue of a charter given by Athelstan in 926, not only over that city, but over all England." That " Freemason" was in use as a purely operative term from 1396 down to the seventeenth and, possibly, the eighteenth, century, admits of no doubt whatever; and, discarding the mass of evidence about which there can be any diversity of opinion, this conclusion may safely be allowed to rest on the three allusions to " Freemasonry " (see above under the years 1490 and 15 36) as an operative art and the metaphor employed by Bishop Coverdale in his translation from Werdmuller. In the former instance the greater may well be held to comprehend the less and the " art " or " work " of " Freemasonry " plainly indicates its close connexion with the Freemasons of even date. In the latter we have the simile of a learned prelate (Miles Coverdale, Bishop of Exeter), who, it may be assumed, was fully conversant with the craft usage, out of which he constructed his metaphor. This, it is true, only brings us down to the middle of the sixteenth century, but there are special reasons for making this period a halting‑place in the progress of our inquiry.

 

The statute 5 Eliz., c. IV, passed in 1562, though enumerating, as already observed, every other known class of handicraftsmen, omits the Freemasons.

 

.q d It is somewhat singular, that approaching the subject from a different point of view, we find in the seventh decade of the sixteenth century a period of transition in the use of Freemason, which is somewhat confirmatory of previous speculations.

 

Thus in either case, whether we trace the guild theory up, or the strictly operative theory down‑and, for the time being, even exclude from consideration the separate evidence respecting the Masons' Company of London‑we are brought to 1ti' a standstill before we quite reach the era named. For example, assuming that John 1i Gatley and Richard Ellam of Lymm, John Roebuck, George Bowes, Valentine Strong, Richard Smayley, Edward Holland, Richard Turner, William Kerwin and John Kidd, derived in each case their title of Freemason from the freedom of a guild or company‑still, with the last‑named worthy, in 15 91, the roll comes to an end.

 

Also, descending from the year 15 50, the records of the building trades afford very jl meagre notices of operative Freemasons. Further examples of the use of the word " Freemason," under the years 15 97, 16o6, 1607, and 1624, will be found in Notes and ,Queries, Aug. 31, 1861, and Mar. 4, 1882 ; and the Freemason's Chronicle, Mar. 26, 1881. The former journal‑July 27, 1861‑cites a will dated 1641, wherein the testator and a legatee are each styled " Freemason ; " and‑Sept. 1, 1866mentions the baptism of the son of a " Freemason " in 1685, also his burial under the same title in 1697.

 

In 16io, there is the Order of the Justices of the Peace, indicating a class of rough masons able to take charge over others, as well as apparently two distinct classes of Freemasons. According to the Stat. ii, Hen. VII, c. xxii (1495) a Freemason was to take less wages than a Master Mason. A year or two later occurs the em ployment of Freemasons at Wadham College, Oxford. In 1628, Thomas Egglefield, Freemason and Steeple‑mender, is mentioned and, five years after, there is the reference to Maude and others, Freemasons and Contractors.

 

Such a contention as that the use of Freemason as an operative term came to an abrupt termination about the middle of the seventeenth century is foreign to the design of these remarks and, although there is an absence of references which may further elucidate this phase of Masonic history during the latter half of the century, the records of the Alnwick Lodge, extending from 1701 to 1748, may be held by some to carry on the use of " Freemason " as a purely operative phrase until the middle of the eighteenth century.

 

The contention is that the class of persons from whom the Freemasons of Warrington, Staffordshire, Chester, York, London and their congeners in the seventeenth century, derived the descriptive title which became the inheritance of the Grand Lodge of England, were free men and Masons of Guilds or Companies. " Wherever the Craft Gilds were legally acknowledged, we find foremost, that the right to exercise their craft and sell their manufactures, depended upon the freedom of their city " (Brentano, History and Development of Gilds, p. 65). The references in Smith's English Gilds to the exercise of a trade being contingent on the possession of its freedom are very numerous. Thus in the City of Exeter no cordwainer was allowed to keep a shop, " butte he be a ffraunchised man " (P. 3 3 3) ; " The Old Usages " of THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON 257 258 THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON Winchester required that "nonne shal make burelle werk, but if he be of ye ffraunchyse of ye toun " (p. 3 51) ; and the " Othe " of the Mayor contained a special proviso, that he would " meyntene the fraunchises and free custumes whiche beth gode in the saide toune " (P. 4i6).

 

Turning to the early history of Scottish Masonry, the view advanced with regard to the origin of the title, which has now become the common property of all speculative Masons throughout the universe, is strikingly confirmed. As cumulative proofs that the Society of Freemasons has derived its name from the Freemen Masons of more early times, the examples in the Scottish records have an especial value. Examined separately, the histories of both English and Scottish Masonryyield a like result to the researchof the philologist, but,unitedly, theypresent a body of evidence, all bearing in one direction, which brushes away the etymological difficulties, arising from the imperfect consideration of the subject as a whole.

 

CHAPTER XII EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY ENGLAND‑I "ETWEEN the region of fancy and the province of authenticated history B lies a border‑land of tradition, full of difficulties, which can neither be passed without notice, nor ever, perhaps, very clearly or finally explained," writes C. Elton, in Origins of English History (P. 7). Upon many of the questions which it would be very interesting to decide, no conclusion whatever is attainable. The historian knows very little of the real facts ; of the lives of his personages only a contemptibly small fragment has been preserved. No doubt, if his imagination be strong, he will piece together the information he has and instinctively shape for himself some theory which will combine them all; though, if his judgment be as strong as his imagination, he will hold very cheap such conjectural combinations and will steadfastly bear in mind that, as an historian, he is concerned with facts and not with possibilities. Some, indeed, instead of employing those tests of credibility which are consistently applied to modern history, attempt to guide their judgment by the indications of internal evidence and to assume that truth can be discovered by " an occult faculty of historical divination." Although, for convenience' sake, the year 1717 is made to mark the epoch of authentic‑i.e. officially accredited‑Masonic history, the existence in England of a widely diffused system of Freemasonry in the first half of the seventeenth century is demonstrable, whence there is justification for the conclusion that, for its period of origin in South Britain, a far higher antiquity may be claimed and conceded. No attempt will be made to follow the beaten road of those voluminous plodders of Masonic history who make Masons of every man of note, from Adam to Nimrod, from Nimrod to Solomon, down to the present day; nor the statements, made in all good faith by writers of reputation, that Masonry was introduced into Britain A.M. 2974 by " E‑Brank, king of the Trojan race"; into Ireland by the prophet Jeremiah ; that 27,000 Masons accompanied the Christian princes in the Crusades ; and that Martin Luther was received into the Society on Christmas night, 1520, 259 26o EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY just fifteen days after he had burned the Pope's Bull. These and kindred creations of fancy will be dismissed to the vast limbo of fabulous narrations.

 

In the history of Freemasonry there are no speculations which are worthy of more critical investigation than its conjectural origin, as disclosed in the Parentalia and the common belief that this derivation was attested by the high authority of a former Grand Master of the Society.

 

The common belief in Wren's membership of the Society of Freemasons rests upon two sources of authority. Historically, the general impression derives what weight it may possess from the importance that is attached to an obscure passage in Aubrey's Natural History of Wiltshire, and traditionally (or Masonically) the acceptance of the " legend " and its devolution from an article of faith into a matter of conviction, is dependent upon our yielding full credence to statements in Dr. Anderson's Constitutions of A.D. 173 8, which are quite irreconcilable with those in his earlier publication of 1723. The Natural History of Wiltshire, originally commenced in 1656, of which the last chapter was written on April zi, 1686, was the author's first literary essay. He subsequently made some additions, but none of a later date than 16gi. In 1675 it was submitted to the Royal Society ; subsequently Dr. Plot‑curator of the Ashmolean Museum and author of the Natural History of Staffordshire‑was requested by Aubrey to prepare it for the press. This, however, he declined to do, but strongly urged the writer " to finish and publish it " himself. The work remained in MS. until 1847, when it was first printed, under the editorial supervision of John Britton. The original MS. was never removed from Oxford, but a fair copy was made by the author and presented to the Royal Society. Of the Oxford MS., Britton says, " Being compiled at various times, during a long series of years, it has a confused appearance from the numerous corrections and additions made in it by Aubrey." The same authority continues :" So far as Aubrey's own labours are concerned, the Royal Society's copy is the most perfect; but the notes of Ray, Evelyn and Tanner were written upon the Oxford MS., after the fair copy was made and have never been transcribed into the latter." Aubrey's remarks upon the Freemasons are given by Halliwell in two separate but consecutive paragraphs, at p. 46 of the explanatory notes attached to the second edition of the Masonic Poem (1844). This writer copied from the Royal Society manuscript, where the second paragraph appears as a continuation of the first. This is not the case in the Oxford or original MS. There, the first paragraph, commencing " Sir William Dugdale told me," is written on fol. 73, whilst the second, upon which Halliwell based his conclusion " that Sir Christopher, in 16gi, was enrolled among the members of the fraternity," forms one of the numerous additions made by Aubrey and is written on the back of fol. 72. Aubrey wrote on one side of the page only, until he had completed his history. As the last chapter of the History was written in 1686, a period of at least five years separates the passage in the text from the addendum of 1691, but the original entry in the body of the work is probably far older than 1686‑the date of publication of Dr. Plot's Natural History of Staffordshire‑yet, whilst it may fairly be concluded that Plot must EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 2.61 have seen Aubrey's general note on the Freemasons before his own work was written, which latter, in turn, Aubrey could not fail to have read prior to the entry of his memorandum of 1691, there is nothing to show that either the one or the other was in the slightest degree influenced by, or indeed recollected, the observations on the Freemasons which immediately preceded his own.

 

Dr. Robert Plot, it may be added, was born in ‑1640; chosen F.R.S., ‑1677; became one of the secretaries of the Royal Society, ‑168z ; was appointed first keeper of the Ashmolean Museum by the founder, ‑1683 ; and, later, nominated Professor of Chemistry to the University. He was also Historiographer Royal, Secretary to the Earl Marshal, Mowbray Herald Extraordinary and Registrar of the Court of Honour; died April 30, ‑1696. His chief works are the Natural Histories of Oxfordshire (‑1677) and Staffordshire (‑1686). It was his intention to have published a complete Natural History of England and Vales, had his time and health permitted so laborious an undertaking.

 

The following extracts are from the Oxford or original MS.

 

[" NATURALL HISTORIE OF WILTSHIRE "‑PART II.‑MS. IN THE BODLEIAN LIBRARY Reverse of Fol. 72, Fol. 73.

 

‑16gi. Sr William Dugdale told me many Mdm, this day [May the I 8th years since, that about Henry the third's after Rogation Sunday Patents being Monday] is a great con‑ time, the Pope gave a Bull or diploma vention at St Paul's church of the Freemasons Accepted to a Company of Italian Architects to Fraternity of the Free Masons : travell up and downe over all Europe to where Sr Christopher Wren is to build Churches. From those are derived be adopted a Brother : and Sr the Fraternit o Adopted‑Masons. They are Henry Goodric .. of y` Tower, .1' .f Y & divers others‑There have known to one another by certayn been kings, that haue been of Signes & Marks and Watch‑words this Sodalitie. it continues to this day. They have Severall Lodges in severall Counties for their reception: and when any of them fall into decay, the brotherhood is to relieve him &c. The manner of their Adoption is very formall, and with an Oath of Secrecy.

 

The Oxford copy of the Natural History of Wiltshire was forwarded by Aubrey to John Ray, the botanist and zoologist, September ‑15, ‑1691 and returned by the latter in the October following. It was also sent to Tanner, afterwards Bishop of St. Asaph, in February 1694. In ‑17‑19 Dr. Rawlinson printed the dedication and preface as addenda to Aubrey's History of Surrey. These he doubtless copied from the original. The transcript in the Royal Society Library was quoted by Walpole in the first chapter of his Anecdotes of Painting (‑176z) and Warton and Huddesford refer to the original in the list of Aubrey's manuscripts at Oxford, in a note to the 262 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY Life of Anthony d Vood. The only other notice met with‑prior to 1844‑of the Masonic entry or entries in Aubrey's unprinted work occurs in Hawkins' History of Gothic Architecture (1813), but it merely alludes to Papal bulls said to have been granted to Italian architects and does not mention Wren. Both manuscripts have been examined, the original in the Bodleian Library; the fair copy at Burlington House, by permission of the Council of the Royal Society. The latter has on the title‑page Memoires of Naturall Remarques in the County of Kilts, by John Aubrey, R.S.S., 1685 ; but as the memorandum of 16gi, as well as the earlier entry relating to the Freemasons, duly appears in the text, it will be safer to believe in their contemporaneous transcription, than to assume that the copy, like the original, received additions from time to time. The allusion to the Freemasons appears at p. 277 of the Royal Society MS. and, at p. 276, three pages are inserted conformably with Aubrey's rough note on the back of fol. 72 of the Oxford copy.

 

As already observed, Aubrey's memorandum of Wren's approaching initiation was not printed or in any way alluded to until 1844. It can, therefore, have exercised no influence whatever in shaping or fashioning the belief (amongst Masons) which, from 1738 onwards, has universally prevailed as regards the connexion of the great architect with the ancient Craft. Indeed, the statements of Aubrey (16gi) and Anderson (1738) are mutually destructive. If Wren was only " accepted " or " adopted " in 169 1, it is quite clear that he could not have been Grand Master at any earlier date; and, on the other hand, if he presided over the Society in the year 1663, it is equally clear that the ceremony of his formal admission into the Fraternity was not postponed until 16gi.

 

In proceeding with the inquiry, whilst it is necessary constantly to bear in mind that Masonic writers of the last century‑with whose works, in the first instance, we are chiefly concerned‑were altogether uninfluenced by the singular entries in the Aubrey MSS., yet we should be on our guard not to assume too confidently that none of the Fellows of the Royal Society who joined the Fraternity between 1717 and 1750 were aware that one of their own number‑Aubrey was chosen an F.R.S. in 1663‑had recorded in a manuscript work (which he deposited in their own library) the approaching initiation into Masonry of a former President of the Royal Society. It is improbable that so curious a circumstance was wholly unknown to Dr. Desaguliers, Martin Folkes, Martin Clare, or Richard Rawlinson, all Fellows of the Royal Society and zealous Freemasons. Dr. Desaguliers was Grand Master 1719 ; Deputy Grand Master 1722‑3 and 1725 ; Folkes was Deputy Grand Master in 1724; and Clare in 1741 ; Rawlinson was Grand Steward in 1734 and was an indefatigable collector of Masonic data.

 

If the probability of some one or more of these distinguished Brethren having perused the manuscript in question is admitted, it affords negative evidence from which it may not unfairly be concluded that the allusion to Wren failed to make any impression upon them.

 

The earliest Boob, of Constitutions was published by Dr. James Anderson, conformably with the direction of the Grand Lodge, to which body it was submitted EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 2.63 in print on January 17, 1723 and finally approved. It was the joint production of Anderson, Desaguliers and the antiquary, George Payne, the two last named of whom had filled the office of Grand Master. Payne compiled the Regulations, which constitute the chief feature of this work; Desaguliers wrote the preface ; and Anderson digested the entire subject‑matter.

 

This official book speaks of " our great Master Mason Inigo Jones " ; styles James I and Charles I " Masons " and proceeds as follows After the Wars were over and the Royal Family restor'd, true Masonry was likewise restor'd ; especially upon the unhappy Occasion of the Burning of LONDON, Anno 1666 ; for then the City Houses were rebuilt more after the Roman stile, when King Charles II founded the present ST. PAUL'S Cathedral in London (the old Gotbick Fabrick being burnt down), much after the style of ST. PETER'S at Rome, conducted by the ingenious Architect, Sir CHRISTOPHER WREN.

 

Besides the Tradition of old Masons now alive, which may be rely'd on, we have much reason to believe that King Charles II was an accepted Free‑Mason, as everyone allows he was a great Encourager of the Craftsmen.

 

But in the Reign of his Brother, King James II, though some Roman Buildings were carried on, the Lodges of Freemasons in London much dwindled into Ignorance, by not being duly frequented and cultivated.

 

In a footnote Dr. Anderson speaks of the Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford, " as having been designed and conducted also by Sir Christopher Wren, the King's Architect." William III is termed " that Glorious Prince, who by most is reckon'd a FreeMason " ; and, having cited an opinion of Sir Edward Coke, Dr. Anderson says This quotation confirms the tradition of Old Masons, that this most learned judge really belong'd to the Ancient Lodge, and was a faithful Brother.

 

The text of the original Book of Constitutions thus concludes And now the Free‑born BRITISH NATIONS, disentangled from foreign and civil Wars and enjoying the good fruits of Peace and Liberty, having of late much indulg'd their happy Genius for Masonry of every sort and reviv'd the drooping Lodges of London. This fair Metropolis flourisheth, as well as other Parts with several worthy particular Lodges, that have quarterly communication and an annual Grand Assembly wherein the Forms and Usages of the most ancient and worshipful Fraternity are wisely propagated and the Royal Art duly cultivated and the cement of the Brotherhood preserv'd : so that the whole Body resembles a well built Arch.

 

It will be seen by the above extracts, that whilst various kings of England, the celebrated architect Inigo Jones, even a learned judge, are included in the category of Freemasons, Sir Christopher Wren is mentioned only in a professional capacity. From which it may safely be inferred, that the triumvirate charged with the preparation of the first code of laws and the first items of Masonic history, published by authority, had, at that time, no knowledge of his ever having been a member of the Society. Dr. Mackey indeed thinks, that " this passing notice of him who has 2‑64 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY been called the Vitruvius of England must be attributed to servility " ; but with all due respect to the memory of this diligent lexicographer, is it not possible that the English Freemasons of 1717‑23 had no reason to believe in Wren's connexion with their Society, also, that if at any time during the building of St. Paul's Cathedral he had been " accepted " as a Freemason, all recollection of so important a circumstance as the initiation, or affiliation, of the King's Architect would not have died out in the subsisting Lodges of Masons, within the short span of six or seven years, which, according to Anderson (in his subsequent publication of 1738), elapsed between Wren's cessation of active interest in the Lodges and the so‑called Revival of 1717 ? It is important, moreover, to note that the Constitutions of 1723 record no break in the career of prosperity upon which the Craft had embarked after the accession of William III.

 

Between 1723 and 1738, though a large number of Masonic books and pamphlets were published, in none of these is Wren alluded to as a Freemason. He is not so styled in the Constitutions of 1726 and 1730 (Dublin), which were reprinted by the late Richard Spencer in 1871, nor is his connexion with the Craft in any way hinted at by Francis Drake, the Junior Warden of the Grand Lodge of York, in his celebrated oration of 1726.

 

Smith's Pocket Companion for 173 5, 173 6, 1737 and 173 8, though they contain much Masonic information, describe Charles II as "that mason king " and refer to William III as " with good reason believed to have been a Free‑Mason," merely designate the late Surveyor‑General, "that excellent architect, Sir Christopher Wren." The newspapers during the same period (1723‑38)‑with the exceptions presently to be noticed‑are equally silent upon the point under consideration and there is no reference to Wren in the Rawlinson MSS. in the Bodleian Library.

 

Sir Christopher died on February 25, 1723 ; and, in the Postboy, No. 5243, from February 26 to February z8 of that year, appears an obituary notice of Wren and an advertisement of the Book, of Constitutions. The same paper in the next number (5z44) gives a more elaborate notice, consisting of twenty‑eight lines, enumerating all the offices held by the deceased. The Postboy, No. 5245, from March z to March 5, has the following:‑" London, March 5, this evening the corpse of that worthy FREE MASON, Sir Christopher Wren, Knight, is to be interr'd under the Dome of St. Paul's Cathedral." A similar announcement appears in the British journal, No. 25, March 9, viz. :‑" Sir Christopher Wren, that worthy Free Mason, was splendidly interr'd in St. Paul's Church on Tuesday night last." Sixteen notices in all of Wren's death or burial occur between February 26 and March 9, 1723. Four are copied from the Postboy and a similar number from the Daily Post. Two each from the British journal, the lleeo journal or Saturday's Post, the W eelp,dy journal or British Gazetteer. Single notices are given in the London journal and the Postman.

 

In none of these, except as above stated, is Sir Christopher designated a " Freemason " and this expression is not again coupled with his name in any newspaper paragraph of earlier date than 173 8.

 

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 2‑65 It will be observed that the journal announcing, in the first instance, that Wren was a " Freemason," had been previously selected as the advertising medium through which to recommend the sale of the Book of Constitutions, so it is hardly to be wondered at that the editor of the Postboy should have deemed a title so lavishly bestowed by Dr. Anderson upon the persons and personages of whom he had `occasion to speak, including Inigo Jones, a predecessor of Wren in the office of SurveyorGeneral, would fitly be applied to designate the great man whose funeral obsequies he was announcing.

 

Commenting upon the passage in the Postboy, No. 5245, W. P. Buchan observes Is it true that Wrenwas really a" Freemason" before his death? And, if so, when and where did he become one? At page 595 of the Graphicfor 19th December, 1874, we are told that the Duke of Edinburgh is a Mason, but I fear this is a mistake; consequently, if the latter scribe is not infallible as regards a living celebrity, I feel justified in doubting the veracity of the former respecting a dead one.

 

That a single paper only‑the British ,journal, No. 25‑reprinted the statement given in the Postboy, will surprise the readers of old newspapers, for if there is one circumstance more than another which renders an examination of these records especially fatiguing, it is the wearisome repetition by journals of later date of nearly every item of intelligence published in a London newspaper.

 

Between 173o and 1738, the newspapers of the time contain very frequent references to Freemasonry. Many of these were preserved by Dr. Rawlinson and may be seen in the curious collection of Masonic scraps, entitled the Rawlinson MSS., in the Bodleian Library. Though there are numerous dissertations on Freemasonry, squibs, catechisms and the like, nowhere, prior to 1738, save in the two papers of 1723, already cited, is there any mention of Wren as a Freemason. That this belief did not exist in 1737 is plainly evidenced by the Pocket Companion for 1738, printed, according to invariable usage, slightly in advance and which, like its predecessors and successors, was a summary of all the facts, fancies and conjectures previously published in reference to Freemasonry. Had there, at that time, been a scintilla of evidence to connect Wren with the Fraternity, the worthy knight, without doubt, would have figured in that publication as a Freemason.

 

How, then, did the fable originate ? In the first instance, before examining the Constitutions of 1738, two extracts from the Minutes of Grand Lodge claim attention February 24, 173 5 .‑Bro. Dr. Anderson, formerly Grand Warden, represented that he had spent some thoughts upon some alterations and additions that might fitly be made to the Constitutions, the first Edition being all sold off.

 

Resolved‑That a committee be appointed .‑. .‑. .‑. to revise and compare the same and, when finished, to lay the same before Grand Lodge.

 

March 31, 1735.‑A motion was made that Dr. James Anderson should be desired to print the names (in his new Book of Constitutions) of all the Grand Masters that could be collected from the beginning of Time ; with a list of the 266 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY Names of all Deputy Grand Masters, Grand Wardens and the Brethren who have served the Craft in the Quality of Stewards.

 

The new edition of the Constitutions was published in 173 8, and it is stated therein that, in 166o, Charles II approved the choice of the Earl of St. Albans as Grand Master; that, in 1663, this nobleman appointed Sir John Denham Deputy Grand Master and Sir Christopher Wren (slightly antedating his knighthood) and Mr. John Webb Grand Wardens. In giving the following extracts from this work, it must be premised that, by all authorities alike, whether in or out of the Craft, the Constitutions edited by Dr. Anderson have been regarded as the basis of Masonic history.

 

Gilbert Sheldon, Archbishop of Canterbury, an excellent Architect, shew'd his great skill in designing his famous Theatrum Sheldonianum at Oxford, and at his Cost it was conducted and finished by Deputy WREN and Grand Warden WEB.

 

And the Craftsmen having celebrated the Cape‑stone, it was open'd with an elegant oration by Dr. South, on 9th July 1669. D. G. M. WREN built also that other Master Piece, the pretty Musaum near the Theatre, at the Charge of the University. Meanwhile London was rebuilding apace; and the Fire having ruin'd St. Paul's Cathedral, the KING with Grand Master Rivers, his architects and craftsmen, Nobility and Gentry, Lord Mayor and Aldermen, Bishops and Clergy, etc., in due Form levell'd the Footstone of New St. Paul's, designed by D. G. Master Wren, A.D. 1673 and by him conducted as Master of Fork, and Surveyor, with his Wardens Mr. Edward Strong, Senior and junior, under a Parliamentary Fund.

 

Upon the death of Grand Master Arlington, 1685, the Lodges met and elected Sir Christopher Wren GRAND MASTER, who appointed Mr. Gabriel Cibber Grand Wardens. and whilst carrying on St. Paul's he Mr. Edward Strong annually met those Brethren that could attend him, to keep up good old Usages, till the Revolution.

 

The Constitution Book goes on to say that King William III was privately made a Free‑Mason; that he approved the choice of Grand Master Wren; that, in 1695, the Duke of Richmond became Grand Master, Wren being Deputy, the Edward Strongs, senior and junior, Grand Wardens respectively; and again records Sir Christopher's elevation to the Grand Mastership in 1698.

 

The official record proceeds Yet still in the South (1707) the Lodges were more and more disused, partly by the Neglect of the Masters and Wardens and partly by not having a Noble Grand Master at London and the annual Assembly was not duly attended. G. M. Wren who had design'd St. Paul's, London, A.D. 1673 and, as Master of Vork, had conducted it from the Foot‑stone, had the Honour to finish that noble Cathedral, the finest and largest Temple of the Am gustan stile except St. Peter's at Rome ; and celebrated the Cape‑stone when he erected the Cross on the Top of the Cupola, in July A.D. I 7o8.

 

Some few years after this Sir Christopher Wren neglected the office of Grand Master, yet the Old Lodge near St. Paul's and a few more, continued their stated meetings.

 

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 2.67 According to Edward Strong, senior, in the Memoir alluded to, the last stone of the lanthorn on the dome of St. Paul's was laid by himself, October 2.5, 1708. Christopher Wren also claims the honour of having laid the " highest or last stone," but fixes the date of this occurrence at 1710 (Parentalia, or Memoirs of the Family of the Wlrens, MDCCL, p. z9z). Edward Strong, the elder, died in 1723, aged 72 ; consequently he was only zz years of age in 1673. It is improbable that his son Edward was born until some years after the footstone was levelled. As will presently appear, the credit of having laid the foundation‑stone of St. Paul's Cathedral is claimed for Thomas Strong by his brother Edward, in the latter's " Memoir of the Family of Strong," given in Clutterbuck's History and Antiquity of the County of Hertford, 1815, vol. i, p. 167. The father of Edward and Thomas Strong (and four other sons, all bred to the mason trade) was named Valentine and he was called a Free‑Mason, that word being found on his tombstone in Fairford Churchyard (just outside the county of Oxford boundary), where he was buried in November 1682. Thomas Strong took with him from Oxford to London what is described as a " Lodge of Masons," for whom a special act was passed to make them free of London for seven years. Thomas Strong died in 1681, unmarried, leaving " all his employment to his brother Edward, whom he made his sole executor." There is a copy of the Strong family records in the Bodleian Library at Oxford (Ryland's MS., d. z).

 

In the Constitutions of 173 8 we learn for the first time that Wren was a Freemason, this volume, it must be recollected, having been written by the compiler of the earlier Constitutions, Dr. James Anderson; that the Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford, was opened Masonically ; that King Charles II laid the foundation‑stone of St. Paul's ; and that Wren continued as Grand Master until after 1708, when his neglect of the office " caused the Lodges to be more and more disused." It is somewhat remarkable that not one of these statements can be cited as an historical fact.

 

It may shortly be stated that, among the English Grand Masters, Dr. Anderson gravely enumerates Austin the Monk, St. Swithin, St. Dunstan, Henry VII and Cardinal Wolsey ; whilst of Foreigners who had attained that high office, he specifies Nimrod, Moses, Solomon, Nebuchadnezzar and Augustus Cxsar ! ! Between 1738 and 1750 there is nothing to chronicle which bears upon. the present inquiry, but in the latter year appeared the following work :‑Parentalia or, Memoirs of the Family of the Wrens. But Chiefly of Sir Christopher Wren, compiled by his son Christopher: Now published by his grandson Stephen Wren, Esq. ; with the care of Joseph Ames, F.R.S. London, MDCCL.

 

Two passages in this publication demand attention. These occur at p. z9z and p. 306 respectively, the latter being the opinion ascribed to Wren in respect of the origin of Freemasonry and the former the statement of his son Christopher with regard to certain occurrences, about which there is a great diversity of testimony.

 

At p. 2‑92, the subject being sundry details connected with the erection of St. Paul's Cathedral, there appears 268 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY The first Stone of this Basilica was laid in the Year 1675 and the Works carried on with such Care and Industry, that by the Year 1685 the Walls of the Quire and Side ailes were finished, with the circular North and South Porticoes . and the great Pillars of the Dome brought to the same Height; and it pleased God in his Mercy to bless the Surveyor with Health and Length of Days and to enable him to compleat the whole Structure in the Year 1710 to the Glory of his most holy Name and Promotion of his divine Worship, the principal Ornament of the Imperial Seat of this Realm Majestas convenit ista deo. The highest or last Stone on the Top of the Lantern, was laid by the Hands of the Surveyor's son, Christopher Wren deputed by his Father, in the Presence of that excellent Artificer Mr Strong, his Son and other Free and Accepted Masons, chiefly employed in the Execution of the Work.

 

In his Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century, John Nichols observes The last of Mr Ames's literary labours, was the drawing up the Parentalia in one volume folio, from the papers of Mr Wren. The title sets forth that they were published by Stephen Wren, with the care of Joseph Ames.

 

In the view that the work under consideration was virtually the compilation of Joseph Ames, Nichols has been followed by Elmes, whose two biographies of Wren (Memoirs of the Life and Works of Sir Christopher Vren, 1823 ; Sir Christopher Wren and his Times, 1852), together with those in the Biographia Britannica and the Parentalia, contain everything of an authentic character in the life of Sir Christopher that has descended to us. Elmes comments upon the Parentalia as a work of authority. It is described by this writer as " Ames's miserable compilation, published under the name of Stephen Wren." Altogether, according to Elmes, the Parentalia is a very bungling performance. Numerous errors and inaccuracies are pointed out, especially in the matter of dates.

 

Thus it is shown that a letter from Wren to Lord Brouncker was written in 1663, not in 1661 ; that to a paper read before the Royal Society the year 1658, instead of 1668, had been assigned ; and that mistakes occur in the accounts both of Sir Christopher's appointment as Surveyor‑General and his receiving the honour of knighthood; and such expressions occur as‑" the Parentalia, with its usual carelessness or contempt of correctness in dates " ; and " This is not, by many, the only or the greatest falsification of dates by Ames." (See Memoirs of Wren, 1823, PP. 139, 217, 241, 242, 255, 263, 317, 440.) In spite, however, of the combined authority of Nichols and Elmes, it would appear that Ames's labours in connexion with the Parentalia were strictly of an editorial character and that the actual writer or compiler was Christopher Wren, only son of the architect. The original manuscript of the work appears to be in the handwriting of Christopher Wren and, as the title‑page shows at the foot, was prepared for publication six years before the death of the compiler C. W. IULY J 74 J Christopher Wren, the only son of the great architect by his first marriage, was born February 16, 1675 and died August 24, 1747, aged 72. " He had made EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 2.69 antiquity, which he well understood, his particular study and was extremely communicative." He wrote and published, in 1708, a learned work, which he dedicated to his brethren of the Royal Society, containing representations of many curious Greek medallions and ancient inscriptions, followed by legends of imperial coins from Julius Cxsar to Aurelian, with their interpretations and an appendix oú Syrian and Egyptian kings and coins, all collected by himself. He also wrote the MS. life of his father in Latin (Lansdowne MSS., No. 698, fol. 136) and arranged the documents for the Parentalia, which were afterwards published by his son Stephen, assisted by Joseph Ames. We find, therefore, that the memoirs or opinions of Sir Christopher Wren come down to us recorded by his son, a learned antiquary, at the age of 66, when his father had been just eighteen years in his grave.

 

The first observation to be made on the passage at p. 306 of the Parentalia, commencing, " He [Wren] was of opinion (as has been mentioned in another place)," is, that this sentence in brackets refers to a memorial of Sir Christopher in his own words, to the Bishop of Rochester, in the year 1713, from which the following are two extracts This we now call the Gothick manner of Architecture (so the Italians call'd what was not after the Roman Style), though the Goths were rather Destroyers than Builders : I think it should with more reason be call'd the Saracen‑style: for those People wanted neither Arts nor Learning and, after We in the West had lost Both, we borrow'd again from Them, out of their Arabick‑Books, what they with great diligence had translated from the Greeks. They were Zealous in their Religion, and wherever they Conquer'd (which was with amazing rapidity), erected Mosques and Caravansaras in hast, which oblig'd them to fall into another Way of Building; for they Built their Mosques Round, disliking the Christian Form of a Cross.

 

The Saracen Mode of Building seen in the East soon spread over Europe and particularly in France ; the Fashions of which Nation we affected to imitate in all ages, even when we were at enmity with it.

 

The preceding quotations contain everything in Wren's actual memorial which may tend to throw any light upon the opinion of the great architect, as recorded by his son. It will be noticed that the Freemasons are not alluded to, at first hand, by Sir Christopher, therefore we have no other choice than to accept the evidencequantum valeat as transmitted by his son. It is true that the language employed is not free from ambiguity and it might plausibly be contended that the authority of the architect was not meant to cover the entire dissertation on the Freemasons. Still, on the whole, we shall steer a safe course in accepting the passage in the Parentalia as being Christopher Wren's recollection of his father's opinion, though tinctured insensibly by much that he may have heard and read during the twenty years that elapsed between the death of the architect and the compilation of the family memoir.

 

From neither of the extracts from the Parentalia is there justification for drawing an inference that Wren was a Freemason. The passage at p. z9z of that work 27o EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY contains the only allusion to the English Society, wherein, indeed, Edward Strong is described as a " Free and Accepted Mason," though it may well have been that, had the worthy master mason noticed this statement in the autobiography which will later be considered, three contradictions instead of two might have appeared between the testimonies of the elder Strong and the younger Wren.

 

If Sir Christopher was ever admitted into the society of Freemasons‑whether the event is fixed according to the earlier date given by Dr. Anderson or the later one of John Aubrey, is immaterial‑his son Christopher must have known of it and it is extremely improbable, to say the least, that the latter would neglect to record any details of such an occurrence with which he was acquainted. Christopher Wren, elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1693, at the early age of eighteen, though not admitted until 1698, must have frequently met Dr. Plot, who was on very intimate terms with his father; and it is quite within the limits of probability also that he was personally acquainted with both Ashmole and Aubrey. Ashmole, Plot and Aubrey died respectively in 1692, 1695 and 1697.

 

With the writings of these three antiquaries, however, it may confidently be assumed he was familiar. The references to the elder Wren are so frequent, that, without doubt, Ashmole's Diary and Antiquities of Berkshire and Aubrey's Natural History of Surrey, all published, it must be recollected, before 17zo‑were read with great interest by the architect's family. If we admit the possibility of Sir Christopher being a Freemason, the entries in the Diary and the learned speculations in regard to the origin of the Society prefixed to the Antiquities of Berkshire must (on the supposition above alluded to) have necessarily led to his having expressed agreement or disagreement with the remarks of his friend Plot in 1686 (Natural History of Staffordshire, p. 316) and it may also as safely be inferred that the statement in Ashmole's posthumous work (1719) would have been minutely criticized, in connexion, it may well have been, with the proceedings of the Grand Lodge of England, then just two years established.

 

But putting conjecture aside, Christopher Wren amongst " his brethren of the Royal Society," to whom he dedicated his own book, must have constantly met Dr. Richard Rawlinson‑writer of the memoir of Ashmole, containing the des cription of Freemasonry in the Antiquities of Berkshire‑and it is in the highest degree probable that the latter, who, for reasons stated elsewhere, may have perused both versions of Aubrey's manuscript history and must have satisfied himself of the inaccuracy of the statement relating to Wren, by personal inquiry of the architect or his son.

 

It would, on the whole, appear probable that Christopher Wren knew of, but rejected, the statement of John Aubrey and it may be concluded that the omission of any reference whatever to the prediction of 16gi is tantamount to an assurance that, in the opinion of his son and biographer, there was no foundation whatever, in fact, for any theory with regard to Wren's membership which had been set up. The real importance of the passage at p. 3o6 of the Parentalia arises from the fact of its being in general agreement with all the other theories or speculations EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY relating to the origin of Freemasonry which have been traced or ascribed to writers or speakers of the seventeenth century. The next point‑a very remarkable oneis the singular coincidence of the three versions attributed to Dugdale, Wren and Ashmole respectively, possessing the common feature of having been handed down by evidence of the most hearsay character.

 

The earliest mention of the " travelling bodies of Freemasons," who are said to have erected all the great buildings of Europe, occurs in the Natural History of Wiltshire and appears to have been written a few years before 1686. As the text of the Oxford copy of this MS. was completed in 1686, it is evident, from the position of fol. 73, that Aubrey's original remarks on the Freemasons were penned at some previous time. This inference is strengthened by the absence in the MS. of any allusion to the observations of Dr. Plot on the same subject in his Natural History of Staffordshire, published in 1686 ; a copy of which, Elias Ashmole records in his Diary, was presented to him by the author on May 23 of that year. Aubrey here says:‑" Sr William Dugdale [born 1605, died February io, 1686] told me many years since." In the Parentaha, as already seen, Christopher Wren records the belief of his father under the expression‑" He [Wren] was of opinion " ; and it only remains to be stated, that, in a similar manner, are we made acquainted with the views of Elias Ashmole on the same subject. In the memoir of Ashmole in the Biographia Britannica appears a letter from Dr. Knipe, of Christ Church, Oxford, from which the following is extracted What from Mr. Ashmole's collection I could gather was, that the report of our Society taking rise from a Bull granted by the Pope in the reign of Henry III to some Italian architects, to travel over all Europe to erect Chapels, was ill‑founded. Such a Bull there was, and those architects were masons. But this Bull, in the opinion of the learned M' Ashmole, was confirmative only and did not by any means create our fraternity, or even establish them in this kingdom.

 

In the preceding extracts there is, at the best, but secondary evidence of opinions entertained by three eminent authorities. It is almost certain, however, that these may be traced to a single source. For the purposes of this inquiry, it is immaterial to consider whether Dugdale acquired his information from Ashmole, or vice versa. Substantially their speculations were identical, as will more clearly appear if any reader takes the trouble to compare Aubrey's note of Sir William Dugdale's statement with the memoir of Ashmole, from the pen of Dr. Rawlinson, given in Ashmole's posthumous work, the Antiquities of Berkshire (I719). The following extract must have largely influenced Dr. Knipe in 1747, when he communicated with Dr. Campbell, the writer of the article " Ashmole " in the Biographia Britannica, and though, in all probability, both Knipe and Rawlinson drew from the same fount, viz. the Ashmole Papers, yet it may fairly be assumed that as many rivulets of information still flowing during the early residence at Oxford of the latter must have become dried up half a century later‑during which period, moreover, the reputation of Dr. Rawlinson as a scholar and an archxologist had been firmly established‑the younger commentator, himself a Freemason, is scarcely likely to have 272 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY recorded his impression of the origin of Freemasonry believed in by Ashmole, without conferring previously with the eminent antiquary and topographer who had so long ago preceded him in the same field of inquiry.

 

On October 16 [1646] he [Ashmole] was elected a Brother of the Company of Free Masons, with Collonel Henry Mainwaring, of Kerthingham in Cheshire, at Warrington in Lancashire, a Favour esteemed so singular by the Members, that Kings themselves have not disdain'd to enter themselves into this Society, the original Foundation of which is said to be as high as the Reign of King Henry III, when the Pope granted a Bull, Patent, or Diploma, to a particular Company of Italian Masons and Architects to travel over all Europe to build Churches. From this is derived the Fraternity of Adopted Masons, Accepted Masons, or Free Masons, who are known to one another all over the World by certain Signals and Watch Words known to them alone. They have several Lodges in different Countries for their Reception; and when any of them fall into Decay, the Brotherhood is to relieve him. The manner of their Adoption, or Admission, is very formal and solemn and with the Administration of an Oath of Secrecy, which has had better Fate than all other Oaths and has been ever most religiously observed, nor has the World been yet able, by the inadvertence, surprise, or folly of any of its Members, to dive into this Mystery, or make the least discovery. (Ashmole's Antiquities of Berkshire, Preface by Dr. Rawlinson, p. vi.) This memoir of Ashmole is followed by no signature, nor does the titlepage of the work disclose the name of the editor. There appears, however, no reason to doubt that the work was edited and the memoir written, by Dr. Richard Rawlinson (see Athena Oxonienses, 3rd edition, vol. iv, p. 363) ; the latter, therefore, whilst open‑to examination and criticism, possesses the credibility which is universally accorded to the testimony of a well‑informed contemporary. Rawlinson is known to have purchased some of Ashmole's and Sir William Dugdale's MSS. (John Nichols, Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century, 18 I2‑I5, vol. v, p. 489). Ashmole's library was sold March 5, 1694 (ibid., vol. iv, p. z9) and that Aubrey's posthumous work, The History of Surrey, was published under his editorial supervision has already been stated. He was also an F.R.S.‑having been elected together with Martin Folkes and John Theophilus Desaguliers in 17i4‑and it is in the highest degree probable that the Royal Society's copy of the Aubrey manuscript constituted one of the sources of information whence he derived his impression of the early origin of the Freemasons. It may safely be assumed that whatever was current in Masonic or literary circles‑at London or Oxford‑respecting the life or opinions of Ashmole, Rawlinson was familiar with and, in this connexion, his silence on the purely personal point of Wren's " adoption " possesses a significance which we can hardly overrate.

 

Elias Ashmole, " the eminent philosopher, chemist and antiquary "‑as he is styled by his fullest biographer, Dr. Campbell‑founder of the noble museum at Oxford, which still bears his name, was the only child of Simon Ashmole, of Lich field, Saddler, in which city his birth occurred on May 23, 1617. The chief instrument of his future preferments, as he gratefully records in his Diary, was his cousin EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY Z73 Thomas, son of James Paget, Esq., some time Puisne Baron of the Exchequer, who had married for his second wife, Bridget, Ashmole's aunt by the mother's side. When he had attained the age of sixteen, he went to reside with Baron Paget, at his house in London and continued for some years afterwards a dependent of that family. Full particulars of his life and career are contained in Dudley Wright's England's Masonic Pioneers. The present concern is solely his connexion with Freemasonry and it must be observed that, although he appears to have regarded his admission into the Order as a great distinction, there is no evidence that he was present at more than two Masonic meetings in his life. The first entry in his Diary relates to his initiation in 1646, the second, to his attending a Masonic meeting at Masons' Hall, London, in 1682, thirty‑five years subsequently, to which he had been summoned. It is not improbable, however, that he did, in some way, keep up his connexion with the Freemasons, but in so slender a manner that it did not merit any special mention. His Diary contains very few details upon any point, except his ailments and lawsuits and his frequent attendance at Astrologers' feasts.

 

It is, however, a noteworthy circumstance that Ashmole and Colonel Mainwaring, adherents respectively of the Court and Parliament, should have been admitted into Freemasonry at the same time and place. Down to 1881 the prevalent belief was, that although a Lodge was in existence at Warrington in 1646, all were of the " craft of Masonry " except Ashmole and Colonel Mainwaring. Ashmole's first wife was the daughter of Colonel Mainwaring's uncle. A flood of light, however, was suddenly shed on the subject by the research of W. H. Rylands, who, in perhaps the very best of the many valuable articles contributed to the now defunct Masonic Magazine, has so far proved the essentially speculative character of the Lodge as to render it difficult to believe that there could have been a single operative Mason present on the afternoon of October 16, 1646. Thus Mr. Richard Penket[h], the I‑Yarden, is shown to have been a scion of the Penkeths of Penketh, and the last of his race who held the family property (see Dudley Wright, op. cit.).

 

The two names which next follow were probably identical with those of James Collyer or Colliar, of Newton‑le‑Willows, Lancashire and Richard Sankie, of the family of Sonkey,or Sankey of Sankey, as they were called, landowners in Warrington from a very early period; they were buried respectively at Winwick and Warrington ‑the former on January 17, 1673‑4, the latter on September 28, 1667. Of the four remaining Freemasons named in the Diary, though without the prefix of " Mr. ," it is shown by Rylands that a gentle family of Littler or Lydor existed in Cheshire in 1646; while he prints the wills of Richard Ellom, Freemason of Lyme [Lymm] and of John Ellams, husbandman, of Burton, both in the county of Cheshire‑that of the former bearing date September 7, 1667 and of the latter June 7, 1689. That these were the Ellams named by Ashmole cannot positively be affirmed, but they were doubtless members of the same yeoman family, a branch of which had apparently settled at Lymm, a village in Cheshire, about five miles from Warrington. Of the family of Hugh Brewer, nothing has come to light beyond the fact that a person bearing this patronymic served in some military capacity under the Earl of Derby in 1643.

 

274 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY The proceedings at Warrington in 1646 establish some very important facts in relation to the antiquity of Freemasonry and to its character as a speculative science. The words Ashmole uses, " the names of those who were then of the lodge," implying as they do either that some of the existing members were absent, or that at a previous period the Lodge‑roll comprised other and additional names beyond those recorded in the Diary, amply justify the conclusion that the Lodge, when Ashmole joined it, was not a new creation. The term " Warden " moreover, which follows the name of Rich. Penket, will of itself remove any lingering doubt whether the Warrington Lodge could boast a higher antiquity than the year 1646, since it points with the utmost clearness to the fact that an actual official of a subsisting branch of the Society of Freemasons was present at the meeting.

 

The history or pedigree of the Lodge is therefore to be carried back beyond October 16, 1646, but how far is indeterminable and, in a certain sense, immaterial. The testimony of Ashmole establishes beyond cavil that, in a certain year (1646), at the town of Warrington, there was in existence a Lodge of Freemasons, presided over by a Warden, and largely (if not entirely) composed of speculative or nonoperative members. Concurrently with this, we have the evidence of the Sloane MS., 3848 (13), which document bears the following attestation " Finis p me Eduardu : Sankey decimo sexto die Octobris Anno Domini 1646." Commenting upon the proceedings at the Warrington meeting, Fort remarks " It is a subject of curious speculation as to the identity of Richard Sankey, a member of the above Lodge. Sloane MS., No. 3848, was transcribed and finished by one Edward Sankey, on the 16th day of October 1646, the day Elias Ashmole was initiated into the secrets of the Craft " (Early History and Antiquities of Freemasonry, p. 137). The research of Rylands has afforded a probable, if not altogether an absolute, solution of the problem referred to and from the same fount we learn that an Edward Sankey, " son to Richard Sankey, gent.," was baptized at Warrington, February 3, 1621‑2.

 

It, therefore, appears that on October 16, 1646 a Richard Sankey was present in Lodge and that an Edward Sankey copied and attested one of the old manuscript Constitutions ; and that a Richard Sankey of Sankey flourished at this time, whose son Edward, if alive, we must suppose would have then been a young man of four or five and twenty. Now, it seems that the identification of the Sankeys of Sankey, father and son, with the Freemason and the copyist of the Old Charges respectively, is rendered as clear as anything lying within the doctrine of probabilities can be made to appear.

 

It may, therefore, be assumed that a version of the old manuscript Constitutions, which has fortunately come down to us, was in circulation at Warrington in 1646. Thus we should have, in the year named, Speculative and, it may be, also Operative EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 275 Masonry, co‑existing with the actual use, by Lodges and Brethren, of the Scrolls or Constitutions of which the Sloane MS., 3 848 (13), affords an illustration in point. The remaining entries in the Diary of a Masonic character are the following March, 1682.

 

io.‑About 5 P.M. I recd: a Sumons to appr at a Lodge to be held the next day, at Masons Hall London.

 

11.‑Accordingly I went, & about Noone were admitted into the Fellowship of Free Masons, S; William Wilson Knight, Capt. Rich: Borthwick, M; Will : Woodman, M; Wm Grey, MT Samuell Taylour & M; William Wise.

 

I was the Senior Fellow among them (it being 3 5 yeares since I was admitted) There were prsent beside my selfe the Fellowes after named.

 

Mr Tho : Wise M` of the Masons Company this prsent yeare. Mr Thomas Shorthose, Mr Thomas Shadbolt, Waindsford Esqr Mr Nich Young M! John Shorthose, M; William Hamon, Mr. John Thompson, & M; Will: Stanton.

 

Wee all dyned at the halfe Moone Taverne in Cheapside at a Noble dinner prepaired at the charge of the New = accepted Masons.

 

All the persons named in the last paragraph quoted from the Diary, also Mr. Will. Woodman and Mr. William Wise, who are mentioned in the earlier one, were members of the Masons' Company. Thomas Wise was elected Master, January 1, 1 682. By Vaindsford, Esq., is probably meant Rowland Rainsford, who is described in the records of the Company as " late apprentice to Robert Beadles, was admitted a freeman, Jan. 15, 166 $ " ; and William Hamon is doubtless identical with William Hamond, who was present at a meeting of the Company on April 11, 1682. John Shorthose and Will. Stanton were Wardens.

 

From the circumstance that Ashmole records his attendance at a meeting of the Freemasons, held in the hall of the Company of Masons, a good deal of confusion has been engendered, which some casual remarks of Dr. Anderson, in the Con stitutions Of 1723 (p. 82), have done much to confirm. By way of filling up a page, as he expresses it, he quotes from an old Record of Masons, to the effect that, " the said Record describing a Coat of Arms, much the same with that of the LONDON COMPANY of Freemen Masons, it is generally believ'd that the said Company is descended of the ancient Fraternity; and that in former Times no Man was Free of that Company until he was install'd in some Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons, as a necessary Qualification." " But," he adds, " that laudable Practice seems to have been long in Dissuetude." It is important, however, carefully to discriminate between the undoubted testimony of Ashmole and the opinions which have been ascribed to him. So far as the former is concerned, direct allusions to the Masonic Fraternity come to an end with the last entry given from the Diary (1682) ; but the latter have exercised so much influence upon the writings of all historians, that their careful analysis will form one of the most important parts of inquiry.

 

276 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY In order to present this evidence in a clear form, it becomes necessary to dwell upon the fact, that the entries in the Diary record the attendance of Ashmole at two Masonic meetings only‑viz. in 1646 and 168z respectively.

 

This Diary was not printed until 1717. Rawlinson's preface to the History of Berkshire saw the light two years later; and the article " Ashmole " in the Bio graphia Britannica was published in 1747. During the period, however, intervening between the last entry referred to in the Diary (168z) and its publication (1717) there appeared Dr. Plot's Natural History of Staffordshire (1686), in which is contained the earliest critico‑historical account of the Freemasons. Plot's remarks form the ground‑work of an interesting note to the memoir of Ashmole in the Biographia Britannica ; and the latter, which has been very much relied upon by the compilers of Masonic history, is scarcely intelligible without a knowledge of the former. There were also occasional references to Plot's work in the interval between 1717 and 1747, from which it becomes the more essential that, in critically appraising the value of statements given to the world on the authority of Ashmole, we should have before us all the evidence which can assist in guiding us to a sound and rational conclusion.

 

First, attention must be recalled to the statement of Sir William Dugdale, recorded by Aubrey in his Natural History of Viltshire. No addition to the text of this work was made after 1686‑Aubrey being then sixty years of age‑and, giving the entry in question no earlier date (though this might safely be done), we should put to ourselves the inquiry, what distance back can the expression, " many years ago," from the mouth of a man of sixty, safely carry us ? Under any method of computation, Dugdale's verbal statement must be presumed to date from a period somewhere intermediate between October 16, 1646 and March 11, 168z. It is quite certain that it was made before the meeting occurred in the latter year at the Masons' Hall.

 

Ashmole informs us 1656 . September . 13 . About 9 hor . ante merid. . I came first to Mr Dugdale's at Blyth‑Hall.

 

December 1g . I went towards Blyth‑Hall.

 

A similar entry occurs under the date of March z7 in the following year; after which we find 1657 . May . icg . I accompanied Mr Dugdale in his journey towards the Fens 4 . Hor . 3o minites ante merid.

 

Blyth‑Hall seems to have possessed great attractions for Ashmole, since he went there repeatedly between the years 1657 and 166o. In the latter year he was appointed Windsor Herald and in 1661 was given precedency over the other Heralds. He next records 166z August . I accompanied Mr Dugdale in his visitation of Derby and Nottingham shires.

 

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 277 1663 . March . I accompanied Mr Dugdale in his visitation of Staffordshire and Derbyshire.

 

August 3. 9 Hor. ante merid. . I began my journey to accompany Mr Dugdale in his visitations of Shropshire and Cheshire.

 

Further entries in the Diary relate constant visits to Blyth‑Hall in 1665 and the three following years ; and, seven months after the death of his second wife, the Lady Mainwaring, Ashmole thus describes his third marriage 1668 . November . 3 . I married Mrs Elizabeth Dugdale, daughter to William Dugdale, Esq., Norroy King of Arms, at Lincoln's Inn Chapel.

 

As the ideas of the two antiquaries necessarily became very interchangeable from the year 1656 and in 1663 they were together in Staffordshire, Ashmole's native county, we shall not go far astray if, without assigning the occurrence any exact date, we at least assume that the earliest colloquy of the two Heralds, with regard to the Society of Freemasons, cannot with any approach to accuracy be fixed at any later period than 1663. This conclusion is arrived at, not only from the intimacy between the men and their both being officials of the College of Arms, but also because they went together to make the Staffordshire " Visitation," which, taken with Plot's subsequent account of the " Society," appears to justify the belief, that the prevalence of Masonic Lodges in his native county was a circumstance of which Ashmole could hardly have been unaware‑indeed the speculation may be hazarded that the " customs " of Staffordshire were not wholly without their influence when he cast in his lot with the Freemasons at Warrington in 1646 ; and in this view of the case, the probability of Dugdale having derived a portion of the information which he afterwards passed on to Aubrey from his brother Herald in 1663 may safely be admitted.

 

Ashmole appears to have entertained a great affection for the city of his birth. His visits to Lichfield were very frequent and he was a great benefactor to its cathedral, in which he commenced his life as a chorister. (See Dr. T. Harwood's History of Lichfield, 18o6, pp. 6i, 69, 441.) In 1671, he was, together with his wife, " entertained by the Bailiffs at a dinner and a great banquet." Twice the leading citizens invited him to become one of their Burgesses in Parliament. It is within the limits of probability, that the close and intimate connexion between Ashmole and his native city, which only ceased with the life of the antiquary, may have led to his being present at the Masons' Hall, London, on March 11, 1682. Sir William Wilson, one of the " new accepted " Masons on that occasion and originally a stonemason, was the sculptor of the statue of Charles II, erected in the Cathedral of Lichfield at the expense of and during the episcopate of Bishop Hacket, who expended Czo,ooo on repairs to the Cathedral; and it seems that we have in this circumstance an explanation of Ashmole's presence at the Masons' Hall, which, not to put it any higher, is in harmony with the known attachment of the antiquary for the city and Cathedral of Lichfield‑an attachment not unlikely to result in his 2‑78 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY becoming personally acquainted with any artists of note employed in the restoration of an edifice endeared to him by so many recollections.

 

Sir William Wilson's approaching " admission " or " acceptance " may, therefore, have been the disposing cause of the Summons received by Ashmole, but, leaving this conjecture for what it is worth, we pass on to Dr. Plot's Natural History of Staffordshire, the publication of which occurred in the same year (1686) as the transcription of the Antiquity MS. (23) by Robert Padgett, a synchronism of no little singularity, from the point of view from which it will hereafter be regarded.

 

Although Plot's description of Freemasonry, as practised by its votaries in the second half of the seventeenth century, has been reprinted times without number, it is quite impossible to exclude it from this history. The quotation is from the Natural History of Staffordshire, which, however, does not cast any new light upon the passages relating to the Freemasons.

 

DR. PLOT'S ACCOUNT OF THE FREEMASONS, A.D. 1686 1 85. To these add the Customs relating to the County, whereof they have one, of admitting Men into the Society of Free‑Masons, that in the moorelands [the more northerly mountainous part] of this County seems to be of greater request, than any where else, though I find the Custom spread more or less all over the Nation; for here I found persons of the most eminent quality, that did not disdain to be of this Fellowship. Not indeed need they, were it of that Antiquity and honor, that is pretended in a large parchment volum they have amongst them, containing the History and Rules of the craft of masonry. Which is there deduced not only from sacred writ, but profane story, particularly that it was brought into England by S`. Amphibal [the existence of this saint is now generally discredited] and first communicated to S. Alban. who set down the Charges of masonry and was made paymaster and Governor of the Kings works, and gave them charges and manners as St. Amphibal had taught him. Which were after confirmed by King Athelstan, whose youngest son Edwyn loved well masonry, took upon him the charges and learned the manners and obtained for them of his Father a free‑Charter. Whereupon he caused them to assemble at York and to bring all the old Books of their craft and out of them ordained such charges and manners, as they then thought fit : which charges in the said Schrole or Parchment volum, are in part declared ; and thus was the craft of masonry grounded and confirmed in England. It is also there declared that these charges and manners were after perused and approved by King Hen. 6. and his council, both as to Masters and Fellows of this right Worshipfull craft.

 

1 86. Into which Society when any are admitted, they call a meeting (or Lodg as they term it in some places), which must consist at lest of S or 6 oú the Ancients of the Order, whom the candidats present with gloves and so likewise to their wives and entertain with a collation according to the Custom of the place This ended, they proceed to the admission of them, which chiefly consists in the communication of certain secret signes, whereby they are known to one another all over the Nation, by which means they have maintenance whither ever they travel : for if any man appear though altogether unknown that can skew any EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 279 of these signes to a Fellow of the Society, whom they otherwise call an accepted mason, he is obliged presently to come to him, from what company or place soever he be in, nay, tho' from the top of a Steeple (what hazard or inconvenience soever he run), to know his pleasure, and assist him ; viZ., if he want work he is bound to find him some ; or if he cannot doe that, to give him mony, or otherwise support him till work can be had; which is one of their Articles; and it is another, that they advise the Masters they work for, according to the best of their shall, acquainting them with the goodness or badness of their materials; and if they be any way out in the contrivance of their buildings, modestly to rectify them in it ; that masonry be not dishonored: and many such like that are commonly known: but some others they have (to which they are sworn after their fashion), that none know but themselves, which I have reason to suspect are much worse than these, perhaps as bad as this History of the craft itself; than which there is nothing I ever met with, more false or incoherent.

 

5 87. For not to mention that St. Ampbibalus by judicious persons is thought rather to be the cloak, than master of St. Alban ; or how unlikely it is that St. Alban himself in such a barbarous Age, and in times of persecution, should be superviser of any works; it is plain that King Atbelstan was never marryed, or ever had so much as any natural issue ; (unless we give way to the fabulous History of Guy Earl of Warwick, whose eldest son Keynburn is said indeed to have been marryed to Loneat, the supposed daughter of Atbelstan, which will not serve the turn neither) much less ever had he a lawfull son Fdwyn, of whom I find not the least umbrage in History. He had indeed a Brother of that name, of whom he was so jealouse, though very young when he came to the crown, that he sent him to Sea in a pinnace without tackle or oar, only in company with a page, that his death might be imputed to the waves and not him ; whence the Young Prince (not able to master his passions) cast himself headlong into the Sea and there dyed. Who how unlikely to learn their manners; to get them a Charter ; or call them together at York; let the Reader judg.

 

~ 88. Yet more improbable is it still, that Hen. the 6 and his Council should ever peruse or approve their charges and manners, and so confirm these right Worshipfull Masters and Fellows, as they are call'd in the Scrole : for in the third of his reigne (when he could not be 4 years old) I find an act of Parliament quite abolishing this Society. It being therein ordained, that no Congregations and Confederacies should be made by masons, in their general Chapters and Assemblies, whereby the good course and effect of the Statutes of Labourers, were violated and broken in subversion of Lam: and that those who caused such Chapters or Congregations to be holden, should be adjudged Felons; and that those masons that came to them should be punish't by imprisonment, and make fine and ransom at the King's will. So very much out was the Compiler of this History of the craft of masonry, and so little skill had he in our Chronicles and Laws. Which Statute though repealed by a subsequent act in the 5 of Eliz., whereby servants and Labourers are compellable to serve, and their wages limited; and all masters made punishable for giving more wages than what is taxed by the justices, and the servants if they take it, etc. Yet this act too being but little observed, 'tis still to be feared these Chapters of Free‑masons do as much mischeif as before, which, if one may estimate by the penalty, was anciently so great, that perhaps it might be usefull to examin them now.

 

ZSo EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY In these extracts there is the fullest picture of the Freemasonry which preceded the era of Grand Lodges, that has come down to us in contemporary writings. It is, however, necessary to consider the character and general reputation of the writer, to whom we are so much indebted for this glimpse of light in a particularly dark portion of our annals.

 

Evelyn, who was a good judge of men, says of Plot: " Pity it is that more of this industrious man's genius was not employed so as to describe every county of England" (Diary, July i 1, 1675). It must be confessed, however, that extreme credulity appears to have been a noticeable feature of his character. Thus a friendly critic observes of him: " The Doctor was certainly a profound scholar; but, being of a convivial and facetious turn of mind, was easily imposed on, which, added to the credulous age in which he wrote, has introduced into his works more of the marvellous than is adapted to the present more enlightened period " (Stebbing Shaw, History and Antiquities of Staffordshire, vol. i, 1798, Preface, p. 6. See also Gentleman's Magazine, vol. lxii, p. 694 ; vol. lxv, p. 897 ; and vol. lxxiv, p. 519).

 

In J. Spence's Anecdotes (ed. i8zo, p. 333), we meet with the following : "Dr. Plot was very credulous and took up with any stories for his History of Oxfordshire. A gentleman of Worcestershire was likely to be put into the margin as having one leg rough and the other smooth, had he not discovered the cheat to him out of compassion ; one of his legs had been shaved." Edward Lhuyd, who succeeded Plot as keeper of the Ashmolean Museum, in a letter still preserved, gives a very indifferent character of him to Dr. Martin Lister. " I think," says Lhuyd, " he is a man of as bad morals as ever took a doctor's degree.

 

I wish his wife a good bargain of him and to myself, that I may never meet with the like again " (Athena Oxonienses, vol. iv, col. 777).

 

Plot's " morals " were evidently at a low ebb in the estimation of his brother antiquaries, for Hearne, writing on November 6, 1705, thus expresses himself " There was once a very remarkable stone in Magd. Hall library, which was after wards lent to Dr. Plott, who never returned it, replying, when he was asked for it, that'twas a rule among antiquaries to receive and never restore ! " (Reliquia Hearniania, 18 5 7, vol. i, p. 47) But as it is with our author's veracity, rather than with his infractions of the decalogue, that we are concerned, one of the marvellous stories related by him in all good faith may here fittingly be introduced.

 

A " foole " is mentioned, " who could not only tell you the changes of the Moon, the times of Eclipses and at what time Easter and Whitsuntide fell, or any moveable feast whatever, but at what time any of them had, or should fall, at any distance of years, past or to come " (Natural History of Staffordshire, ch. viii, 1 67).

 

Upon the whole, in arriving at a final estimate of the value of Plot's writings, especially of the work from which an extract has been given, we shall at least be justified in concluding, with Chalmers, that " In the eagerness and rapidity of his various pursuits he took upon trust, and committed to writing, some things which, EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 2‑81 upon mature consideration, he must have rejected" (Biographical Dictionary, vol. xvi, 1816, p. 651).

 

Between 1686 and 1700 there are only two allusions to English Freemasonry by contemporary writers‑one in 1688, the other in 1681. The former is by the third Randle Holme, in The Academie of Armory, the latter by John Aubrey, in the curious memorandum to which it will be unnecessary to do more than refer.

 

One further reference, indeed, to the Freemasons, or rather, to the insignia of the Society, is associated by a later writer with the reign of William and MaryFebruary 1688‑9 to December i 694‑and, although unconnected with the progressive development or evolution of Ashmolean ideas, may perhaps be more conveniently cited at this than at any later period.

 

Describing the two armouries in the Tower of London as " a noble building to the northward of the White Tower," Entick goes on to say‑" It was begun by King James 11 and by that prince built to the first floor; but finished by King William, who erected that magnificent room called the New or Small Armoury, in which he, with Queen Mary his consort, dined in great form, having all the warrant workmen and labourers to attend them, dressed in white gloves and aprons, the usual badges of the Order of Freemasonry " (W. Maitland's History of London, continued by Entick, 1756, p. 168).

 

As a revised issue of the Book of Constitutions was published in 1756the year in which the above remarks first appeared‑also under the editorial supervision of the Rev. John Entick, it would appear either that his materials for the two undertakings became a little mixed, or that a portion of a sentence intended for one work has been accidentally dovetailed with a similar fragment appertaining to the other. However this may be, the readers of this history have the passage before them, upon which their judgment must be passed.

 

A short notice of Ashmole from the pen of Edward Lhuyd was given in Collier's Historical Dictionary in 1707, but his connexion with the Masonic fraternity was first announced by the publication of his own Diary in 1717, from a copy of the original MS. in the Ashmolean Museum, made by Dr. Plot and afterwards collated by David Parry, M.A., both, in their time, official custodians of the actual Diary.

 

In 1719 two posthumous works were published by E. Curll and edited by Dr. Rawlinson, viz., Aubrey's Natural History and Antiquities of Surrey and Ashmole's History and Antiquities of Berkshire. The former, containing the dedication and preface of Aubrey's Natural History of Wiltshire and the latter, the account of the Freemasons. Subsequent editions of Ashmole's Berkshire appeared in 1723 and 1736, to both of which the original preface, or memoir of Ashmole, written by Rawlinson, was prefixed.

 

By those who, at the present time, have before them the identical materials from which Rawlinson composed his description of our Society‑and the most cursory glance at his memoir of Ashmole will satisfy the mind that it is wholly based on the antiquary's Diary and the notes of John Aubrey‑the general accuracy of his statements will not be disputed. Upon his contemporaries, however, they appear to have 2.82 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY made no impression whatever, which may, indeed, altogether be due to their having been published anonymously, though even in this case, there will be room for doubt whether the name of Rawlinson would have much recommended them to credit.

 

Dr. Richard Rawlinson, the fourth son of Sir Thomas Rawlinson, Lord Mayor of London in 17o6, was born in 16go, educated at St. John's College, Oxford, and admitted to the degree of D.C.L. by diploma in 1719. It has been stated on apparently good authority, that he was not only admitted to holy orders but was also a member of the non‑juring episcopate, having been regularly consecrated in 1728. (See Wright's England's Masonic Pioneers, pp. 48‑74.) He evinced an early predilection for literary pursuits and was employed in an editorial capacity before he had completed his twenty‑fifth year. The circumstances, however, as related in Athena Oxonienses, are far from redounding to his credit. Thomas Rawlinson, his younger brother, was a great collector of books. Addison is said to have intended his character of Tom Folio in The Tatler, No. 15 8, for him. While he lived in Gray's Inn, he had four chambers so completely filled with books, that it was necessary to remove his bed into the passage. After his death, in 1725, the sale of his manuscripts alone occupied sixteen days.

 

The sketch of Masonic history given in the Parentalia, though somewhat enlarged, is to the same purport and it may safely be concluded that it was derived from the same source.

 

Before passing in review the further evidence by which the belief in Wren's initiation is supported, it will be convenient to examine with some particularity the theory of Masonic origin with which his name is associated.

 

It should carefully be noted that the reported dicta of Dugdale, Ashmole and Wren, though characterized by trifling discrepancies, agree in the main and especially on the point of Papal favours having been accorded to Italian architects. This consensus on the part of the three English authorities, to whom the early mention of Bulls is traced or ascribed, we should keep carefully in view, whilst examining the learned speculations to which the subject has given rise in Germany.

 

In another part of this work it is stated that the tradition of the Steinmetzen having obtained extensive privileges from the Popes has been current in German annals from very early times. In a series of articles communicated to The Freemason (January zo, February 3 and io, 1883) by G. W. Speth, this subject has been ably discussed and it is contended with much force that, as the Constitutions of the Steinmetzen were confirmed by the Emperors of Germany, it is equally reasonable to conclude that they were submitted to the Popes. " In 1518," says Speth (citing Heideloff and Kloss) The Lodge at Magdeburgh petitioned their Prince for a confirmation of their ordinances, declaring their willingness to alter any part, always excepting the chief articles, which had been confirmed by Papal and Imperial authority. The Strasburg Lodge, during their quarrel with the Annaberg Lodge, wrote in 1519 that the abuse of four years' apprenticeship had been put an end to by his Holiness the Pope and his EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 283 Majesty the Emperor. We also find that the quarrel came to an end after the Strasburg Master had forwarded to the Duke of Saxony attested copies of the Papal and Imperial privileges which they possessed, and that the original documents were produced for the inspection of the Saxon deputies at Strasburg.

 

Whilst, however, fully conceding the extreme probability, to say the least, of privileges or confirmations having been granted by the Popes ‑to the Steinmetzen, it is difficult to follow Kloss, when he says The statement concerning the " travelling masons," attributed to Wren, should arouse all the more suspicion the closer we investigate the surrounding circumstances, the incredibility of which is at once evident and the more we con sider the possibility of the facts narrated. We may, therefore, ascribe the whole tradition thus put into the mouths of Ashmole and Wren to an attempt at adorning the guild legends, which may be based on the Papal confirmations really granted to the German Stonemasons in 15 02 and 15 17.

 

As it is the habit of commentators to be silent, or at most very concise, where there is any difficulty and to be very prolix and tedious where there is none, this attempt by Kloss to solve one of the greatest problems in Masonic history will bespeak gratitude, if it does not ensure assent. It will be seen that the value of the evidence upon which the story hangs is made to depend upon credible tradition rather than written testimonies ; whilst Kloss admits that the statements ascribed to Ashmole and Wren may have had some foundation in fact (otherwise the tradition would not have been credible) ; on the other hand, he finds a motive for their assertion in the anxiety of the historians of Masonry to embellish the " Legend of the Guilds." If, however, as witnesses, the mouths are to be closed of Dugdale, Ashmole and Wren, this must necessitate the excision of the story of the " Bulls " from the traditionary history of Freemasonry.

 

The earliest in point of date, that of Sir William Dugdale, has come down to us through the testimony of Aubrey. Assuming, then, for present purposes, that Dugdale meant what he is reported to have said, we find‑if the actual words are followed‑that, according to his belief, " about Henry the Third's time, the Pope gave a Bull or Diploma to a company of Italian Architects to travell up and downe over all Europe to build Churches." The sentence is free from ambiguity except as regards the allusion to Henry‑III. That the recipients of the Bull or Diploma were Italian architects and their function the construction of churches, is plain and distinct, but the words, " Henry the Third's Time," are not so easily interpreted. On the one hand, these may simply mean that Papal letters were given between I z 16 and i z72, in which case a solution of the problem must be looked for in the history of Italy; whilst, on the other hand, they may closely associate the reign of King Henry III with the occurrence described and indicate that in the annals of that period of English history will be found a clue to the explanation we are in search of.

 

The latter supposition, on the face of it, the more probable of the two, is fully 284 borne out by the circumstances of Henry's reign, as narrated by the most trustworthy historians.

 

The Papal authority in England stood at its highest when this prince succeeded to the throne. An Interdict had been laid on the kingdom in i 2o8 and, in i z i i, John was not only excommunicated but deposed and that sentence was pronounced with the greatest solemnity by the Pope himself. The king's subjects were not only all absolved from their oath of allegiance, but were strictly forbidden to acknowledge him in any respect whatever as their sovereign, to obey him, or even to speak to him. (See A. Bower, History of the Popes, 1766, vol. vi, p. 2o2.) On May 15, 1213, John knelt before the legate Pandulf, surrendered his kingdom to the Roman See, took it back again as a tributary vassal, swore fealty and did liege homage to the Pope (Green, History of the English People, 1881, vol. i, p. 236). "Never," says Green, " had the priesthood wielded such boundless power over Christendom as in the days of Innocent the Third (1198‑1216) and his immediate successors " (ibid., P. 254). This Pontiff set himself up as the master of Christian princes, changed the title of the Popes, which had hitherto been Vicar of Peter, to Vicar of Christ and was the author of the famous comparison of the Papal power to the sun, " the greater light " and of the temporal power to the moon, " the lesser light." At the death of John (1216) the concurrence of the Papal authority being requisite to support the tottering throne, Henry III was obliged to swear fealty to the Pope and to renew that homage to which his father had subjected the kingdom. Pope Honorius III (iz16‑27), as feudal superior, declared himself the guardian of the orphan and commanded Gualo to reside near his person, watch over his safety and protect his just rights. The Papal legate, therefore, took up his residence at the English court and claimed a share in the administration of the realm as the representative of its overlord and as guardian of the young sovereign (Green, op. cit., vol. i, p. 250). " In England," says Green, " Rome believed herself to have more than a spiritual claim for support. She regarded the kingdom as a vassal kingdom and as bound to its overlord. It was only by the promise of a heavy subsidy that Henry in 1229 could buy the Papal confirmation of Langton's successor." During the reign of this king the chief grievances endured by his subjects were the usurpations and exactions of the Court of Rome. All the chief benefices of the kingdom were conferred on Italians, great numbers of whom were sent over at one time to be provided for ; and the system of non‑residence and pluralities was carried to an enormous height. The benefices of the Italian clergy in England amounted to 6o,ooo marks a year, a sum which exceeded the annual revenue of the Crown itself. The Pope exacted the revenues of all vacant benefices, the twentieth of all ecclesiastical revenues without exception, the third of such as exceeded loo marks a year and half of those possessed by non‑residents. He claimed the goods of all intestate clergymen, advanced a title to inherit all money gotten by usury and levied benevolences upon the people. When the king, contrary to his usual practice, prohibited these exactions, he was threatened with excommunication. The supremacy of the Popes over all temporal sovereigns was maintained by EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 2.85 Adrian IV, who, on visiting the camp of Frederic Barbarossa, haughtily refused to give the kiss of peace until the Emperor elect had submitted to hold the stirrup of his mule in the presence of the whole army. Adrian, who was the only English Pope, granted the lordship of Ireland to Henry II in a Bull which declared all islands to belong to St. Peter.

 

The murder of Thomas a Becket in 1170 conduced still further to augment the Papal influence in England. Henry II submitted to the authority of the Papal legates and, having sworn on the relics of the saints that he had not commanded nor desired the death of the archbishop and, having also made various concessions to the Church, he received absolution from the legates and was confirmed in the grant of Ireland made by Pope Adrian.

 

The following are examples of privileges and confirmations emanating from the Roman See 1124‑1130. The goods, possessions and rents of the Provost and Canons of the Collegiate Church of Beverley, confirmed by a Bull of Pope Honorius II. (See Poulson, Antiquities and History of Beverley, vol. ii, p. 5 z4.) 1181‑1185. The charter of the " Great Guild of St. John of Beverley of the Hanshous:░.," confirmed by a Bull of Pope Lucius III. (Smith's English Guilds, 1'‑ 1530 Jan. 26, i z 1 g. An Indulgence of 4o days given by Pope Honorius III to those who assist at the translation of the body of Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury. (Rymer, Fadera, vol. i, p. 254.) 12‑5.z. A pardon for release of xl days' penance, sent out by Pope Innocent IV, to those assisting at the Sustentation of St. Paul's Cathedral. (Sir W. Dugdale, History of St. Paul's Cathedral, 1716, p. 14.) 135z‑62. An Indulgence of two years and two quarters granted by Pope Innocent VI " to the liberal contributors " to the construction of the Cathedral of York. (Drake's Eboracum, p. 475.) 1366. One year's Indulgence granted by Urban V to " the Christian benefactors " of the same fabric.

 

Three Papal confirmations relating to the Chapter of the Cathedral of St. Peter of York are given by Sir W. Dugdale, one from Alexander [III] confirming a charter granted by William Rufus ; the others from Popes Innocent IV and Honorius III, ratifying privileges conferred by English prelates. (Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. vi, p. 1178.) Connected in men's minds, as the Freemasons were, with the erection of churches and cathedrals, the portion of the tradition which places their origin in travelling bodies of Italians is not only what one might expect to meet with, but it possesses what, without doing violence to language, may be termed some foundation in fact. Attention is directed pointedly by Marchese to the numerous ecclesiastical structures erected in the thirteenth century, not only in Italy, but in France, Germany, England and Belgium, who cites, inter alia, the basilica of St. Francesco di Assisi, A.D. 12 z8 ; the duomo of Florence, 1298 ; that of Orvieto, iz9o ; St. Antonio di 286 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY Padova, I z3 I ; the Campo Santo di Pisa, 1278 ; St. Maria Novella in Florence, Iz7c9 ; St. Croce, built in 1294; to which period also belong SS. Giovanni and Paolo and the Church of the Frari in Venice. Outside Italy, he names the cathedrals of Cologne, Beauvais, Chartres, Rheims, Amiens, Brussels, York, Salisbury, Westminster, Burgos and Toledo, as all belonging to the first half of the thirteenth century (Lives of the most Emigent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects of the Order of St. Dominic, 1852, Preface, p. xxv). For the earliest masons we must search the records of the earliest builders and whilst, therefore, it is clear that this class of workmen had been extensively employed by the Benedictines, the Cistercians and the Carthusians, all of which had a footing in England long before the era of the Franciscans and Dominicans ; on the other hand, the latter Orders can fairly claim to rank as links in the chain, by which, if at all, the Freemasons of the Middle Ages can be connected with their congeners, the actual constructors of those marvels of operative skill, the temples, of a more remote antiquity.

 

Dugdale, Ashmole and Wren very probably derived their information much in the same manner as their several opinions have been passed on to later ages. Somebody must have told Dugdale what Aubrey's pen has recorded, it matters not who, whether a Mason or otherwise, is equally immaterial. The members of a secret society are rarely conversant with its origin and history and, unless the Freemasons of the sixteenth century were addicted to the study of Masonic antiquities, in a degree far surpassing the practice of their living descendants‑of whom not one in a hundred advances beyond a smattering of ritual and ceremonial‑they could have had little or nothing to communicate beyond the tradition as it has come down to us.

 

Possibly about the middle of the sixteenth century certain leading incidents in the history of the Friars had become blended with the traditionary history of the Freemasons and it is not improbable that the " letters of fraternity " (see Fosbroke, British Monachism, i8oz, vol. ii, p. 53), common in the thirteenth century‑as well as before and after‑of which those of the Friars had a peculiar sanctity, may have assisted potently in implanting the idea of the Brotherhood of Freemasons having received Papal favours through the medium of the Italians, who were travelling over Europe and building churches. Colour is lent to this supposition by the fact that in 1387 " a certain Friar preacher, Brother William Bartone by name, gave security to three journeymen cordwainers of London, that he would make suit in Rome for a confirmation of their fraternity by the Pope." (See Riley, Memorials of London, p. 495.) If this view of the case be accepted, the Dugdale‑Aubrey derivation of the Freemasons from certain wandering Italians would sufficiently be explained.

 

Although, in the opinion of some respectable authorities, the only solution of the problem under consideration is to be found in the Papal Writings, of which, at various times, the Steinmetzen were the recipients, the supporters of this view have failed to realize the substantial difficulties of making out their case, or the lengths to which they must go, in order even to sustain plausibly the theory they EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 287 have set up. In the first place, the belief in Papal Bulls having been granted to the Freemasons is an English and not a German tradition. Secondly, the privileges claimed for the Steinmetzen rest upon two distinct sources of authority‑one set, the confirmations of Popes Alexander VI and Leo X in 15 02 and 1517, are supported by credible tradition ; the other set, the Indulgences extending from the time of Nicholas III to that of Benedict XII (1277‑1334), repose on no foundation other than unverified assertion.

 

Now, in order to show that Dugdale's statement to Aubrey was based on the Papal confirmations of 1502 and 1517, proof must be forthcoming, that the first antiquary of his age not only recognized the Steinmetzen as the parents, or at least as the precursors, of the Freemasons, but that he styled the former Italians and made a trifling mistake of three centuries in his chronology ! True, the anachronism disappears if we admit the possibility of his having been influenced by the legendary documents of earlier date (1277‑13 34)‑though, as a matter of fact, since the masons of southern Germany only formed themselves into a brotherhood in 1459, no Papal writing of earlier date can have been sent to them‑but the error as to nationality remains and, under both suppositions, even adding the Indulgence of Cologne (1248), it is impossible to get over the circumstance that Dugdale speaks of a Society or body of men who were to travel over Europe and build churches. The Steinmetzen, indeed, built churches, but the system of travelling‑which, by the way, only became obligatory in the sixteenth century‑was peculiar to the journeymen of the association and did not affect the masters, to whom, in preference to their subordinates, the Pope's mandate to travel and erect churches would, doubtless, have been addressed.

 

The suggestion of Dr. Kloss, that the tradition of the Bulls was fabricated for the purpose of adorning the " legend of the guilds " and fathered upon Ashmole and Wren‑on the face of it a very hasty induction from imperfect data‑may be disposed of in a few words.

 

Kloss evidently had in his mind Dr. Anderson's Constitutions of 1723 and 1738, the " Memoir " of Ashmole in the Biographia Britannica, 1747 and Wren's opinion, as related in the Parentalia, 175o. The" Guild" theory, as it has since been termed, was first broached in the publications of Dr. Anderson, by whom no doubt the legends of the Craft were embellished, somewhat, in the process of conversion into a simple traditionary history. Still, in the conjecture that the story of the Bulls was prompted by and, in a measure, grew out of the uncritical statements in the Constitutions, his commentator has gone far astray, as this tradition has come down on unimpeachable authority from 1686 and probably dates from the first half of the seventeenth century. From the works already cited, of 1747 and 175o respectively, Kloss, no doubt, believed that the opinions of Ashmole and Wren acquired publicity and, as the earlier conception of Sir William Dugdale was then entombed in MS., the conclusions he drew were less fanciful than may at first sight appear. The statement attributed to Wren can claim no higher antiquity, as printed matter, than 1750 ; and, though the opinion of Ashmole appears to have first seen light in 1719, 2.88 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY Preston, in his quotation from Dr. Rawlinson's memoir of that antiquary, prefixed to the Antiquities of Berkshire, published in 1719, not only omits the passage relating to the origin of the Freemasons, but deprives the excerpt he presents of any apparent authority, by introducing it as a mere statement by " the writer of Mr. Ashmole's life, who was not a Mason." (Illustrations of Masonry, 1792, p. 213.) The tradition examined forms one of the many historical problems, for the complete solution of which no sufficient materials exist. Yet, as no probability is too faint, no conjecture too bold, or no etymology too uncertain, to escape the credulity of an antiquary in search of evidence to support a Masonic theory, writers of this class, by aid of strained and fanciful analogies, have built up some strange and incredible hypotheses, for which there is no manner of foundation either in history or probability. ~9uod volumus, facile credimus ; whatever accords with our theories is believed without due examination. It is far easier to believe than to be scientifically instructed ; we see a little, imagine a good deal, and so jump to a conclusion.

 

The next evidence in point of time bearing on Wren's membership of the Society is contained in a letter written July i2, 175 7 by Dr. Thomas Manningham, a former Deputy Grand Master (1752‑56) of the earlier or constitutional Grand Lodge of England, in reply to inquiries respecting the validity of certain additional Degrees which had been imported into Holland. This document, found in the archives of the Grand Lodge of the Netherlands in 1868, was shortly afterwards published by S. H. Hertzveld of the Hague. (See Findel, p. 315 and the Freemason's Magazine, vol. xxiv, p. 148.) The letter runs These innovations are of very late years and I believe the Brethren will find a difficulty to produce a Mason acquainted with any such forms, twenty, nay, ten years. My own father has been a Mason these fifty years and has been at Lodges in Holland, France and England. He knows none of these ceremonies. Grand Master Payne, who succeeded Sir Christopher Wren, is a stranger to them, as is likewise one old Brother of ninety, who I conversed with lately. This Brother assures me he was made a Mason in his youth and has constantly frequented Lodges till rendered incapable by his advanced age, etc.

 

" Here," says a valued correspondent (S. D. Nickerson, Grand Secretary of Massachusetts), " are three old and active Masons, who must have been associated with Sir Christopher Wren and known all about his Masonic standing, with whom Dr. Manningham was intimately associated and who must have given him correct information as to Wren, in case he had it not of his own knowledge." The genuineness of the Manningham letter has been disputed. Where Hughan, Lyon and Findel are in accord and the document has received the hall‑mark of their approval, one is unwilling on light grounds to reject any evidence deemed admissible by such excellent authorities.

 

Still, if the genuineness of the letter is conceded to the full, the passage under examination will, on a closer view, be found to throw no light whatever upon the EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 289 immediate subject of the inquiry. The fact‑if such it be‑of Sir Richard Manningham (the father of the writer) having been, in 175 7, " fifty years " a member of the Craft and the assurance of the " old brother of ninety," that he had been "made a Mason in his youth," are interesting, no doubt, as increasing the aggregate of testimony which bears in favour of the Masonic proceedings from 1717 onwards, having been continued without break from a much earlier period. But with Wren, or the circumstances of his life, they have nothing to do.

 

The expression " Grand Master Payne, who succeeded Sir Christopher Wren, is a stranger to them," is both inaccurate and misleading. In the first place, he did not succeed Wren and the statement, besides carrying its own condemnation, shows on the face of it, that it was based on the Constitutions of 173 8. Secondly, the word " is," as applied to Payne in July 175 7, is singularly out of place, considering that he died in the previous January ; indeed, it seriously impairs the value of Dr. Manningham's recollections in the other instances where he permits himself the use of the present tense.

 

The memoir of Wren in the Biographia Britannira, which appeared in 1763, was written by Dr. Nicolls and merely deserves attention from its recording, without alteration or addition, the items of Masonic information contained in the two extracts from the Parentalia already given. There are no further allusions to the Freemasons, nor is the subject of the memoir represented to have been one of that body.

 

The fable of Wren's Grand Mastership‑inserted by Anderson in the Constitutions of 1738‑was repeated, with but slight variation, in all subsequent issues of that publication to which a history of Masonry was prefixed. It was also adopted by the Grand Lodge of 175 3, as appears from the Ahiman Rezon, or Book of Constitutions, published by the authority of that body in 1764. Laurence Dermott, the author or compiler of the first four editions of this work‑to whose force of character and administrative ability must be attributed the success of the second Grand Lodge and the triumph of its principles‑agrees with Anderson that Wren was Grand Master and that he neglected the Lodges, but endeavours "to do justice to the memory of Sir Christopher by relating the real cause of such neglect." This he finds in the circumstance of his dismissal from the office of Surveyor‑General and the appointment of Benson. " Such usage," he argues, " added to Sir Christopher's great age, was more than enough to make him decline all public assemblies ; and the Master Masons then in London were so much disgusted at the treatment of their old and excellent Grand Master, that they would not meet nor hold any communication under the sanction of his successor." " In short," he continues, " the Brethren were struck with a lethargy which seemed to threaten the London Lodges with a final dissolution." (See Ahiman Re!Zon, 1764, p. xxiii.) As Wren was not superseded by Benson until 1718, the year after the formation of the Grand Lodge of England, at which latter period (1717) occurred the so‑called " revival of Masonry," the decay, if one there was, preceding and not succeeding that memorable event, we need concern ourselves no further with Dermott's 290 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY hypothesis, though it is cited because the Ahiman ReZon has been regarded as a work of great authority and its very name has been appropriated by many Grand Lodges to designate their Books of Constitutions.

 

The Compleat Freemason, or Multa Paucis for Lovers of Secrets, an anonymous work published in 1764 or the previous year, has been followed in many details by Preston and other writers of reputation. In this publication, the number of legendary Grand Masters is vastly enlarged. Few Kings of England are excluded, the most noticeable being Richard I and James II. We are told that " the King, with Grand Master Rivers, the Architects, Craftsmen, Nobility, Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Bishops, levelled the Footstone of St. Paul's Cathedral in due Form, A.D. 1673." Also, that "in 1710, in the eighth year of the reign of Queen Anne, our worthy Grand Master Wren, who had drawn the Design of St. Paul's, had the Honour to see it finished in a magnificent Taste and to celebrate with the Fraternity the Capestone of so noble and large a Temple." We learn further, that Masonry, which in the reign of James II " had been greatly obstructed and no Lodges frequented but those in or near the places where great works were carried on," after the accession of William and Mary (1689), " made now again a most brilliant appearance and numbers of Lodges were formed in all parts of London and the suburbs." Sir Christopher Wren, " by the approbation of the King from this time forward, continued at the head of the Fraternity " but, after the celebration of the capestone in 1710, " our good old Grand Master Wren, being struck with Age and Infirmities, did, from this time forward [1710], retire from all Manner of Business and, on account of his Disability, could no more attend the Lodges in visiting and regulating their Meetings as usual. This occasioned the Number of regular Lodges to be greatly reduced ; but they regularly assembled in Hopes of having again a noble Patron at their Head." Preston, in his Illustrations of Masonry, of which twelve editions were published during his lifetime‑the first in 1772, the last in 181 z‑follows Anderson in his description of Wren's official acts as Grand Master, but adduces much new evidence bearing upon Sir Christopher's general connexion with the Craft, which, if authentic, not only stamps him as a Freemason, but also as an active member of the Lodge of Antiquity. Preston, having published the first edition of his noted work in 1772, delivered a public course of lectures at the Mitre Tavern in Fleet Street in 1774 and the 15th of June in the same year, having attended the Lodge of Antiquity as a visitor, the members of that Lodge not only admitted him to membership, but actually elected him Master at the same meeting. According to his biographer, Stephen Jones, " he had been a member of the Philanthropic Lodge at the Queen's Head, Gray's Inn Gate, Holborn, above six years and of several other Lodges before that time, but he was now taught to consider the importance of the office of the first Master under the English Constitution." (Freemasons' Magazine, 1795, vol. iv, p. 3.) During his mastership, which continued for some years, the Lodge made a great advance in reputation and, in 1811, exceeded one hundred in number, including many members of both Houses of Parliament. The brilliancy of its EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 291 subsequent career, however, will not remove the doubts which suggest themselves, when Preston recounts traditions of the Lodge, which must have slumbered through many generations of members and are inconsistent and irreconcilable with its comparatively humble circumstances during whatever glimpses are afforded us of its early history. Nor are misgivings allayed by Preston's method of narration. Comparing the successive editions of his work, there are such glaring discrepancies, that, unless one can believe that his information was acquired, as he imparts it, piecemeal, or, like Mahomet and Joseph Smith, each fresh effort was preceded by a special revelation, credence must be refused to statements which are unsupported by authority, contradictory to all known testimony and even inconsistent with each other.

 

The next edition of the Illustrations published after Preston's election to the chair of the Lodge of Antiquity appeared in 1775, where, at p. 245, this Masonic body is referred to as " the old Lodge of St. Paul, over which Sir C. Wren presided during the building of that structure." According to the same historian, in June 1666, Sir Christopher Wren, having been appointed Deputy under the Earl of Rivers, " distinguished himself more than any of his predecessors in office in promoting the prosperity of the few lodges which occasionally met at this time * [particularly the old Lodge of St. Paul's, now the Lodge of Antiquity, which he patronized upwards of eighteen years "]. The passage within brackets appears for the first time in the 1792 edition.

 

A footnote‑indicated in the text at the place where an asterisk (*) appears above‑adds, " It appears from the records of the Lodge of Antiquity that Mr. Wren, at this time, attended the meeting regularly and that, during his presi dency, he presented to the Lodge three mahogany candlesticks, at that time truly valuable, which are still preserved and highly prized as a memento of the esteem of the honourable donor." Preston follows Anderson in his account of the laying of the foundation‑stone of St. Paul's by the king and states that, " during the whole time this structure was building, Mr. Wren acted as master of the work and surveyor and was ably assisted by his wardens, Mr. Edward Strong and his son " (Illustrations, 1792, p. 228). In a note on the same page we read: " The mallet with which the king levelled this foundation‑stone was lodged by Sir Christopher Wlren in the old Lodge of St. Paul, now the Lodge of Antiquity, where it is still preserved as a great curiosity." In the two preceding editions the words in italics do not appear and the note simply runs: " The mallet with which this foundation‑stone was laid, is now in the possession of the Lodge of Antiquity in London and preserved there as a great curiosity " (Illustrations of Masonry, 1781, p. 214 ; 1788, p. 226).

 

" In 1710," says Preston, " the last stone on the top of the lantern was laid by Mr. Christopher Wren, the son of the architect. This noble fabric .‑. .‑. was begun and completed in the space of thirty‑five years by one architect‑the great Sir Christopher Wren; one principal mason‑Mr. Strong; and under one Bishop 292 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY of London" (Illustrations of Masonry, 1792, pp. 236, 237. Preston ignores Thomas Strong, the elder brother of Edward Strong, senior).

 

It will be seen that Preston's description of the completion of the cathedral does not quite agree with any other version of this occurrence hitherto considered. The Constitutions of 173 8 date the event in 17o8, imply that Wren himself laid the last stone and are silent as to the presence of Freemasons. The Parentalia alters the date to 171o, deposes the father in favour of the son, implies that Wren was absent and brings in the Freemasons as a leading feature of the spectacle. Multa Paucis follows the Constitutions in allowing Wren " to see " his work " finished," leaves the question open as to by whom the stone was laid, adopts the views of the Parentalia as to the year of the occurrence and the presence of the Freemasons and goes so far as to make Sir Christopher participate in the Masonic festivities with which the proceedings terminated.

 

Preston, in this particular instance, throws over the Book, of Constitutions and pins his faith on the narrative of Christopher Wren in the Parentalia, though it should not escape notice that he omits to reproduce the statement in the latter work relating to the presence of the Freemasons, which, of all others, it might be expected that he would.

 

The next passage in the Illustrations, which bears on the subject of this inquiry, occurs where mention is made of Wren's election to the presidency of the Society in 1685. The account is word for word with the extract already given from the Constitutions of 173 8, but to the statement that Wren, as Grand Master, appointed Gabriel Cibber and Edward Strong his wardens, Preston adds, " both these gentlemen were members of the old Lodge of St. Paul with Sir Christopher Wren " (Illustrations, 1792, p. 244).

 

Throughout the remainder of his remarks on the condition of Masonry prior to 1717, Preston closely follows the Constitutions of 1738. He duly records the initiation of William III in 1695, the appointment as Grand Wardens of the two Edward Strongs and concludes with the familiar story of the decay of Freemasonry owing to the age and infirmities of Sir Christopher drawing off his attention from the duties of his office.

 

Arranged in order of time‑i.e. of publication‑the new evidence given by Preston may be thus briefly summarized : In 1775 it is first stated that Wren presided over the old Lodge of St. Paul's during the building of the cathedral.

 

Between 1775 and 1788 the only noteworthy circumstance recorded is the possession by the Lodge of Antiquity of the historic mallet, employed to lay the foundation‑stone of St. Paul's.

 

In 1792, however, a mass of information is forthcoming: we learn that Wren patronized the Lodge of Antiquity for eighteen years, that he presented it with three candlesticks during the period of his mastership and lodged with the same body‑‑of which Gabriel Cibber and Edward Strong were members‑the mallet so often alluded to.

 

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 2‑93 Preston's statements, however, demand a careful examination. These are professedly based on records of the Lodge of Antiquity and there is no middle course between yielding them full credence or rejecting them as palpable frauds.

 

The maxim Dolus latet in generalibus occurs to the mind when perusing the earlier editions of the Illustrations of Masonry. In 1775 Preston informs us " that Wren presided over the old Lodge of St. Paul's during the building of the cathedral " and not until 179z, a period of seventeen years‑during which five editions of his book were published‑does he express himself in terms sufficiently clear to enable us to examine critically the value of his testimony. At last, however, he does so and we read, " It appears from the records of the Lodge of Antiquity that Mr. Wren at this time [1666] attended the meetings regularly," also that he patronized this Lodge upwards of eighteen years. Now this statement is either true or false. If the former, the Aubrey hypothesis of 16g1 receives its quietus : if the latter, no further confidence can be reposed in Preston as the witness of truth. Next there is the evidence respecting the mallet and the candlesticks, which is suggestive of the progressive development of the author's imagination, as successive editions of his work saw the light. Finally there is the assertion that Gabriel Cibber and Edward Strong were members of the Lodge.

 

In the first place, however, the regular attendance of Sir Christopher at the meetings of his Lodge is negatived by the silence of all contemporary history, notably by the Diary of Elias Ashmole, F.R.S., who, in his register of occurrences for 168z, would in all probability, along with the entry relating to the Feast at the Masons' Hall, have brought in the name of the then President of the Royal Society, had he been (as contended) an active member of the Fraternity. Indeed, it is almost certain that Sir Christopher would himself have been present, or, at least, his absence accounted for, whilst we may go farther and assume from Dr. Plot's known intimacy with Wren‑who is said to have written Chapter IX of his Natural History of Oxfordshire‑that, had the latter's interest in Freemasonry been of the extensive character deposed to by Preston, Plot would have known of it, whereas the language he permits himself to use in regard to the Freemasons in 1686 (Natural History of Staffordshire, pp. 316‑18) is quite inconsistent with the supposition that he believed either Wren or Ashmole to be members of a Society which he stigmatized in terms of such severity.

 

The next reflection that suggests itself is the inference to be drawn that, during the years over which Wren's membership of the Lodge extended, the same records from which he quotes must have justified his constantly using the expression " Grand Master," as it is hardly conceivable that a member of the Lodge holding the high position of President of the Society would invariably have his superior rank in the Craft ignored in the Minutes and proceedings of the Lodge. As a matter of fact, however, Wren could not have held, in the seventeenth century, a title which did not then exist and the conclusion is forced that, either the records spoken of were as imaginary as the Grand Mastership, or that their authority was made to cover whatever in the 296 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY been selected from the ranks of No. 3) that no member of the senior Lodge was placed on the Masonic throne before the Society had " the honour of a noble brother at its head." Is it to be supposed that, from an excess of humility or diffidence, the Brethren of this Lodge passed a self‑denying ordinance, or otherwise disqualified themselves, for the supreme dignity which (in Preston's view of the facts) would be pressed upon their acceptance ? The difficulty of reconciling Preston's statements with the early elections to the office of Grand Master seems, indeed, to have been felt by Dr. Oliver, who, unable to build an hypothesis on matter of fact and make it out by sensible demon stration, forthwith proceeds to find a fact that will square with a suitable hypothesis. This is accomplished by making Desaguliers a member of No. i, a supposition wholly untenable, unless we disbelieve the actual entries in the register of Grand Lodge, but which shows, nevertheless, that the secondary position actually filled by the Lodge during the period of transition (1717‑z3) between the legendary and the historical eras of the Craft, must have appeared to Dr. Oliver inconsistent with the pretensions to a supremacy over its fellows advanced by William Preston.

 

The early Minutes of Grand Lodge furnish no evidence of any special privilege having been claimed by the Masonic body, over which in later years it was Preston's fortune to preside. They record, indeed, that on May 29, 173 3 the Master of the Lodge at the Paul's Head in Ludgate Street asserted his right to carry the Grand Sword before the Grand Master; upon which occasion the Deputy Grand Master observed "that he (the Deputy Grand Master) could not entertain the memorial without giving up the undoubted right of the Grand Master in appointing his own officers " (Grand Lodge Minutes). But the senior English Lodge met at the King's Arms, St. Paul's Churchyard, in 1733 and did not remove to the Paul's Head until 173 5 .

 

The tradition of the mallet and candlesticks was first made known to the world after Preston became Master of the Lodge. Its authenticity, or, in other words, the probability of its having been so jealously concealed from the public ear for upwards of a century, has now to be considered. The criterion is that " a tradition should be proved by authentic evidence, to be not of subsequent growth, but to be founded on a contemporary recollection of the fact recorded " (Lewis, On the Influence of .Authority in Matters of Opinion, p. 9o). In this case the requisite proof that the tradition was derived from contemporary witnesses is forthcoming, if the numerous records whereupon Preston bases his statements are held to attest satisfactorily the facts they are called in aid of, without troubling to weigh the pros and cons which may be urged for and against their admission as evidence. Putting these aside, however, as the finger‑posts of an imaginative history, we find the tradition rests upon the unsupported statement of a credulous and inaccurate writer‑unable to distinguish between history and fable‑whose accounts of Locke's initiation, the Batt Parliament, the admission of Henry VI and of Henry VII having presided in person over a lodge of Masters (Illustrations of Masonry, 179z, pp. 16z, 1913 199, zoz), are alone sufficient to discredit his testimony. All EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 297 historical evidence must be tested by the canon of probability. If witnesses depose to improbable facts before a court of justice, their veracity is open to suspicion. The more improbable the event which they attest, the stronger is the testimony required. The same rules of credibility apply to historical as to judicial evidence. In the present case a tradition is first launched‑to our actual knowledge‑nearly a century later than the events it inshrines and a story, improbable in itself, becomes even less credible, through the suspicious circumstances which surround its publication. The means of information open to the historian, his veracity, accuracy and impartiality, here constitute a medium through which the evidence has come down to us and upon which we must more or less implicitly rely. The immediate proof is beyond our reach and, instead of being able to examine it for ourselves, we can only stand at a distance and, by the best means in our power, estimate its probable value. This secondary evidence may sometimes rise almost to absolute certainty, or it may possess scarcely an atom of real weight.

 

As it is of little importance by what authority an opinion is sanctioned, if it will not itself stand the test of sound criticism, the veracity and accuracy of Preston will count for very little, in the judgment of all by whom the chief qualification of an historian is deemed to be " an earnest craving after truth and an utter impatience, not of falsehood merely, but of error " (Arnold, Lectures on Modern History, 184z (viii), p. 377) The statement that in the reign of George I, Masonry languished, owing to the age and infirmities of Sir Christopher Wren, " drawing off his attention from the duties of his office," is obviously an afterthought, arising out of the necessity of finding some plausible explanation of the embarrassing fact that such an earnest Freemason as, after his death, the great architect is made out to have been, should have so jealously guarded the secret of his early membership, that it remained unsuspected even by his own family and was quite unknown to the compilers of the first book of Constitutions, including the many " learned Brothers " called in to assist, some of whom no doubt were members of the Lodge possessing the mallet and candlesticks on which so much has been founded. If this story had not been generally accepted by the historians of Masonry (Anderson, author of Multa Paucis, Dermott, Preston, Findel, etc.), it could be passed over without further comment. Together with other mythical history, one may safely anticipate that it will soon fall back into oblivion, but meanwhile, out of respect to the names of those writers by whom the belief has been kept alive, reasons for believing the general opinion to be altogether an erroneous one should be given.

 

In the first place, assuming Wren to have been a Freemason at all, he would have had much difficulty in neglecting an office which at the time named did not exist 1 Next, granted the possibility of his being the leading spirit, by whatever name styled, of the Society ; all that has come down in the several biographies of Wren, by writers other than those whose fanciful theories are merely supported by extravagant assertions, testifies to his complete immunity at the period referred to‑17o81717‑from the ordinary infirmities of advanced age. He remained a member of 2.98 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY Parliament until 1712. In 1713 he published his reply to the anonymous attacks made upon him in the pamphlet called Frauds and Abuses at St. Paul's. The same year he also surveyed Westminster Abbey for his friend, Bishop Atterbury, the Dean ; and wrote an excellent historical and scientific report on its structure and defects, communicating his opinions on the best mode of repairing it, together with other observations. An instance of his activity of mind in 1717‑the year in which the Grand Lodge of England was established‑is afforded by his reply to the commissioners for rebuilding St. Paul's, who were bent on having a balustrade erected on the top of the church in opposition to the wishes of the great architect. " The following year " (17x8), says Elmes, " witnessed the disgraceful fall of Sir Christopher Wren in the 86th year of his age and the 49th of his office as surveyorgeneral of the royal buildings ; his mental faculties unimpaired and his bodily health equal to the finishing, as the head of his office, the works he had so ably began " (Elmes, Memoirs of Sir Cbristopber Vren, 1823, p. S 10).

 

Wren lived five years longer and employed this leisure of his age in philosophical studies. Among these, he overlooked part of his thoughts for the discovery of the longitude at sea, a review of some of his former tracts in astronomy and mathematics and other meditations and researches (Elmes, op. cit., p. S 13).

 

Having examined the question of Wren's alleged membership of the Society, apart from the entry in the Natural History of I‑Viltsbire, the alternative supposition of his admission in 1691 will now be considered and the statement of John Aubrey, which has been given in full at an earlier page, analysed.

 

The Aubrey Memorandum was not printed until 1844. Up to that period the statements in the Constitutions of 1738, that Sir Christopher was a Freemason, at least as early as 1663, had remained unchallenged. The new evidence appeared not to dislodge the fact itself, but merely to indicate that its date had been set too far backwards. The old tradition was, therefore, modified, but not overthrown ; and, though the change of front involved in reality what might be termed a new departure in Masonic history, writers of the Craft saw only a confirmation of the old story, whilst the idea, that under the influence of a pre‑existing belief in Wren's connexion with Freemasonry, they were adopting a rival theory, utterly destructive of the grounds on which that belief was based, does not seem to have occurred to them.

 

The position of affairs may be illustrated in this way. Let us imagine a trial, where, after protracted and convincing evidence had been given in favour of the plaintiff, it had all to be struck out of the judge's notes, yet the trial went on before the same jury ? The Aubrey theory requires to be discussed on its own merits, since it derives no confirmation from and is in direct opposition to the belief it displaced. Suppose, therefore, by the publication of Aubrey's Memorandum in 1844, the first intimation had been conveyed that Wren was a Freemason, would it have been credited ? Yet, if the statement and inference are entitled to credence, all authorities placing the initiation at a date prior to 1691 are, to use the words of Hallam, equally mendacious. Down goes at one swoop the Andersonian myth EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 299 and, with it, all the improvements and additions which the ingenuity of later historians have supplied. The case would then stand on the unsupported testimony of John Aubrey‑a position which renders it desirable to take a nearer view of his personal character and history.

 

Aubrey was born at Caston Piers, in Wiltshire, March 12, 16z6 ; educated at Trinity College, Oxford; admitted a student of the Middle Temple, April 16, 1646 ; and elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 166z. He may be regarded as essentially an archxologist and the first person in this country who fairly deserved the name. Historians, chroniclers and topographers there had been before his time; but he was the first who devoted his studies and abilities to archxology, in its various ramifications of architecture, genealogy, palxography, numismatics, heraldry, etc. With a naturally curious and inquiring mind, he lost no opportunity of obtaining traditionary and personal information. So early as the days of Hearne, this peculiarity had procured for him the character of a " foolish gossip " ; indeed, Ray, the distinguished naturalist, in one of his letters to Aubrey, cautions him against a too easy credulity. " I think," says Ray‑" if you give me leave to be free with you‑that you are a little inclinable to credit strange relations." Hearne speaks of him, " that by his intimate acquaintance with Mr. Ashmole, in his latter years, he too much indulged his fancy and wholly addicted himself to the whimseys and conceits of astrologers, soothsayers and suchlike ignorant and superstitious writers, which have no foundation in nature, philosophy, or reason." Malone observes " However fantastical Aubrey may have been on the subjects of chemistry and ghosts, his character for veracity has never been impeached." It may be doubted whether the contemptuous language applied towards Aubrey in the Diary of Anthony a Wood expresses the real sentiments of the latter whilst the two antiquaries were on friendly terms and the article containing it seems to have been written so late as 1693 or 1694. Of Aubrey, Wood says : " He was a shiftless person, roving and magotie‑headed and, sometimes, little better than crazed; and, being exceedingly credulous, would stuff his many letters sent to A. W. with folliries and misinformations, which sometimes would guid him into the paths of errour " (Athena Oxonienses, vol. i, p. lx). Anthony a Wood also used to say of him when he was at the same time in company: "Look, yonder goes such a one, who can tell such and such stories and I'le warrant Mr. Aubrey will break his neck down stairs rather than miss him " (op. cit., vol. i, p. cxv).

 

Toland, who was well acquainted with Aubrey and certainly a better judge than Wood, gives this character of him: " Though he was extremely superstitious, or seemed to be so, yet he was a very honest man and most accurate in his account of matters of fact. But the facts he knew, not the reflections he made, were what I wanted." The Aubrey evidence consists of two items, which must be considered separately. The first, commencing " Sir William Dugdale told me many years ago," may be accepted as the statement of that antiquary, on the authority of an ear‑witness and its genuineness derives confirmation from a variety of collateral  299 202 CHAPTER IX APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS AMONGST the documentary evidence that has been adduced in support of the high antiquity of the Masonic Craft, there is one kind which demands more than a passing notice, viz. the series of fabricated writings and charters ‑‑often distinguished by a strong family likeness‑relied upon at different periods and in different countries to establish claims of a varied character, but marked by the common feature of involving in their settlement the decision of important points having a material bearing upon the early history of Freemasonry.

 

Two of the manuscripts examined in this chapter are grouped by Krause amidst " the three oldest Professional Documents of the Brotherhood of Freemasons " ; whilst of a third (the Charter of Cologne), Kloss aptly remarks that, if authentic, all Masons, subsequent to 1717, have resorted to spurious rituals, customs and laws.

 

There are six documents in particular which fall within the category of Apocryphal Manuscripts. These will be considered according to priority of publication, with the exception of the Larmenius Charter (181 o), with which, being only indirectly Masonic, the chapter will conclude.

 

I. THE LELAND‑LOCKE MS.

 

This document cannot be traced before 1753, in which year it was published in the Gentleman's MagaZine, being described as a copy of a small pamphlet printed at Frankfort in 1748. It is headed‑" Certayne Questyons, with Awnsweres to the same, concernynge the Mystery Of MACONRYE ; wryttenne by the hande of Kynge HENYRE, the Sixthe of the Name and faythfullye copyed by me JOHAN LEYLANDE, ANTIQUARIus, by the commaunde of his Highnesse." [Henry VIII, by whom Leland was appointed, at the dissolution of the monasteries to search for and preserve such books and records as were of value.] The following is an abstract of this catechism " The Mystery of Maconrye " (i.) is expressed to be " the Skylle of nature ; " (z.) " Ytt dyd begynne with the fyrste menne in the Este ; " (3 .) "The Venetians [Phenicians] dyd brynge ytt Westlye ; " (4.) " Peter Gower [Pythagoras], a Grecian," in his travels, " Wynnynge entraunce yn al Lodges of Maconnes, and becommynge a myghtye Wyseacre, framed a grate Lodge at Groton [Crotona], and maked manye Maconnes, some whereoffe dyde journeye yn Fraunce, wherefromme the arte passed yn Engelonde ; " (5 .) " Maconnes hauethe communycatedde to Mannkynde soche of her Secrettes as generallyche myghte be usefulle," keeping back such as might zoz APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS 203 be " harmefulle " in improper hands, including " soche as do bynde the Freres more strongelyche togeder, bey the Proffytte, and commodytye commynge to the Confrerie herfromme ; " (6.) amongst the " Artes " taught by the " Maconnes " to " i\‑Ian. kynde " are " Agricultura, Architectura, Astronomia, Geometria, Numeres, Musica, Poesie, Kymistrye, Governmente and Relygyonne ; " (7.) the " Maconnes " are such good teachers, because they possess the " Arte of fyndynge neue Artes, whyche the ffyrste Maconnes receaued from Godde ; " (8.) " Thay concelethe the Arte of kepynge Secrettes, of lFunder?verckynge, of fore sayinge thynges to comme, of chaunges the Wey of Wynnynge the Facultye of Abrac, the Skylle of becommynge gude, and the Universelle Longage of Maconnes ; " (9.) those in search of instruction will be taught if found worthy and capable of learning ; (io.) masons enjoy special opportunities for the acquisition of knowledge; (i i.) " yn the moste Parte, thay be more gude then thay woulde be yf thay war not Maconnes ; " and (I2.) they love one another " myghtylye, for gude Menne and treu, kennynge eidher odher to be soche, doeth always love the more as thay be more Gude." According to Dallaway the passage (S) quoted " seems to authorize a conjecture that the denomination of Free‑masons in England was merely a vernacular corruption of the FRERES‑MACRONS established in France." But the same writer freely admits that the view thus expressed is not borne out by their appellation on the Continent; which he gives as follows : " Frey‑Maureren, German; Liberi Muratori, Italian; Fratres Liberales, Roman ; Franc‑macrons, French ; Fratres Architectonici, lllodern Inscription " (Discourses upon Architecture, p. 434). If, in the adoption of a similar derivation for the word Freemason without the concluding reservation‑Fort (Early History and Antiquities of Freemasonry, pp. 192, 437) in 1876 and the Rev. A. S. Palmer (Folk‑Etymology, a Dictionary of Verbal Corruptions) in i882, have leant on the authority of Dallaway, as seems probable in the first instance and possible in the second‑the speculations of these two writers rest upon no other foundation than the verbiage of the literary curiosity which is being examined in the text.

 

It will be seen that many of the pretensions advanced in this interlocutory discourse‑which are put forward by the dialogist, who replies to questions addressed him by an inquirer‑conflict with the tenor of the ordinary Masonic documents.

 

Prefacing the catechism is a letter [expressed to be] from the learned Mr. John Locke, to the Right Hon. [Thomas] Earl of [Pembroke], (the names are not given in the Gentleman's ilfagaZine and were filled in by a subsequent copyist), bearing date 6th May, 1696 [Sunday]. The philosopher states that, by the help of Mr C[olli]ns, he has, at length, procured a copy of that MS. in the Bodleian Library, which the Earl was anxious to see and adds The MS., of which this is a copy, appears to be about i6o years old; yet it is itself a copy of one more ancient by about ioo years, for the original is said to be in the handwriting of K. Henry VI. Where that prince had it, is at present an uncer tainty; but it seems to me to be an examination (taken perhaps before the king) of some one of the brotherhood of masons; among whom he entred himself, as 'tis said, when he came out of his minority, and thenceforth put a stop to a persecution zoo APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS that had been raised against them (Dallaway, Discourses upon Architectitre, p. 429; Masonic Magazine, October 1878, p. 148 ; Notes and Queries, 4th series, 1869, vol. iv, p. 45 5).

 

Locke then goes on to say that " the sight of this old paper " has so raised his curiosity as to induce him to " enter the fraternity the next time he goes to London " ; and, if we believe Preston, " the favourable opinion this philosopher conceived of the Society of Masons before his admission, was sufficiently confirmed after his initiation! " (Illustrations of Masonry, 1792, P‑ I 6z).

 

Notwithstanding the suspicious circumstances connected with its first appearance in this country, the MS. was very generally accepted as an accredited document of the Craft and is given in extenso in most of the Masonic works‑including the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England‑published during the last half of the eighteenth century. The first critic who exposed its pretensions was Lessing, in his Ernst and Falk (1778) and, though the document was considered to be a genuine one by Krause and Fessler, later German writers‑including Kloss, Keller, and Findel‑regard it as a palpable fraud and wholly unworthy of the critical acumen which has been lavished upon its simulated antiquity.

 

A learned writer has observed the orthography is most grotesque and too gross ever to have been penned either by Henry the Sixth or Leland, or both combined. For instance, we have Peter Gowere, a Grecian, explained in a note by the fabricator‑for who else could have solved it ?‑to be Pythagoras ! As a whole, it is but a clumsy attempt at deception and is quite a parallel to the recently discovered one of the first Englishe Mercurie (Halliwell, op. cit., p. 43)ò It remains to be noticed that, among the Masonic annalists of modern times, there yet lingers a solitary believer in the credibility of this MS. " A careful examination of the pamphlet," says Fort, " convinces me that it is genuine and entitled to full credence " (Fort, p. 417). Yet few, perhaps, will be in agreement with this brilliant writer, when he states that " whoever wrote the document in question was profoundly learned in the secrets possessed by the Craft"; inasmuch as the extent to which this nameless fabulist was versed in the arcana of Masonry, can only be determined approximately by a perusal of the mysterious document‑which all authorities, except Fort, concur in regarding as an impudent forgery. A possible conclusion is, that the catechism must have been drawn up at some period subsequent to the publication of Dr. Anderson's Constitutions ; and it is not improbable that the memoir of Ashmole, given in the Biographia Britannica (1747) may have suggested the idea of practising on the credulity of the Freemasons.

 

II. THE STEINMETZ CATECHISM This curious document derives whatever importance it may possess to the use that has been made of it by Fallou and writers of this school, who dwell at length upon the resemblance‑which, in their eyes, it bear's‑to the examination of an entered APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS 205 apprentice Freemason. This conclusion has been arrived at, in the case of the original German text, by persistently ignoring the ordinary as well as the technical meaning of words peculiar to the trade. The Englisb version has endured a similar maltreatment, aggravated, it may be observed, by the inherent defects of a faulty translation.

 

The earliest publication of this catechism appears to have been that of Schneider (Konstitutions Bucb der Loge Arcbimedes, Altenburg, circa 1803, p. 144), who says, " that he obtained it from operative masons in Altenburg after much trouble, on account of the secresy they maintain." From some notes of Krause (Die drei Aeltesten Kunsturkunden, vol. ii, pt. ii, p. 2 5 8), it would appear that Schr6der and Meyer both possessed manuscript exemplars of this examination, but he does not state whether they ever published them. He himself gives us a copy of Schneider's version and, bearing in mind his scrupulous veracity and conscientious exactitude, we may take this to be a literal transcript of the earliest published form.

 

From Schneider it was copied by Stock (Grundzuge der Verfassung, etc.) and from the latter by Berlepsch (Cbronik der Gewerbe). Fallon (Mysteries der Freimaurer, pp. 363‑5), in giving it, remarks that he has before him one manuscript and two printed copies : the printed copies were probably those of Stock, Krause, or Schneider, so that we are again reduced to Schneider's authority;, as to the MS. he does not say how or whence he obtained it. Findel gives it in the appendices to his History of Freemasonry and Steinbrenner (Origin and Early History of Masonry, p. 146) presents us with an English translation immediately following the " Examination upon entrance into a Lodge," from the Grand Mystery of Free‑masons discovered, declaring " The one is a counterpart. of the other." With the greatest desire to appreciate the full bearing of his argument, it is not possible to see more resemblance than this, viz. that they are both in dialogue form. Finally we find the examination published once more in the Masonic Magazine for February 1882, this time giving the German and English versions in parallel columns.

 

Its antiquity is a difficult matter to determine. To judge by the orthography and construction, it seems to be quite modern‑say eighteenth century: but it is evident that Schneider may have taken it from the mouth of an eighteenth‑century workman and the absence of all archaic expressions and spelling would thus be accounted for. Again, the fact of its being the examination of a Salute‑Masonas distinguished from a Letter‑Mason‑points to a date subsequent to the fusion of the Steinmetzen with the bricklayers and others ; though, on the other hand, it may have been communicated to these new bodies by the old Steinmetzen and slightly altered to suit the circumstances. Steinbrenner, however, is certainly not justified in calling it the " Examination of a German Steinmetz during the Middle Ages " ; he adduces no proof of such a high antiquity; and disproof of course is equally wanting. The age of the catechism becomes, therefore, a matter of conjecture rather than of opinion. The document may be of recent origin, or a survival of something more ancient; though in its present form it is, without doubt, of quite modern date.

 

zo6 APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS It has already been observed that the English translation is faulty. By this a false impression is occasioned. The catechizer is denominated throughout " War den." The German word is Alt gesell, denoting properly the " old fellow," or " Elder," viz. the elected officer of a journeymen fraternity, not a " Warden," who was appointed by the Master to preside over the lodge.

 

This slight but important correction transfers the scene of action from the stonemasons' " lodge " to the journeymen's " house of call." In Germany the craft guilds ultimately divided into two bodies, one being formed of masters, the other of journeymen or gesellen. The latter chose one or more of their own class to preside at their meetings (Altgesell). The Steinmetzen, who did not divide into two bodies, were presided over by the Werkmeister ; who appointed his " parlierer, pallierer, or polir," as the expression has been differently rendered. He was the Master's alter ego, his overseer and the word will rightly bear in English the sense of Warden. The following distinction may, therefore, be drawn. The " parlierer " or " warden " was appointed by the Master's sole authority‑the Alt gesell or " Elder " was elected by his fellows‑and the latter term will not bear the construction (Warden) that has been placed upon it.

 

The next point which claims attention is the singularity of the reply made to the query‑" for what purpose " the " stranger " is travelling ?‑the answer being (in the English version) " for honourable promotion, instruction, and honesty." The word " promotion " has a peculiar significance and at once suggests the idea of there being a series of degrees to be conferred. The German word is Beforderung‑literally advancement and figuratively promotion. But a closer examination of the subject reveals the fact that that term has been and still is the only one used by German workmen of all trades to signify employment. A scavenger or chimneysweep, equally with a SteinmetZ, was and is befordert by his employer. The expression probably grew out of the practice of journeymen working under a master for a few days, whereby they were enabled to earn sufficient money to carry them to the next town. They were, in fact, furthered or advanced, but in no sense promoted. We are next informed that " instruction and honesty " are the " usages and customs of the craft." What answer more natural from a workman ? He travels for instruction, i.e. to acquire the technics or usages of the craft; and his honesty consists in maintaining its peculiar customs and obeying its statutes. But, again, in this instance, the translation is imperfect.

 

Honesty in German is Ehrlichkeit ; whilst the word here used is Ehrbarkeit, indicating that peculiar quality which causes a man to be generally esteemed by his fellows. For this, if we read its somewhat harsh equivalent in the vernacular honourableness or worthiness what answer more appropriate from the mouth of a trade‑unionist ? And it has been shown that the craftsman was always such, although the name itself was unknown.

 

We are next told that these usages and customs commence with the termination of his apprenticeship and finish with his death. This is a bare statement of the truth, as the ordinances show it. " We recognize a mason by his honesty." APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS zoo Bear in mind a previous definition of honesty, i.e. a strict conformity with craft customs and this answer will also cease to imply the existence of any hidden doctrine or mystery.

 

The questions concerning the date of the institution of the trade and the introduction into the catechism of Adonhiram and Tubal Cain have already been noticed, but it is desirable to add that, according to Krause (Die drei Aeltesten Kunsturkunden, 2nd edit., vol. ii, pt. ii, pp. z61‑3), the names of the worthies last cited do not appear in the manuscripts of Schroder and Meyer. He also points out that even if they did, the Steinmetzen would only be following the example of all trades, which invariably derived their proto‑craftsman from some Biblical character. A metrical tradition of the German carpenters would read thus in English When Adam suffered heat and cold He built a hut, so we are told.

 

The " father of the human race " is also referred to by our own gardeners, in a familiar distich, of which the antiquated original is given in the Curalia Miscellanea of Dr. Pegge When Adam dolve and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman ? The next question with which we are concerned is the following: " What is secresy in itself ? " To which reply is made Earth, fire, air and snow, Through which to honest promotion (employment) I go.

 

In German as in English this forms a doggerel rhyme and was probably a mere catch‑phrase. It alludes evidently to a journeyman's tramp through the land; but taking into consideration the word " secresy " in the question, those who insist on a mystic interpretation, must give " promotion " its figurative meaning and they may turn it into an allusion to the grave and the life to come. The respondent next states that under his hat ‑ i.e. in his head ‑ he carries " a laudable wisdom " (Fine hoch1Wiche Veisheit). It is now impossible to transfuse into the English language the sense of the German word Weishet, by translating it differently; but this was not the case in former days and, unless the catechism is endowed with a real flavour of antiquity, it will cease to interest us. Anciently, Weishet would have been best defined as " the power of applying to proper purposes, the most appropriate means" (Adelung, Dictionary of the German Language, Leipzig, 178o‑6), or, to vary the expression, skill or cunning in their original signification.

 

Replying to further questions, the Stranger (Fremder) says, that " under his tongue he carries truth " ; and " the strength of the craft," he declares to be " that which fire and water cannot destroy." The last phrase probably alludes to the Steinmetzen fraternity. The triad‑skill, truth, and strength‑is obtained ; but its accidental resemblance to the Masonic formula‑wisdom, strength, and beauty‑ 208 APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS pace Fallou and his disciples, fails to impress a belief in there being any real connection between the two.

 

The last question and answer are as follows Altgesell.‑" What is the best part of a Wall ? " Fremder.‑" Union " (Verband).

 

Anything more mystifying than this (in its present form) is hardly conceivable. The translation is again defective, though, in justice to whoever may be responsible for this production, it must fairly be stated that he has conveyed the exact sense in which the answer has been understood by the Germans themselves. Verband, however, cannot in any circumstances be translated " Union " ; the nearest approach to it would be " a bandage." Jacobsson's Tecbnologiscbes Wo'rterbucb informs us that Verband means the different manners of laying bricks to ensure solidity. The Globe Encyclopaedia gives " Bond, in brickwork, the method of laying bricks so that the vertical joints in adjacent courses may not occur immediately over each other and so that by placing some bricks with their length across the wall (headers) and others with their length parallel to its face (stretchers), the wall may have the greatest attainable stability in both directions." Replace the word " Union " by " the bond " and what more matter‑offact answer could be expected from a stonemason or bricklayer ? Viewed by the light of common sense, there appears nothing in the preceding "examination" that is capable of sustaining the claims to mysticism which have been advanced on its behalf.

 

III. THE MALCOLM CANMORE [COAN‑MORE OR GREAT‑HEAD CHARTER The first appearance of this charter, according to W. P. Buchan‑to whom the Craft is mainly indebted for its antecedents and character becoming so fully knownwas in the year i 8o6, when its opportune discovery was utilized to support the claim of the Glasgow Freemen Operative St. John's Lodge to take precedence of the other Lodges in the Masonic procession at the laying of the foundation‑stone of Nelson's Monument on Glasgow Green, although at that time it was an independent organization. The title thus asserted was successfully opposed by Lodge Glasgow St. Mungo, then the senior in the Province, on two grounds: That the claimant body was not under the sheltering wing of the Grand Lodge; and that the document upon which the members relied to vindicate their claim was a " pretended Charter." This view was shared by the then Grand Secretary (William Guthrie) and the Provincial Grand Master (Sir John Stuart), yet, somehow or other, the St. John's Lodge came off victorious in i 8 i o, when the foundation‑stone of the Glasgow Asylum for Lunatics was laid with " Masonic honours," some asserting that the charter granted by Malcolm III, King of Scots, gave the members priority over all the other Lodges in Scotland (Dr. Cleland, Annals of Glasgow, 1816, vol. ii, P‑483). Dr. Cleland states that "the members of this Lodge having lately discovered an old musty paper in their Charter chest, procured a translation of it, when it turned out to be a Charter in their favour," etc.

 

APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS 2009 The important character of the document gradually dawned upon the minds of its possessors and ultimately led a prominent member of the Lodge to declare, that had " our predecessors in office done their duty, every Lodge in Scotland would have required to get a charter from them " (Glasgow Herald, June 17, 1870 ; Freemason's Maga.Zine, July 9, 1870). The precise nature of the dereliction of duty imputed to their Masonic ancestors and the evidence necessary to substantiate the claim to a sovereignty over the Scottish Lodges, were not alluded to at the time, nor is any information yet forthcoming upon two points of so much importance.

 

1051 (A.D.) was first announced as the year of origin of the charter, then 105 7, but, later on, in deference to considerable criticism, A.D. 1157 was substituted and Malcolm the third was changed to the fourth of that name. According, however, to more recent and accurate investigations, the correct date is approximately some seven centuries and a half later than the year 1057 It is difficult to understand how the authenticity of this so‑called Malcolm Charter can be upheld, when the Eglinton MS. of December z8, 1599, provides, on the authority of William Schaw, " Master of Wark, Warden of the Maisonis " for Scotland, that the Lodge of Kilwinning shall have its warden present " at the election of the Wardenis within the boundis of the Nether Waird of Cliddisdaill, Glasgow, Air and boundis of Carrik " and that the warden and deacon of Kilwinning Lodge shall convene the other wardens and deacons within the bounds aforesaid (viz. the West of Scotland), whenever circumstances demanded and gave them authority to assemble anywhere within that extensive jurisdiction.

 

Now, the pseudo‑charter recites that none in my dominions shall erect a lodge until they make application to the Saint John's Lodge, Glasgow (By‑Laws of the Lodge of Glasgow St. John, 1858, p. 6) and contains, moreover, a number of clauses respecting fees, dues and special privileges wholly inconsistent with the regulations known to be in force during subsequent centuries, all of which are silent as to the pre‑eminence claimed for this Lodge.

 

The whole subject of the charter and its relation to the St. John's Lodge was discussed at great length in the pages of the Freemasons' Magazine (1868) and, in the controversy which then took place, Buchan posed first of all as a believer in the genuineness of the document, but having subsequently made a more careful scrutiny of its contents, became its most destructive critic and was chiefly instrumental in administering the death‑blow to its pretensions.

 

During the process of investigation Buchan obtained the opinion of Professor Cosmo Innes, the eminent Scottish archxologist, who had examined the " charter " in 1868 and pronounced it " a forgery executed within the last 150 years, or taking plenty of time, within zoo at the utmost." He also stated that " it was made up of pieces taken out of different charters and stuck together." In a letter to Buchan, the same excellent authority observes that our first corporate Charters were to Burghs and, not till long after, came those to the Gilds and Corporations within and under Burghs; but we have no Charters 210 APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS to Burghs till William the Lion (1165‑IzI4), so you see it did not require much sagacity to stamp the Charter of Malcolm, full of the phraseology and the minute distinctions of a much later day, as a forgery.

 

The members of Lodge Glasgow St. John finally determined to test the strength of their position by petitioning the Grand Lodge of Scotland and particularly appealed against the action of the Grand Master in awarding precedency to the Lodge of Journeymen, Edinburgh, 8, on the occasion of meeting in Glasgow Cathedral previous to laying the foundation‑stone of the Albert Bridge, June 3, 1870, thus infringing upon their ancient rights and privileges, secured to them by the Malcolm Canmore Charter. The decision of the Grand Lodge was pronounced on February 6, 1871, which, proving adverse to the claims of the memorialists, the members of St. John's Lodge solaced their wounded feelings, by sentencing Buchan, their senior warden‑who had opposed the prayer of the petitioners in Grand Lodge ‑to a term of five years' suspension from his Masonic privileges. It is almost unnecessary to add that, on appeal, this decree was reversed.

 

IV. KRAUSE'S MS. OR PRINCE EDWIN'S CONSTITUTION OF 926 The crux for those who maintain the authentic character of the documents under review is satisfactorily to bridge over the period between the dates of their alleged origin and of their actual publication as MSS. relating to the Craft. In this respect the Krause MS. is no better off than its companions, though its internal character is, in many points, superior to any of them. Had some portions of its text been presented, as appertaining to the latter part of the seventeenth century, it is probable that no objections could reasonably have been urged against their reception, inasmuch as absolute correctness is not to be expected or required, it being essential only that the general character of these Constitutions should be such as to accord with known versions written about the same period. There is, however, much more involved than this, in allowing the claim made by the apologists of the Krause MS., for it is either the " Constitution completed by the pious Edwin " and the " Laws or Obligations " are those " laid before his Brother Masons " by the same Prince, or the document is an imposture. Then again, " the old obligations and statutes, collected by order of the King in the year 1694," are declared to have been issued by " command of the King " (William III) and other regulations were " compiled and arranged in order, from the written records, from the time of King Edred to King Henry VIM" These pretensions are based upon no foundation of authority. The only evidence applicable to the inquiry, tends to show that many clauses of this composite document differ most suspiciously from any that appear in the veritable Old Charges of the last century, while others could not have been circulated, if at all, until some thirty years subsequent to 1694. Yet, with all these drawbacks, there remain a considerable number that might fairly pass muster, if removed from their objectionable surroundings, the resemblance to the early Constitutions of England and Germany being frequently so marked as to suggest that a varied APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS 211 assortment of authentic Masonic records lay conveniently at hand, whilst the compilation or fabrication of the MS. was being proceeded with. It was probably from the close similarity, in places, of the Krause MS. to the ordinary text of the Old Charges, that the genuineness of this anachronistic rehearsal of Craft legends and regulations was, at first, very commonly believed in ; albeit, a careful collation of the points of agreement between the Edwin and the attested Constitutions, only brings into greater relief the divergences of narrative and description, which stamp the former as an impudent travestie of the Old Charges of British Freemasons.

 

True it is, the MS. is not always at variance with the recognized text, but it must have more to recommend it than a mere agreement now and then, especially when, side by side with such resemblances, are several statements and clauses wholly irreconcilable with its claim to be either Edwin's Constitution in part, or even a version of some seven centuries later date. The Constitution is more elaborate and exact in its details than any other of known origin, many of the particulars being singular in character and clearly out of place in a document of the tenth century. The second division, entitled the History of the Origin and Progress of Masonry in Britain, is equally singular and precise in its verbiage as compared with the scrolls of the Craft, from which it differs materially, especially in the introductory observations common to the latter, respecting the assembly at York and the laws then promulgated.

 

The " Laws of Prince Edwin " (?) are sixteen in number, the first of which enjoins " that you sincerely honor God and follow the laws of the Noachedxans." The latter reference, as already mentioned, is also to be found in Dr. Anderson's Constitutions of A.D. 173 8, but was omitted in all subsequent editions and does not appear in any other known version of the Old Charges. The third and fifth regulations ordain respectively, that friendship is not to be interrupted by a difference of religion and that the sign is to be kept from every one who is not a brother; whilst the fifteenth, further requires that " every mason shall receive companions who come from a distance and give him the sign " (Hughan's Old Charges). These allusions are sufficient of themselves to demonstrate the essentially modern character of the MS. and it will be unnecessary to multiply the evidence‑already conclusive on this point‑by citing discrepancies which cannot fail to strike the least observant reader, who compares the apocryphal document No. 51 in the chapter on the Old Charges, with any of the forms or versions of those ancient writings, which there preceded it in the enumeration.

 

The " old obligations for the year 1694 " again refer to the sign; and the " regulations " declared to be counterparts of the "written records from the time of King Edred to King Henry VIII," inter alia, affirm: I, III. " All lawful brotherhoods shall be placed under patrons, who shall occasionally examine the brotherhoods in their lodges." IV. The numbers of a brotherhood shall be fifty or sixty, " without reckoning the accepted masons." VI. " The master of a lodge can found a new lodge." IX. Each year the lodges shall assemble on St. John the Baptist's day. XII. Those who wish to be made Masters must register their 212 APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS application " several months before"; all the brethren of the lodge to vote on the occasion. No more than five new brethren to be accepted at one time.

 

The Latin certificate which follows, runs thus: " This manuscript, written in the old language of the country and which is preserved by the venerable Architectural Society in our town, agrees exactly with the preceding Latin translation," it is confirmed by " Stonehouse, York, January 4, 18o6." Inasmuch as there was no society of the kind in existence at York in the year named ; also that the deponent Stonehouse cannot be traced as having ever resided at that ancient city, it would be a waste of time to carry this examination any further. In conclusion, it may be stated that the fidelity of the German translation is attested by C. E. Weller, an official at Altenburg, after it had been compared with the Latin version by three linguists.

 

The original document, as commonly happens in forgeries of this description, is missing and how, in all the circumstances of the case, Krause could have constituted himself the champion of its authenticity, it is difficult to conjecture. Possibly, however, the explanation may be that in impostures of this character, credulity on the one part is a strong temptation to deceit on the other, especially to deceit of which no personal injury is the consequence and which flatters the student of old documents with his own ingenuity.

 

V. THE CHARTER OF COLOGNE In the year 1816, Prince Frederick, Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of the Netherlands, received a packet of papers, accompanied by a letter, written in a female hand and signed " C., nee von T.," stating that the manuscripts had been found amongst her deceased father's effects and that she believed he had received them from Van Boetzelaer [Grand Master of Holland]. In 1818 the Grand Master caused copies to be made of the documents and sent the Latin text with a Dutch translation to all the Lodges in the Netherlands. He also had all the manuscripts carefully examined by experts in writing, who, at once, expressed doubts as to their authenticity. Some Lodges, however, could not be divested of a belief in their genuineness and the three‑hundredth anniversary of the alleged promulgation of the charter was actually celebrated by the Lodge La Bien Aimee at Amsterdam in 1835.

 

The legend runs thus : From 1519 to 16o1 there was a Lodge at Amsterdam named Het Vredendall, or the " Valley of Peace," which, having fallen into abeyance, was revived in 1637 under the title of Frederick's Vredendall, or Frederick's Valley of Peace. The Lodge‑chest, according to a protocol dated January 29, 1637, contained the following documents:' (1) The original warrant of constitution of the Lodge Het Vredendall, written in the English language; (2) A roll of the members, 1519‑i6oi ; and (3) The Charter of Cologne, i.e. a document in cipher, signed by nineteen master masons in Cologne, June 24, 15 3 5.

 

These papers passed from one person to another, until 1790, when they were presented to Van Boetzelaer, the Grand Master of the Dutch Lodges.

 

The so‑called charter appears to have been first printed in the Annales Nlafon‑ APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS 213 niques, 1818 and many German versions of and commentaries upon its text have since appeared (Heldmann, 1819 ; Krause, 18 21 ; Bobrik, 1840 ; Eckert, 18 5 z ; Kloss and others). It is also accessible to the English reader in many popular works (Dr. J. Burnes, Sketch of the History of the Knights Templar, 1840 ; Findel, History of Freemasonry, p. 69z ; Lyon, History of the Lodge of Edinburgh, p. 316 ; Masonic Alaga !Zine, January 188 z). It consists of a preamble and thirteen clauses on articles, the latter being lettered in due sequence from A to N.

 

The charter is a manifesto of " the chosen masters of the St. John's fraternity, heads of the lodges in London, Edinburgh, Vienna, Amsterdam, Paris, Lyons, Frankfort, Hamburg, Antwerp, Rotterdam, Madrid, Venice, Ghent, Konisberg, Brussels, Dantzic, Middleburg, Bremen and Cologne, addressed to their fellow labourers and to the unenlightened world." The absence of deputies from the chief lodges of the stonemasons in Strasburg, Zurich and Utrecht‑as well as from Bruges, during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the central emporium cif the whole commercial world‑detracts from the skill of the compiler ! A. That the order of Freemasons is more ancient than that of the Knights Templar, having existed in Palestine, Greece and the Roman Empire, even before the Crusades and the time when the Knights Templar went to Palestine.

 

B. That the fellowship (consociatio) then, as in former times, embraced the degrees of Disciple, Fellow and Master, the last‑named class comprising Elect and Most Elect Masters.

 

C. That one person was selected from the body of Elect Masters to assume authority over the rest and to be reverenced (though known to very few) as the Supreme Elect Master or Patriarch (Qui ut summus magister electus vel patriarcha veneraetur).

 

D. The government of the society was confided to the highest Elect Masters. E. That the society of brethren began to be called " the fraternity of Freemasons, A.D. 1450 (in the Deuchar text, i44o), at Valenciennes in Flanders, prior to which date they were known by the name of " brethren of St. John." F. None are admitted into the order, but those who are professedly Christians. No bodily tortures are employed at initiation.

 

G. Amongst the duties which must be undertaken on oath, are fidelity and obedience to secular rulers.

 

H. The aim of the society is expressed in the two precepts :‑to love all men as brothers ; to render to God what is God's‑and to Cxsar what is Cxsar's.

 

I. The secrets and mysteries conduce to this end‑that, without ostentation, the brethren may do good.

 

K. Every year a feast is held in honour of St. John, patron of the community. L. The ceremonies of the order, though represented by signs or words, or in other ways, differ entirely from ecclesiastical rites.

 

M. He alone is acknowledged as a brother of the society of St. John or Freemason, who in a lawful manner, under the direction of an Elect Master, assisted by at least seven brethren, is initiated into the mysteries and is ready to prove his adoption by the signs and tokens (signs et tesseris) practised by the brethren. In which are included those signs and words (signis et verbis) customary in the Edinburgh 214 APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS lodge or tabernacle (mansione vel tabernaculo) and in those affiliated with her. Also in Hamburg, Rotterdam and Venice.

 

N. As a general conformity it is necessary in the lodges ; therefore the " charter " shall be transmitted to all the colleges of the order.

 

[Signed] Harmanus f : Carlton : Jo. Bruce : Fr. Von Upna : Cornelis Banning De Coligni : Virieux : Johann Schrdder : Hofmann, 1 5 3 5 : Icobus [Jacobus] Prxpositus : A. Nobel : Ignatius de la Torre : Doria : Jacob Uttinhove : Falk : Niclaes Van Noot : Philippus Melanthon : Huyssen : Wormer Abel.

 

From the conclusions of commentators, who have rejected the charter as an historical document, there are the following : Bobrik remarks (Findel, History of Freemasonry, p. 697)‑(I) The motive for the supposed meeting did not exist (z) The purpose of the document and the form in which it is carried out, do not correspond; for, in order to refute a thing publicly, writing in cipher is resorted to and, to conceal a matter, the signatures are written in common italics. Neither can we conceive any documents legal without a seal. (3) The signatures are suspicious in the highest degree. (4) The assembly of the nineteen individuals cited is extremely doubtful; for Hermann would have preferred the town of Bonn to that of Cologne, where he had many enemies. (5) Melanchthon's participation is especially problematical, as well as that of the other subscribers. (6) The records of 1637, which are cited, cannot suffice as proofs, as there is nothing to show that there existed a Lodge Vredendall at that period.

 

The same critic believed the term " Patriarch " (C) to be an allusion to the " General " of the Jesuits, a view to which colour is lent, if the date of the forgery be placed at 1816, by which time, the Jesuits, after their restoration in 1814, had again succeeded in establishing their influence, which, in Holland, could only be accomplished by indirect means. Dr. Schwetschke, in a pamphlet published in 1843 (Paleographic Proofs of the Spuriousness of the Cologne Freemason Document of 15 3 5 ; Halle, 1843 ; cf. Lyon, History of the Lodge of Edinburgh, p. 3zz), remarks that after a careful comparison of the signature of Jacobus Prxpositus at the end of the document and the handwriting existing of his, proved to be genuine, the most glaring discrepancy is apparent; also that the real signature of Archbishop Hermann and that represented to be his, are most dissimilar. He examines closely the way in which the document is written and points out that different characters are used for U and V, a distinction unknown before the middle of the sixteenth century; also that in the Cologne cipher the K is wanting, which letter was to be met with in all the alphabets of the Middle Ages.

 

VI. THE LARMENIUS CHARTER, OR THE CHARTER OF TRANSMISSION It is immaterial whether the French Order of the Temple is a revival of La Petite Resurrection des Templiers‑a licentious society established in 168z‑or an offshoot of the Lodge Les Chevaliers de la Croix, 18o6. The Charter of Trans mission, upon which rest the claims of this body to being the lineal successors of APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS 215 the historic Knights Templar, was not published until between 1804 and i 8io and its earlier history, if, indeed, it has one, is so tainted with impostures, as to remove any possibility of unravelling the tangled web of falsehood in which the whole question is enveloped. It is said that an Italian Jesuit, named Bonani, at the instigation of Philip Duke of Orleans, fabricated the document now known as the Charter of Larmenius and, with its aid, contrived to attach the society of La Petite Resur rection des Templiers to the ancient order of the Temple. After many vicissitudes and a lengthened period of abeyance, a revival of the order took place about 1804, full particulars of which are given in the following works (Dr. J. Burnes, Sketch of the History of the Knights Templar ; C. A. Thory, Acta Latomorum, 1815, vol. ii, p. 139; Mackey, Encyclopardia ; Temple and Findel, History of Freemasonry, p. 681). The following is a translation of the charter, which is given in Latin by both Burnes and Thory I, brother Johannes Marcus Larmenius of Jerusalem, by the Grace of God and by the secret decree of the venerable and most holy Martyr, the Master of the Knights of the Supreme Temple (to whom be honour and glory), confirmed by the common council of the brethren, over the whole order of the Temple, decorated by the highest and supreme Master (I publish) these letters to be seen of one and all‑Salutem, Salutem, Salutem.

 

Be it known to all, as well present as to come, that strength failing on account of extreme age and weighed down by the want of means and the onerousness of my office, to the greater glory of God, for the guardianship and preservation of the Order, the Brethren and the Statutes, I, the aforesaid Humble Master of the 2 Militia " of the Temple, have resolved to resign into more efficient hands the Supreme Mastership.

 

Therefore, God helping and with the unanimous consent of the Supreme Assembly of Knights, I have conferred the Supreme Mastership of the Order of the Temple, my authority and privileges, to the eminent Commendator and dearest brother, Franciscus Thomas Theobaldus of Alexandria and, by the present decree, I confer for life, with the power of conferring the supreme and chief Mastership of the Order of the Temple and the chief authority upon another brother, famous for his nobility of education and mind and the integrity of his character; This I do to preserve the perpetuity of the Mastership, the unbroken line of successors and the integrity of the statutes. But I command that the Mastership cannot be transmitted without the consent of the General Assembly of Companions of the Temple, so far as this Supreme Assembly shall will to be collected together and, this being so, that a successor be elected at the nod of the Knights.

 

In order that the functions of the chief office may not languish, let there be now and always four chief Master‑Vicars, having supreme power, eminence, and authority over the whole Order, saving the right of the chief Master; and let the Master‑Vicars be elected from the seniors according to the order of their profession. Which was decreed according to the above mentioned vow of our most holy, venerable and most blessed Master, the Martyr, entrusted to me and the brethren (to whom honour and glory). Amen.

 

I then, by the decree of the Supreme Assembly of the brethren in accordance with the supreme authority committed to me, will, declare and command the Scotch 216 APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS Templars deserters of the Order, struck with anathema, both them and the brethren of St. John of Jerusalem, the spoilers of the domains of the " Militia " (on whom may God have mercy), to be without the pale of the Temple, now and in time to come.

 

I have therefore instituted signs unknown and not to be known by pseudobrothers, to be handed down by the Companions by word of mouth and in whatever way it may now please the Supreme Assembly that they should be transmitted.

 

But these signs may only be revealed after due profession and knightly consecration, according to the statutes, rites and usages of the companions of the Temple, communicated by me to the above mentioned Commendator, just as I received them into my hands from the Venerable and most Sacred Martyr Master (to whom be honour and glory).

 

Be it as I have said. Be it, Amen.

 

Then follow the signatures of Larmenius and his immediate successor Alexandrinus, after which come the acceptances and signatures of the twenty‑two succeeding grand masters‑the last under the date of 1804.

 

In the notice of the Order of the Temple by Foraisse (cited in the Acta Latomorum, vol. ii, Paris, 1815, pp. 139 et seq.), the secrets learned by Moses when he was initiated in Egypt are said to have been transmitted through the chiefs of the Hebrews to John the Baptist, St. John the Evangelist, St. Paul and the other apostles and, being received from them, were preserved without alteration by the Freres d'Orient. The Christians persecuted by the infidels conveyed the secret to Hugo de Paganis and such, we are told, was the origin of the foundation of the Order of the Temple, which, thus instructed in the esoteric doctrine and the formulas of initiation of the Christians of the East, was clothed with patriarchal power and placed in the legitimate order of the successors of St. John the Baptist ! This knowledge is said to have descended to Jacques de Molay, who, foreseeing the troubles to which the order was to be subjected, elected as his successor John Marc Larmenius. To this Larmenius is attributed the document upon which so much has been based.

 

It is much to be regretted that no facsimile of so valuable and curious a record as the Tabula Aurea, or Charter of Transmission, has been published (an imperfect copy is given in Les Sectes et Societes Secretes, by J. H. E. Comte le Couteulx de Canteleu, 1863, p. 259). The printed copies are all given in full, with no contracted words, which would, in all probability, exist in any writing of the period claimed. The text is merely that of a charter arranging for the election of the Grand Master and officers ; although there might have been the names of witnesses, there is nothing in it to require a roll of Grand Masters being added. In fact, the Latin, the form of document, the decorations, etc., are not at all what would be expected in 1324 and it is difficult to understand why Larmenius, of whom no mention is found in any of the veritable Templar Records, should have considered it necessary to break through the rules and traditions of his Order, in executing this document, when his supposed immediate predecessor, Jacques de Molay, an undoubted Templar, better versed in its customs, deemed no such action needful. It is only a matter of surprise that APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS 217 any one should have been deceived by the Tabula Aurea and more, that, when it was fabricated, the Act of Transmission was not at once taken from the fountain head and registered as having been given by the celebrated Jacques de Molay, the last of the historic Grand Masters.

 

A few remarks on the history of the true Knights of the Temple will not be out of place. According to Matthew Paris (Roger of Wendover, Flowers of History, translated by Dr. Giles Bohn, vol. i, p. 469. See also the History of William of Tyre, who died about 1118) and the early chroniclers, the year 1118 is usually assigned as that of the foundation of the Order‑the outcome of religious pilgrimages, the only mission of the knights being to defend pilgrims from the cruelty and barbarity of the infidels and to keep open the roads through the Holy Land over which the pilgrims had to pass. At first they lived entirely on alms; and, for nine years, Hugues de Paganis and Geoffrey de St. Aumer, with their seven companions, of whom the names are now lost, remained the only members of the Order. On this point Raynouard and Wilcke are at variance; following the latter (Geschichte des Tempelherrensordens), though without quoting his authority, the Comte le Couteulx de Canteleu, op. cit., p. 81, gives the names of the seven knights as Roral, Godefroy Bisol, Pagan de Montdidier, Archambault de Saint‑Aignan, Andre de Montbard, Gondemar and Hugues de Champagne.

 

In 1128, when the Synod of Troyes was held, under Pope Honorius II, St. Bernard, then Abbe of Clervaux, who was present, was charged by the Council to arrange the Rule desired by the Order. This Rule has unfortunately not come down to us in its perfect form. The Council, moreover, bestowed upon them a white dress, to which was added by Eugenius III, in 1146, a red cross, to be placed upon their cloak, worn by all members of the Order. At this time, as stated by William of Tyre, the Templars numbered at Jerusalem more than three hundred knights, not including the serving brethren ; and their property was immense, their riches placing them on an equality with kings. It was this fact, Du Puy considers, that made them, through arrogance and pride, cast off their obedience to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, from whom they had received the first gifts which enabled them to found the Order. 'Much of the hatred towards them was, he says, caused by their having seized upon the belongings of the churches and disturbed their ancient possessions.

 

In a few years after they had received formal recognition as a religious military order, their possessions were enormous and, before 1140, they held fortresses and other buildings in almost every country. Before 1150 they had founded the Temple at Paris ; and, during the reign of Richard I, they bought from that king the island of Cyprus. Whatever their faults may have been, it is certain that they were looked upon by kings and popes alike as one of the. bulwarks of the Church and that the history of the Crusades abounds in instances of their exploits. When driven out of Asia, like the other Christians, they established themselves at Cyprus and in other islands ; and, in 13o6, the Grand Master, with all the chiefs of the Order, came to France, bringing their treasure and archives and established themselves in Paris. On October 13, 1307, all the Templars then in Paris and the other provinces of 218 APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS France were " arrested in a moment " (Du Puy, vol. ii, pp. 3ocg et seq.) and charged with the most sacrilegious and horrible crimes which the brains of their accusers were capable of framing. These have often been enumerated and the examinations printed more or less in extenso ; it is therefore needless, as it would be out of place, to include them in this summary.

 

The Order was suppressed in 1312, at a Council held at Vienna, under Pope Clement V. Bulls were launched against the Knights (Du Puy, vol. i, p. 181) ; their lands and goods were seized and made over to the Hospitallers (ibid., vol. i, pp. 186, 18q); and they themselves, in many instances, after having suffered the horrors of an inquisition, were burned. Jacques de Molay, the Grand Master, together with the brother of the Dauphin, still persisting to the last in the innocence of the Order (Gurtler, Historia Templariorum, 1703, pp. 412, 413), after having been kept in prison, were burned alive in 1313, at Paris.

 

Much has been written both for and against the charges urged against the Templars ; perhaps the real explanation is best summed up by Voltaire‑that the terrible condemnation was the crime of a king avaricious and vindictive ; of a Pope cowardly and betrayed ; of Inquisitors jealous and fanatical.

 

Reference has already been made to the Rule formulated by St. Bernard, of which only an abstract has come down to us. Fosbroke,‑in the List of Rules of the Orders which obtained in England, gives a summary of these regulations (British Monachism, 1802, vo1. i, p. 72 ; Gurtler, op. cit., pp. 8o et seq. ; Du Puy, vol. i, pp. 230 et seq.). Candidates for the Order must have been born in wedlock and were required to be of noble birth, free from any vow or tie and of sound body (Memoires historiques sur les Templars, par Ph.G., Paris, 1805, p. ii, based on the work of Prof. Munter).

 

The Grand Master of the Templars ranked as a Prince when in the presence of kings but, when in councils, he took his place before the ambassadors and after the archbishops. The other officers of the Order were the grand prior, the seneschal, the marshall, the treasurer, the drapier (literally clothier), the turcopolier (the commander of light cavalry, which was called in the East, turcopole) and the bailli (judge) of Jerusalem. There were also visitors‑general, whose office was only temporary.

 

The provincial masters, who provisionally held great power, took, at the time of their election, a special oath. Below them were baillis and priors or masters. The master of Jerusalem was always the grand treasurer.

 

The internal government was managed by a council composed of the Grand Master, the other dignitaries, the provincial masters, the assistants of the grand master and the chevaliers summoned by him. This council was of course subject to the general chapters, which were very secret and, on account of the cost, very seldom held. It is evident that this government of the Grand Master, who took the place of God and held the title of vicar‑general of the Pope, was largely despotic.

 

The Order possessed many peculiar privileges granted by the Popes Alexander III, Urban III and Innocent III.

 

Like most of the other Orders, religious or military, the Templars had some APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS 219 secret form of initiation through which a candidate gained admission to the Order. The following is given by Raynouard (Monumens historique, pp. 3‑G), but the very contradictory and imperfect statements made in the replies of the Templars render it quite impossible to arrive at anything like a correct idea of what really took place at the reception. When a new chevalier was to be received, the Chapter assembled. The ceremony usually took place during the night, in a church.

 

The candidate waited without. The chief, who presided over the Chapter, deputed, three separate times, two brothers, who demanded of the candidate if he desired to be admitted into the Order of the Soldiers of the Temple. After his reply, he was brought in. He asked three times for bread, water and the society of the Order.

 

The chief of the Chapter then said to him: " You come to enter into a great engagement ; you will be exposed to much trouble and danger. It will be necessary to watch when you would sleep ; to sustain fatigue when you would be at rest ; to suffer thirst and hunger when you would drink and eat ; to pass into one country when you would remain in another." Then these questions were put Are you a knight ? Are you of sound body? Are you not married, or faance ? Do you not belong already to another Order? Have you not debts which you are not able to pay yourself, or with the help of friends ? When the candidate had replied in a satisfactory manner, he made the three vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. He dedicated himself to the defence of the Holy Land and received the mantle of the Order. The knights present gave him the kiss of brotherhood.

 

The form of oath, Raynouard states, is given by Henriquez (Privilegia Ord. Astercensis, p. 479) and was found among the archives of the Abbey of Alcobaza, as follows I swear to consecrate my discourse, my strength and my life to the defence of the belief in the unity of God and the mysteries of the faith, etc. I promise to be submissive and obedient to the Grand Master of the Order. . . . Whenever he shall be in need, I will pass over the sea to go and fight; I will give my help against infidel kings and princes ; and in presence of three enemies I will not flee, but alone I will oppose them, if they are infidels.

 

Charges were made about certain objects used in the ceremony of reception. The Idol, as it is called, which the Templars are said to have worshipped, appears to have been nothing more than a human figure or bearded human head, said to have borne the name of Baffomet, or, as it has been explained, Mahomet. Possibly it was nothing more than a relic or relic case, venerated by the Templars (Raynouard, Monumens historique, p. 399), in like manner as such objects were and are now, 220 APOCRYPHAL MANUSCRIPTS reverenced by religious societies and, for this reason, exhibited with the regalia at all important meetings of the Order.

 

Another object of their worship is stated to have been a cat, kept by the Templars for that purpose‑but of this little need be said. It was, according to one witness, the devil in the form of a cat, who roamed round a head held by the President of the Chapter, talked to the brothers and promised them riches and all the good things of the earth! This was at Nismes ; but an English Templar denied the worship in England, although he had heard it positively stated that both cat and " idol " were worshipped at places beyond the sea (Wilkins, Concilia, vol. ii, p. 384).

 

Michelet, in his History of France, has explained the ceremonies said to have been enacted by the Templars, as being borrowed from the figurative mysteries and rites of the Early Church‑i.e. the renunciation by the candidate of his past sinful life and his being received into a higher state of faith.

 

In parting with the subject it may be observed, that whilst those who have no power to judge of past times but by their own, should always doubt their conclusions, yet the present age has much difficulty in accepting as facts any statements that rest on no foundation whatever of authority. " Anonymous testimony to a matter of fact," says Sir George Lewis, " is wholly devoid of weight; unless, indeed, there be circumstances which render it probable that a trustworthy witness has adequate motives for concealment, or extraneous circumstances may support and accredit a statement, which, left to itself, would fall to the ground " (On the Influence of Authority in Matters of Opinion, 1849,P.23). Blind manuscripts, according to Warburton, are always at hand to support still blinder criticisms (Divine Legation, vol. ii, p. 2z7); and the dictum is fully borne out in the literature of Freemasonry. The learned author of the Kunsturkunden represents the Leland‑Locke and the Krause MSS. as being two of the oldest and most authentic records of the Craft. Dr. Oliver, in his Historical Landmarks (1846, vol. ii, p. 19), affirms, on the authority of the Charter of Cologne, that, a few years after 15 19, there were nineteen Grand Lodges in Europe ! Lastly, Dr. (afterwards Sir James) Burnes observes of the so‑called Tabula Aurea, or Charter of Transmission Startling as is the assertion, there has been a succession of Knights Templar from the twelfth century down even to these days ; the chain of transmission is perfect in all its links. Jacques de Molay, the Grand Master at the time of the perse cution, anticipating his own martyrdom, appointed as his successor, in power and dignity, Johannes Marcus Larmenius, of Jerusalem and, from that time to the present, there has been a regular and uninterrupted line of Grand Masters. The charter by which the supreme authority has been transmitted, is judicial and conclusive evidence of the Order's continued existence ! (Sketch of the History of the Knights Templar, 1840, PP. 39, 40).

 

CHAPTER X THE QUATUOR CORONATI THE FOUR CROWNED OR FOUR HOLY MARTYRS HE history, legendary or otherwise, of the four patron saints of the medixval building trades must always possess a peculiar interest for the Masonic body, even though it be impossible fairly to deduce those arguments which some have sought to derive from it. This, together with the confusion and obscurity that exists on the subject, a confusion and obscurity which arose almost immediately after the martyrdom itself, will be the excuse for entering somewhat more into detail than the importance of the subject, as bearing upon Masonic history, may, at first sight, seem to warrant.

 

The outline of the story may be told in a very few words. Four officers of the Roman Imperial Court and five sculptors were martyred for their faith in Christianity, in the reign and, apparently, by the direct orders of Diocletian and were interred in the same spot on the Via Labicana, a little outside Rome, on the road to Prxneste. The names of the five having, in process of time, become forgotten, it was ordered that the entire nine should bear the appellation of the Four Crowned or Holy Martyrs (although it was always known that there were two distinct sets of martyrs). The names of the five were subsequently recovered, but the whole nine still retained the original title and the church, built over their relics, to which the bodies of other saints were subsequently removed, thus forming a kind of Christian Pantheon, after having been more than once destroyed and rebuilt, subsists to the present day. Hence has arisen a certain amount of confusion, the names of the martyrs and the priority of the respective martyrdoms having been occasionally mistaken the one for the other, while it happens strangely enough that the four officers of the Imperial Court have become the patron saints of the building trades instead of the five sculptors as, in strict propriety, it should have been, while the trade or profession of the five has survived under the name of the four. This confusion has, as will be seen in the sequel, been somewhat further increased by the fact of the names of one or two of them having been common to other martyrs with whom they had no real connexion.

 

The first mention of these martyrs occurs in some of the ancient martyrologies, the earliest of which now extant, that of St. Jerome, was written about A.D. 400. After this, at a considerable interval, come those of Bede, 730; Florus, 830 ; Wandel bertus, 844; Hrabanus Maurus, 845 ; Ado, 858 ; the Romanum Parvum, 873 ; Usuardus, 875 ; and Notker, 894. Besides these, there are for the Greek Church the work of Simon Metaphrastes and the Greek Menxon, which have, as dealing 221 222 THE QUATUOR CORONATI with the oriental legends, no immediate interest. Among the former, at least Bede, Wandelbertus, Ado, Usuardus and Notker mention the legend now under consideration. All these notices are of the briefest.

 

Gregory the Great‑1073‑85‑in his Sacramentary, has the following for their feast day These are the names of the four crowned martyrs, Severus, Severianus, Victorinus and Carpophorus, the day of whose martyrdom having been neglected through carelessness and been forgotten, it was decreed that the celebration of their martyr dom should take place in the church of those five martyrs whose names are celebrated in the mass, so that their memory‑i.e., of the four‑should be honoured at the same time as that of the others‑i.e., the five.

 

VI. IDES OF Nov. (9TH). MARTYRDOM OF THE FOUR CROWNED ONES Be pleased, we beseech Thee, Almighty God, that we, acknowledging the constant faith of the glorious martyrs, Claudius, Nicostratus, Simphorianus, Castorius, may reap the benefits of their holy intercession in Thy presence, for Jesus Christ's sake. Amen.

 

At the Oblation Let Thy bountiful blessing, O Lord and may our gifts be acceptable in Thy sight, through the intercession of Thy Saints and may it be unto us a sacrament of redemption for Jesus Christ's sake. Amen.

 

Preface‑before receiving the Sacrament It is very meet, right, just and salutary that we should at all times and in all places, give thanks unto Thee, O Lord, Holy Father, Almighty and Everlasting God, when we celebrate the Passion of Thy Holy Crowned Martyrs, since while we magnify the glory of Thy name, through them we may grow in the increase of our faith through Jesus Christ. Amen.

 

After receiving the Sacrament Being refreshed with the heavenly sacraments, we do beseech thee, O Lord God, as suppliants, that of those whose triumphs we celebrate, by their help we may be sustained through Jesus Christ, His sake. Amen.

 

The Roman Martyrology (date uncertain) The octave is the Passion at Rome, on the Via Lavicana, at the third milestone from the city (at the North‑East on the road leading to Prxneste) of the holy martyrs, Claudius, Nicostratus, Symphorianus, Castorius and Simplicius, who, having been first imprisoned, were then most severely scourged and, since their faith in Christ could not be shaken, were thrown headlong into the river (Tiber) by order of Diocletian. Also on the Via Lavicana occurred the martyrdom of the four holy Crowned brothers, Severus, Severianus, Carpophorus and Victorinus, who were beaten to death with scourges loaded with lead by order of the same Emperor. But since their names, which, after a subsequent lapse of years were revealed by God, could not be found, it was decreed that their anniversary together with that THE QUATUOR CORONATI 223 of the other five, should be celebrated under the title of the Four Crowned Ones, which custom was continued in the Church even after their names had been revealed.

 

Next in chronological order comes the Golden Legend of Jacobus a Voragine, which may be termed the loveliest collection of medixval sacred fairy tales, although the subjoined account is very inferior to most of those which have been described or adorned by his pen. (Opus Aureunr. Lugdini, 1519, sm. fo.).

 

The four crowned ones were Severus, Severianus, Carpophorus and Victorinus. They were beaten to death by order of Diocletian, with whips armed with lead. Their names were lost for many years, until discovered by a revelation from on high; it was therefore ordered that their memory should be honoured with those of the five other martyrs, Claudius, Castorius, Nicostratus, Symphorianus and Simplicius, who suffered two years after the martyrdom of the former. These exercised the sculptors' art and, as they refused to sculpture an idol commanded by Diocletian, or to sacrifice to false gods, they were by command of the same Emperor enclosed alive in leaden coffers and thrown into the sea in the year of Our Lord 287. They were honoured with the other four martyrs whose names had been forgotten, whom Pope Melchiades (or Milthiades, 310‑14) ordered to be designated under the title of the Four Crowned Ones; when later their names became known the above denomination continued in use.

 

We now come to the various Breviaries, that of Rome, of course, ranking first. The date of the one used is the Breviarium secundum usum Romanum Tenet, 1477, but the sources from which it has been compiled must be far older. Breviaries took their origin in the earliest times and gradually grew and expanded, varying in different places and countries until Pius V, by a Bull dated July 15 68, published one authorized version which has ever since been continued to be enforced to the exclusion of all others. (Rev. W. llaskell, 1llonunrenta Ritualia Ecclesice Anglicana, 1846, vol. ii, p. xxi.) The legend is as follows In Sanctoruirr AIartyrum Ouatuor Coronatorum Prayer Grant, O God, that the glorious martyrs, Claudius, Nicostratus, Symphorianus, Castorius and Simplicius, whom we acknowledge as steadfast in their faith, may intercede for us with Thee.

 

I. It came to pass, that when the Emperor Diocletian journied to Pannonia, in order that in his presence metals might be taken from the rocks ; that when he had assembled together all the masters in metals, he found among them men endowed with great experience in the art‑Claudius, Castorius, Symphorianus and Nicostratus, who were marvellously learned in the art of cutting stone (in arte quadrataridquadratacid, 1518‑). These men were secretly Christians, who observed the commands of God and did all things which as sculptors they executed, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

II. It came to pass, however, that, one day, by command of the Emperor Diocletian, the artificers were preparing to make a statue of the Sun‑god with his four horses and all things thereunto belonging, the chariot and the horses out of 224 THE QUATUOR CORONATI Thasian stone. At the same time when all the artificers and philosophers were meditating thereupon, the former began to speak in dissenting terms.

 

III. And when they had found a great block of Thasian stone, they did not think it fit for the statue, according as the Emperor Diocletian had commanded and, for many days thereafter, a great contention arose between the artificers and the philosophers (masters of the work and native masters, 15 18). However, on a certain day, all the artificers (6zz in number) and the five philosophers, assembled together in order to examine the structure of the stone and the veins thereof and there arose a prodigious contention between the artificers and the philosophers.

 

IV. Then began the philosophers to dispute with Claudius, Symphorianus and Simplicius and said, 4' )Wherefore obey ye not, with your skill, the commands of the most devout Emperor Diocletian, and fulfil not his desire ? " Claudius answered and said, " Because we may not blaspheme Our Creator and sin against him, because we may not be found guilty in his sight." Then said unto them the philosophers, 4` Hence it seemeth that ye are Christians " ; and Castorius answered and said, " Verily we are Christians." V. Then the philosophers chose other artificers and stone cutters (artifices quadratarios) and caused them to make a statue of Asclepius out of the Proconnesian stone, which was brought unto the philosophers after thirty‑one days. Thereupon the philosophers informed the Emperor Diocletian that the statue of Asclepius was finished and he straightways commanded that it should be brought before him that he might look upon it. When he beheld the statue he marvelled much and said, " Verily, this is a testimony of the skill of those who have our approbation in the art of sculpture." VI. Then the philosophers said, " Most sacred Emperor, know that those whom your majesty has declared to be most learned in the art of cutting stone, Claudius, Symphorianus, Nicostratus, Simplicius and Castorius, are Christians and, by their magic words, subject the human race." Diocletian said unto them, " If they may not obey the commands of the law and if the charges of your accusation be true, then may they suffer the penalty of the law " (sacrilegii).

 

VII. Then Diocletian, in consideration of their skill, commanded the tribune Lampadius, and said, 4' If they will not offer sacrifices to the Sun‑god, then take them and scourge them with stripes and scorpions ; but if they will consent, then lead them to submission." Five days afterwards Lampadius sat in judgment in that place and commanded the herald to summon them before him and showed them terrible things and all sorts of instruments of martyrdom. When they had entered, he turned to them and said, " Hearken unto me, and avoid martyrdom, be submissive and friendly to the noble prince and sacrifice to the Sun‑god, for hereafter I may not speak unto you in gentle words." VIII. Claudius and his fellows answered with great confidence, 4` This may the Emperor Diocletian know, that verily we are Christians and turn not aside from the worship of our God." Exasperated at this reply, the tribune Lampadius commanded them to be stripped naked and scourged with scorpions, while the herald proclaimed, " Ye shall not contemn the commands of the prince 1 " In that same hour Lampadius was seized with an evil spirit; he was rent asunder with cramps and died in his chair of judgment.

 

IX. When his wife and household heard these things, they ran to the philosophers with a great outcry, so that it came to the ears of Diocletian ; and when he THE QUATUOR CORONATI z25 heard of the occurrence, he said, " Make leaden coffins, put them alive into the same and cast them into the river." Thereupon Nicedus, a senator (togatus), a coadjutor of Lampadius, did that which Diocletian had commanded. He caused leaden coffins to be made, put them alive therein and ordered them to be cast into the river.

 

Here ends the legend in the Breviarium Romanum, 1477. The edition of 1474 agrees exactly with the above up to Lectio III, but varies slightly in the concluding portion. The translation of the Roman German Breviary by Jacob Wog, Venice, 1518, likewise agrees with the above version, with the exception of two passages noted in the text (I, III), and concludes with the following additional paragraph When, however, the holy Cyril heard these things, being in prison, he was filled with grief because of the death of these saints and departed thus from this world to the Lord.

 

The Breviarium Spirense, 1478, varies as follows IV. Claudius, Castorius, Nicostratus and Simphorianus, ingenious artists in the art of cutting stone and sculpture (mirafici quadrandi et sculpendi artifices), being secretly Christians, obeyed the commands of God and made all their work in the name of Christ. A certain Simplicius, who was also experienced in the same art, marvelled much at their skill and works, for they surpassed all the architects of the Emperor, who were six hundred and twenty‑two in number. He was himself still a pagan and, when he worked with them, his work succeeded not, but his own tools broke daily. Therefore he said unto Claudius, " I pray thee, sharpen my tools, so that they break not." Claudius took the tools into his hands, and said, " In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, be this iron strong and proper for work." From that hour Simplicius finished everything that belonged to the ars quadrataria with his iron tools, as did the others and brought it to completion.

 

V. He then asked Symphorianus in what manner he had sharpened them, for the edge of his tools never broke, as had previously been the case. Symphorianus and Castorius answered and said, " God, who is the Creator and Lord of all things, has made His creation strong." Simplicius asked, " Has not god Zeus done this ? " Then answered Claudius, and said, " Repent, my brother, for you have blasphemed God, who has created all things, whom we acknowledge; but we do not acknow ledge as God him whom our hands have made." With these and words like unto them, they converted Simplicius to the faith of Christ, so that he, despising all the images of the gods, went with them to the Bishop Cyril of Antioch, who was then lying bound in prison, because of the name of Christ and had for three years been tortured by many blows, in order to be baptized by him. When they were returned and he had again resumed his task, they all laboured together and made the sign of the cross in the name of Christ, while they worked. They were, however, accused by the philosophers of being Christians, because they would not make a statue of Asclepius of marble, as the emperor had commanded; whereupon, Diocletian, full of rage, spoke, " Make leaden coffers and shut them up alive therein and cast them into the river." But Nicodemus, a Christian, after forty‑two days, raised the chests and the bodies and brought them to his house.

 

VI. The four crowned martyrs were so called, because their names were not 226 THE QUATUOR CORONATI known. For when Diocletian commanded that all should sacrifice to Asclepius, who was called the god of health, because he had been a good physician, these four refused ; whereupon they were scourged to death with leaden scourges and their bodies cast into the streets to be devoured by dogs. So they laid five days and were then buried by St. Sebastian and the Bishop Melchiades. Their names were afterwards revealed as follows : Severus, Severianus, Carpophorus, Victorianus ; before which time, however, the holy Melchiades ordained that the anniversary of their martyrdom should be kept on the same day with that of the holy Claudius, Nicostratus, Symphorianus, Castorius and Simplicius, who were cast into the river in leaden coffins.

 

According to the Breviarium secundum consuetudinem domus Hospitalis Hierosolymitanus Sancti jobannis, Spirx, 1495, the bodies were raised after five days and secretly interred in the Via Lavitana by St. Sebastian.

 

In the Breviarium Ultrajectense (Utrecht), Venet, 1497, we find the legend much the same as in the Breviarium Romanum, but considerably more briefly narrated. Lampadius executes the five martyrs and dies suddenly. Forty days afterwards Nicodemus raises the coffins and buries them in his house. Then follows II. Eleven months afterwards Diocletian ordered a temple to be erected to Asclepius in the Thermx Trajani and a statue of the god to be made of Proconnesian stone. As all the people were commanded to sacrifice, there were present several tribunes (cornicularii). When their opposition was made known to the Emperor Diocletian, he ordered them to be slain with leaden scourges before the statue of the god. After they had been scourged for a long time, they gave up the ghost.

 

The III and last Lectio agrees with the VI of the Breviarium Spirense. The precise date of the martyrdom is given in the Modus orandi secundum ecclesiam Herbipolensem, 1450, which states, " that these holy martyrs suffered for the name of God in the year 287, on the 8th day of Nov." (sextoydus Novembris). But more than one date is current and the two martyrdoms occurred at an interval of eleven months, or, according to some authorities, two years. The account given by Baronius in his Annales Ecclesiastici runs as follows A.D. 303. To these (other martyrs previously cited) were added the five martyrs, Claudius, Nicostratus, Symphorianus, Castorius and Simplicius, who were followed to the martyrs' crown two years ,after by Severus, Severianus, Carpophorus and Victorinus, who excelled in the art of statuary. For they, having refused on the ground of their Christianity to carve images of the gods, were first beaten with scorpions and, finally, being enclosed in leaden coffins (loculis plumbeis), were thrown alive into the river on the 8th Nov., on which day they are entered on the lists of the Holy Martyrs, by reason of their famous memory; on which day also is kept the celebration of the finding of their bodies. It is remarkable how the art of statuary decayed through the ever‑increasing members of the Christians ; for the possessors of this art having been almost without exception converted to Christianity, held it disgraceful to consider as gods the things which they had fashioned with their hands and preferred to die rather than that they should sculpture gods or things dedicated THE QUATUOR CORONATI 227 to gods. Hence the art of statuary, being deprived of almost all its followers, came to and remained in, a state of complete collapse; a proof of which may be clearly and plainly seen by all, in those statues which still exist at Rome which are obviously of rude workmanship, very inferior to those of the (true) ancients. To give but one example out of many, we may refer to those which all can see at Rome on the triumphal arch which shortly after this martyrdom Constantine erected to celebrate his victory over Maxentius, which, on account of the dearth of sculptors, was obliged to be mainly constructed from portions of the memorials of Trajan, Marcus Aurelius and other noble monuments of the city, while the remaining figures which were carved at the time are so rude and shapeless as‑if we may use a poetic simile‑to appear, when compared with the others, like the neck of a horse joined on to the head of a man. (Annales Ecclesiastica cum Antonii Pagii critica, Luccx, 1738‑46, vol. iii, p. 365.) The above statement as to the inferiority of late sculpture is perfectly true. It is usually referred to the general degeneracy of the times, but still the reasons given by Baronius are weighty.

 

The other great and, in some respects, greater, ecclesiastical historian, Tillemont, has The martyrs called by the name of the Four Crowned Ones are famous in the Church but, as regards their history, we have nothing but what is written in the Mar~Tologies and in the Acts of SS. Symphorian, Claudius, Castor, Nicostratus and Simplicius, whose authority is at the best but very middling (fort mediocre). All concur in saying that they (the four) were officers attached to the prefect of Rome, named respectively Severus, Severianus, Carpophosus (sic) and Victorinus, who, having refused to sacrifice, were condemned by Diocletian to be beaten to death with scourges armed with lead.

 

This festival is marked for the 8th Nov. in the Martyrologies of Jerome, Bede and others of later date. It is also found in the Sacramentary of St. Gregory, in the Roman Missal of Thomasius and in the Calendar of Father Fronto. In these three last and in Bede, they are only mentioned by the name of the Four Crowned Ones. We find also the same saints on the 7th and 8th August in the Calendar of Bucherius and in the Martyrologies of St. Jerome, save that the first is called Secundus or Secundinus and not Severus. It is stated that their festival was held at Albano, on the road to Ostia, where their bodies reposed. There was at Rome a Title (church from which a title was derived) and a church of the Four Crowned Ones and it still exists (1698). It was the station of the fifth Monday in Lent. Anastasius says that Pope Honorius built and dedicated a church in their name; and that Leo IV, having found their bodies about the year 849, rebuilt their church, which was falling into ruin and placed their bodies under the altar, together with those of several other martyrs.

 

The account given by the hagiographer Surius is very copious. It is apparently derived from the same source as those in the Breviaries, which it much resembles, if, indeed, it be not the source itself, for Surius, although he wrote considerably later, yet derived his materials from, or rather reprinted, the most ancient and 228 THE QUATUOR CORONATI authentic lives whenever he was fortunate enough to find any. His account is as follows The martyrdom of SS. Claudius, Nicostratus, Symphorianus, Castorius and Simplicius, also of the Four Crowned saints, from the Martyrology of Ado, who compiled the story which, up till then, had existed in various manuscripts and which was until then obscure in many places and abounding in falsehoods.

 

A.D. 290. I. Rome is the scene of the martyrdom of the holy martyrs Claudius, Nicostratus, Symphorianus, Castorius and Simplicius, under the reign of Diocletian and Maximian. These men being very famous workmen and marble workers of the first reputation, stood very high in the esteem of Diocletian. Hence, when, on a certain occasion, they were at work carving marble and hallowed their labours with the sign of the cross, that the work might turn out according to their wishes, one of them, Simplicius, who was still hampered with the errors of paganism, said to the other four, " I adjure you by the Sun‑god, tell us who is that God in whose name you work so well." To whom Symphorianus answered, " If you are able to believe, we will tell you and soon you will not only be able to follow the art as well as we do, but you will also be able to obtain everlasting life." The blessed Cyril confirmed him in the faith to their satisfaction, then baptized him and declared that he believed in Christ the Lord.

 

II. Not long afterwards they were accused by the philosophers of being Christians and because they refused to carve a statue of the god zEsculapius out of porphyry and serpentine (Proconissian) as the Emperor had ordered them, he directed a certain tribune named Lampadius to hear them with moderation. To whom said Lampadius, " Adore the Sun deity in order that you may baffle the designs of these philosophers." To whom they replied, " We will never adore the work of our own hands, but we adore the God of Heaven and earth, who rules for all eternity, Jesus Christ, the Son of God." They were on this relegated to the public prison. From whence, since they refused to change their faith in Christ, they were brought, stripped by order of Lampadius and most severely beaten with leaden scourges.

 

Shortly afterwards Lampadius, being seized by devils, expired. When Diocletian heard this, he was filled with intense rage and ordered one Nicetius, an officer of rank, to see them shut up in leaden chests and, in this fashion, thrown into the river. Forty‑two days after, a certain Nicodemus, a Christian, came and raised the bodies of the martyrs in these leaden chests and deposited them honourably in his house. They were martyred on the sixth of the Ides of November (8th Nov.).

 

IV. It is also the day of martyrdom of the Four Crowned ones, that is, of Severus, Severianus, Carpophorus and Victorinus. These men, on being urged to sacrifice, struggled against it and, by no means yielding their consent to the wishes of the impious, persevered in the faith. But on this being told to the Emperor Diocletian, he immediately ordered them to be beaten to death with scourges loaded with lead, before the shrine of /Esculapius (Asclepius) and that their bodies should be thrown to dogs in the public square, where they lay for five days, until some pious Christians came and, having collected the remains, buried them by the side of the Via Lavicana at the cemetery (or catacomb, literally sandpit), close to the bodies of the holy martyrs Claudius, Nicostratus, Symphorianus, Castorius and Simplicius. They suffered on the 6th of the Ides of Nov. (8 Nov.), but two years after the passion of the five other martyrs. But when their names could no longer be found, THE QUATUOR CORONATI 229 the blessed bishop (Pope) Melchiades determined that the anniversary of the Four Crowned ones should be celebrated under the names of the five holy martyrs. Yet, after the lapse of years, their names also were revealed to a certain pious individual; still the festival as before appointed continued to be celebrated under that of the other martyrs, while the place became celebrated as the resting‑place of the Four. (Laurentius Surius, Vita Sanctorum, etc., Colonix Agrippinx 1617‑18, vol. vi, p. zoo.) It is very clear, then, that whatever confusion may have arisen in the minds of the original writers and those who have at a later period drawn up their compilations, whatever may be the slight discrepancy of date‑a. thing by no means uncom mon or improbable in the chronologies of these early times‑or the divergences that exist in giving priority sometimes to one martyrdom and, sometimes, to the other and the various other discrepancies which may be observed,‑yet that the main story is perfectly consistent and perfectly probable, namely, that there were, as stated in the first instance, two distinct sets of martyrs, four officers of the Roman Court, or of the Prefect of the city and five who were sculptors and, apparently, of humble position, whose names might hence be more easily forgotten, who perished first according to the generally received opinion‑that these having been buried together became confused and, while the name of the first group was continued to the second, the attributes of the latter were alone preserved. These simple entanglements have been to some extent further complicated, at least to superficial writers and readers, by the martyrdoms of St. Carpophorus, St. Victorinus and St. Severianus on the road to Albano and Ostia, on October 7. This is all Ruinart (Les Veritables Actes des Martres, traduits par Drouet de Maupertay, Paris, 1732, tome ii, p. 575) gives concerning them and his reference to the four martyrs is confined to the following 9 Nov. St. Clement, St. Sempronian, St. Claudius, St. Nicostratus, for which he quotes an 11 ancient Roman Calendar compiled under Pope Liberius towards the middle of the 4th cent.," but without giving any further reference, for which reason it has not been placed at the commencement of this chapter. Ribadaneira (Les Fleurs des Vies des Saints, mises en Fra%ais par R. Gaultier, Rouen, 1631, tome ii, Juillet 29) has the following 29 July. Lives of the Saints Simplicianus, Faustinus and Beatrix, martyrs. On the same day as St. Martha, the Church commemorates the holy martyrs Simplicianus, Faustinus and Beatrix, their sister, who suffered at Rome for the faith of Christ in the persecution of the Emperors Diocletian and Maximian. Simplician and Faustinus were first taken and, as they were found to be constant in the faith, they were put to the torture by a Lieutenant of the Emperor and, afterwards, be headed and their bodies thrown into the Tiber. Their holy sister Beatrix recovered, and interred their remains.

 

Ribadaneira does not make any mention of the Four Martyrs or of any of those included under that generic nacre. But he gives, as does Ruinart, Symphorianus of Autun.

 

The very short notice by Alban Butler, a book so easily accessible, which is 230 THE QUATUOR CORONATI but a very short abstract of some of the facts recapitulated above, needs no further allusion.

 

Lastly, we come to the vast compilation known by the name of the Acta Sanctorum ; or, Lives of the Saints par excellence, or sometimes by that of the Bollandists, from Bollandus, the originator, a Jesuit of Liege in the seventeenth century, who had Henschenius and Papebrochius as his principle coadjutors. Probably no work has ever displayed greater learning, patient industry and critical acumen. It is, perhaps, the most astonishing monument of human power that has ever appeared. The best and earliest lives, often several, are given, but it is the dissertations prefixed to the lives of the various saints, which often constitute the lives themselves, no original documents being forthcoming, that constitute the especial merit of the work. Nothing in the power of skill, research, or candour is omitted and, when one never rises from the perusal of any one of them without feeling that if, according to the old saying, what Salmasius did not know, was beyond the power of human knowledge, so with much greater truth it may be observed that what, on their particular subject, is omitted by the Bollandists, is beyond the reach of human research. It may be remarked that English proper names are invariably given correctly, a thing most rarely to be found in works of Continental origin; one is often surprised to find descriptions of English localities, given with a clearness and accuracy which would seem to imply personal knowledge. On the 29th July appears Simplicius, who, with Faustinus and their sister Beatrix, were martyred on that day by Diocletian, as mentioned above. This martyrdom is also in Surius, tome iii, p.136. That of Symphorianus of Autun, martyred under Aurelian‑some say Marcus Aurelius is given under date the 22nd August; also in Surius, tome iv, p. z s i. They also have under date the 7th August Exanthus, Cassius, Carpophorus, Severinus, Secundus, Licinius, soldiers and friends of the Emperor Maximian, martyred by him on that day at Milan; also under date the 9th September Severianus martyred in the same persecution at Sebaste (Samaria), inserted both in the old Greek and in the Russian calendars.

 

In one portion of their work they have, however, the following verses on the Four Senas ornantes Idus merito atque cruore, Claudi, Castori, Simplici, Simphoriane, Et Nicostrate, pari fulgetis luce corona ; O Claudius, Castorius, Simplicius, Simphorianus and Nicostratus, you shine with equal light in your crown, adorning the sixth Ides by your virtues and your blood.

 

Having thus accomplished the history of the lives or rather the deaths of these martyrs, we will now turn our attention to that of their relics.

 

i. In the very ancient sacred Martyrologies, the blessed and adorable martyrs, Claudius, Nicostratus, Symphorianus and Simplicius (Castorius is omitted), together with the Four Crowned ones, are said to have been buried on 8th November by the side of the Via Lavicana ; and, indeed, Bede, in his 1Vlartyrology, asserts this plainly in the following words: " At Rome is the scene of the martyrdom of the Four THE QUATUOR CORONATI 231 holy crowned martyrs Severus, Severinus, Victorinus and Carpophorus, who, being urged to sacrifice against their will and, in no way giving their consent, persevered in the faith. This was reported to the Emperor Diocletian, who thereupon ordered that they should be beaten to death with scourges loaded with lead before the statue of AEsculapius, who further directed their bodies to be thrown to the dogs in the public square (platea), where they remained untouched for five days. The Christians then came and, having collected the bodies buried them on the Via Labicana (or Lavicana, the b and v being interchangeable) at the third milestone from the city, near the bodies of the holy martyrs Claudius, Nicostratus, Symphorianus, Castorius and Simplicius. But, two years after the passion of these four martyrs, when their names were almost forgotten (as might possibly happen in a time of fierce persecution and frequent massacres), the blessed Melchiades, the bishop, ordained that the anniversary of the Four Crowned ones should be kept under the name of the Four Holy Martyrs. In the lapse of time, however, the name of each individual saint was revealed, but the festival, as had been ordained, continued to be celebrated on the festival of the other martyrs and the place became celebrated as the burial‑place of the Four Crowned ones, as in the original MSS." So far Bede, with whom Ado agrees, also their own Acta in the Vatican, where it is added that their bodies were collected and buried in the catacombs (or cemetery), near the Via Labicana, by the blessed martyr St. Sebastian and by Melchiades when bishop, before the latter's elevation to the papacy. The following also occurs in these Acta Whose bodies he (the Emperor) ordered to be thrown to the dogs in the public square, where they remained five days. Then the blessed Sebastian came by night with Melchiades, the bishop, collected the bodies and buried them by the side of the Via Labicana, somewhere about the third milestone from the city of Rome, together with other saints in the same cemetery (always arenaria, lit. sand‑pit).

 

But since a cemetery of this kind is said to have existed near the third milestone from the city on the Via Labicana, which was equally the burial‑place of SS. Marcellinus and Peter (not St. Peter, the Apostle), we may be permitted to conjecture that this one was either contiguous to, or, at least, very near to the other, for there is no mention of it elsewhere.

 

z. Moreover, the precious relics of these martyrs were preserved in the above cemetery until the time of the blessed Pope Leo IV, who, having been when a priest raised to the rank of cardinal by the designation of that of the Four Crowned Martyrs, on attaining the dignity of Supreme Pontiff (A.D. 841) honoured their title with no unsparing hand and, having exhumed many bodies of holy martyrs from the cemeteries and catacombs, piously transferred them to this spot, especially those of the Four Crowned ones, which, together with other ever‑to‑be‑venerated bodies of saints and other relics, he deposited with all honour under the high altar of the church, as the librarian (Anastasius), speaking of Leo, relates in these words He, indeed, the ever blessed Pope, and the favoured of God, being animated by the greatest zeal and divine love, collected together in a marvellous manner, within the 232 THE QUATUOR CORONATI walls of the blessed city, the bodies of numerous saints which had long remained neglected. For he discovered, by skilful inquiries, the bodies of the Four Crowned Holy Martyrs and, for the great affection which he bore them, he reconstructed the church, which was consecrated to their memory and which church, until he was raised to the Papacy, he had governed with the greatest wisdom, but which had become shattered by the defects of old age and the lapse of time, so that, broken to ruins, it had long proclaimed its antiquity and, being fractured, retained nothing of its former excellence except tottering craziness. This church, I say, he rebuilt from the foundation in a more beautiful and sumptuous manner and, for the glory of God, collected and placed under the sacred altar their most sacred bodies, namely, those of Claudius, Nicostratus, Symphorianus, Castorius and Simplicius ; also Severus, Severianus, Carpophorus and Victorinus, who were the Four Crowned brothers; also Marius Audifax and Abacus, Felicissimus Agapitus Hippolytus and his servants to the number of 18, Aquilinus, Aquila, Prisca, Narcissus, Marcellinus, Felix Symmetrius, Candidus, Paulina, Anastasius, Felix Apolion, Benedict Venantius, Felix, Diogenes, Liberilis, Festus, Protus, Cxcilia, Alexander Sixtus, Sebastian, Praxides the Virgin, together with many others whose names are known to God alone. Over this (tomb) he raised a cibarium to the glory of God of extraordinary beauty and workmanship, fabricated of the purest silver gilt, and studded with emeralds and sapphires (amethysts ?), the whole weight being 313 lbs. 1.

 

After this the Bibliothecarius (Anastasius) goes on to relate the list of gifts presented to the same church, which church became afterwards greatly ruined, more especially when Robert Guiscard, prince of Salerno, during the papacy of Gregory VII, burned all the region which lies between the amphitheatre and the Lateran, but was again entirely repaired by Pope Paschal II (iogg‑iii 8) and restored to its former beauty, to which the Bibliothecarius refers in these words In like manner, he consecrated the Church of the Four Crowned Martyrs, which had been destroyed in the time of Robert Guiscard, prince of Salerno, after having rebuilt it from the foundation. He consecrated it in the 17th year of his Pontificate on the zoth of January.

 

From which accounts of the churches of the holy martyrs, when the city, being surrounded with armed men, was forced to submit to the enemy's fury, we may understand that the ruin was effected with no slight loss to things sacred and to relics.

 

3. Before, however, the said Pope Paschal had solemnly consecrated the church, i.e. in the twelfth year of his pontificate and, while occupied with its restoration, he came upon two urns (urnas) under the high altar, one of porphyry, the other of Proconnesian stone commonly called serpentine, in which were preserved the relics of the same blessed martyrs ; these chests (areas) he surrounded with a solid wall, an altar being placed above and beneath was a stone of very great size, having in its middle a window shaped like an arch and which opened on the relics. On the right hand of the same stone was the former place of interment of the bodies of these revered martyrs, which had been erected by Pope Leo IV, whereof the Biblio‑ THE QUATUOR CORONATI 233 thecarius speaks, on which was recorded a marble inscription; on the left hand all that happened at the same period might be read at length in an inscription on marble written in similar characters. These most sacred bodies, now no longer clearly known to any and enclosed by walls, remained hidden for a length of time until the last century, when Garzius Millinus, who took his title of cardinal from the church, who was also urban vicar to Paul V (1605‑21), proceeded to restore and adorn this very ancient shrine from the great love he bore to the blessed martyrs and, while wholly occupied with the work, he suddenly came upon these extremely ancient stone chests and in them the most precious bodies of the martyrs, together with very many relics of other holy martyrs, some of which were of great value. This discovery was the source of the greatest rejoicing to himself, the people and to the Supreme Pontiff, who was zealous in adorning the monuments of sacred antiquity. Wherefore, being animated by a singular accession of devotion, because, under the golden era of his pontificate, new treasures of sacred things hitherto invisible had, by the especial revelation of heaven, beer made manifest as well to the city as to the world, he, accompanied by a noble attendance of cardinals, by the leaders of the Roman Court and by a great multitude of the Roman people, proceeded with all convenient speed to the sacred and venerable relics. Further, Fedinus, canon of St. Maria, Maggiore, a counsellor of the aforesaid Cardinal Millinus and an eye‑witness of the above events, gave a public account, diligently drawn up as usual of the worshipped and adorable finding of these relics, also a most excellent account sufficiently detailed to satisfy the curiosity of individuals, to which we refer the reader who may be desirous of further information. And so much for these things.

 

There is a short notice in Le Cose Maravigliose Di Roma, per Giacomo Mascardi, 1622, which differs slightly, inasmuch as it makes Adrian I to have preceded Leo IV as restorer of the church. The Mirabilia Urbis Rome, 1618, with which the former is sometimes bound up, makes no mention of the founder Melchiades or of Adrian I, but says, " Honorius I xdificavit, collapsam fere restituit S. Leo IV, instauravit deinde Paschalis II." Precisely the same statement appears in Las Cosas Maravillosas De la Sancta Ciudad De Roma, 1589. Of the present state of the edifice we have the following description (J. Donovan, D.D., Rome Ancient and ffodern, 1842, vol. i, p. 631) .

 

SS. Quattro Coronati. The church of the Four Crowned Brothers is situated on the summit of the Cxlian hill between the hospital of St. John Lateran and St. Clements. It was first built, according to Panvinio, by Pope Melchiades in the fourth century; it derives its name from the four martyrs, Severus, Severianus, Carpophorus and Victorinus, who suffered in the persecution of Diocletian, whose bodies were deposited here by Leo IV in the ninth century (Anas. Biblioth. Vit. Leon IV). It was subsequently repaired by several Pontiffs, also by Cardinal Carillo in the time of Martin V, as is recorded by an inscription in its inner vestibule. The annexed Camaldolese convent was converted by Pius IV in 15 6o into a female orphan‑house, placed under the care of resident Augustinian nuns.

 

It is entered by a rude vestibule and two atria with porticos, in the inner one of which is a door to the right opening into a very ancient chapel dedicated to St. Sylvester, 234 THE QUATUOR CORONATI now belonging to the confraternity of sculptors. On its walls are several paintings of the seventh and eighth centuries, illustrative of the life of Constantine. The church is divided into a nave and two small aisles by eight granite columns, over which rises a sort of superstructure in the manner of the ancient basilicas, adorned with eight similar but smaller columns. The floor, which is much worn, has been a handsome specimen of opus Alexandrinum or mosaic. Over the first altar, to the right, is a painting of St. Augustin learning, as a child, the exhaustless depth of the profound mystery of the Blessed Trinity. Next comes the handsome monument of Mons. Aloysio d'Aquino, who died in 1679. The flight of steps which we meet next, also the corresponding one on the opposite side, lead down to the subterranean chapel, inside the altar of which repose the bodies of the Four Crowned martyrs, together with those of several other saints. In the tribune, the under range of paintings represents the conversion, martyrdom, etc., of the five sculptors,.Claudius, etc., whose relics are preserved in this church. The second range represents the sufferings and death of the four Crowned martyrs and, above, the cornice is a glory, much admired for the excellence of the design and the freedom of the execution, all by Manozzi, called Giovanne da S. Giovanni. Over the next altar, in the left aisle, is a St. Sebastian by Baglioni : the head of the martyr is preserved over the altar, having been enclosed in a silver case by Gregory IV, and placed here by Leo IV. Over the last altar is the Annunciation by some obscure hand. The Station occurs on the 27th day of Lent and the festival on the 8th Nov.

 

The observations which next follow have been forwarded from Rome by Shakespeare Wood.

 

The church, or rather Basilica, was dedicated to the 11 Quattro Coronati ed i Cinque Scultori Martiri " jointly.

 

The Holy Martyrs, of whom the legend speaks, were probably the Cinque. But as the Basilica was generally called and known by the first part only of its name, i.e. " The Quattro Coronati," so, as time passed, the memory of the five sculptors or masons became, so to say, blended in that of the Four Crowned ones and these latter to be considered as the patrons of masons.

 

The oldest inscription in the Basilica states" The blessed Leo IV (who rebuilt the church 847‑55) replaced beneath the altar the bodies of the Holy Martyrs, Claudius, Nicostratus, Sinforian, Castor and Simplicius, and of the Holy Quattro Coronati, Severus, Severianus, Carpophorus and Victor." This inscription gives the post of honour in point of priority to the five sculptors and it is to be noted that they are described as ` i Santi Martiri,' as in the legend, while the other four, who were soldiers‑trumpeters corniftces‑are called ` i Santi Quattro Coronati,' as in the MS.

 

They were called Coronati because of the manner of their martyrdom. Moreover, in the inscription, the soldiers are grouped as the Quattro Coronati, while the masons are simply described in the plural as the " Holy Martyrs." These sculptors or masons suffered martyrdom in the reign of Diocletian rather than make a statue of ~Esculapius. Their bodies were thrown into the Tiber and, on being recovered, were placed in the catacomb " ad duos lauros " on the Via Labicana.

 

The four soldiers also suffered martyrdom later in the same reign and their bodies were laid by St. Melchiades in the catacomb " ad duos lauros," next to the THE QUATUOR CORONATI 235 bodies of the Holy Martyrs, Claudius, Nicostratus, Sinforian, Castor and Simplicius ‑i.e. the bodies of the five sculptors or masons.

 

Some years later Melchiades became Pope, 310; then he removed [persecution was now over] the bodies of the Holy Martyrs and of the Quattro Coronad to a Basilica on the Cxlian he had built and dedicated to their memory. This church must have been one of the very earliest built in Rome, for the reason that it was only in A.D. 3 ‑1 3 that Constantine the Great emancipated the Christians from the disabilities weighing upon them and it became possible for them to build churches without falling under the provisions of the penal code; and Melchiades died on the loth of Dec. of that same year.

 

Melchiades may have been a " Mason " (?). He was an African, but from what part I cannot ascertain and it is curious that among other church regulations he ordered that two candlesticks should stand upon the altar.

 

I find that St. Bernard wrote a life of Melchiades, the MS. of which is said to have been placed in the Library of Benet's College, Cambridge‑i.e. Corpus Christi. The Basilica of the Quattro Coronati in Rome was, therefore, built 300 years before that bearing the same name was founded at Canterbury‑but it is noteworthy that the primitive Basilica in Rome was rebuilt by Honorius I A.D. 622, that in Canterbury was founded A.D. 6‑1;,.

 

There may have been some special revival of the veneration of those particular saints at that time‑or a connecting link of some kind. On the death of Pope Sergius II A.D. 847, the clergy and people, who had then their part in the Pontifical election, assembled in the " Sand Quattro " and, taking the Cardinal Titular of the Basilica, carried him with great applause to the Patriarchal Basilica of St. John Lateran close by and acclaimed him Pope. He took the name of Leo IV and, as I have said, rebuilt the church with greater magnificence.

 

In A.D. ‑1084, it was burned down when Robert Guiscard took Rome and was again rebuilt for the third time, a palatial residence being added to it by Paschal II A.D. ‑1‑1‑16.

 

When 'the Lateran Palace was destroyed the Popes lived for some time in the Palace of the Quattro Coronati. Several Popes were elected there and several of the Titulars of the Basilica were, like Leo IV, elevated to the Pontifical throne. The day assigned to the Quattro Coronati and the Cinque Scultori Martiri is the 8th of Nov., which closes the octave of All Saints' and their office‑one of the oldest in the Breviary‑is ascribed to Pope Melchiades. If this be well founded, it must first have appeared in the Breviaries of his day.

 

St. Gregory I held the Basilica in great esteem and transferred to it the Station for the 4th Monday in Lent, as still observed.

 

The honour in which the Basilica was held was such that the Pontiff, when present in it on the Saints' Day‑the 8th Nov.‑wore his Tiara.

 

The very ancient oratory of St. Sylvester in the portico of the Basilica was the chapel of the confraternity of sculptors and masons, founded in the time of Innocent VII A.D. ‑1406, " under the invocation of the Holy Quattro Coronati and of the other five Holy Martyrs who had followed the profession of sculptors." The members of the confraternity wore a dress of red with blue sashes. They now assemble in the Church of St. Andrea in Vinchi, near the Piazza Montanara, on the side of the Capitoline Hill, as being more convenient than the old oratory. Since what date this change was made, I cannot at the moment tell, except that it was anterior, but THE QUATUOR CORONATI perhaps not long anterior to 1756. The primitive basilica of the Quattro Coronati was built before the Patriarchal Basilica of St. John Lateran, the cathedral of Rome, which was consecrated by St. Sylvester, the successor of Melchiades, A.D. 3i9.

 

In a subject of much antiquarian interest and in which some little but, considering all the circumstances, by no means excessive, confusion exists, it is better to give every possible authority at length, to use a common phrase, without note or comment,‑and now, having arrived at the tolerably safe conclusion that at first five sculptors‑clearly not masons‑and shortly after four soldiers or officers, civil or military, were martyred, probably on the same day and interred, certainly, in the same spot, whereof one set supplied the name and the other the emblems to future generations,‑we now come to the consideration of what these emblems were, after which will be added a few general observations on the whole subject.

 

The emblems of these martyrs, since they became patrons of the building trades, consist of the saw, hammer, mallet, compasses and square ; these instruments, especially in Belgium, are sometimes found surmounted by a small crown, to signify their intimate connexion with the Four. These latter are also represented with a dog or a wolf, to signify the animals who either refused to eat their corpses or prevented others from eating them, when exposed for five days in the public thoroughfare. The hammer, etc., is used by various trades, such as carpenters and joiners ; hence they have taken these saints for their patrons. In Brussels, shoemakers have even, as it were, ranged themselves under their banner. But there are later innovations, which were adopted when the Flemish trades were gradually reorganized in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, from motives of public policy. To what do the crowns of the Four Crowned ones refer ? It may have been to certain distinguishing ornaments which, when alive and holding their offices, the martyrs wore upon their heads, but their position was, perhaps, too obscure for such a distinction ; it is more likely to refer to the crown of martyrdom, which, in process of time, became more peculiarly attached to them;‑as in the case of St. George, the dragon originally meant sin and the saint trampling on the beast represented the triumph of the martyr over sin. Viewed in this light, it is a very common attribute of the earlier pictures of saints, especially of St. Mary Magdalen, but it has since become the more or less exclusive property of St. George.

 

A good deal has been made of the Four Martyrs, taking the name for the whole, from a Masonic point of view, but, possibly, erroneously. These martyrs were the patron saints of particular trades, chosen, like the patron saints of all other trades, long after the event of martyrdom, when the trades acquired some corporate or other organized form and, when, in consequence, they chose for patrons those who had some kind of affinity, more or less remote, with their own pursuits. Hence the antiquity of the legend of the Four does not prove the antiquity of the Masonic body; taken in its medixval, i.e. working, sense, it merely shows that, as might naturally be expected, the building trades chose those saints whose calling had some THE QUATUOR CORONATI 237 kind of connexion with their own and, as they could not actually get bricklayers and stonemasons, they not unnaturally chose sculptors. No account makes them masons and the Masonic tinge in Germany has evidently been given by Masonic influence.

 

It is a curious fact, however, that in dioceses where, at the time, great cathedrals were being erected, as at Spires, 1477 ; Utrecht, 1497 ; and Wurzburg, 148o, the Breviaries contain ample details of the Four; whilst they are barely mentioned in those of Basle and Constance, 148o; Salzburg, 148z ; Liittich,149z ; and Erfurt 1495. The medixval masons did not, probably, perfect their organization until the fifteenth century. All the instances given by the German authorities, as far, at least, as can be ascertained, relate to this period. The statutes of the stonemasons of Strasburg, said to be the earliest, date from 1459. Then come the regulations of 146z. Merzdorf, in his Medals of the Freemasons, mentions a copper medal, probably emanating from the Society of the Four Crowned Martyrs at Antwerp, the date of which is 1546; they are also mentioned in the Missale Coloniense, 148o and in the Passio Sanctorum quatuor Coronatorum, printed by Wattenbach at Vienna in 18 5 3, from a MS. in the Ducal Library at Coburg, but of which the date is not given. Schauberg, in his work on the Symbolism of Freemasonry, states that the Meister tafel (master table) at Basle had on each of its sides a representation of one of the Four Crowned Martyrs. Neither of these two instances appears to be late. We have seen above that the confraternity of the sculptors and masons at Rome did not occupy the chapel at the Quattro Coronati at Rome until 1406. So, in England, all tends to the conclusion that the Masonic body took its complete and final form in the same century. In Moore's Freemason's Monthly Magazine (Boston, U.S.A., April 1863), it is said that " it is impossible at this day to decide with certainty which of these Breviaries is the original source from which this legend has been taken." If Freemasons would only cease reading in a circle and take counsel of some other writers besides those within the mystic pale, they would see that the legend of the Four, besides being perfectly natural and authentic, is of immeasurably higher antiquity than anything of which the building or any other trades can boast. It will be tolerably evident to those who take the trouble to reason calmly and correctly, that when the guilds, trade unions, or by whatever name the associations of workmen may have been called, were formed, that, according as was the fashion of the times, they chose patron saints and that the building trades chose the sculptors, under the generic name of the Four Holy Martyrs, as being the nearest approach to men of their own calling. All references to the ars quadrataria, their being masons, etc., are clearly the invention of those trades whose patrons they had become, to bring them more closely en rapport. Cahier says that the Carpophorus and Severinus, whose martyrdom, together with that of others, was celebrated the 7th August (vide supra), were, in reality, martyred at Como and that their being confused with two out of the Crowned was the cause of the latter having been considered as the patron saints of Como. But both Surius and the Bollandists concur in fixing the martyrdom of the above Severinus and his comrades at Milan, which, though tolerably near to, is emphati‑ 238 THE QUATUOR CORONATI cally not the same place as, Como. The Magistri Comacini were celebrated as builders in the earlier portion of the Middle Ages ; it is probable, though apparently there is no proof of it, that it was here that the Four, again speaking generally, became the patrons of the building trades. When did these Magistri Comacini flourish ? The sole authority is Muratori, who in the commencement of one of his dissertations merely says, speaking of progress in Italy, that the masons of Como became so famous that the name was used in other countries as synonymous with a skilled mason (Lombardo, as a generic name, certainly existed in Spain). But what date was this ? Muratori gives none, not the clue to any and it may be said of Muratori as of the Bollandists, that what was beyond the power of his research may fairly be given up as beyond investigation. Still, it could not have been very early and the influence of Lombard and Byzantine architecture in Western Europe will, on examination, be found to be exceedingly mythical.

 

The generality of guilds, whether an entirely new invention, or imitated from the Roman Collegia, or their revival after they had been hidden, like seed in the ground, among obscure meetings of the people during a long period of ignorance and barbarism, do not, apparently, date much before the year 1000 A.D., for the same reason that, prior to that period, society was not in a sufficiently settled or advanced stage, as to admit of any great progress in the arts and, consequently, to induce any extended trades organizations; and this would be more especially the case among the building trades. It has, indeed, been said that St. Augustine officiated in the Church of the Four Martyrs at Rome before coming to England and, as a church dedicated to the same martyrs, is casually mentioned by Bede, speaking of a fire that occurred in Canterbury, A.D. 619 ; it has been sought to connect the two events ; and, to deduce from them a kind of strange theory that, in some way or another, St. Augustine was instrumental in introducing Masonry into Britain. Now, in the first place, it is as well that readers should disabuse their minds once and for all of the idea that the Catholic Church had ever any connexion with Masonry. The employer and the mistress of the operative masons in the Middle Ages, she has been the unflinching antagonist of Speculative Masonry in modern times; but has never been the ally or the originator of either, unless, in the sense of a demand creating a supply, in the Middle Ages. Next, who built the church at Canterbury ? Three hundred years almost, if not quite, elapsed between the martyrdom of the Four, an event whichwas almost contemporaneous with the establishment of theChristian as the State religion and the coming of Augustine. Why should we assume that the church was necessarily built in the twenty years or so between the coming of Augustine and the fire, not in the 300 years before ? It must not be forgotten that, as may indeed be gathered from the legends, these saints were in early times exceedingly popular‑for saints have their fashion and popularity, as well as persons ; take St. George, who after all was a very ordinary kind of martyr; and it is therefore exceedingly likely that a church built in those times would be dedicated to them, whether erected by St. Augustine or not. Moreover, Augustine was a Benedictine monk, therefore, could not well belong to the Church of the Four at Rome, which THE QUATUOR CORONATI 239 was not connected with the Benedictine (then the sole religious) fraternity. Lastly, even taking the most extravagant supposition, assuming that Augustine did come from the Church of the Four at Rome and did build the church at Canterbury, it only proves that he remembered his former home and does not prove any connexion with building trade organizations that sprang up hundreds of years later, at which time only the connexion, such as it was, between the masons and the Four began.

 

Ireland names the churches of St. Martin and of the Four Crowned Martyrs as the oldest ecclesiastical edifices in Canterbury. To the former he assigns the earlier date and thinks that the latter, which stood on ground now occupied by the church of St. Alphage, was erected about the time of St. Augustine, A.D. 5 97, its name (Four Crowned Martyrs) being conferred by one of the earliest archbishops, of whom the three first were Romans (History of the County of Kent, 1828, vol. i, pp. 157, 166). On the other hand, however, the view already presented in the text is supported by the arguments of a learned writer, which are the more conclusive from the fact of being penned without special reference to the point in dispute. According to Coote, Britain in the fifth century was abundantly furnished with churches and the Christianity of this island was continued without a break from the date of St. Alban's martyrdom (A.D. 303) down to the arrival of St. Augustine (The Romans of Britain, 1878, pp. 417, 419).

 

The Germans assume that, because the Four appear in their early ordinances, therefore our Masons must have derived their origin from them. The argument, which is well worthy of a German, runs as follows: " Muller and Smith both rejoice in the Christian name of Charles, therefore Mullet is not only senior to, but either father or uncle to, Smith." On the same principle it might be contended that, because the old churches at Yarmouth and Brighton are both dedicated to St. Nicholas, the patron saint of fishermen, that, therefore, the Brighton fishermen must necessarily be descended from those of Yarmouth. It might equally well be the other way ; but, of course, the truth simply is, that fishermen being under the general protection of St. Nicholas, that class of men usually invoked his protection, wherever found and without any sort of cohesion or connexion and the attempt to assume a universal body of fishermen, sprung from one common origin, actuated by one common impulse, ruled by one common head, is about equivalent to supposing the same in connexion with the building trades. It has never been suggested of the one trade and, indeed, its absurdity would strike anyone at once and it is only misplaced ingenuity, false pride and narrow learning which has ever caused the idea to be entertained concerning the other. But, as it happens, Smith is, as far as we know, really older than Mullet‑i.e. the earliest Masonic document yet discovered, in which mention is made of the Four, is English and not German; and, as we have seen, the Crowned Martyrs were the patron saints of a British Church, many centuries, at least, before there is historic proof of the legend of their martyrdom having acquired currency in Germany.

 

Halliwell considers the MS. he has published, of a date " not later than the latter part of the fourteenth century," i.e. more than half a century before the 240 THE QUATUOR CORONATI Strasburg Constitutions. The following are the lines relating to the Four (Early History of Freemasonry in England, pp. 31, 32) Ars quatuor coronatorum.

 

Pray we now to God almyght, And to hys swete moder Mary bryght, That we mowe keepe these artyculus here, And these poynts wel al y‑fere, As dede these holy martyres fowre, That yn thys craft were of gret honoure ; They were as gode masonus as on erthe shul go, Gravers and ymage‑makers they were also.

 

For they were werkemen of the beste, The emperour hade to hem gret Juste ; He wylned of hem a ymage to make, That mowt be worscheped for his sake ; Such mawmetys lie bade yn hys dawe, To turne the pepul from Crystus lawe. But they were stedefast yn Crystus lay, And to here craft, withouten nay; For they nolde not forsake here trw fay, An byleve on hys falsse lay.

 

The emperour let take hem sone anone, And putte hem ynto a dep presone ; The sarre he penest hem yn that plase, The more yoye wes to hem of Cristus grace. Thenne when he sye no nother won, To dethe he lette hem thenne gon ; Whose wol of here lyf yet mor knowe, By the bok he may hyt schowe, In the legent of scanctorum, The names of quatuor coronatorum. Here fest wol be withoute nay, After Alle Halwen the eyght day.

 

CHAPTER XI THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON HE original grant of arms to the " Hole Crafte and felawship of Masons," dated the twelfth year of Edward IV [1472‑14731, from William Hawkeslowe, Clarenceux King of Arms, is now in the British Museum (Addl. MSS. 19, 13 5). No crest is mentioned in the grant, although one is figured on the margin (see Masonic Magazine, vol. ii, p. 87, where the text of the document is given at length), with the arms, as follows :‑Sable on a chevron engrailed between three square castles triple‑towered argent, masoned of the first, a pair of compasses extended silver. Crest, on a wreath of the colours a castle as in the arms, but as was often the case slightly more ornamental in form.

 

This grant was confirmed by Thomas Benolt, Clarenceux, twelfth Henry VIII or 1520‑z1 and entered in the Visitation of London made by Henry St. George, Richmond Herald in 1634.

 

At some later time the engrailed chevron was changed for a plain one and the old ornamental towered castles became single towers, both in the arms and crest. The arms thus changed are given by Stow in his Survey of London, 1633 and have been repeated by other writers since his time. A change in the form of the towers is noticed by Randle Holme in his Academie of Armory, 1688 (P. zoo verso. See also Masonic Magazine, January 18 8z). " Of olde," he says, " the towers were triple towered " ; and to him we are indebted for the knowledge that the arms had columns for supporters. These arms he attributes to the " Right Honored and Right Worshipfull company of ffree‑Masons." Seymour in his Survey of the Cities of London and ilestminster (vol. ii, b. iv, p. 381), 173 5, gives the date of the incorporation of the company " about 141 o, having been called Free‑Masons, a Fraternity of great Account, who having been honour'd by several Kings and very many of the Nobility and Gentry being of their Society," etc. He describes the colour of the field of the arms, azure or blue.

 

Maitland in his History and Survey of London (p. 1248), 1756, describes the arms properly and adds that the motto is " In the Lord is all our Trust." Although of considerable antiquity, he says that the Company was " only incorporated by Letters Patent on the 29th of Charles II, 17th September, anno 1677, by the name of the Master, Wardens, Assistants and Commonalty of the Company of Masons of the City of London," etc.

 

Berry in his Encyclopedia Heraldica (vol. i, " Masons ") states that it was incorporated zd of Henry II, 1411, which may be a misprint for i zth of Henry IV, I41o‑11, following Stow (1633), or for the date at which the arms were granted 241 242 THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON 12th Edw. IV. He adds that the Company was re‑incorporated September 17, i 7th Charles II, 1677. Here is again an error. By no calculation could the i 2th Charles II be the year 1677 ; it was the 29th regnal year of that king as stated by Maitland from the Patent Roll.

 

On the annexed plate will be found the arms of the companies as given by Stow in 1633 ; and with them a number of arms of the French and German companies of Masons, Carpenters and joiners taken from the magnificent work of Lacroix and Sere, Le Moyen Age et la Renaissance (1848‑51). The latter show the use of various building implements, the square, compasses, rule, trowel, in the armorial bearings of the Masons, etc., of other countries. To these are added in the plate, for comparison, the arms as painted upon two rolls of the Old Charges, both dated in the same year, viz. 1686,‑one belonging to the Lodge of Antiquity, No. 2 ; and the other preserved in the museum at Duke Street, St. James's, S.W. It is interesting to note that the arms are precisely similar to those figured by Stow in 163 3 and that, in each case, they are associated with the arms of the City of London, proving beyond doubt that both these rolls, which are handsomely illuminated at the top, were prepared originally for London Lodges of Masons or Freemasons.

 

One important misstatement which has acquired general currency, through its original appearance in a work of deservedly high reputation (Herbert, Companies of London, vol. i, p. 34), stands in need of correction. Reginald R. Sharpe, who, in 1879, was kind enough to search the archives of the City of London for early references to the terms Mason and Freemason, says Herbert in his Companies of London refers to " lib. Ix., fo. 46 " among the Corporation Records for a list of the Companies who sent representatives to the Court of Common Council for the year 5o Edw. III [1376‑1377]. He probably means Letter Book H., fo. 46 b., where a list of that kind and of that date is to be found. In it are mentioned the " Freemasons " and " Masons," but the representatives of the former are struck out and added to those of the latter.

 

The term " Fre[e]masons " never varies; " Masons " becomes Masouns in Norman French; and Cementarii in Latin.

 

The preceding remarks are of value, as they dispel the idea that in early civic days the Masons and Freemasons were separate companies. The former body, indeed, appears to have absorbed the Merblers [i.e. workers in marble], of whom Seymour (following Stow) says The Company called by the Name of Marblers, for their excellent knowledge and skill in the art of inscuiping Figures on Gravestones, Monuments and the like, were an antient Fellowship, but no incorporated Company of themselves, tho' now joined with the Company of Masons.

 

Arms :‑Sable, a chevron between two Chissels in Chief, and a Mallet in Base, Argent. (See Robert Seymour, A Survey of the Cities of London and Westminster, 1735, bk. iv, P‑ 392‑) THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON 243 Down to the period of the Great Fire of London, the Company of Carpenters would appear to have stood at least on a footing of equality with that of the Masons. If, on the one hand, we find in the early records mention of the King's Freemason, on the other hand there is as frequent allusion to the King's Carpenter (see E. B. Jupp, Historical Account of the Company of Carpenters, 1848, p. 16 S ; and Transactions Royal Institute of British Architects, i861‑z, pp. 37‑6o) and promotion to the superior office of Surveyor of the King's Works was as probable in the one case as in the other. (In the reign of Henry VIII, the office of Surveyor of the King's Works was held successively by two members of the Carpenters' Company. See Jupp, op. cit., p. 174.) The city records show that, at least, as early as the beginning of the reign of Edward I (127 z), two master Carpenters and the same number of master Masons, were sworn as officers to perform certain duties with reference to buildings and walls and the boundaries of land in the city, evidently of much the same nature as those confided to a similar number of members of these two companies, under the title of City Viewers, until within little more than a century ago. In the matter of precedence the Carpenters stood the 25th and the Masons the 31st on the list of companies. Nor was the freedom of their craft alone asserted by members of the junior body. If the Masons styled themselves Free Masons, so likewise did the Carpenters assume the appellation of Free Carpenters, though there seems to be no instance of the latter adopting the common prefix, otherwise than in a collective capacity.

 

According to a schedule of wages for all classes of artificers, determined by the justices of the peace in 161o, we find that the superior or Master Freemason was hardly on a footing of equality with the Master Carpenter, e.g.

 

With Meat. Without Meat. s. d. s. d.

 

A Freemason which can draw his plot, work, and set accord ingly, having charge over others‑ Before Michaelmas, 8 o 12 0 After Michaelmas, 6 o io 0 A master carpenter, being able to draw his plot, and to be master of work over others‑ Before Michaelmas, 8 o 14 0 After Michaelmas, 6 o io 0 " With meat," a Freemason and master bricklayer were each to receive 6s. ; " a rough mason, which can take charge over others," 5 s. ; and a bricklayer, 4s. (The Rates of Wages of Servants, Labourers and Artificers, set down and assessed at Oakham, within the County of Rutland, by the Justices of the Peace there, the z8th day of April, Anno Domini, 16io‑Arrbaologia, vol. xi, pp. zoo, zo3).

 

Of course, the details just given do not possess anything more than an operative significance ; but the classification into " rough masons capable of taking charge over others," Freemasons simpliciter and Freemasons who can draw plots‑by justices of the peace, in a sparsely populated county‑‑affords a good illustration of the difficulties which are encountered when an attempt is made to trace the actual meaning of the operative term, by which the members of our speculative society are now described.

 

244 THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON After the Great Fire of London, the demand for labour being necessarily great, " foreigners " as well as freemen readily obtained employment, much to the prejudice of the masons and carpenters, as well as to other members of the building trades. By a Statute of 1666, entitled " An act for Rebuilding the Citty of London " (18 and 19, Car. II, c. viii, s. xvi), it was ordained That all Carpenters, Brickelayers, Masons, Plaisterers, Joyners, and other Artificers, Workemen, and Labourers, to be employed on the said Buildings [in the City of London], who are not Freemen of the said Citty, shall for the space of seaven yeares next ensueing, and for soe long time after as untill the said buildings shall be fully finished, have and enjoy such and the same liberty of workeing and being sett to worke in the said building as the Freemen of the Citty of the same Trades and Professions have and ought to enjoy, Any Usage or Custome of the Citty to the contrary notwithstanding : And that such Artificers as aforesaid, which for the space of seaven yeares shall have wrought in the rebuilding of the Citty in their respective Arts, shall from and after the said seaven yeares have and enjoy the same Liberty to worke as Freemen of the said Citty for and dureing their naturall lives. Provided alwayes, that said Artificers claiming such priviledges shall be lyeable to undergoe all such offices, and to pay and performe such Dutyes in reference to the Service and Government of the Citty, as Freemen of the Citty of their respective Arts and Trades are lyeable to undergoe, pay, and performe.

 

This statute materially affected the interests, and diminished the influence, of the two leading companies connected with the building trades. In 1675, Thomas Seagood, a tiler and bricklayer, was chosen by the Court of Aldermen as one of the four City Viewers, an innovation upon the invariable usage of selecting these officials from the Masons' and Carpenters' Companies. As three years later there occurred a similar departure from the ordinary custom, it has been suggested that as the fire of London had occasioned the erection of wooden houses to be prohibited, the Court of Aldermen considered that a bricklayer would be a better judge of the new buildings than a carpenter, and as good a judge as a mason ; though it may well excite surprise that a Glazier, a Weaver, and a Glover were successively chosen Viewers in the years 1679, 1685, and 1695. (See Jupp, op. cit., p. 19z.) The masons, carpenters, bricklayers, joiners, and plasterers of London, feeling themselves much aggrieved at the encroachments of " foreigners " who had not served an apprenticeship, made common cause, and jointly petitioned the Court of Aldermen for their aid and assistance, but though the matter was referred by the civic authorities to a committee of their own body, there is no evidence that the associated companies obtained any effectual redress.

 

These details are of importance, for, however immaterial, upon a cursory view, they may seem to the inquiry we are upon, it will be seen as we proceed, that the statutory enactments passed for the rebuilding of London and of St. Paul's Cathedral, by restricting the powers of the companies, may not have been without their influence in paving the way for the ultimate development of English Freemasonry into the form under which it has happily come down to us.

 

THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON 245 It was the subject of complaint by the free carpenters and their grievance must have been common to all members of the building trades, that by pretext of the Stat. 18 and 19, Car. II, c. viii, a great number of artificers using the trade of car penters procured themselves to be made free of London, of other companies ; whilst many others were freemen of other‑ companies, not by the force of the said Act and yet used the trade of carpenters. Such artificers, it was stated, refused to submit themselves to the by‑laws of the Carpenters' Company, whereby the public were deceived by insufficient and ill workmanship. Even members of the petitioners' own company, it was alleged, had " for many years past privately obtained carpenters free of other companies to bind apprentices for them and cause them to be turned over unto them," there being no penalty in the by‑laws for such offences. " By means whereof," the petition goes on to say, " the carpenters free of other companies are already grown to a very great number; your Petitioners defrauded of their Quarterage and just Dues, which should maintain and support their increasing Poor; and their Corporation reduced to a Name without a Substance." (See Jupp, op. cit., Appendix I. See also The Ancient Trades Decayed, Re paired Again. Written by a Country Tradesman, London, x678, p. 51, where the hardship endured by a person's trade being different from that of the company of which he is free, is pointed out ; and it is contended that " it would be no prejudice to any of the Companies, for every one to have his liberty to come into that Company that his trade is of, without paying anything more for it.") The charter granted to the Masons' Company in the 29th year of Charles II (x677)‑confirming, in all probability, the earlier instrument which was (in the opinion of John Hunter, for many years clerk of the company) burnt in the Great Fire‑provides that the privileges of the Masons' Company are not to interfere with the rebuilding of the Cathedral Church of St. Paul.

 

At that time, except by virtue of the operation of the statute before alluded to [18 and 19, Car. II, c. viii, s. xvi], no one could exercise the trade of a mason without belonging to, or by permission of, the Masons' Company.

 

Incidental to the jurisdiction of the company were certain powers of search, which were exercised so late as 1678. In the early part of that year the minutes record that " a search was made after unlawful workers " and various churches appear to have been thus visited, amongst others, St. Paul's. On April 25 in the same year a second search was made, which is thus recorded: "Went to Paul's with Mr. Story, and found 14 foreigners." Afterwards and, apparently, in consequence of the proceedings last mentioned, several " foreigners " were admitted members and others licensed by the Masons' Company.

 

The " Freedom " and " Court " books of the company alike, commence in 1677, which has rendered the identification of some of its members exceedingly difficult, inasmuch as, unless actually present at the subsequent meetings, their connexion with the company is only established by casual entries, such as the binding of apprentices and the like‑wherein, indeed, a large number of members, whose admissions date before 1677, are incidentally referred to. Still, it is much to be 246 THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON regretted that an accurate roll of the freemen of this guild extends no higher than 1677. One old book, however, has escaped the general conflagration and, though it only fills up an occasional hiatus in the list of members preceding the Great Fire, it contributes, nevertheless, two material items of information, which in the one case explains a passage in Stow (ed. 1633, p. 630) of great interest to Freemasons, and in the other by settling one of the most interesting points in Masonic history, affords a surer footing for backward research than has hitherto been attained.

 

The record, or volume in question, commences with the following entry [162o].‑" The ACCOMPTE of James Gilder, William Ward, and John Abraham, Wardens of the company of ffremasons." The title, " Company of Freemasons," appears to have been used down to the year 165 3, after which date it gives place to " Worshipful Company," and " Company of Masons." The point in Masonic history which this book determines is " that Robert Padgett, Clearke to the Worshippfull Society of the Free Masons of the City of London," in 1686, whose name‑together with that of William Bray, Freeman of London and Free‑mason‑is appended to the MS. Constitutions (23) in the possession of the Lodge of Antiquity, was not the clerk of the Masons' Company. The records reveal, that in 1678 " Henry Paggett, Citizen and Mason," had an apprentice bound to him. Also, that in 1709, James Paget was the Renter's Warden. But the clerk not being a member of the company, his name was vainly searched for by Hunter in the records post‑dating the Great Fire. The minutes of 1686 and 1687 frequently mention " the clerk " and the payments made to him, but give no name. The old Accompte Book, however, already mentioned, has an entry under the year 1687, viz. " Mr. Stampe, Cleark," which, being in the same handwriting as a similar one in 1686, also referring to the clerk, but without specifying him by name, establishes the fact that " the Worshippfull Society of the Free Masons of the City of London," whose clerk transcribed the " Constitutions " in the possession of our oldest English Lodge, and the " Company of Masons " in the same city, were distinct and separate bodies.

 

Whether Valentine Strong, whose epitaph has been given in an earlier chapter, was a member of the Company, cannot positively be determined, but as Hunter entertains no doubt of it, it may be taken that he was. At all events, five of his sons, out of six, undoubtedly were, viz. Edward and John, admitted April 6, 168o, the latter " made free by service to Thomas Strong," the eldest brother, whose own admission preceding, it must be supposed, the year 1677, is only disclosed by a casual entry; Valentine on July 5, 1687; and Timothy on October 16,16go. Also Edward Strong, junior, made free by service to his father in 1698.

 

In terminating the extracts from these records, it is only necessary to observe, that no meeting of the Masons' Company appears to have taken place on March 1 i, 1682. Neither Ashmole, Wren, nor Anthony Sayer were members of the company. The books record nothing whatever under the years 16gi or 1716‑17, which would lend colour to a great convention having been held at St. Paul's, or tend to shed the THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON 247 faintest ray of light upon the causes of the so‑called "Revival." The words " Lodge " or " Accepted " do not occur in any of the documents and, in all cases, members were " admitted " to the freedom. Thomas Morrice (or Morris) and William Hawkins, Grand Wardens in 1718‑19, and 1722 respectively, were members of the company, the former having been " admitted " in 1701, and the latter in 1712.

 

The significance which attaches to the absence of any mention whatever of either William Bray or Robert Padgett, in the records of the Masons' Company, will be duly considered when the testimony of Ashmole and his biographers has been supplemented by that of Plot, Aubrey and Randle Holme, which, together with the evidence supplied by our old manuscript Constitutions, will enable us to survey seventeenth‑century Masonry as a whole, to combine the material facts and to judge of their mutual relations.

 

Before, however, passing from the exclusive domain of operative masonry it may incidentally be observed that, by all writers alike, no adequate distinction between the Freemasons of the Lodge and those of the guild or company, has been maintained. Hence, a good deal of the mystery which overhangs the early meaning of the term. This, to some slight extent, may be dispelled and, by extracts from accredited records, such as parish registers and municipal charters, the actual positions in life of those men who, in epitaphs and monumental inscriptions extending from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries, are described as Freemasons may be indicated.

 

To begin with, the Accompte Book, of the Masons' Company informs us that from 1620 to 165 3 the members were styled " ffremasons." If there were earlier records, they would doubtless attest a continuity of the usage from more remote times. Still, the extract given by Sharpe from the City Archives carries it back, inferentially, to the reign of Edward III.

 

In The Calendar of State Papers (Domestic Series, 1603‑10, p. 163) will be found the following entry: " 1604, Oct. 31.‑Grant of an incorporation of the Company of Freemasons, Carpenters, Joiners and Slaters of the City of Oxford." Richard Maude, Hugh Daives, and Robert Smith, " of the Citty of Oxon, Freemasons," so described in a receipt given by them, December 2o, 1633, the contractors for the erection of " new buildings at St. John's College," were probably members of this guild. This rests on the authority of some extracts from documents in the State Paper Office, sent to the Duke of Sussex by (Sir) Robert Peel, April 26, 1830 and now preserved in the archives of the United Grand Lodge. Hughan published the extracts in the Voice of Masonry, October 1872, A charter of like character was granted by the Bishop of Durham, April 24, 1671, to " Miles Stapylton, Esquire, Henry Frisoll, gentleman, Robert Trollap, Henry Trollap " and others, " exerciseing the severall trades of ffree Masons, Carvers, Stone‑cutters, Sculptures [Marblers], Brickmakers, Glaysers, Penterstainers, Founders, Neilers, Pewderers, Plumbers, Mill‑wrights, Saddlers and Bridlers, Trunk‑makers and Distillers of all sorts of strong waters." A transcript of the original was made by W. H. Rylands. On the dexter margin of the actual charter 148 THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON are the arms of the [Free] Masons and, on the sinister margin, those of the Sculptures [Marblers].

 

This ancient document has some characteristic features. In the first place, the Freemasons occupy the post of honour, and the two Trollops are known by evidence aliunde to have been members of that craft. On the north side of a mausoleum at Gateshead stood, according to tradition, the image or statue of Robert Trollop, with his arm raised, pointing towards the town hall of Newcastle, of which he had been the architect, and underneath were the following quaint lines Here lies Robert Trowlup Who made yon stones roll up When death took his soul up His body filled this hole up.

 

(See R. Surtees, History and Antiquities of the County of Durham, 1820, vol. ii, p. 120. According to the Gateshead Register, " Henry Trollop, free‑mason," was buried November 23, 1677 and "Mr. Robert Trollop, masson," December i 1, 1686. See further, T. Pennant, Tour in Scotland, 1790, vol. iii, p. 310.) The bishop's charter constitutes the several crafts into a " comunitie, ffellowshipp and company " ; names the first wardens, who were to be four in number, Robert Trollap heading the list and subject to the proviso, that one of the said wardens " must allwaies bee a ffree mason " ; directs that the incorporated body " shall upon the fower and twentieth day of June, comonly called the feast of St John Baptist, yearely, for ever, assemble themselves together before nine of the clock in the fore noone of the same day and there shall, by the greatest number of theire voices, elect and chuse fouer of the said fellowshippe to be theire wardens and one other fitt person to be the clarke ; . . .‑. and shall vpon the same day make freemen and brethren ; and shall, vpon the said fover and twentieth day of June and att three other feasts or times in the yeare‑that is to saie, the feast of St Michael the Archangel, St John Day in Christeninas and the five and twentieth day of March, . ‑ . for ever assemble themselves together, .‑. .‑. and shall alsoe consult, agree vpon, and set downe such orders, acts, and constitucons .‑. .‑. as shall be thought necessarie." Absence from " the said assemblies " without " any reasonable excuse " was rendered punishable by fine, a regulation which forcibly recalls the quaint phraseology of the Masonic poem And to that semble he must nede gon, But he have a resenabul skwsacyon, That ys a skwsacyon, good and abulle, To that semble withoute fabulle. (Halliwell MS. (i) line i i r.) The charter and funds of the corporation were to be kept in a " chist," of which each warden was to have a key. Lastly, the period of apprenticeship, in all cases, was fixed at seven years. " The very soul of the Craft‑Gild was its meetings, which were always held with certain ceremonies, for the sake of greater solemnity. The THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON 249 box, having several locks, like that of the trade‑unions and containing the charters of the Gild, the statutes, the money and other valuable articles, was opened on such occasions, when all present had to uncover their heads " (Brentano, On the History and Development of Gilds, p. 61). It maybe useful to state that all references to Brentano's work are taken from the reprint in a separate form, not from the historical Essay prefixed to Smith's English Gilds.

 

The value of this charter is much enhanced by our being able to trace two, at least, of the persons to whom it was originally granted. Freemason and mason would almost seem, from the Gateshead Register, to have been words of indifferent application, though, perhaps, the explanation of the varied form in which the burials of the two Trollops are recorded may simply be, that the entries were made by different scribes, of whom one blundered‑a supposition which the trade designation employed to describe Robert Trollop does much to confirm.

 

The annual assembly on the day of St. John the Baptist is noteworthy, not less so the meeting on that of St. John the Evangelist in lieu of Christmas Daythe latter gathering forming as it does the only exception to the four yearly meetings being held on the usual quarter‑days.

 

In holding four meetings in the course of the year, of which one was the general assembly or head meeting day, the Gateshead Company or fellowship followed the ordinary guild custom. Toulmin Smith gives at least twenty‑three examples of quarterly meetings. " Every Gild had its appointed day or days of meeting‑once a year, twice, three times, or four times, as the case might be. At these meetings, called 'morn‑speeches,' in the various forms of the word, or ` dayes of spekyngges tokedere for here comune profyte,' much business was done, such as the choice of officers, admittance of new brethren, making up accounts, reading over the ordinances, etc.‑one day, where several were held in the year, being fixed as the ` general day ' " (English Gilds, introduction, by Lucy Toulmin Smith, p. xxxii). Cf. Fabric Rolls of York, Minster, Surtees Soc., vol. xxxv (pleghdai), p. I I ; Harl. 11S. 6971, fol. i z6 ; and Smith, English Gilds, pp. 8, 31, 76, and 274. The " making of freemen and brethren " is a somewhat curious expression, though it was by no means an unusual regulation that the freedom of a guild was to be conferred openly. Thus No. .

 

XVI of the Ordinances of Worcester directs " that no Burges be made in secrete wise, but openly, bifore suiciaunt recorde." (See Smith, English Gilds, p. 39o.) The rules of the " Gild of St. George the Martyr," Bishops Lynn, only permitted the admission of new‑comers at the yearly general assembly and, by assent of all, save good men from the country.

 

Whether the words " freemen and brethren " are to be read disjunctively or as convertible terms, it is not easy to decide. In the opinion of Toulmin Smith, the Craft Guild of Tailors, Exeter, " reckoned three classes," namely‑(i) the Master and Wardens and all who had passed these offices, forming the livery men; (z) the shop‑holders or master tailors, not yet advanced to the high places of the Guild; and (3) the " free‑sewers " or journeymen sewing masters, who had not yet become shop‑holders. The Ordinances of this Craft Guild, which, in their general 250 THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON tenor, date from the last half of the fifteenth century, enact, " That all Past Masters shall be on the Council of the Guild and have the same authority as the Wardens; also, that the Master, and not less than five Past Masters, together with two of the Wardens, must assent to every admittance to the Guild." oIt is consistent with this analogy, that the " brethren " made at Gateshead, on each 24th of June, were the passed apprentices or journeymen out of their time who had not yet set up in business on their own account; and the parallelism between the guild usages of Exeter and Gateshead is strengthened by the circumstance that the free‑sewers,‑i.e. stitchers‑or journeymen sewing masters, are also styled " ffree Brotherys " in the Exeter Ordinances. Besides Free Masons, Free Carpenters, Free Sewers and the " Free Vintners " of London, there were the " Free Dredgers " of Faversham, chartered by Henry II and still subsisting as the corporation of " free fishermen and free dredgermen " of the same hundred and manor in 1798. Each member had to serve a seven years' apprenticeship to a freeman and to be a married man, as indispensable qualifications for admission (E. Hasted, Historical and Topographical Survey of Kent, 1797‑18oi, vol. vi, p. 3 5 2) ; also the " ffree Sawiers," who in 1651 " indited a fforreine Sawier at the Old Bayly " (Jupp, op. cit., p. i6o) ; " Free Linen Weavers " (Minutes, St. Mungo Lodge, Glasgow, Sept. 25, 1784) ; and lastly, the " Free Gardeners," who formed a Grand Lodge in 1849, but of whose prior existence there is trace, in the " St. Michael Pine‑Apple Lodge of Free Gardeners in Newcastle," established in 1812 by warrant from the " St. George Lodge " of North Shields, which was itself derived from a Lodge " composed of Soldiers belonging to the Forfar Regiment of Militia " (E. Mackenzie, A Descriptive and Historial Account f Newcastle‑upon‑Tyne, 1827, vol. ii, p. 597).

 

These regulations ordain that " alle the ffeleshyppe of the Bachelerys " shall hold their feast " at Synte John‑ys day in harwaste,"‑the principal meeting thus taking place as at Gateshead, on the day of St. John the Baptist‑every shopholder was to pay 8d. towards it, every servant at wages 6d., and " euery yowte (out) Broder " 4d. (See Smith, English Gilds, p. 313.) There were four regular days of meeting in the year and, on these occasions, the Oath, the Ordinances and the Constitutions were to be read (ibid., p. 315).

 

It is improbable that all apprentices in the Incorporated Trades of Gateshead attained the privileges of " full craftsmen " on the completion of the periods of servitude named in their indentures and their position, mutatis mutandis, must have approximated somewhat closely to that of the Tailors of Exeter; on the other hand and in a similarly incorporated body, i.e. not composed exclusively of Masons, we find by a document of 1475, that each man " worthy to be a master " was to be made " freman and fallow." It may be mentioned, moreover, that in the Records of the Alnwick Lodge (1701‑48), no distinction whatever appears to be drawn between " freemen " and " brethren." Wyatt Papworth has suggested, that as there is sufficient evidence to support the derivation of " Freemason " from " Free Stone Mason," Free‑man mason and Free‑mason‑i.e. free of a Guild or Company‑it is possible that these THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON 251 deductions may afford satisfaction to every class of theorist. Before, however, leaving this philological crux, some additional examples of the use of the word " Freemason " will not be out of place and, taken with those which have been given in earlier chapters, will materially assist in making clear the conclusions arrived at. It is singular that the word " Freemason " is not given in Johnson's Dictionary, 1st edition, 175 5.

 

The earliest use of the expression in connexion with actual building operations ‑so far, at least, as research has yet extended‑occurs in 1396, as we have already seen and we will pass on to the year 1427 and, from thence, proceed downwards, until the list overlaps the formation of the Grand Lodge of England. It may, however, be premised, that the examples given are, as far as possible, representative of their class and that, to the best of belief, a large proportion of them appear for the first time in a collected form. For convenience' sake, each quotation will be prefaced by the date to which it refers. Arranged in this manner, we accordingly find under the years named 1427.‑John Wolston and John Harry, Freemasons, were sent from Exeter to Beere to purchase stone. From the Exeter Fabric Rolls ; published in Britton's Hist. and Antiq. of the Cath. Ch. of Exeter, 1836, p. 97 ; also by the late E. W. Shaw in the Freemasons' Mag., April 18, 1868 ; and in the Builder, vol. xxvii, p. 73. John Wolston was Clerk of the Works there in 1426.

 

1490, Oct. 23.‑" Admissio Willi Atwodde Lathami." The Dean and Chapter of Wells granted to William Atwodde, " ffremason," the office previously held in the church by William Smythe, with a yearly salary. The letter of appointment makes known, that the salary in question has been granted to Atwodde for his good and faithful service in his art of " ffremasonry." Nos dedisse et concisse IVillielmo Atwodde ffremason, pro suo bono et diligenti servicio in arte sua de ffre‑ masonry," etc. (Rev. H. E. Reynolds, Statutes of Dells Cathedral, p. 180).

 

1513, Aug. 4.‑By an indenture of this date, it was stipulated that John Wastell, to whom allusion has been already made, should " kepe continually 6o fre‑masons workyng " (Malden, Account of King's College, Cambridge, p. 8o).

 

15 3 5.‑" Rec. of the goodman Stefford, ffre mason for the holle stepyll wt Tymbr, Iron and Glas, xxxviijl" (Records of the Parish of St. Alphage, London Wall, City Press, August 26, 1882).

 

15 36.‑John Multon, Freemason, had granted to him by the prior and convent of Bath " the office of Master of all their works commonly called freemasonry, when it should be vacant" (Transactions R.LB.A., 1861‑2, pp. 37‑6o).

 

15 5 o.‑" The free mason hewyth the harde stones, and hewyth of, here one cod a pece, & there another, tyll the stones be fytte and apte for the place where free ma‑ he wyll laye them. Euen so God the heavenly free mason, buildeth a son. christen churche and he frameth and polysheth us, whiche are the costlye and precyous stones, wyth the crosse and afliiccyon, that all abhomynacyon & wickednes which do not agree unto thys gloryous buyldynge, myghte be remoued & 252 THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON taken out of the wage . i. Petr. ii." (Werdmuller, A Spyrytuall and Aloost Preq~ouse Pearle, tr. by Bishop Coverdale, 15 5 0, fol. xxi).

 

1590‑1, March i g.‑" John Kidd, of Leeds, Freemason, gives bond to produce the original will of William Taylor, junr., of Leeds." From the Wills Court at York, cited in the Freemason's Chronicle, April 2, 18 81.

 

15 94.‑On a tomb in the church of St. Helen, Bishopsgate Street, are the following inscriptions South side " HERE I LYETH THE BODIE OF WILLIAM KERWIN OF THIS CITTIE OF LON FREE MASON WHOE DEPARTED THIS LYFE THE 26 H DAYE OF DECEMBER ANO North side " 'Edibvs Attalicis Londinvm qui decoravi : Me dvce svrgebant alijs regalia tecta Exigvam tribvvnt hanc mihi mihi fata dome : Me dvce conficimr ossibvs vrna meis : " (" The Fates have afforded this narrow house to me, who hath adorned London with noble buildings. By me royal palaces were built for others. By me this tomb is erected for my bones.") (See W. H. Rylands, An Old Mason's Tomb, Masonic Magazine, September 1881.) A brief notice of Kerwin's epitaph will also be found in the European Magazine, vol. lxiv, 1813, p. Zoo.

 

Although the arms of the Kerwyn family appear on the monument, " the west end presents, from a Masonic point of view, the most interesting portion of the tomb. In a panel, supported on each side by ornamental pilasters, is represented the arms of the Masons as granted by William Hawkeslowe in the twelfth year of Edward IV (1472‑3) :‑On a chevron engrailed, between three square castles, a pair of compasses extended‑the crest, a square castle, with the motto, God is our Guide. It is interesting to find the arms here rendered as they were originally granted, with the chevron engrailed and with the old square four‑towered castles, not the plain chevron and single round tower, as now so often depicted." In the opinion of W. H. Rylands, this is the earliest instance of the title " Freemason " being associated with these arms. From Stow we learn more of the tomb and the family of William Kerwin ; he writes :‑" In the South Ile of this Church, is a very faire Window with this inscription : ' This window was glazed at the charges of Joyce Eeatly, Daughter to Villiam Kerwyn Esquire and Wife to Daniel Eeatly, D.D. Anno Domini 163 2 ' " (Remaines, a supplement to the Survey, 163 3, p. 8 3 7).

 

1598.‑The Will of Richard Turner of Rivington . co. Lanc . dated July 1, proved Sept. i9. An inventory of Horses, Cows, Sheep, tools, etc. ; total C57. 16 . 4. (See W. H. Rylands, MS. Collection, now in the Bodleian Library, Oxford.) 1604, Feb. 12.‑" Humfrey son of Edward Holland ffremason bapt[ized.]" 161 O‑‑I 3.‑Wadham College, Oxford, was commenced in 161 o and finished in 1613. In the accounts " the masons who worked the stone for building are called Free masons, or Freestone Masons, while the rest are merely called labourers. It is curious that the three statues over the entrance to the hall and chapel were cut by one DON I S 94..

 

THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON 253 of the free masons (William Blackshaw)." (Orlando Jewitt, The Late or Debased Gothic Buildings of Oxford, 18 5 0.) 1627‑8.‑Louth steeple repaired by Thomas Egglefield, Freemason, and steeple mender. (Archceologia, vol. x, p. 70.) 163 8.‑The will of Richard Smayley of Nether Darwen. co. Lane. ffree Mayson (apparently a Catholic), dated the 8th, proved the 3oth of May. In the inventory of his goods‑,C65. 9. o‑‑with horses, cattle, sheep and ploughs, there occur, "one gaveloeke [spear], homars, Chesels, axes and other Irne [iron] implemts belonging to a Mayson." (Rylands, MS. Collection.) 1689.‑On a tombstone at Wensley, Yorkshire, appear the words, " George Bowes, Free Mason." The Masons' Arms, a chevron charged with a pair of open compasses between three castles, is evidently the device on the head of the stone. (T. B. Whytehead, in The Freemason, August 27, 1881, p. 3 86.) 1701.‑The orders (or rules) of the Alnwicke Lodge are thus headed:Orders Orders to be observed by the Company and Fellowship of Free Masons att a lodge held at Alnwick Septr. 29, 1701, being the genll. head meeting day." From the account of this lodge, published by Hughan in the Masonic Magazine, vol. i, p. z14; and from the AIS. notes taken by F. Hockley from the Alnwicke records. The 12th of the " Orders," referred to in the text, is as follows :‑" Item, thatt noe Fellow or Fellows within this lodge shall att any time or times call or hold Assemblys to make any mason or masons free : nott acquainting the Master or Wardens therewith, For every time so offending shall pay L3 . 6 . 8." 1708, Dec. 27.‑Amongst the epitaphs in Holy Trinity Churchyard, Hull, is the following under the above date:‑" Sarah Roebuck, late wife of John Roebuck, Freemason." (T. B. Whytehead, in The Freemason, citing Gent's History of Hull, P. 54‑) 1711, April 29.‑" Jemima, daughter of John Gatley, freemasson, Bapt[ized]." (W. H. Rylands, in The Freemason, citing the registers of the parish church of Lymm, Cheshire. It will be remembered that Richard Ellam was styled of " Lyme (Lymm), Cheshire, freemason.") 1722, Nov. 25.‑In the churchyard of the parish of All Saints at York there is the tomb of Leonard Smith, Free Mason. (G. M. Tweddell, The Freemason, July 22, 1882, citing Thomas Gent's History of York,, 1730.) 1737, Feb.‑In Rochdale Churchyard, under the date given, is the following epitaph:‑" Here lyeth Benj. Brearly Free Mason." (James Lawton, Freemason's Chronicle, February 3, 1883.) The derivation of the term " Freemason " lies within the category of Masonic problems, respecting which, writers know not how much previous information to assume in their readers and are prone in consequence to begin on every occasion ab ovo, a mode of treatment which is apt to weary and disgust all those to whom the subject is not entirely new.

 

In this instance, however, an endeavour has been made to lead up to the final stage of an inquiry presenting more than ordinary features of interest, by considering 254 it from various points of view in earlier chapters. The records of the building trades, the Statutes of the Realm, and the Archives of Scottish Masonry have each, in turn, contributed to our stock of information, which, supplemented by the evidence last adduced, will now be critically examined as a whole.

 

Wyatt Papworth contends " that the earliest use of the English term Freemason " was in 1396. That the word " Freemason " appears then for the first time in any records that are extant, relating directly to building operations, is indeed clear and indisputable. In the Sloane Collection, No. 4595, page 50, is the following copy of the original document, dated 14th June, 19th Richard II, or A.D. 1396.

 

THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON 14 June. Pro Archiepiscopo Cantuar.

 

(Pat. icg R. 2. p 2. m. 4.) Rex omnibus ad quos &c. Salutem Sciatis quod concessimus Venerabili in Christo Patri Carissimo Consanguineo nostro Archiepiscopo Cantuar. quod ipse pro quibusdam operationibus cujusdam Collegii per ipsum apud Villam Maidenston faciend. viginti et quatuor lathomos vocatos ffre Maceons et viginti et quatuor lathomos vocatos ligiers per deputatos suos in hac parte capere et lathomos iilos denariis suis eis pro operationibus hujusmodi rationabiliter solvend. quousque dicti operationes plenarie facte et complete existant habere et tenere possit. Ita quod lathomi predicti durante tempore predicto ad opus vel operationes nostras per officiarios vel ministros nostros quoscumque minime capiantur.

 

In cujus &c.

 

Teste Rege apud Westm xiiij die Junii Per breve de Privato Sigillo.

 

But the same descriptive term occurs in other and earlier records. In 1376‑7 ‑5o Edw. III‑the number of persons chosen by the several mysteries to be the Common Council of the City of London was 148, which divided by 48‑at which figure Herbert then places the companies‑would give them an average of about 3 representatives each. Of these the principal ones sent 6, the secondary 4, the small companies 2. (Companies of London, vol. i, pp. 33‑4.) The names of all the companies are given by Herbert, together with the number of members which they severally elected to represent them. The Fab`m. chose 6, the Masons 4, the Freemasons 2. The Carpenters are not named, but a note explains Fab'm. to signify Smiths, which, if a contraction of Fabrorum, would doubtless include them. The earliest direct mention of the Carpenters' Company occurs in 1421, though as the very nature of the trade induces the conviction that an association for its protection must have had a far earlier origin, Jupp argues from this circumstance and from the fact of two Master Masons and a similar number of Master Carpenters having been sworn, in 1272, as officers to perform certain duties with regard to buildings, that there is just ground for the conjecture that these Masons and Carpenters were members of existing guilds. (History of the Carpenters' Company, p. 8.) This may have been the case, but unquestionably the members of both the callings‑known THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON 255 by whatever name‑must have been included in the Guilds of Craft, enumerated in the list of 1376‑7.

 

Verstegan, in his Glossary of Ancient English Words, s.v. Smithe, gives us To smite hereof commeth our name of a Smith, because he Smitheth or smiteth with a Hammer. Before we had the Carpenter from the French, a Carpenter was in our Language also called a Smith, for that he smiteth both with his Hammer, and his Axe ; and for distinction the one was a Wood‑smith and the other an Iron‑smith, which is nothing improper. And the like is seen in Latin, where the name of Faber serveth both for the Smith and for the Carpenter, the one being Faber ferrarius and the other Faber lignarius. (See Restitution of Decayed Intelligence in Antiquities concerning the .. English Nation, 1634, p. 231.) As it is almost certain that the Company of Fab`m. comprised several varieties of the trade, which are now distinguished by finer shades of expression, we may safely infer that the craftsmen who in those and earlier times were elsewhere referred to as Fabei lignarii or tignarii, must have been included under the somewhat uncouth title behind which we have striven to penetrate. The only other branch of carpentry represented in the list of companies (1375) appears under the title of Voodmogs, which Herbert explains as meaning Woodsawyers (mongers). This company had two representatives.

 

In this view of the case, the class of workmen, whose handicraft derived its raison d'etre from the various uses to which wood could profitably be turned, were in 1376‑7 associated in one of the principal companies, returning six members to the common council. It could hardly be expected that we should find the workers in stone, the infinite varieties of whose trade are stamped upon the imperishable monuments which even yet bear witness to their skill, were banded together in a fraternity of the second class. Nor do we ; for the Masons and the Freemasons, the city records inform us, pace Herbert, were in fact one company and elected six representa tives. How the mistake originated, which led to a separate classification in the first instance, it is now immaterial, as it would be useless to inquire. It is sufficiently clear, that in the fiftieth year of Edward III there was a use of the term Freemason and that the persons to whom it was applied were a section or an offshoot of the Masons' Company, though in either case probably reabsorbed within the parent body. Inasmuch, however, as no corporate recognition of either the Masons or the Freemasons of London can be traced any further back than 1376‑7, it would be futile to carry speculations any higher. It must content us to know, that, in the above year, the trade or handicraft of a Freemason was exercised in the metropolis. It is probable that the Freemasons and Masons of this period‑i.e. those referred to as above in the city records‑were parts of a single fraternity and, if not then absolutely identical, the one with the other, from this period they doubtless became so. In support of this position there are the oft‑quoted words of Stow (Survey of London, 1633, p. 630), the masons, otherwise termed, free‑masons " were a society of ancient standing and good reckoning; " the monument of William Kerwin ; and the records of the Masons' Company; not to speak of much indirect evidence, which 256 THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON will be considered in its proper place. If Valentine Strong was a member of the London Company of Masons, the title " Freemason " on his monument (1662) would be consistent with the name used in the company's records down to 165 3 ; but even if the connexion of the Strong family with the London Guild commenced with Thomas Strong, the son, it is abundantly clear that Valentine, the father, must have been a member of some provincial company of Masons.

 

Whilst, however, contending that the earliest use of " Freemason " will be found associated with the freedom of a company and a city, the existence of other channels through which the term may have derived its origin may readily be admitted. The point, indeed, for determination is not so much the relative antiquity of the varied meanings under which the word has been passed on through successive centuries, but rather the particular use or form, which has merged into the appellation by which the present Society of Freemasons is distinguished.

 

The absence of any mention of Freemasons in the York Fabric Rolls is rather singular and, by some, has been held to uphold what has been termed the guild theory,‑that is to say, that the prefix free was inseparably connected with the free dom of a guild or company. The references to masons, on the contrary, are very numerous ; the following, taken from the testamentary registers of the Dean and Chapter, being one of the most curious :‑" Feb. 12, 1522‑3. Christofer Horner, mason, myghtie of mynd and of a hooll myndfulness. To Sanct Petur wark all my tuyllis [tools] within the mason lughe [lodge]." However, if the records of one cathedral at all sustain this view, those of others (Exeter, Wells and Durham; see under the years 1427 and 149o) effectually demolish the visionary fabric which has been erected on such slight foundation. The old operative regulations were of a very simple character ; indeed Papworth observes‑" The ` Orders ' supplied to the masons at work at York Cathedral in 13 5 5 give but a poor notion of there being then existing in that city anything like a guild claiming in virtue of a charter given by Athelstan in 926, not only over that city, but over all England." That " Freemason" was in use as a purely operative term from 1396 down to the seventeenth and, possibly, the eighteenth, century, admits of no doubt whatever; and, discarding the mass of evidence about which there can be any diversity of opinion, this conclusion may safely be allowed to rest on the three allusions to " Freemasonry " (see above under the years 1490 and 15 36) as an operative art and the metaphor employed by Bishop Coverdale in his translation from Werdmuller. In the former instance the greater may well be held to comprehend the less and the " art " or " work " of " Freemasonry " plainly indicates its close connexion with the Freemasons of even date. In the latter we have the simile of a learned prelate (Miles Coverdale, Bishop of Exeter), who, it may be assumed, was fully conversant with the craft usage, out of which he constructed his metaphor. This, it is true, only brings us down to the middle of the sixteenth century, but there are special reasons for making this period a halting‑place in the progress of our inquiry.

 

The statute 5 Eliz., c. IV, passed in 1562, though enumerating, as already observed, every other known class of handicraftsmen, omits the Freemasons.

 

.q d It is somewhat singular, that approaching the subject from a different point of view, we find in the seventh decade of the sixteenth century a period of transition in the use of Freemason, which is somewhat confirmatory of previous speculations.

 

Thus in either case, whether we trace the guild theory up, or the strictly operative theory down‑and, for the time being, even exclude from consideration the separate evidence respecting the Masons' Company of London‑we are brought to 1ti' a standstill before we quite reach the era named. For example, assuming that John 1i Gatley and Richard Ellam of Lymm, John Roebuck, George Bowes, Valentine Strong, Richard Smayley, Edward Holland, Richard Turner, William Kerwin and John Kidd, derived in each case their title of Freemason from the freedom of a guild or company‑still, with the last‑named worthy, in 15 91, the roll comes to an end.

 

Also, descending from the year 15 50, the records of the building trades afford very jl meagre notices of operative Freemasons. Further examples of the use of the word " Freemason," under the years 15 97, 16o6, 1607, and 1624, will be found in Notes and ,Queries, Aug. 31, 1861, and Mar. 4, 1882 ; and the Freemason's Chronicle, Mar. 26, 1881. The former journal‑July 27, 1861‑cites a will dated 1641, wherein the testator and a legatee are each styled " Freemason ; " and‑Sept. 1, 1866mentions the baptism of the son of a " Freemason " in 1685, also his burial under the same title in 1697.

 

In 16io, there is the Order of the Justices of the Peace, indicating a class of rough masons able to take charge over others, as well as apparently two distinct classes of Freemasons. According to the Stat. ii, Hen. VII, c. xxii (1495) a Freemason was to take less wages than a Master Mason. A year or two later occurs the em ployment of Freemasons at Wadham College, Oxford. In 1628, Thomas Egglefield, Freemason and Steeple‑mender, is mentioned and, five years after, there is the reference to Maude and others, Freemasons and Contractors.

 

Such a contention as that the use of Freemason as an operative term came to an abrupt termination about the middle of the seventeenth century is foreign to the design of these remarks and, although there is an absence of references which may further elucidate this phase of Masonic history during the latter half of the century, the records of the Alnwick Lodge, extending from 1701 to 1748, may be held by some to carry on the use of " Freemason " as a purely operative phrase until the middle of the eighteenth century.

 

The contention is that the class of persons from whom the Freemasons of Warrington, Staffordshire, Chester, York, London and their congeners in the seventeenth century, derived the descriptive title which became the inheritance of the Grand Lodge of England, were free men and Masons of Guilds or Companies. " Wherever the Craft Gilds were legally acknowledged, we find foremost, that the right to exercise their craft and sell their manufactures, depended upon the freedom of their city " (Brentano, History and Development of Gilds, p. 65). The references in Smith's English Gilds to the exercise of a trade being contingent on the possession of its freedom are very numerous. Thus in the City of Exeter no cordwainer was allowed to keep a shop, " butte he be a ffraunchised man " (P. 3 3 3) ; " The Old Usages " of THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON 257 258 THE MASONS' COMPANY, LONDON Winchester required that "nonne shal make burelle werk, but if he be of ye ffraunchyse of ye toun " (p. 3 51) ; and the " Othe " of the Mayor contained a special proviso, that he would " meyntene the fraunchises and free custumes whiche beth gode in the saide toune " (P. 4i6).

 

Turning to the early history of Scottish Masonry, the view advanced with regard to the origin of the title, which has now become the common property of all speculative Masons throughout the universe, is strikingly confirmed. As cumulative proofs that the Society of Freemasons has derived its name from the Freemen Masons of more early times, the examples in the Scottish records have an especial value. Examined separately, the histories of both English and Scottish Masonryyield a like result to the researchof the philologist, but,unitedly, theypresent a body of evidence, all bearing in one direction, which brushes away the etymological difficulties, arising from the imperfect consideration of the subject as a whole.

 

CHAPTER XII EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY ENGLAND‑I "ETWEEN the region of fancy and the province of authenticated history B lies a border‑land of tradition, full of difficulties, which can neither be passed without notice, nor ever, perhaps, very clearly or finally explained," writes C. Elton, in Origins of English History (P. 7). Upon many of the questions which it would be very interesting to decide, no conclusion whatever is attainable. The historian knows very little of the real facts ; of the lives of his personages only a contemptibly small fragment has been preserved. No doubt, if his imagination be strong, he will piece together the information he has and instinctively shape for himself some theory which will combine them all; though, if his judgment be as strong as his imagination, he will hold very cheap such conjectural combinations and will steadfastly bear in mind that, as an historian, he is concerned with facts and not with possibilities. Some, indeed, instead of employing those tests of credibility which are consistently applied to modern history, attempt to guide their judgment by the indications of internal evidence and to assume that truth can be discovered by " an occult faculty of historical divination." Although, for convenience' sake, the year 1717 is made to mark the epoch of authentic‑i.e. officially accredited‑Masonic history, the existence in England of a widely diffused system of Freemasonry in the first half of the seventeenth century is demonstrable, whence there is justification for the conclusion that, for its period of origin in South Britain, a far higher antiquity may be claimed and conceded. No attempt will be made to follow the beaten road of those voluminous plodders of Masonic history who make Masons of every man of note, from Adam to Nimrod, from Nimrod to Solomon, down to the present day; nor the statements, made in all good faith by writers of reputation, that Masonry was introduced into Britain A.M. 2974 by " E‑Brank, king of the Trojan race"; into Ireland by the prophet Jeremiah ; that 27,000 Masons accompanied the Christian princes in the Crusades ; and that Martin Luther was received into the Society on Christmas night, 1520, 259 26o EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY just fifteen days after he had burned the Pope's Bull. These and kindred creations of fancy will be dismissed to the vast limbo of fabulous narrations.

 

In the history of Freemasonry there are no speculations which are worthy of more critical investigation than its conjectural origin, as disclosed in the Parentalia and the common belief that this derivation was attested by the high authority of a former Grand Master of the Society.

 

The common belief in Wren's membership of the Society of Freemasons rests upon two sources of authority. Historically, the general impression derives what weight it may possess from the importance that is attached to an obscure passage in Aubrey's Natural History of Wiltshire, and traditionally (or Masonically) the acceptance of the " legend " and its devolution from an article of faith into a matter of conviction, is dependent upon our yielding full credence to statements in Dr. Anderson's Constitutions of A.D. 173 8, which are quite irreconcilable with those in his earlier publication of 1723. The Natural History of Wiltshire, originally commenced in 1656, of which the last chapter was written on April zi, 1686, was the author's first literary essay. He subsequently made some additions, but none of a later date than 16gi. In 1675 it was submitted to the Royal Society ; subsequently Dr. Plot‑curator of the Ashmolean Museum and author of the Natural History of Staffordshire‑was requested by Aubrey to prepare it for the press. This, however, he declined to do, but strongly urged the writer " to finish and publish it " himself. The work remained in MS. until 1847, when it was first printed, under the editorial supervision of John Britton. The original MS. was never removed from Oxford, but a fair copy was made by the author and presented to the Royal Society. Of the Oxford MS., Britton says, " Being compiled at various times, during a long series of years, it has a confused appearance from the numerous corrections and additions made in it by Aubrey." The same authority continues :" So far as Aubrey's own labours are concerned, the Royal Society's copy is the most perfect; but the notes of Ray, Evelyn and Tanner were written upon the Oxford MS., after the fair copy was made and have never been transcribed into the latter." Aubrey's remarks upon the Freemasons are given by Halliwell in two separate but consecutive paragraphs, at p. 46 of the explanatory notes attached to the second edition of the Masonic Poem (1844). This writer copied from the Royal Society manuscript, where the second paragraph appears as a continuation of the first. This is not the case in the Oxford or original MS. There, the first paragraph, commencing " Sir William Dugdale told me," is written on fol. 73, whilst the second, upon which Halliwell based his conclusion " that Sir Christopher, in 16gi, was enrolled among the members of the fraternity," forms one of the numerous additions made by Aubrey and is written on the back of fol. 72. Aubrey wrote on one side of the page only, until he had completed his history. As the last chapter of the History was written in 1686, a period of at least five years separates the passage in the text from the addendum of 1691, but the original entry in the body of the work is probably far older than 1686‑the date of publication of Dr. Plot's Natural History of Staffordshire‑yet, whilst it may fairly be concluded that Plot must EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 2.61 have seen Aubrey's general note on the Freemasons before his own work was written, which latter, in turn, Aubrey could not fail to have read prior to the entry of his memorandum of 1691, there is nothing to show that either the one or the other was in the slightest degree influenced by, or indeed recollected, the observations on the Freemasons which immediately preceded his own.

 

Dr. Robert Plot, it may be added, was born in ‑1640; chosen F.R.S., ‑1677; became one of the secretaries of the Royal Society, ‑168z ; was appointed first keeper of the Ashmolean Museum by the founder, ‑1683 ; and, later, nominated Professor of Chemistry to the University. He was also Historiographer Royal, Secretary to the Earl Marshal, Mowbray Herald Extraordinary and Registrar of the Court of Honour; died April 30, ‑1696. His chief works are the Natural Histories of Oxfordshire (‑1677) and Staffordshire (‑1686). It was his intention to have published a complete Natural History of England and Vales, had his time and health permitted so laborious an undertaking.

 

The following extracts are from the Oxford or original MS.

 

[" NATURALL HISTORIE OF WILTSHIRE "‑PART II.‑MS. IN THE BODLEIAN LIBRARY Reverse of Fol. 72, Fol. 73.

 

‑16gi. Sr William Dugdale told me many Mdm, this day [May the I 8th years since, that about Henry the third's after Rogation Sunday Patents being Monday] is a great con‑ time, the Pope gave a Bull or diploma vention at St Paul's church of the Freemasons Accepted to a Company of Italian Architects to Fraternity of the Free Masons : travell up and downe over all Europe to where Sr Christopher Wren is to build Churches. From those are derived be adopted a Brother : and Sr the Fraternit o Adopted‑Masons. They are Henry Goodric .. of y` Tower, .1' .f Y & divers others‑There have known to one another by certayn been kings, that haue been of Signes & Marks and Watch‑words this Sodalitie. it continues to this day. They have Severall Lodges in severall Counties for their reception: and when any of them fall into decay, the brotherhood is to relieve him &c. The manner of their Adoption is very formall, and with an Oath of Secrecy.

 

The Oxford copy of the Natural History of Wiltshire was forwarded by Aubrey to John Ray, the botanist and zoologist, September ‑15, ‑1691 and returned by the latter in the October following. It was also sent to Tanner, afterwards Bishop of St. Asaph, in February 1694. In ‑17‑19 Dr. Rawlinson printed the dedication and preface as addenda to Aubrey's History of Surrey. These he doubtless copied from the original. The transcript in the Royal Society Library was quoted by Walpole in the first chapter of his Anecdotes of Painting (‑176z) and Warton and Huddesford refer to the original in the list of Aubrey's manuscripts at Oxford, in a note to the 262 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY Life of Anthony d Vood. The only other notice met with‑prior to 1844‑of the Masonic entry or entries in Aubrey's unprinted work occurs in Hawkins' History of Gothic Architecture (1813), but it merely alludes to Papal bulls said to have been granted to Italian architects and does not mention Wren. Both manuscripts have been examined, the original in the Bodleian Library; the fair copy at Burlington House, by permission of the Council of the Royal Society. The latter has on the title‑page Memoires of Naturall Remarques in the County of Kilts, by John Aubrey, R.S.S., 1685 ; but as the memorandum of 16gi, as well as the earlier entry relating to the Freemasons, duly appears in the text, it will be safer to believe in their contemporaneous transcription, than to assume that the copy, like the original, received additions from time to time. The allusion to the Freemasons appears at p. 277 of the Royal Society MS. and, at p. 276, three pages are inserted conformably with Aubrey's rough note on the back of fol. 72 of the Oxford copy.

 

As already observed, Aubrey's memorandum of Wren's approaching initiation was not printed or in any way alluded to until 1844. It can, therefore, have exercised no influence whatever in shaping or fashioning the belief (amongst Masons) which, from 1738 onwards, has universally prevailed as regards the connexion of the great architect with the ancient Craft. Indeed, the statements of Aubrey (16gi) and Anderson (1738) are mutually destructive. If Wren was only " accepted " or " adopted " in 169 1, it is quite clear that he could not have been Grand Master at any earlier date; and, on the other hand, if he presided over the Society in the year 1663, it is equally clear that the ceremony of his formal admission into the Fraternity was not postponed until 16gi.

 

In proceeding with the inquiry, whilst it is necessary constantly to bear in mind that Masonic writers of the last century‑with whose works, in the first instance, we are chiefly concerned‑were altogether uninfluenced by the singular entries in the Aubrey MSS., yet we should be on our guard not to assume too confidently that none of the Fellows of the Royal Society who joined the Fraternity between 1717 and 1750 were aware that one of their own number‑Aubrey was chosen an F.R.S. in 1663‑had recorded in a manuscript work (which he deposited in their own library) the approaching initiation into Masonry of a former President of the Royal Society. It is improbable that so curious a circumstance was wholly unknown to Dr. Desaguliers, Martin Folkes, Martin Clare, or Richard Rawlinson, all Fellows of the Royal Society and zealous Freemasons. Dr. Desaguliers was Grand Master 1719 ; Deputy Grand Master 1722‑3 and 1725 ; Folkes was Deputy Grand Master in 1724; and Clare in 1741 ; Rawlinson was Grand Steward in 1734 and was an indefatigable collector of Masonic data.

 

If the probability of some one or more of these distinguished Brethren having perused the manuscript in question is admitted, it affords negative evidence from which it may not unfairly be concluded that the allusion to Wren failed to make any impression upon them.

 

The earliest Boob, of Constitutions was published by Dr. James Anderson, conformably with the direction of the Grand Lodge, to which body it was submitted EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 2.63 in print on January 17, 1723 and finally approved. It was the joint production of Anderson, Desaguliers and the antiquary, George Payne, the two last named of whom had filled the office of Grand Master. Payne compiled the Regulations, which constitute the chief feature of this work; Desaguliers wrote the preface ; and Anderson digested the entire subject‑matter.

 

This official book speaks of " our great Master Mason Inigo Jones " ; styles James I and Charles I " Masons " and proceeds as follows After the Wars were over and the Royal Family restor'd, true Masonry was likewise restor'd ; especially upon the unhappy Occasion of the Burning of LONDON, Anno 1666 ; for then the City Houses were rebuilt more after the Roman stile, when King Charles II founded the present ST. PAUL'S Cathedral in London (the old Gotbick Fabrick being burnt down), much after the style of ST. PETER'S at Rome, conducted by the ingenious Architect, Sir CHRISTOPHER WREN.

 

Besides the Tradition of old Masons now alive, which may be rely'd on, we have much reason to believe that King Charles II was an accepted Free‑Mason, as everyone allows he was a great Encourager of the Craftsmen.

 

But in the Reign of his Brother, King James II, though some Roman Buildings were carried on, the Lodges of Freemasons in London much dwindled into Ignorance, by not being duly frequented and cultivated.

 

In a footnote Dr. Anderson speaks of the Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford, " as having been designed and conducted also by Sir Christopher Wren, the King's Architect." William III is termed " that Glorious Prince, who by most is reckon'd a FreeMason " ; and, having cited an opinion of Sir Edward Coke, Dr. Anderson says This quotation confirms the tradition of Old Masons, that this most learned judge really belong'd to the Ancient Lodge, and was a faithful Brother.

 

The text of the original Book of Constitutions thus concludes And now the Free‑born BRITISH NATIONS, disentangled from foreign and civil Wars and enjoying the good fruits of Peace and Liberty, having of late much indulg'd their happy Genius for Masonry of every sort and reviv'd the drooping Lodges of London. This fair Metropolis flourisheth, as well as other Parts with several worthy particular Lodges, that have quarterly communication and an annual Grand Assembly wherein the Forms and Usages of the most ancient and worshipful Fraternity are wisely propagated and the Royal Art duly cultivated and the cement of the Brotherhood preserv'd : so that the whole Body resembles a well built Arch.

 

It will be seen by the above extracts, that whilst various kings of England, the celebrated architect Inigo Jones, even a learned judge, are included in the category of Freemasons, Sir Christopher Wren is mentioned only in a professional capacity. From which it may safely be inferred, that the triumvirate charged with the preparation of the first code of laws and the first items of Masonic history, published by authority, had, at that time, no knowledge of his ever having been a member of the Society. Dr. Mackey indeed thinks, that " this passing notice of him who has 2‑64 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY been called the Vitruvius of England must be attributed to servility " ; but with all due respect to the memory of this diligent lexicographer, is it not possible that the English Freemasons of 1717‑23 had no reason to believe in Wren's connexion with their Society, also, that if at any time during the building of St. Paul's Cathedral he had been " accepted " as a Freemason, all recollection of so important a circumstance as the initiation, or affiliation, of the King's Architect would not have died out in the subsisting Lodges of Masons, within the short span of six or seven years, which, according to Anderson (in his subsequent publication of 1738), elapsed between Wren's cessation of active interest in the Lodges and the so‑called Revival of 1717 ? It is important, moreover, to note that the Constitutions of 1723 record no break in the career of prosperity upon which the Craft had embarked after the accession of William III.

 

Between 1723 and 1738, though a large number of Masonic books and pamphlets were published, in none of these is Wren alluded to as a Freemason. He is not so styled in the Constitutions of 1726 and 1730 (Dublin), which were reprinted by the late Richard Spencer in 1871, nor is his connexion with the Craft in any way hinted at by Francis Drake, the Junior Warden of the Grand Lodge of York, in his celebrated oration of 1726.

 

Smith's Pocket Companion for 173 5, 173 6, 1737 and 173 8, though they contain much Masonic information, describe Charles II as "that mason king " and refer to William III as " with good reason believed to have been a Free‑Mason," merely designate the late Surveyor‑General, "that excellent architect, Sir Christopher Wren." The newspapers during the same period (1723‑38)‑with the exceptions presently to be noticed‑are equally silent upon the point under consideration and there is no reference to Wren in the Rawlinson MSS. in the Bodleian Library.

 

Sir Christopher died on February 25, 1723 ; and, in the Postboy, No. 5243, from February 26 to February z8 of that year, appears an obituary notice of Wren and an advertisement of the Book, of Constitutions. The same paper in the next number (5z44) gives a more elaborate notice, consisting of twenty‑eight lines, enumerating all the offices held by the deceased. The Postboy, No. 5245, from March z to March 5, has the following:‑" London, March 5, this evening the corpse of that worthy FREE MASON, Sir Christopher Wren, Knight, is to be interr'd under the Dome of St. Paul's Cathedral." A similar announcement appears in the British journal, No. 25, March 9, viz. :‑" Sir Christopher Wren, that worthy Free Mason, was splendidly interr'd in St. Paul's Church on Tuesday night last." Sixteen notices in all of Wren's death or burial occur between February 26 and March 9, 1723. Four are copied from the Postboy and a similar number from the Daily Post. Two each from the British journal, the lleeo journal or Saturday's Post, the W eelp,dy journal or British Gazetteer. Single notices are given in the London journal and the Postman.

 

In none of these, except as above stated, is Sir Christopher designated a " Freemason " and this expression is not again coupled with his name in any newspaper paragraph of earlier date than 173 8.

 

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 2‑65 It will be observed that the journal announcing, in the first instance, that Wren was a " Freemason," had been previously selected as the advertising medium through which to recommend the sale of the Book of Constitutions, so it is hardly to be wondered at that the editor of the Postboy should have deemed a title so lavishly bestowed by Dr. Anderson upon the persons and personages of whom he had `occasion to speak, including Inigo Jones, a predecessor of Wren in the office of SurveyorGeneral, would fitly be applied to designate the great man whose funeral obsequies he was announcing.

 

Commenting upon the passage in the Postboy, No. 5245, W. P. Buchan observes Is it true that Wrenwas really a" Freemason" before his death? And, if so, when and where did he become one? At page 595 of the Graphicfor 19th December, 1874, we are told that the Duke of Edinburgh is a Mason, but I fear this is a mistake; consequently, if the latter scribe is not infallible as regards a living celebrity, I feel justified in doubting the veracity of the former respecting a dead one.

 

That a single paper only‑the British ,journal, No. 25‑reprinted the statement given in the Postboy, will surprise the readers of old newspapers, for if there is one circumstance more than another which renders an examination of these records especially fatiguing, it is the wearisome repetition by journals of later date of nearly every item of intelligence published in a London newspaper.

 

Between 173o and 1738, the newspapers of the time contain very frequent references to Freemasonry. Many of these were preserved by Dr. Rawlinson and may be seen in the curious collection of Masonic scraps, entitled the Rawlinson MSS., in the Bodleian Library. Though there are numerous dissertations on Freemasonry, squibs, catechisms and the like, nowhere, prior to 1738, save in the two papers of 1723, already cited, is there any mention of Wren as a Freemason. That this belief did not exist in 1737 is plainly evidenced by the Pocket Companion for 1738, printed, according to invariable usage, slightly in advance and which, like its predecessors and successors, was a summary of all the facts, fancies and conjectures previously published in reference to Freemasonry. Had there, at that time, been a scintilla of evidence to connect Wren with the Fraternity, the worthy knight, without doubt, would have figured in that publication as a Freemason.

 

How, then, did the fable originate ? In the first instance, before examining the Constitutions of 1738, two extracts from the Minutes of Grand Lodge claim attention February 24, 173 5 .‑Bro. Dr. Anderson, formerly Grand Warden, represented that he had spent some thoughts upon some alterations and additions that might fitly be made to the Constitutions, the first Edition being all sold off.

 

Resolved‑That a committee be appointed .‑. .‑. .‑. to revise and compare the same and, when finished, to lay the same before Grand Lodge.

 

March 31, 1735.‑A motion was made that Dr. James Anderson should be desired to print the names (in his new Book of Constitutions) of all the Grand Masters that could be collected from the beginning of Time ; with a list of the 266 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY Names of all Deputy Grand Masters, Grand Wardens and the Brethren who have served the Craft in the Quality of Stewards.

 

The new edition of the Constitutions was published in 173 8, and it is stated therein that, in 166o, Charles II approved the choice of the Earl of St. Albans as Grand Master; that, in 1663, this nobleman appointed Sir John Denham Deputy Grand Master and Sir Christopher Wren (slightly antedating his knighthood) and Mr. John Webb Grand Wardens. In giving the following extracts from this work, it must be premised that, by all authorities alike, whether in or out of the Craft, the Constitutions edited by Dr. Anderson have been regarded as the basis of Masonic history.

 

Gilbert Sheldon, Archbishop of Canterbury, an excellent Architect, shew'd his great skill in designing his famous Theatrum Sheldonianum at Oxford, and at his Cost it was conducted and finished by Deputy WREN and Grand Warden WEB.

 

And the Craftsmen having celebrated the Cape‑stone, it was open'd with an elegant oration by Dr. South, on 9th July 1669. D. G. M. WREN built also that other Master Piece, the pretty Musaum near the Theatre, at the Charge of the University. Meanwhile London was rebuilding apace; and the Fire having ruin'd St. Paul's Cathedral, the KING with Grand Master Rivers, his architects and craftsmen, Nobility and Gentry, Lord Mayor and Aldermen, Bishops and Clergy, etc., in due Form levell'd the Footstone of New St. Paul's, designed by D. G. Master Wren, A.D. 1673 and by him conducted as Master of Fork, and Surveyor, with his Wardens Mr. Edward Strong, Senior and junior, under a Parliamentary Fund.

 

Upon the death of Grand Master Arlington, 1685, the Lodges met and elected Sir Christopher Wren GRAND MASTER, who appointed Mr. Gabriel Cibber Grand Wardens. and whilst carrying on St. Paul's he Mr. Edward Strong annually met those Brethren that could attend him, to keep up good old Usages, till the Revolution.

 

The Constitution Book goes on to say that King William III was privately made a Free‑Mason; that he approved the choice of Grand Master Wren; that, in 1695, the Duke of Richmond became Grand Master, Wren being Deputy, the Edward Strongs, senior and junior, Grand Wardens respectively; and again records Sir Christopher's elevation to the Grand Mastership in 1698.

 

The official record proceeds Yet still in the South (1707) the Lodges were more and more disused, partly by the Neglect of the Masters and Wardens and partly by not having a Noble Grand Master at London and the annual Assembly was not duly attended. G. M. Wren who had design'd St. Paul's, London, A.D. 1673 and, as Master of Vork, had conducted it from the Foot‑stone, had the Honour to finish that noble Cathedral, the finest and largest Temple of the Am gustan stile except St. Peter's at Rome ; and celebrated the Cape‑stone when he erected the Cross on the Top of the Cupola, in July A.D. I 7o8.

 

Some few years after this Sir Christopher Wren neglected the office of Grand Master, yet the Old Lodge near St. Paul's and a few more, continued their stated meetings.

 

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 2.67 According to Edward Strong, senior, in the Memoir alluded to, the last stone of the lanthorn on the dome of St. Paul's was laid by himself, October 2.5, 1708. Christopher Wren also claims the honour of having laid the " highest or last stone," but fixes the date of this occurrence at 1710 (Parentalia, or Memoirs of the Family of the Wlrens, MDCCL, p. z9z). Edward Strong, the elder, died in 1723, aged 72 ; consequently he was only zz years of age in 1673. It is improbable that his son Edward was born until some years after the footstone was levelled. As will presently appear, the credit of having laid the foundation‑stone of St. Paul's Cathedral is claimed for Thomas Strong by his brother Edward, in the latter's " Memoir of the Family of Strong," given in Clutterbuck's History and Antiquity of the County of Hertford, 1815, vol. i, p. 167. The father of Edward and Thomas Strong (and four other sons, all bred to the mason trade) was named Valentine and he was called a Free‑Mason, that word being found on his tombstone in Fairford Churchyard (just outside the county of Oxford boundary), where he was buried in November 1682. Thomas Strong took with him from Oxford to London what is described as a " Lodge of Masons," for whom a special act was passed to make them free of London for seven years. Thomas Strong died in 1681, unmarried, leaving " all his employment to his brother Edward, whom he made his sole executor." There is a copy of the Strong family records in the Bodleian Library at Oxford (Ryland's MS., d. z).

 

In the Constitutions of 173 8 we learn for the first time that Wren was a Freemason, this volume, it must be recollected, having been written by the compiler of the earlier Constitutions, Dr. James Anderson; that the Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford, was opened Masonically ; that King Charles II laid the foundation‑stone of St. Paul's ; and that Wren continued as Grand Master until after 1708, when his neglect of the office " caused the Lodges to be more and more disused." It is somewhat remarkable that not one of these statements can be cited as an historical fact.

 

It may shortly be stated that, among the English Grand Masters, Dr. Anderson gravely enumerates Austin the Monk, St. Swithin, St. Dunstan, Henry VII and Cardinal Wolsey ; whilst of Foreigners who had attained that high office, he specifies Nimrod, Moses, Solomon, Nebuchadnezzar and Augustus Cxsar ! ! Between 1738 and 1750 there is nothing to chronicle which bears upon. the present inquiry, but in the latter year appeared the following work :‑Parentalia or, Memoirs of the Family of the Wrens. But Chiefly of Sir Christopher Wren, compiled by his son Christopher: Now published by his grandson Stephen Wren, Esq. ; with the care of Joseph Ames, F.R.S. London, MDCCL.

 

Two passages in this publication demand attention. These occur at p. z9z and p. 306 respectively, the latter being the opinion ascribed to Wren in respect of the origin of Freemasonry and the former the statement of his son Christopher with regard to certain occurrences, about which there is a great diversity of testimony.

 

At p. 2‑92, the subject being sundry details connected with the erection of St. Paul's Cathedral, there appears 268 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY The first Stone of this Basilica was laid in the Year 1675 and the Works carried on with such Care and Industry, that by the Year 1685 the Walls of the Quire and Side ailes were finished, with the circular North and South Porticoes . and the great Pillars of the Dome brought to the same Height; and it pleased God in his Mercy to bless the Surveyor with Health and Length of Days and to enable him to compleat the whole Structure in the Year 1710 to the Glory of his most holy Name and Promotion of his divine Worship, the principal Ornament of the Imperial Seat of this Realm Majestas convenit ista deo. The highest or last Stone on the Top of the Lantern, was laid by the Hands of the Surveyor's son, Christopher Wren deputed by his Father, in the Presence of that excellent Artificer Mr Strong, his Son and other Free and Accepted Masons, chiefly employed in the Execution of the Work.

 

In his Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century, John Nichols observes The last of Mr Ames's literary labours, was the drawing up the Parentalia in one volume folio, from the papers of Mr Wren. The title sets forth that they were published by Stephen Wren, with the care of Joseph Ames.

 

In the view that the work under consideration was virtually the compilation of Joseph Ames, Nichols has been followed by Elmes, whose two biographies of Wren (Memoirs of the Life and Works of Sir Christopher Vren, 1823 ; Sir Christopher Wren and his Times, 1852), together with those in the Biographia Britannica and the Parentalia, contain everything of an authentic character in the life of Sir Christopher that has descended to us. Elmes comments upon the Parentalia as a work of authority. It is described by this writer as " Ames's miserable compilation, published under the name of Stephen Wren." Altogether, according to Elmes, the Parentalia is a very bungling performance. Numerous errors and inaccuracies are pointed out, especially in the matter of dates.

 

Thus it is shown that a letter from Wren to Lord Brouncker was written in 1663, not in 1661 ; that to a paper read before the Royal Society the year 1658, instead of 1668, had been assigned ; and that mistakes occur in the accounts both of Sir Christopher's appointment as Surveyor‑General and his receiving the honour of knighthood; and such expressions occur as‑" the Parentalia, with its usual carelessness or contempt of correctness in dates " ; and " This is not, by many, the only or the greatest falsification of dates by Ames." (See Memoirs of Wren, 1823, PP. 139, 217, 241, 242, 255, 263, 317, 440.) In spite, however, of the combined authority of Nichols and Elmes, it would appear that Ames's labours in connexion with the Parentalia were strictly of an editorial character and that the actual writer or compiler was Christopher Wren, only son of the architect. The original manuscript of the work appears to be in the handwriting of Christopher Wren and, as the title‑page shows at the foot, was prepared for publication six years before the death of the compiler C. W. IULY J 74 J Christopher Wren, the only son of the great architect by his first marriage, was born February 16, 1675 and died August 24, 1747, aged 72. " He had made EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 2.69 antiquity, which he well understood, his particular study and was extremely communicative." He wrote and published, in 1708, a learned work, which he dedicated to his brethren of the Royal Society, containing representations of many curious Greek medallions and ancient inscriptions, followed by legends of imperial coins from Julius Cxsar to Aurelian, with their interpretations and an appendix oú Syrian and Egyptian kings and coins, all collected by himself. He also wrote the MS. life of his father in Latin (Lansdowne MSS., No. 698, fol. 136) and arranged the documents for the Parentalia, which were afterwards published by his son Stephen, assisted by Joseph Ames. We find, therefore, that the memoirs or opinions of Sir Christopher Wren come down to us recorded by his son, a learned antiquary, at the age of 66, when his father had been just eighteen years in his grave.

 

The first observation to be made on the passage at p. 306 of the Parentalia, commencing, " He [Wren] was of opinion (as has been mentioned in another place)," is, that this sentence in brackets refers to a memorial of Sir Christopher in his own words, to the Bishop of Rochester, in the year 1713, from which the following are two extracts This we now call the Gothick manner of Architecture (so the Italians call'd what was not after the Roman Style), though the Goths were rather Destroyers than Builders : I think it should with more reason be call'd the Saracen‑style: for those People wanted neither Arts nor Learning and, after We in the West had lost Both, we borrow'd again from Them, out of their Arabick‑Books, what they with great diligence had translated from the Greeks. They were Zealous in their Religion, and wherever they Conquer'd (which was with amazing rapidity), erected Mosques and Caravansaras in hast, which oblig'd them to fall into another Way of Building; for they Built their Mosques Round, disliking the Christian Form of a Cross.

 

The Saracen Mode of Building seen in the East soon spread over Europe and particularly in France ; the Fashions of which Nation we affected to imitate in all ages, even when we were at enmity with it.

 

The preceding quotations contain everything in Wren's actual memorial which may tend to throw any light upon the opinion of the great architect, as recorded by his son. It will be noticed that the Freemasons are not alluded to, at first hand, by Sir Christopher, therefore we have no other choice than to accept the evidencequantum valeat as transmitted by his son. It is true that the language employed is not free from ambiguity and it might plausibly be contended that the authority of the architect was not meant to cover the entire dissertation on the Freemasons. Still, on the whole, we shall steer a safe course in accepting the passage in the Parentalia as being Christopher Wren's recollection of his father's opinion, though tinctured insensibly by much that he may have heard and read during the twenty years that elapsed between the death of the architect and the compilation of the family memoir.

 

From neither of the extracts from the Parentalia is there justification for drawing an inference that Wren was a Freemason. The passage at p. z9z of that work 27o EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY contains the only allusion to the English Society, wherein, indeed, Edward Strong is described as a " Free and Accepted Mason," though it may well have been that, had the worthy master mason noticed this statement in the autobiography which will later be considered, three contradictions instead of two might have appeared between the testimonies of the elder Strong and the younger Wren.

 

If Sir Christopher was ever admitted into the society of Freemasons‑whether the event is fixed according to the earlier date given by Dr. Anderson or the later one of John Aubrey, is immaterial‑his son Christopher must have known of it and it is extremely improbable, to say the least, that the latter would neglect to record any details of such an occurrence with which he was acquainted. Christopher Wren, elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1693, at the early age of eighteen, though not admitted until 1698, must have frequently met Dr. Plot, who was on very intimate terms with his father; and it is quite within the limits of probability also that he was personally acquainted with both Ashmole and Aubrey. Ashmole, Plot and Aubrey died respectively in 1692, 1695 and 1697.

 

With the writings of these three antiquaries, however, it may confidently be assumed he was familiar. The references to the elder Wren are so frequent, that, without doubt, Ashmole's Diary and Antiquities of Berkshire and Aubrey's Natural History of Surrey, all published, it must be recollected, before 17zo‑were read with great interest by the architect's family. If we admit the possibility of Sir Christopher being a Freemason, the entries in the Diary and the learned speculations in regard to the origin of the Society prefixed to the Antiquities of Berkshire must (on the supposition above alluded to) have necessarily led to his having expressed agreement or disagreement with the remarks of his friend Plot in 1686 (Natural History of Staffordshire, p. 316) and it may also as safely be inferred that the statement in Ashmole's posthumous work (1719) would have been minutely criticized, in connexion, it may well have been, with the proceedings of the Grand Lodge of England, then just two years established.

 

But putting conjecture aside, Christopher Wren amongst " his brethren of the Royal Society," to whom he dedicated his own book, must have constantly met Dr. Richard Rawlinson‑writer of the memoir of Ashmole, containing the des cription of Freemasonry in the Antiquities of Berkshire‑and it is in the highest degree probable that the latter, who, for reasons stated elsewhere, may have perused both versions of Aubrey's manuscript history and must have satisfied himself of the inaccuracy of the statement relating to Wren, by personal inquiry of the architect or his son.

 

It would, on the whole, appear probable that Christopher Wren knew of, but rejected, the statement of John Aubrey and it may be concluded that the omission of any reference whatever to the prediction of 16gi is tantamount to an assurance that, in the opinion of his son and biographer, there was no foundation whatever, in fact, for any theory with regard to Wren's membership which had been set up. The real importance of the passage at p. 3o6 of the Parentalia arises from the fact of its being in general agreement with all the other theories or speculations EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY relating to the origin of Freemasonry which have been traced or ascribed to writers or speakers of the seventeenth century. The next point‑a very remarkable oneis the singular coincidence of the three versions attributed to Dugdale, Wren and Ashmole respectively, possessing the common feature of having been handed down by evidence of the most hearsay character.

 

The earliest mention of the " travelling bodies of Freemasons," who are said to have erected all the great buildings of Europe, occurs in the Natural History of Wiltshire and appears to have been written a few years before 1686. As the text of the Oxford copy of this MS. was completed in 1686, it is evident, from the position of fol. 73, that Aubrey's original remarks on the Freemasons were penned at some previous time. This inference is strengthened by the absence in the MS. of any allusion to the observations of Dr. Plot on the same subject in his Natural History of Staffordshire, published in 1686 ; a copy of which, Elias Ashmole records in his Diary, was presented to him by the author on May 23 of that year. Aubrey here says:‑" Sr William Dugdale [born 1605, died February io, 1686] told me many years since." In the Parentaha, as already seen, Christopher Wren records the belief of his father under the expression‑" He [Wren] was of opinion " ; and it only remains to be stated, that, in a similar manner, are we made acquainted with the views of Elias Ashmole on the same subject. In the memoir of Ashmole in the Biographia Britannica appears a letter from Dr. Knipe, of Christ Church, Oxford, from which the following is extracted What from Mr. Ashmole's collection I could gather was, that the report of our Society taking rise from a Bull granted by the Pope in the reign of Henry III to some Italian architects, to travel over all Europe to erect Chapels, was ill‑founded. Such a Bull there was, and those architects were masons. But this Bull, in the opinion of the learned M' Ashmole, was confirmative only and did not by any means create our fraternity, or even establish them in this kingdom.

 

In the preceding extracts there is, at the best, but secondary evidence of opinions entertained by three eminent authorities. It is almost certain, however, that these may be traced to a single source. For the purposes of this inquiry, it is immaterial to consider whether Dugdale acquired his information from Ashmole, or vice versa. Substantially their speculations were identical, as will more clearly appear if any reader takes the trouble to compare Aubrey's note of Sir William Dugdale's statement with the memoir of Ashmole, from the pen of Dr. Rawlinson, given in Ashmole's posthumous work, the Antiquities of Berkshire (I719). The following extract must have largely influenced Dr. Knipe in 1747, when he communicated with Dr. Campbell, the writer of the article " Ashmole " in the Biographia Britannica, and though, in all probability, both Knipe and Rawlinson drew from the same fount, viz. the Ashmole Papers, yet it may fairly be assumed that as many rivulets of information still flowing during the early residence at Oxford of the latter must have become dried up half a century later‑during which period, moreover, the reputation of Dr. Rawlinson as a scholar and an archxologist had been firmly established‑the younger commentator, himself a Freemason, is scarcely likely to have 272 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY recorded his impression of the origin of Freemasonry believed in by Ashmole, without conferring previously with the eminent antiquary and topographer who had so long ago preceded him in the same field of inquiry.

 

On October 16 [1646] he [Ashmole] was elected a Brother of the Company of Free Masons, with Collonel Henry Mainwaring, of Kerthingham in Cheshire, at Warrington in Lancashire, a Favour esteemed so singular by the Members, that Kings themselves have not disdain'd to enter themselves into this Society, the original Foundation of which is said to be as high as the Reign of King Henry III, when the Pope granted a Bull, Patent, or Diploma, to a particular Company of Italian Masons and Architects to travel over all Europe to build Churches. From this is derived the Fraternity of Adopted Masons, Accepted Masons, or Free Masons, who are known to one another all over the World by certain Signals and Watch Words known to them alone. They have several Lodges in different Countries for their Reception; and when any of them fall into Decay, the Brotherhood is to relieve him. The manner of their Adoption, or Admission, is very formal and solemn and with the Administration of an Oath of Secrecy, which has had better Fate than all other Oaths and has been ever most religiously observed, nor has the World been yet able, by the inadvertence, surprise, or folly of any of its Members, to dive into this Mystery, or make the least discovery. (Ashmole's Antiquities of Berkshire, Preface by Dr. Rawlinson, p. vi.) This memoir of Ashmole is followed by no signature, nor does the titlepage of the work disclose the name of the editor. There appears, however, no reason to doubt that the work was edited and the memoir written, by Dr. Richard Rawlinson (see Athena Oxonienses, 3rd edition, vol. iv, p. 363) ; the latter, therefore, whilst open‑to examination and criticism, possesses the credibility which is universally accorded to the testimony of a well‑informed contemporary. Rawlinson is known to have purchased some of Ashmole's and Sir William Dugdale's MSS. (John Nichols, Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century, 18 I2‑I5, vol. v, p. 489). Ashmole's library was sold March 5, 1694 (ibid., vol. iv, p. z9) and that Aubrey's posthumous work, The History of Surrey, was published under his editorial supervision has already been stated. He was also an F.R.S.‑having been elected together with Martin Folkes and John Theophilus Desaguliers in 17i4‑and it is in the highest degree probable that the Royal Society's copy of the Aubrey manuscript constituted one of the sources of information whence he derived his impression of the early origin of the Freemasons. It may safely be assumed that whatever was current in Masonic or literary circles‑at London or Oxford‑respecting the life or opinions of Ashmole, Rawlinson was familiar with and, in this connexion, his silence on the purely personal point of Wren's " adoption " possesses a significance which we can hardly overrate.

 

Elias Ashmole, " the eminent philosopher, chemist and antiquary "‑as he is styled by his fullest biographer, Dr. Campbell‑founder of the noble museum at Oxford, which still bears his name, was the only child of Simon Ashmole, of Lich field, Saddler, in which city his birth occurred on May 23, 1617. The chief instrument of his future preferments, as he gratefully records in his Diary, was his cousin EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY Z73 Thomas, son of James Paget, Esq., some time Puisne Baron of the Exchequer, who had married for his second wife, Bridget, Ashmole's aunt by the mother's side. When he had attained the age of sixteen, he went to reside with Baron Paget, at his house in London and continued for some years afterwards a dependent of that family. Full particulars of his life and career are contained in Dudley Wright's England's Masonic Pioneers. The present concern is solely his connexion with Freemasonry and it must be observed that, although he appears to have regarded his admission into the Order as a great distinction, there is no evidence that he was present at more than two Masonic meetings in his life. The first entry in his Diary relates to his initiation in 1646, the second, to his attending a Masonic meeting at Masons' Hall, London, in 1682, thirty‑five years subsequently, to which he had been summoned. It is not improbable, however, that he did, in some way, keep up his connexion with the Freemasons, but in so slender a manner that it did not merit any special mention. His Diary contains very few details upon any point, except his ailments and lawsuits and his frequent attendance at Astrologers' feasts.

 

It is, however, a noteworthy circumstance that Ashmole and Colonel Mainwaring, adherents respectively of the Court and Parliament, should have been admitted into Freemasonry at the same time and place. Down to 1881 the prevalent belief was, that although a Lodge was in existence at Warrington in 1646, all were of the " craft of Masonry " except Ashmole and Colonel Mainwaring. Ashmole's first wife was the daughter of Colonel Mainwaring's uncle. A flood of light, however, was suddenly shed on the subject by the research of W. H. Rylands, who, in perhaps the very best of the many valuable articles contributed to the now defunct Masonic Magazine, has so far proved the essentially speculative character of the Lodge as to render it difficult to believe that there could have been a single operative Mason present on the afternoon of October 16, 1646. Thus Mr. Richard Penket[h], the I‑Yarden, is shown to have been a scion of the Penkeths of Penketh, and the last of his race who held the family property (see Dudley Wright, op. cit.).

 

The two names which next follow were probably identical with those of James Collyer or Colliar, of Newton‑le‑Willows, Lancashire and Richard Sankie, of the family of Sonkey,or Sankey of Sankey, as they were called, landowners in Warrington from a very early period; they were buried respectively at Winwick and Warrington ‑the former on January 17, 1673‑4, the latter on September 28, 1667. Of the four remaining Freemasons named in the Diary, though without the prefix of " Mr. ," it is shown by Rylands that a gentle family of Littler or Lydor existed in Cheshire in 1646; while he prints the wills of Richard Ellom, Freemason of Lyme [Lymm] and of John Ellams, husbandman, of Burton, both in the county of Cheshire‑that of the former bearing date September 7, 1667 and of the latter June 7, 1689. That these were the Ellams named by Ashmole cannot positively be affirmed, but they were doubtless members of the same yeoman family, a branch of which had apparently settled at Lymm, a village in Cheshire, about five miles from Warrington. Of the family of Hugh Brewer, nothing has come to light beyond the fact that a person bearing this patronymic served in some military capacity under the Earl of Derby in 1643.

 

274 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY The proceedings at Warrington in 1646 establish some very important facts in relation to the antiquity of Freemasonry and to its character as a speculative science. The words Ashmole uses, " the names of those who were then of the lodge," implying as they do either that some of the existing members were absent, or that at a previous period the Lodge‑roll comprised other and additional names beyond those recorded in the Diary, amply justify the conclusion that the Lodge, when Ashmole joined it, was not a new creation. The term " Warden " moreover, which follows the name of Rich. Penket, will of itself remove any lingering doubt whether the Warrington Lodge could boast a higher antiquity than the year 1646, since it points with the utmost clearness to the fact that an actual official of a subsisting branch of the Society of Freemasons was present at the meeting.

 

The history or pedigree of the Lodge is therefore to be carried back beyond October 16, 1646, but how far is indeterminable and, in a certain sense, immaterial. The testimony of Ashmole establishes beyond cavil that, in a certain year (1646), at the town of Warrington, there was in existence a Lodge of Freemasons, presided over by a Warden, and largely (if not entirely) composed of speculative or nonoperative members. Concurrently with this, we have the evidence of the Sloane MS., 3848 (13), which document bears the following attestation " Finis p me Eduardu : Sankey decimo sexto die Octobris Anno Domini 1646." Commenting upon the proceedings at the Warrington meeting, Fort remarks " It is a subject of curious speculation as to the identity of Richard Sankey, a member of the above Lodge. Sloane MS., No. 3848, was transcribed and finished by one Edward Sankey, on the 16th day of October 1646, the day Elias Ashmole was initiated into the secrets of the Craft " (Early History and Antiquities of Freemasonry, p. 137). The research of Rylands has afforded a probable, if not altogether an absolute, solution of the problem referred to and from the same fount we learn that an Edward Sankey, " son to Richard Sankey, gent.," was baptized at Warrington, February 3, 1621‑2.

 

It, therefore, appears that on October 16, 1646 a Richard Sankey was present in Lodge and that an Edward Sankey copied and attested one of the old manuscript Constitutions ; and that a Richard Sankey of Sankey flourished at this time, whose son Edward, if alive, we must suppose would have then been a young man of four or five and twenty. Now, it seems that the identification of the Sankeys of Sankey, father and son, with the Freemason and the copyist of the Old Charges respectively, is rendered as clear as anything lying within the doctrine of probabilities can be made to appear.

 

It may, therefore, be assumed that a version of the old manuscript Constitutions, which has fortunately come down to us, was in circulation at Warrington in 1646. Thus we should have, in the year named, Speculative and, it may be, also Operative EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 275 Masonry, co‑existing with the actual use, by Lodges and Brethren, of the Scrolls or Constitutions of which the Sloane MS., 3 848 (13), affords an illustration in point. The remaining entries in the Diary of a Masonic character are the following March, 1682.

 

io.‑About 5 P.M. I recd: a Sumons to appr at a Lodge to be held the next day, at Masons Hall London.

 

11.‑Accordingly I went, & about Noone were admitted into the Fellowship of Free Masons, S; William Wilson Knight, Capt. Rich: Borthwick, M; Will : Woodman, M; Wm Grey, MT Samuell Taylour & M; William Wise.

 

I was the Senior Fellow among them (it being 3 5 yeares since I was admitted) There were prsent beside my selfe the Fellowes after named.

 

Mr Tho : Wise M` of the Masons Company this prsent yeare. Mr Thomas Shorthose, Mr Thomas Shadbolt, Waindsford Esqr Mr Nich Young M! John Shorthose, M; William Hamon, Mr. John Thompson, & M; Will: Stanton.

 

Wee all dyned at the halfe Moone Taverne in Cheapside at a Noble dinner prepaired at the charge of the New = accepted Masons.

 

All the persons named in the last paragraph quoted from the Diary, also Mr. Will. Woodman and Mr. William Wise, who are mentioned in the earlier one, were members of the Masons' Company. Thomas Wise was elected Master, January 1, 1 682. By Vaindsford, Esq., is probably meant Rowland Rainsford, who is described in the records of the Company as " late apprentice to Robert Beadles, was admitted a freeman, Jan. 15, 166 $ " ; and William Hamon is doubtless identical with William Hamond, who was present at a meeting of the Company on April 11, 1682. John Shorthose and Will. Stanton were Wardens.

 

From the circumstance that Ashmole records his attendance at a meeting of the Freemasons, held in the hall of the Company of Masons, a good deal of confusion has been engendered, which some casual remarks of Dr. Anderson, in the Con stitutions Of 1723 (p. 82), have done much to confirm. By way of filling up a page, as he expresses it, he quotes from an old Record of Masons, to the effect that, " the said Record describing a Coat of Arms, much the same with that of the LONDON COMPANY of Freemen Masons, it is generally believ'd that the said Company is descended of the ancient Fraternity; and that in former Times no Man was Free of that Company until he was install'd in some Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons, as a necessary Qualification." " But," he adds, " that laudable Practice seems to have been long in Dissuetude." It is important, however, carefully to discriminate between the undoubted testimony of Ashmole and the opinions which have been ascribed to him. So far as the former is concerned, direct allusions to the Masonic Fraternity come to an end with the last entry given from the Diary (1682) ; but the latter have exercised so much influence upon the writings of all historians, that their careful analysis will form one of the most important parts of inquiry.

 

276 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY In order to present this evidence in a clear form, it becomes necessary to dwell upon the fact, that the entries in the Diary record the attendance of Ashmole at two Masonic meetings only‑viz. in 1646 and 168z respectively.

 

This Diary was not printed until 1717. Rawlinson's preface to the History of Berkshire saw the light two years later; and the article " Ashmole " in the Bio graphia Britannica was published in 1747. During the period, however, intervening between the last entry referred to in the Diary (168z) and its publication (1717) there appeared Dr. Plot's Natural History of Staffordshire (1686), in which is contained the earliest critico‑historical account of the Freemasons. Plot's remarks form the ground‑work of an interesting note to the memoir of Ashmole in the Biographia Britannica ; and the latter, which has been very much relied upon by the compilers of Masonic history, is scarcely intelligible without a knowledge of the former. There were also occasional references to Plot's work in the interval between 1717 and 1747, from which it becomes the more essential that, in critically appraising the value of statements given to the world on the authority of Ashmole, we should have before us all the evidence which can assist in guiding us to a sound and rational conclusion.

 

First, attention must be recalled to the statement of Sir William Dugdale, recorded by Aubrey in his Natural History of Viltshire. No addition to the text of this work was made after 1686‑Aubrey being then sixty years of age‑and, giving the entry in question no earlier date (though this might safely be done), we should put to ourselves the inquiry, what distance back can the expression, " many years ago," from the mouth of a man of sixty, safely carry us ? Under any method of computation, Dugdale's verbal statement must be presumed to date from a period somewhere intermediate between October 16, 1646 and March 11, 168z. It is quite certain that it was made before the meeting occurred in the latter year at the Masons' Hall.

 

Ashmole informs us 1656 . September . 13 . About 9 hor . ante merid. . I came first to Mr Dugdale's at Blyth‑Hall.

 

December 1g . I went towards Blyth‑Hall.

 

A similar entry occurs under the date of March z7 in the following year; after which we find 1657 . May . icg . I accompanied Mr Dugdale in his journey towards the Fens 4 . Hor . 3o minites ante merid.

 

Blyth‑Hall seems to have possessed great attractions for Ashmole, since he went there repeatedly between the years 1657 and 166o. In the latter year he was appointed Windsor Herald and in 1661 was given precedency over the other Heralds. He next records 166z August . I accompanied Mr Dugdale in his visitation of Derby and Nottingham shires.

 

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 277 1663 . March . I accompanied Mr Dugdale in his visitation of Staffordshire and Derbyshire.

 

August 3. 9 Hor. ante merid. . I began my journey to accompany Mr Dugdale in his visitations of Shropshire and Cheshire.

 

Further entries in the Diary relate constant visits to Blyth‑Hall in 1665 and the three following years ; and, seven months after the death of his second wife, the Lady Mainwaring, Ashmole thus describes his third marriage 1668 . November . 3 . I married Mrs Elizabeth Dugdale, daughter to William Dugdale, Esq., Norroy King of Arms, at Lincoln's Inn Chapel.

 

As the ideas of the two antiquaries necessarily became very interchangeable from the year 1656 and in 1663 they were together in Staffordshire, Ashmole's native county, we shall not go far astray if, without assigning the occurrence any exact date, we at least assume that the earliest colloquy of the two Heralds, with regard to the Society of Freemasons, cannot with any approach to accuracy be fixed at any later period than 1663. This conclusion is arrived at, not only from the intimacy between the men and their both being officials of the College of Arms, but also because they went together to make the Staffordshire " Visitation," which, taken with Plot's subsequent account of the " Society," appears to justify the belief, that the prevalence of Masonic Lodges in his native county was a circumstance of which Ashmole could hardly have been unaware‑indeed the speculation may be hazarded that the " customs " of Staffordshire were not wholly without their influence when he cast in his lot with the Freemasons at Warrington in 1646 ; and in this view of the case, the probability of Dugdale having derived a portion of the information which he afterwards passed on to Aubrey from his brother Herald in 1663 may safely be admitted.

 

Ashmole appears to have entertained a great affection for the city of his birth. His visits to Lichfield were very frequent and he was a great benefactor to its cathedral, in which he commenced his life as a chorister. (See Dr. T. Harwood's History of Lichfield, 18o6, pp. 6i, 69, 441.) In 1671, he was, together with his wife, " entertained by the Bailiffs at a dinner and a great banquet." Twice the leading citizens invited him to become one of their Burgesses in Parliament. It is within the limits of probability, that the close and intimate connexion between Ashmole and his native city, which only ceased with the life of the antiquary, may have led to his being present at the Masons' Hall, London, on March 11, 1682. Sir William Wilson, one of the " new accepted " Masons on that occasion and originally a stonemason, was the sculptor of the statue of Charles II, erected in the Cathedral of Lichfield at the expense of and during the episcopate of Bishop Hacket, who expended Czo,ooo on repairs to the Cathedral; and it seems that we have in this circumstance an explanation of Ashmole's presence at the Masons' Hall, which, not to put it any higher, is in harmony with the known attachment of the antiquary for the city and Cathedral of Lichfield‑an attachment not unlikely to result in his 2‑78 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY becoming personally acquainted with any artists of note employed in the restoration of an edifice endeared to him by so many recollections.

 

Sir William Wilson's approaching " admission " or " acceptance " may, therefore, have been the disposing cause of the Summons received by Ashmole, but, leaving this conjecture for what it is worth, we pass on to Dr. Plot's Natural History of Staffordshire, the publication of which occurred in the same year (1686) as the transcription of the Antiquity MS. (23) by Robert Padgett, a synchronism of no little singularity, from the point of view from which it will hereafter be regarded.

 

Although Plot's description of Freemasonry, as practised by its votaries in the second half of the seventeenth century, has been reprinted times without number, it is quite impossible to exclude it from this history. The quotation is from the Natural History of Staffordshire, which, however, does not cast any new light upon the passages relating to the Freemasons.

 

DR. PLOT'S ACCOUNT OF THE FREEMASONS, A.D. 1686 1 85. To these add the Customs relating to the County, whereof they have one, of admitting Men into the Society of Free‑Masons, that in the moorelands [the more northerly mountainous part] of this County seems to be of greater request, than any where else, though I find the Custom spread more or less all over the Nation; for here I found persons of the most eminent quality, that did not disdain to be of this Fellowship. Not indeed need they, were it of that Antiquity and honor, that is pretended in a large parchment volum they have amongst them, containing the History and Rules of the craft of masonry. Which is there deduced not only from sacred writ, but profane story, particularly that it was brought into England by S`. Amphibal [the existence of this saint is now generally discredited] and first communicated to S. Alban. who set down the Charges of masonry and was made paymaster and Governor of the Kings works, and gave them charges and manners as St. Amphibal had taught him. Which were after confirmed by King Athelstan, whose youngest son Edwyn loved well masonry, took upon him the charges and learned the manners and obtained for them of his Father a free‑Charter. Whereupon he caused them to assemble at York and to bring all the old Books of their craft and out of them ordained such charges and manners, as they then thought fit : which charges in the said Schrole or Parchment volum, are in part declared ; and thus was the craft of masonry grounded and confirmed in England. It is also there declared that these charges and manners were after perused and approved by King Hen. 6. and his council, both as to Masters and Fellows of this right Worshipfull craft.

 

1 86. Into which Society when any are admitted, they call a meeting (or Lodg as they term it in some places), which must consist at lest of S or 6 oú the Ancients of the Order, whom the candidats present with gloves and so likewise to their wives and entertain with a collation according to the Custom of the place This ended, they proceed to the admission of them, which chiefly consists in the communication of certain secret signes, whereby they are known to one another all over the Nation, by which means they have maintenance whither ever they travel : for if any man appear though altogether unknown that can skew any EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 279 of these signes to a Fellow of the Society, whom they otherwise call an accepted mason, he is obliged presently to come to him, from what company or place soever he be in, nay, tho' from the top of a Steeple (what hazard or inconvenience soever he run), to know his pleasure, and assist him ; viZ., if he want work he is bound to find him some ; or if he cannot doe that, to give him mony, or otherwise support him till work can be had; which is one of their Articles; and it is another, that they advise the Masters they work for, according to the best of their shall, acquainting them with the goodness or badness of their materials; and if they be any way out in the contrivance of their buildings, modestly to rectify them in it ; that masonry be not dishonored: and many such like that are commonly known: but some others they have (to which they are sworn after their fashion), that none know but themselves, which I have reason to suspect are much worse than these, perhaps as bad as this History of the craft itself; than which there is nothing I ever met with, more false or incoherent.

 

5 87. For not to mention that St. Ampbibalus by judicious persons is thought rather to be the cloak, than master of St. Alban ; or how unlikely it is that St. Alban himself in such a barbarous Age, and in times of persecution, should be superviser of any works; it is plain that King Atbelstan was never marryed, or ever had so much as any natural issue ; (unless we give way to the fabulous History of Guy Earl of Warwick, whose eldest son Keynburn is said indeed to have been marryed to Loneat, the supposed daughter of Atbelstan, which will not serve the turn neither) much less ever had he a lawfull son Fdwyn, of whom I find not the least umbrage in History. He had indeed a Brother of that name, of whom he was so jealouse, though very young when he came to the crown, that he sent him to Sea in a pinnace without tackle or oar, only in company with a page, that his death might be imputed to the waves and not him ; whence the Young Prince (not able to master his passions) cast himself headlong into the Sea and there dyed. Who how unlikely to learn their manners; to get them a Charter ; or call them together at York; let the Reader judg.

 

~ 88. Yet more improbable is it still, that Hen. the 6 and his Council should ever peruse or approve their charges and manners, and so confirm these right Worshipfull Masters and Fellows, as they are call'd in the Scrole : for in the third of his reigne (when he could not be 4 years old) I find an act of Parliament quite abolishing this Society. It being therein ordained, that no Congregations and Confederacies should be made by masons, in their general Chapters and Assemblies, whereby the good course and effect of the Statutes of Labourers, were violated and broken in subversion of Lam: and that those who caused such Chapters or Congregations to be holden, should be adjudged Felons; and that those masons that came to them should be punish't by imprisonment, and make fine and ransom at the King's will. So very much out was the Compiler of this History of the craft of masonry, and so little skill had he in our Chronicles and Laws. Which Statute though repealed by a subsequent act in the 5 of Eliz., whereby servants and Labourers are compellable to serve, and their wages limited; and all masters made punishable for giving more wages than what is taxed by the justices, and the servants if they take it, etc. Yet this act too being but little observed, 'tis still to be feared these Chapters of Free‑masons do as much mischeif as before, which, if one may estimate by the penalty, was anciently so great, that perhaps it might be usefull to examin them now.

 

ZSo EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY In these extracts there is the fullest picture of the Freemasonry which preceded the era of Grand Lodges, that has come down to us in contemporary writings. It is, however, necessary to consider the character and general reputation of the writer, to whom we are so much indebted for this glimpse of light in a particularly dark portion of our annals.

 

Evelyn, who was a good judge of men, says of Plot: " Pity it is that more of this industrious man's genius was not employed so as to describe every county of England" (Diary, July i 1, 1675). It must be confessed, however, that extreme credulity appears to have been a noticeable feature of his character. Thus a friendly critic observes of him: " The Doctor was certainly a profound scholar; but, being of a convivial and facetious turn of mind, was easily imposed on, which, added to the credulous age in which he wrote, has introduced into his works more of the marvellous than is adapted to the present more enlightened period " (Stebbing Shaw, History and Antiquities of Staffordshire, vol. i, 1798, Preface, p. 6. See also Gentleman's Magazine, vol. lxii, p. 694 ; vol. lxv, p. 897 ; and vol. lxxiv, p. 519).

 

In J. Spence's Anecdotes (ed. i8zo, p. 333), we meet with the following : "Dr. Plot was very credulous and took up with any stories for his History of Oxfordshire. A gentleman of Worcestershire was likely to be put into the margin as having one leg rough and the other smooth, had he not discovered the cheat to him out of compassion ; one of his legs had been shaved." Edward Lhuyd, who succeeded Plot as keeper of the Ashmolean Museum, in a letter still preserved, gives a very indifferent character of him to Dr. Martin Lister. " I think," says Lhuyd, " he is a man of as bad morals as ever took a doctor's degree.

 

I wish his wife a good bargain of him and to myself, that I may never meet with the like again " (Athena Oxonienses, vol. iv, col. 777).

 

Plot's " morals " were evidently at a low ebb in the estimation of his brother antiquaries, for Hearne, writing on November 6, 1705, thus expresses himself " There was once a very remarkable stone in Magd. Hall library, which was after wards lent to Dr. Plott, who never returned it, replying, when he was asked for it, that'twas a rule among antiquaries to receive and never restore ! " (Reliquia Hearniania, 18 5 7, vol. i, p. 47) But as it is with our author's veracity, rather than with his infractions of the decalogue, that we are concerned, one of the marvellous stories related by him in all good faith may here fittingly be introduced.

 

A " foole " is mentioned, " who could not only tell you the changes of the Moon, the times of Eclipses and at what time Easter and Whitsuntide fell, or any moveable feast whatever, but at what time any of them had, or should fall, at any distance of years, past or to come " (Natural History of Staffordshire, ch. viii, 1 67).

 

Upon the whole, in arriving at a final estimate of the value of Plot's writings, especially of the work from which an extract has been given, we shall at least be justified in concluding, with Chalmers, that " In the eagerness and rapidity of his various pursuits he took upon trust, and committed to writing, some things which, EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 2‑81 upon mature consideration, he must have rejected" (Biographical Dictionary, vol. xvi, 1816, p. 651).

 

Between 1686 and 1700 there are only two allusions to English Freemasonry by contemporary writers‑one in 1688, the other in 1681. The former is by the third Randle Holme, in The Academie of Armory, the latter by John Aubrey, in the curious memorandum to which it will be unnecessary to do more than refer.

 

One further reference, indeed, to the Freemasons, or rather, to the insignia of the Society, is associated by a later writer with the reign of William and MaryFebruary 1688‑9 to December i 694‑and, although unconnected with the progressive development or evolution of Ashmolean ideas, may perhaps be more conveniently cited at this than at any later period.

 

Describing the two armouries in the Tower of London as " a noble building to the northward of the White Tower," Entick goes on to say‑" It was begun by King James 11 and by that prince built to the first floor; but finished by King William, who erected that magnificent room called the New or Small Armoury, in which he, with Queen Mary his consort, dined in great form, having all the warrant workmen and labourers to attend them, dressed in white gloves and aprons, the usual badges of the Order of Freemasonry " (W. Maitland's History of London, continued by Entick, 1756, p. 168).

 

As a revised issue of the Book of Constitutions was published in 1756the year in which the above remarks first appeared‑also under the editorial supervision of the Rev. John Entick, it would appear either that his materials for the two undertakings became a little mixed, or that a portion of a sentence intended for one work has been accidentally dovetailed with a similar fragment appertaining to the other. However this may be, the readers of this history have the passage before them, upon which their judgment must be passed.

 

A short notice of Ashmole from the pen of Edward Lhuyd was given in Collier's Historical Dictionary in 1707, but his connexion with the Masonic fraternity was first announced by the publication of his own Diary in 1717, from a copy of the original MS. in the Ashmolean Museum, made by Dr. Plot and afterwards collated by David Parry, M.A., both, in their time, official custodians of the actual Diary.

 

In 1719 two posthumous works were published by E. Curll and edited by Dr. Rawlinson, viz., Aubrey's Natural History and Antiquities of Surrey and Ashmole's History and Antiquities of Berkshire. The former, containing the dedication and preface of Aubrey's Natural History of Wiltshire and the latter, the account of the Freemasons. Subsequent editions of Ashmole's Berkshire appeared in 1723 and 1736, to both of which the original preface, or memoir of Ashmole, written by Rawlinson, was prefixed.

 

By those who, at the present time, have before them the identical materials from which Rawlinson composed his description of our Society‑and the most cursory glance at his memoir of Ashmole will satisfy the mind that it is wholly based on the antiquary's Diary and the notes of John Aubrey‑the general accuracy of his statements will not be disputed. Upon his contemporaries, however, they appear to have 2.82 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY made no impression whatever, which may, indeed, altogether be due to their having been published anonymously, though even in this case, there will be room for doubt whether the name of Rawlinson would have much recommended them to credit.

 

Dr. Richard Rawlinson, the fourth son of Sir Thomas Rawlinson, Lord Mayor of London in 17o6, was born in 16go, educated at St. John's College, Oxford, and admitted to the degree of D.C.L. by diploma in 1719. It has been stated on apparently good authority, that he was not only admitted to holy orders but was also a member of the non‑juring episcopate, having been regularly consecrated in 1728. (See Wright's England's Masonic Pioneers, pp. 48‑74.) He evinced an early predilection for literary pursuits and was employed in an editorial capacity before he had completed his twenty‑fifth year. The circumstances, however, as related in Athena Oxonienses, are far from redounding to his credit. Thomas Rawlinson, his younger brother, was a great collector of books. Addison is said to have intended his character of Tom Folio in The Tatler, No. 15 8, for him. While he lived in Gray's Inn, he had four chambers so completely filled with books, that it was necessary to remove his bed into the passage. After his death, in 1725, the sale of his manuscripts alone occupied sixteen days.

 

The sketch of Masonic history given in the Parentalia, though somewhat enlarged, is to the same purport and it may safely be concluded that it was derived from the same source.

 

Before passing in review the further evidence by which the belief in Wren's initiation is supported, it will be convenient to examine with some particularity the theory of Masonic origin with which his name is associated.

 

It should carefully be noted that the reported dicta of Dugdale, Ashmole and Wren, though characterized by trifling discrepancies, agree in the main and especially on the point of Papal favours having been accorded to Italian architects. This consensus on the part of the three English authorities, to whom the early mention of Bulls is traced or ascribed, we should keep carefully in view, whilst examining the learned speculations to which the subject has given rise in Germany.

 

In another part of this work it is stated that the tradition of the Steinmetzen having obtained extensive privileges from the Popes has been current in German annals from very early times. In a series of articles communicated to The Freemason (January zo, February 3 and io, 1883) by G. W. Speth, this subject has been ably discussed and it is contended with much force that, as the Constitutions of the Steinmetzen were confirmed by the Emperors of Germany, it is equally reasonable to conclude that they were submitted to the Popes. " In 1518," says Speth (citing Heideloff and Kloss) The Lodge at Magdeburgh petitioned their Prince for a confirmation of their ordinances, declaring their willingness to alter any part, always excepting the chief articles, which had been confirmed by Papal and Imperial authority. The Strasburg Lodge, during their quarrel with the Annaberg Lodge, wrote in 1519 that the abuse of four years' apprenticeship had been put an end to by his Holiness the Pope and his EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 283 Majesty the Emperor. We also find that the quarrel came to an end after the Strasburg Master had forwarded to the Duke of Saxony attested copies of the Papal and Imperial privileges which they possessed, and that the original documents were produced for the inspection of the Saxon deputies at Strasburg.

 

Whilst, however, fully conceding the extreme probability, to say the least, of privileges or confirmations having been granted by the Popes ‑to the Steinmetzen, it is difficult to follow Kloss, when he says The statement concerning the " travelling masons," attributed to Wren, should arouse all the more suspicion the closer we investigate the surrounding circumstances, the incredibility of which is at once evident and the more we con sider the possibility of the facts narrated. We may, therefore, ascribe the whole tradition thus put into the mouths of Ashmole and Wren to an attempt at adorning the guild legends, which may be based on the Papal confirmations really granted to the German Stonemasons in 15 02 and 15 17.

 

As it is the habit of commentators to be silent, or at most very concise, where there is any difficulty and to be very prolix and tedious where there is none, this attempt by Kloss to solve one of the greatest problems in Masonic history will bespeak gratitude, if it does not ensure assent. It will be seen that the value of the evidence upon which the story hangs is made to depend upon credible tradition rather than written testimonies ; whilst Kloss admits that the statements ascribed to Ashmole and Wren may have had some foundation in fact (otherwise the tradition would not have been credible) ; on the other hand, he finds a motive for their assertion in the anxiety of the historians of Masonry to embellish the " Legend of the Guilds." If, however, as witnesses, the mouths are to be closed of Dugdale, Ashmole and Wren, this must necessitate the excision of the story of the " Bulls " from the traditionary history of Freemasonry.

 

The earliest in point of date, that of Sir William Dugdale, has come down to us through the testimony of Aubrey. Assuming, then, for present purposes, that Dugdale meant what he is reported to have said, we find‑if the actual words are followed‑that, according to his belief, " about Henry the Third's time, the Pope gave a Bull or Diploma to a company of Italian Architects to travell up and downe over all Europe to build Churches." The sentence is free from ambiguity except as regards the allusion to Henry‑III. That the recipients of the Bull or Diploma were Italian architects and their function the construction of churches, is plain and distinct, but the words, " Henry the Third's Time," are not so easily interpreted. On the one hand, these may simply mean that Papal letters were given between I z 16 and i z72, in which case a solution of the problem must be looked for in the history of Italy; whilst, on the other hand, they may closely associate the reign of King Henry III with the occurrence described and indicate that in the annals of that period of English history will be found a clue to the explanation we are in search of.

 

The latter supposition, on the face of it, the more probable of the two, is fully 284 borne out by the circumstances of Henry's reign, as narrated by the most trustworthy historians.

 

The Papal authority in England stood at its highest when this prince succeeded to the throne. An Interdict had been laid on the kingdom in i 2o8 and, in i z i i, John was not only excommunicated but deposed and that sentence was pronounced with the greatest solemnity by the Pope himself. The king's subjects were not only all absolved from their oath of allegiance, but were strictly forbidden to acknowledge him in any respect whatever as their sovereign, to obey him, or even to speak to him. (See A. Bower, History of the Popes, 1766, vol. vi, p. 2o2.) On May 15, 1213, John knelt before the legate Pandulf, surrendered his kingdom to the Roman See, took it back again as a tributary vassal, swore fealty and did liege homage to the Pope (Green, History of the English People, 1881, vol. i, p. 236). "Never," says Green, " had the priesthood wielded such boundless power over Christendom as in the days of Innocent the Third (1198‑1216) and his immediate successors " (ibid., P. 254). This Pontiff set himself up as the master of Christian princes, changed the title of the Popes, which had hitherto been Vicar of Peter, to Vicar of Christ and was the author of the famous comparison of the Papal power to the sun, " the greater light " and of the temporal power to the moon, " the lesser light." At the death of John (1216) the concurrence of the Papal authority being requisite to support the tottering throne, Henry III was obliged to swear fealty to the Pope and to renew that homage to which his father had subjected the kingdom. Pope Honorius III (iz16‑27), as feudal superior, declared himself the guardian of the orphan and commanded Gualo to reside near his person, watch over his safety and protect his just rights. The Papal legate, therefore, took up his residence at the English court and claimed a share in the administration of the realm as the representative of its overlord and as guardian of the young sovereign (Green, op. cit., vol. i, p. 250). " In England," says Green, " Rome believed herself to have more than a spiritual claim for support. She regarded the kingdom as a vassal kingdom and as bound to its overlord. It was only by the promise of a heavy subsidy that Henry in 1229 could buy the Papal confirmation of Langton's successor." During the reign of this king the chief grievances endured by his subjects were the usurpations and exactions of the Court of Rome. All the chief benefices of the kingdom were conferred on Italians, great numbers of whom were sent over at one time to be provided for ; and the system of non‑residence and pluralities was carried to an enormous height. The benefices of the Italian clergy in England amounted to 6o,ooo marks a year, a sum which exceeded the annual revenue of the Crown itself. The Pope exacted the revenues of all vacant benefices, the twentieth of all ecclesiastical revenues without exception, the third of such as exceeded loo marks a year and half of those possessed by non‑residents. He claimed the goods of all intestate clergymen, advanced a title to inherit all money gotten by usury and levied benevolences upon the people. When the king, contrary to his usual practice, prohibited these exactions, he was threatened with excommunication. The supremacy of the Popes over all temporal sovereigns was maintained by EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 2.85 Adrian IV, who, on visiting the camp of Frederic Barbarossa, haughtily refused to give the kiss of peace until the Emperor elect had submitted to hold the stirrup of his mule in the presence of the whole army. Adrian, who was the only English Pope, granted the lordship of Ireland to Henry II in a Bull which declared all islands to belong to St. Peter.

 

The murder of Thomas a Becket in 1170 conduced still further to augment the Papal influence in England. Henry II submitted to the authority of the Papal legates and, having sworn on the relics of the saints that he had not commanded nor desired the death of the archbishop and, having also made various concessions to the Church, he received absolution from the legates and was confirmed in the grant of Ireland made by Pope Adrian.

 

The following are examples of privileges and confirmations emanating from the Roman See 1124‑1130. The goods, possessions and rents of the Provost and Canons of the Collegiate Church of Beverley, confirmed by a Bull of Pope Honorius II. (See Poulson, Antiquities and History of Beverley, vol. ii, p. 5 z4.) 1181‑1185. The charter of the " Great Guild of St. John of Beverley of the Hanshous:░.," confirmed by a Bull of Pope Lucius III. (Smith's English Guilds, 1'‑ 1530 Jan. 26, i z 1 g. An Indulgence of 4o days given by Pope Honorius III to those who assist at the translation of the body of Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury. (Rymer, Fadera, vol. i, p. 254.) 12‑5.z. A pardon for release of xl days' penance, sent out by Pope Innocent IV, to those assisting at the Sustentation of St. Paul's Cathedral. (Sir W. Dugdale, History of St. Paul's Cathedral, 1716, p. 14.) 135z‑62. An Indulgence of two years and two quarters granted by Pope Innocent VI " to the liberal contributors " to the construction of the Cathedral of York. (Drake's Eboracum, p. 475.) 1366. One year's Indulgence granted by Urban V to " the Christian benefactors " of the same fabric.

 

Three Papal confirmations relating to the Chapter of the Cathedral of St. Peter of York are given by Sir W. Dugdale, one from Alexander [III] confirming a charter granted by William Rufus ; the others from Popes Innocent IV and Honorius III, ratifying privileges conferred by English prelates. (Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. vi, p. 1178.) Connected in men's minds, as the Freemasons were, with the erection of churches and cathedrals, the portion of the tradition which places their origin in travelling bodies of Italians is not only what one might expect to meet with, but it possesses what, without doing violence to language, may be termed some foundation in fact. Attention is directed pointedly by Marchese to the numerous ecclesiastical structures erected in the thirteenth century, not only in Italy, but in France, Germany, England and Belgium, who cites, inter alia, the basilica of St. Francesco di Assisi, A.D. 12 z8 ; the duomo of Florence, 1298 ; that of Orvieto, iz9o ; St. Antonio di 286 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY Padova, I z3 I ; the Campo Santo di Pisa, 1278 ; St. Maria Novella in Florence, Iz7c9 ; St. Croce, built in 1294; to which period also belong SS. Giovanni and Paolo and the Church of the Frari in Venice. Outside Italy, he names the cathedrals of Cologne, Beauvais, Chartres, Rheims, Amiens, Brussels, York, Salisbury, Westminster, Burgos and Toledo, as all belonging to the first half of the thirteenth century (Lives of the most Emigent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects of the Order of St. Dominic, 1852, Preface, p. xxv). For the earliest masons we must search the records of the earliest builders and whilst, therefore, it is clear that this class of workmen had been extensively employed by the Benedictines, the Cistercians and the Carthusians, all of which had a footing in England long before the era of the Franciscans and Dominicans ; on the other hand, the latter Orders can fairly claim to rank as links in the chain, by which, if at all, the Freemasons of the Middle Ages can be connected with their congeners, the actual constructors of those marvels of operative skill, the temples, of a more remote antiquity.

 

Dugdale, Ashmole and Wren very probably derived their information much in the same manner as their several opinions have been passed on to later ages. Somebody must have told Dugdale what Aubrey's pen has recorded, it matters not who, whether a Mason or otherwise, is equally immaterial. The members of a secret society are rarely conversant with its origin and history and, unless the Freemasons of the sixteenth century were addicted to the study of Masonic antiquities, in a degree far surpassing the practice of their living descendants‑of whom not one in a hundred advances beyond a smattering of ritual and ceremonial‑they could have had little or nothing to communicate beyond the tradition as it has come down to us.

 

Possibly about the middle of the sixteenth century certain leading incidents in the history of the Friars had become blended with the traditionary history of the Freemasons and it is not improbable that the " letters of fraternity " (see Fosbroke, British Monachism, i8oz, vol. ii, p. 53), common in the thirteenth century‑as well as before and after‑of which those of the Friars had a peculiar sanctity, may have assisted potently in implanting the idea of the Brotherhood of Freemasons having received Papal favours through the medium of the Italians, who were travelling over Europe and building churches. Colour is lent to this supposition by the fact that in 1387 " a certain Friar preacher, Brother William Bartone by name, gave security to three journeymen cordwainers of London, that he would make suit in Rome for a confirmation of their fraternity by the Pope." (See Riley, Memorials of London, p. 495.) If this view of the case be accepted, the Dugdale‑Aubrey derivation of the Freemasons from certain wandering Italians would sufficiently be explained.

 

Although, in the opinion of some respectable authorities, the only solution of the problem under consideration is to be found in the Papal Writings, of which, at various times, the Steinmetzen were the recipients, the supporters of this view have failed to realize the substantial difficulties of making out their case, or the lengths to which they must go, in order even to sustain plausibly the theory they EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 287 have set up. In the first place, the belief in Papal Bulls having been granted to the Freemasons is an English and not a German tradition. Secondly, the privileges claimed for the Steinmetzen rest upon two distinct sources of authority‑one set, the confirmations of Popes Alexander VI and Leo X in 15 02 and 1517, are supported by credible tradition ; the other set, the Indulgences extending from the time of Nicholas III to that of Benedict XII (1277‑1334), repose on no foundation other than unverified assertion.

 

Now, in order to show that Dugdale's statement to Aubrey was based on the Papal confirmations of 1502 and 1517, proof must be forthcoming, that the first antiquary of his age not only recognized the Steinmetzen as the parents, or at least as the precursors, of the Freemasons, but that he styled the former Italians and made a trifling mistake of three centuries in his chronology ! True, the anachronism disappears if we admit the possibility of his having been influenced by the legendary documents of earlier date (1277‑13 34)‑though, as a matter of fact, since the masons of southern Germany only formed themselves into a brotherhood in 1459, no Papal writing of earlier date can have been sent to them‑but the error as to nationality remains and, under both suppositions, even adding the Indulgence of Cologne (1248), it is impossible to get over the circumstance that Dugdale speaks of a Society or body of men who were to travel over Europe and build churches. The Steinmetzen, indeed, built churches, but the system of travelling‑which, by the way, only became obligatory in the sixteenth century‑was peculiar to the journeymen of the association and did not affect the masters, to whom, in preference to their subordinates, the Pope's mandate to travel and erect churches would, doubtless, have been addressed.

 

The suggestion of Dr. Kloss, that the tradition of the Bulls was fabricated for the purpose of adorning the " legend of the guilds " and fathered upon Ashmole and Wren‑on the face of it a very hasty induction from imperfect data‑may be disposed of in a few words.

 

Kloss evidently had in his mind Dr. Anderson's Constitutions of 1723 and 1738, the " Memoir " of Ashmole in the Biographia Britannica, 1747 and Wren's opinion, as related in the Parentalia, 175o. The" Guild" theory, as it has since been termed, was first broached in the publications of Dr. Anderson, by whom no doubt the legends of the Craft were embellished, somewhat, in the process of conversion into a simple traditionary history. Still, in the conjecture that the story of the Bulls was prompted by and, in a measure, grew out of the uncritical statements in the Constitutions, his commentator has gone far astray, as this tradition has come down on unimpeachable authority from 1686 and probably dates from the first half of the seventeenth century. From the works already cited, of 1747 and 175o respectively, Kloss, no doubt, believed that the opinions of Ashmole and Wren acquired publicity and, as the earlier conception of Sir William Dugdale was then entombed in MS., the conclusions he drew were less fanciful than may at first sight appear. The statement attributed to Wren can claim no higher antiquity, as printed matter, than 1750 ; and, though the opinion of Ashmole appears to have first seen light in 1719, 2.88 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY Preston, in his quotation from Dr. Rawlinson's memoir of that antiquary, prefixed to the Antiquities of Berkshire, published in 1719, not only omits the passage relating to the origin of the Freemasons, but deprives the excerpt he presents of any apparent authority, by introducing it as a mere statement by " the writer of Mr. Ashmole's life, who was not a Mason." (Illustrations of Masonry, 1792, p. 213.) The tradition examined forms one of the many historical problems, for the complete solution of which no sufficient materials exist. Yet, as no probability is too faint, no conjecture too bold, or no etymology too uncertain, to escape the credulity of an antiquary in search of evidence to support a Masonic theory, writers of this class, by aid of strained and fanciful analogies, have built up some strange and incredible hypotheses, for which there is no manner of foundation either in history or probability. ~9uod volumus, facile credimus ; whatever accords with our theories is believed without due examination. It is far easier to believe than to be scientifically instructed ; we see a little, imagine a good deal, and so jump to a conclusion.

 

The next evidence in point of time bearing on Wren's membership of the Society is contained in a letter written July i2, 175 7 by Dr. Thomas Manningham, a former Deputy Grand Master (1752‑56) of the earlier or constitutional Grand Lodge of England, in reply to inquiries respecting the validity of certain additional Degrees which had been imported into Holland. This document, found in the archives of the Grand Lodge of the Netherlands in 1868, was shortly afterwards published by S. H. Hertzveld of the Hague. (See Findel, p. 315 and the Freemason's Magazine, vol. xxiv, p. 148.) The letter runs These innovations are of very late years and I believe the Brethren will find a difficulty to produce a Mason acquainted with any such forms, twenty, nay, ten years. My own father has been a Mason these fifty years and has been at Lodges in Holland, France and England. He knows none of these ceremonies. Grand Master Payne, who succeeded Sir Christopher Wren, is a stranger to them, as is likewise one old Brother of ninety, who I conversed with lately. This Brother assures me he was made a Mason in his youth and has constantly frequented Lodges till rendered incapable by his advanced age, etc.

 

" Here," says a valued correspondent (S. D. Nickerson, Grand Secretary of Massachusetts), " are three old and active Masons, who must have been associated with Sir Christopher Wren and known all about his Masonic standing, with whom Dr. Manningham was intimately associated and who must have given him correct information as to Wren, in case he had it not of his own knowledge." The genuineness of the Manningham letter has been disputed. Where Hughan, Lyon and Findel are in accord and the document has received the hall‑mark of their approval, one is unwilling on light grounds to reject any evidence deemed admissible by such excellent authorities.

 

Still, if the genuineness of the letter is conceded to the full, the passage under examination will, on a closer view, be found to throw no light whatever upon the EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 289 immediate subject of the inquiry. The fact‑if such it be‑of Sir Richard Manningham (the father of the writer) having been, in 175 7, " fifty years " a member of the Craft and the assurance of the " old brother of ninety," that he had been "made a Mason in his youth," are interesting, no doubt, as increasing the aggregate of testimony which bears in favour of the Masonic proceedings from 1717 onwards, having been continued without break from a much earlier period. But with Wren, or the circumstances of his life, they have nothing to do.

 

The expression " Grand Master Payne, who succeeded Sir Christopher Wren, is a stranger to them," is both inaccurate and misleading. In the first place, he did not succeed Wren and the statement, besides carrying its own condemnation, shows on the face of it, that it was based on the Constitutions of 173 8. Secondly, the word " is," as applied to Payne in July 175 7, is singularly out of place, considering that he died in the previous January ; indeed, it seriously impairs the value of Dr. Manningham's recollections in the other instances where he permits himself the use of the present tense.

 

The memoir of Wren in the Biographia Britannira, which appeared in 1763, was written by Dr. Nicolls and merely deserves attention from its recording, without alteration or addition, the items of Masonic information contained in the two extracts from the Parentalia already given. There are no further allusions to the Freemasons, nor is the subject of the memoir represented to have been one of that body.

 

The fable of Wren's Grand Mastership‑inserted by Anderson in the Constitutions of 1738‑was repeated, with but slight variation, in all subsequent issues of that publication to which a history of Masonry was prefixed. It was also adopted by the Grand Lodge of 175 3, as appears from the Ahiman Rezon, or Book of Constitutions, published by the authority of that body in 1764. Laurence Dermott, the author or compiler of the first four editions of this work‑to whose force of character and administrative ability must be attributed the success of the second Grand Lodge and the triumph of its principles‑agrees with Anderson that Wren was Grand Master and that he neglected the Lodges, but endeavours "to do justice to the memory of Sir Christopher by relating the real cause of such neglect." This he finds in the circumstance of his dismissal from the office of Surveyor‑General and the appointment of Benson. " Such usage," he argues, " added to Sir Christopher's great age, was more than enough to make him decline all public assemblies ; and the Master Masons then in London were so much disgusted at the treatment of their old and excellent Grand Master, that they would not meet nor hold any communication under the sanction of his successor." " In short," he continues, " the Brethren were struck with a lethargy which seemed to threaten the London Lodges with a final dissolution." (See Ahiman Re!Zon, 1764, p. xxiii.) As Wren was not superseded by Benson until 1718, the year after the formation of the Grand Lodge of England, at which latter period (1717) occurred the so‑called " revival of Masonry," the decay, if one there was, preceding and not succeeding that memorable event, we need concern ourselves no further with Dermott's 290 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY hypothesis, though it is cited because the Ahiman ReZon has been regarded as a work of great authority and its very name has been appropriated by many Grand Lodges to designate their Books of Constitutions.

 

The Compleat Freemason, or Multa Paucis for Lovers of Secrets, an anonymous work published in 1764 or the previous year, has been followed in many details by Preston and other writers of reputation. In this publication, the number of legendary Grand Masters is vastly enlarged. Few Kings of England are excluded, the most noticeable being Richard I and James II. We are told that " the King, with Grand Master Rivers, the Architects, Craftsmen, Nobility, Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Bishops, levelled the Footstone of St. Paul's Cathedral in due Form, A.D. 1673." Also, that "in 1710, in the eighth year of the reign of Queen Anne, our worthy Grand Master Wren, who had drawn the Design of St. Paul's, had the Honour to see it finished in a magnificent Taste and to celebrate with the Fraternity the Capestone of so noble and large a Temple." We learn further, that Masonry, which in the reign of James II " had been greatly obstructed and no Lodges frequented but those in or near the places where great works were carried on," after the accession of William and Mary (1689), " made now again a most brilliant appearance and numbers of Lodges were formed in all parts of London and the suburbs." Sir Christopher Wren, " by the approbation of the King from this time forward, continued at the head of the Fraternity " but, after the celebration of the capestone in 1710, " our good old Grand Master Wren, being struck with Age and Infirmities, did, from this time forward [1710], retire from all Manner of Business and, on account of his Disability, could no more attend the Lodges in visiting and regulating their Meetings as usual. This occasioned the Number of regular Lodges to be greatly reduced ; but they regularly assembled in Hopes of having again a noble Patron at their Head." Preston, in his Illustrations of Masonry, of which twelve editions were published during his lifetime‑the first in 1772, the last in 181 z‑follows Anderson in his description of Wren's official acts as Grand Master, but adduces much new evidence bearing upon Sir Christopher's general connexion with the Craft, which, if authentic, not only stamps him as a Freemason, but also as an active member of the Lodge of Antiquity. Preston, having published the first edition of his noted work in 1772, delivered a public course of lectures at the Mitre Tavern in Fleet Street in 1774 and the 15th of June in the same year, having attended the Lodge of Antiquity as a visitor, the members of that Lodge not only admitted him to membership, but actually elected him Master at the same meeting. According to his biographer, Stephen Jones, " he had been a member of the Philanthropic Lodge at the Queen's Head, Gray's Inn Gate, Holborn, above six years and of several other Lodges before that time, but he was now taught to consider the importance of the office of the first Master under the English Constitution." (Freemasons' Magazine, 1795, vol. iv, p. 3.) During his mastership, which continued for some years, the Lodge made a great advance in reputation and, in 1811, exceeded one hundred in number, including many members of both Houses of Parliament. The brilliancy of its EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 291 subsequent career, however, will not remove the doubts which suggest themselves, when Preston recounts traditions of the Lodge, which must have slumbered through many generations of members and are inconsistent and irreconcilable with its comparatively humble circumstances during whatever glimpses are afforded us of its early history. Nor are misgivings allayed by Preston's method of narration. Comparing the successive editions of his work, there are such glaring discrepancies, that, unless one can believe that his information was acquired, as he imparts it, piecemeal, or, like Mahomet and Joseph Smith, each fresh effort was preceded by a special revelation, credence must be refused to statements which are unsupported by authority, contradictory to all known testimony and even inconsistent with each other.

 

The next edition of the Illustrations published after Preston's election to the chair of the Lodge of Antiquity appeared in 1775, where, at p. 245, this Masonic body is referred to as " the old Lodge of St. Paul, over which Sir C. Wren presided during the building of that structure." According to the same historian, in June 1666, Sir Christopher Wren, having been appointed Deputy under the Earl of Rivers, " distinguished himself more than any of his predecessors in office in promoting the prosperity of the few lodges which occasionally met at this time * [particularly the old Lodge of St. Paul's, now the Lodge of Antiquity, which he patronized upwards of eighteen years "]. The passage within brackets appears for the first time in the 1792 edition.

 

A footnote‑indicated in the text at the place where an asterisk (*) appears above‑adds, " It appears from the records of the Lodge of Antiquity that Mr. Wren, at this time, attended the meeting regularly and that, during his presi dency, he presented to the Lodge three mahogany candlesticks, at that time truly valuable, which are still preserved and highly prized as a memento of the esteem of the honourable donor." Preston follows Anderson in his account of the laying of the foundation‑stone of St. Paul's by the king and states that, " during the whole time this structure was building, Mr. Wren acted as master of the work and surveyor and was ably assisted by his wardens, Mr. Edward Strong and his son " (Illustrations, 1792, p. 228). In a note on the same page we read: " The mallet with which the king levelled this foundation‑stone was lodged by Sir Christopher Wlren in the old Lodge of St. Paul, now the Lodge of Antiquity, where it is still preserved as a great curiosity." In the two preceding editions the words in italics do not appear and the note simply runs: " The mallet with which this foundation‑stone was laid, is now in the possession of the Lodge of Antiquity in London and preserved there as a great curiosity " (Illustrations of Masonry, 1781, p. 214 ; 1788, p. 226).

 

" In 1710," says Preston, " the last stone on the top of the lantern was laid by Mr. Christopher Wren, the son of the architect. This noble fabric .‑. .‑. was begun and completed in the space of thirty‑five years by one architect‑the great Sir Christopher Wren; one principal mason‑Mr. Strong; and under one Bishop 292 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY of London" (Illustrations of Masonry, 1792, pp. 236, 237. Preston ignores Thomas Strong, the elder brother of Edward Strong, senior).

 

It will be seen that Preston's description of the completion of the cathedral does not quite agree with any other version of this occurrence hitherto considered. The Constitutions of 173 8 date the event in 17o8, imply that Wren himself laid the last stone and are silent as to the presence of Freemasons. The Parentalia alters the date to 171o, deposes the father in favour of the son, implies that Wren was absent and brings in the Freemasons as a leading feature of the spectacle. Multa Paucis follows the Constitutions in allowing Wren " to see " his work " finished," leaves the question open as to by whom the stone was laid, adopts the views of the Parentalia as to the year of the occurrence and the presence of the Freemasons and goes so far as to make Sir Christopher participate in the Masonic festivities with which the proceedings terminated.

 

Preston, in this particular instance, throws over the Book, of Constitutions and pins his faith on the narrative of Christopher Wren in the Parentalia, though it should not escape notice that he omits to reproduce the statement in the latter work relating to the presence of the Freemasons, which, of all others, it might be expected that he would.

 

The next passage in the Illustrations, which bears on the subject of this inquiry, occurs where mention is made of Wren's election to the presidency of the Society in 1685. The account is word for word with the extract already given from the Constitutions of 173 8, but to the statement that Wren, as Grand Master, appointed Gabriel Cibber and Edward Strong his wardens, Preston adds, " both these gentlemen were members of the old Lodge of St. Paul with Sir Christopher Wren " (Illustrations, 1792, p. 244).

 

Throughout the remainder of his remarks on the condition of Masonry prior to 1717, Preston closely follows the Constitutions of 1738. He duly records the initiation of William III in 1695, the appointment as Grand Wardens of the two Edward Strongs and concludes with the familiar story of the decay of Freemasonry owing to the age and infirmities of Sir Christopher drawing off his attention from the duties of his office.

 

Arranged in order of time‑i.e. of publication‑the new evidence given by Preston may be thus briefly summarized : In 1775 it is first stated that Wren presided over the old Lodge of St. Paul's during the building of the cathedral.

 

Between 1775 and 1788 the only noteworthy circumstance recorded is the possession by the Lodge of Antiquity of the historic mallet, employed to lay the foundation‑stone of St. Paul's.

 

In 1792, however, a mass of information is forthcoming: we learn that Wren patronized the Lodge of Antiquity for eighteen years, that he presented it with three candlesticks during the period of his mastership and lodged with the same body‑‑of which Gabriel Cibber and Edward Strong were members‑the mallet so often alluded to.

 

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 2‑93 Preston's statements, however, demand a careful examination. These are professedly based on records of the Lodge of Antiquity and there is no middle course between yielding them full credence or rejecting them as palpable frauds.

 

The maxim Dolus latet in generalibus occurs to the mind when perusing the earlier editions of the Illustrations of Masonry. In 1775 Preston informs us " that Wren presided over the old Lodge of St. Paul's during the building of the cathedral " and not until 179z, a period of seventeen years‑during which five editions of his book were published‑does he express himself in terms sufficiently clear to enable us to examine critically the value of his testimony. At last, however, he does so and we read, " It appears from the records of the Lodge of Antiquity that Mr. Wren at this time [1666] attended the meetings regularly," also that he patronized this Lodge upwards of eighteen years. Now this statement is either true or false. If the former, the Aubrey hypothesis of 16g1 receives its quietus : if the latter, no further confidence can be reposed in Preston as the witness of truth. Next there is the evidence respecting the mallet and the candlesticks, which is suggestive of the progressive development of the author's imagination, as successive editions of his work saw the light. Finally there is the assertion that Gabriel Cibber and Edward Strong were members of the Lodge.

 

In the first place, however, the regular attendance of Sir Christopher at the meetings of his Lodge is negatived by the silence of all contemporary history, notably by the Diary of Elias Ashmole, F.R.S., who, in his register of occurrences for 168z, would in all probability, along with the entry relating to the Feast at the Masons' Hall, have brought in the name of the then President of the Royal Society, had he been (as contended) an active member of the Fraternity. Indeed, it is almost certain that Sir Christopher would himself have been present, or, at least, his absence accounted for, whilst we may go farther and assume from Dr. Plot's known intimacy with Wren‑who is said to have written Chapter IX of his Natural History of Oxfordshire‑that, had the latter's interest in Freemasonry been of the extensive character deposed to by Preston, Plot would have known of it, whereas the language he permits himself to use in regard to the Freemasons in 1686 (Natural History of Staffordshire, pp. 316‑18) is quite inconsistent with the supposition that he believed either Wren or Ashmole to be members of a Society which he stigmatized in terms of such severity.

 

The next reflection that suggests itself is the inference to be drawn that, during the years over which Wren's membership of the Lodge extended, the same records from which he quotes must have justified his constantly using the expression " Grand Master," as it is hardly conceivable that a member of the Lodge holding the high position of President of the Society would invariably have his superior rank in the Craft ignored in the Minutes and proceedings of the Lodge. As a matter of fact, however, Wren could not have held, in the seventeenth century, a title which did not then exist and the conclusion is forced that, either the records spoken of were as imaginary as the Grand Mastership, or that their authority was made to cover whatever in the 296 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY been selected from the ranks of No. 3) that no member of the senior Lodge was placed on the Masonic throne before the Society had " the honour of a noble brother at its head." Is it to be supposed that, from an excess of humility or diffidence, the Brethren of this Lodge passed a self‑denying ordinance, or otherwise disqualified themselves, for the supreme dignity which (in Preston's view of the facts) would be pressed upon their acceptance ? The difficulty of reconciling Preston's statements with the early elections to the office of Grand Master seems, indeed, to have been felt by Dr. Oliver, who, unable to build an hypothesis on matter of fact and make it out by sensible demon stration, forthwith proceeds to find a fact that will square with a suitable hypothesis. This is accomplished by making Desaguliers a member of No. i, a supposition wholly untenable, unless we disbelieve the actual entries in the register of Grand Lodge, but which shows, nevertheless, that the secondary position actually filled by the Lodge during the period of transition (1717‑z3) between the legendary and the historical eras of the Craft, must have appeared to Dr. Oliver inconsistent with the pretensions to a supremacy over its fellows advanced by William Preston.

 

The early Minutes of Grand Lodge furnish no evidence of any special privilege having been claimed by the Masonic body, over which in later years it was Preston's fortune to preside. They record, indeed, that on May 29, 173 3 the Master of the Lodge at the Paul's Head in Ludgate Street asserted his right to carry the Grand Sword before the Grand Master; upon which occasion the Deputy Grand Master observed "that he (the Deputy Grand Master) could not entertain the memorial without giving up the undoubted right of the Grand Master in appointing his own officers " (Grand Lodge Minutes). But the senior English Lodge met at the King's Arms, St. Paul's Churchyard, in 1733 and did not remove to the Paul's Head until 173 5 .

 

The tradition of the mallet and candlesticks was first made known to the world after Preston became Master of the Lodge. Its authenticity, or, in other words, the probability of its having been so jealously concealed from the public ear for upwards of a century, has now to be considered. The criterion is that " a tradition should be proved by authentic evidence, to be not of subsequent growth, but to be founded on a contemporary recollection of the fact recorded " (Lewis, On the Influence of .Authority in Matters of Opinion, p. 9o). In this case the requisite proof that the tradition was derived from contemporary witnesses is forthcoming, if the numerous records whereupon Preston bases his statements are held to attest satisfactorily the facts they are called in aid of, without troubling to weigh the pros and cons which may be urged for and against their admission as evidence. Putting these aside, however, as the finger‑posts of an imaginative history, we find the tradition rests upon the unsupported statement of a credulous and inaccurate writer‑unable to distinguish between history and fable‑whose accounts of Locke's initiation, the Batt Parliament, the admission of Henry VI and of Henry VII having presided in person over a lodge of Masters (Illustrations of Masonry, 179z, pp. 16z, 1913 199, zoz), are alone sufficient to discredit his testimony. All EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 297 historical evidence must be tested by the canon of probability. If witnesses depose to improbable facts before a court of justice, their veracity is open to suspicion. The more improbable the event which they attest, the stronger is the testimony required. The same rules of credibility apply to historical as to judicial evidence. In the present case a tradition is first launched‑to our actual knowledge‑nearly a century later than the events it inshrines and a story, improbable in itself, becomes even less credible, through the suspicious circumstances which surround its publication. The means of information open to the historian, his veracity, accuracy and impartiality, here constitute a medium through which the evidence has come down to us and upon which we must more or less implicitly rely. The immediate proof is beyond our reach and, instead of being able to examine it for ourselves, we can only stand at a distance and, by the best means in our power, estimate its probable value. This secondary evidence may sometimes rise almost to absolute certainty, or it may possess scarcely an atom of real weight.

 

As it is of little importance by what authority an opinion is sanctioned, if it will not itself stand the test of sound criticism, the veracity and accuracy of Preston will count for very little, in the judgment of all by whom the chief qualification of an historian is deemed to be " an earnest craving after truth and an utter impatience, not of falsehood merely, but of error " (Arnold, Lectures on Modern History, 184z (viii), p. 377) The statement that in the reign of George I, Masonry languished, owing to the age and infirmities of Sir Christopher Wren, " drawing off his attention from the duties of his office," is obviously an afterthought, arising out of the necessity of finding some plausible explanation of the embarrassing fact that such an earnest Freemason as, after his death, the great architect is made out to have been, should have so jealously guarded the secret of his early membership, that it remained unsuspected even by his own family and was quite unknown to the compilers of the first book of Constitutions, including the many " learned Brothers " called in to assist, some of whom no doubt were members of the Lodge possessing the mallet and candlesticks on which so much has been founded. If this story had not been generally accepted by the historians of Masonry (Anderson, author of Multa Paucis, Dermott, Preston, Findel, etc.), it could be passed over without further comment. Together with other mythical history, one may safely anticipate that it will soon fall back into oblivion, but meanwhile, out of respect to the names of those writers by whom the belief has been kept alive, reasons for believing the general opinion to be altogether an erroneous one should be given.

 

In the first place, assuming Wren to have been a Freemason at all, he would have had much difficulty in neglecting an office which at the time named did not exist 1 Next, granted the possibility of his being the leading spirit, by whatever name styled, of the Society ; all that has come down in the several biographies of Wren, by writers other than those whose fanciful theories are merely supported by extravagant assertions, testifies to his complete immunity at the period referred to‑17o81717‑from the ordinary infirmities of advanced age. He remained a member of 2.98 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY Parliament until 1712. In 1713 he published his reply to the anonymous attacks made upon him in the pamphlet called Frauds and Abuses at St. Paul's. The same year he also surveyed Westminster Abbey for his friend, Bishop Atterbury, the Dean ; and wrote an excellent historical and scientific report on its structure and defects, communicating his opinions on the best mode of repairing it, together with other observations. An instance of his activity of mind in 1717‑the year in which the Grand Lodge of England was established‑is afforded by his reply to the commissioners for rebuilding St. Paul's, who were bent on having a balustrade erected on the top of the church in opposition to the wishes of the great architect. " The following year " (17x8), says Elmes, " witnessed the disgraceful fall of Sir Christopher Wren in the 86th year of his age and the 49th of his office as surveyorgeneral of the royal buildings ; his mental faculties unimpaired and his bodily health equal to the finishing, as the head of his office, the works he had so ably began " (Elmes, Memoirs of Sir Cbristopber Vren, 1823, p. S 10).

 

Wren lived five years longer and employed this leisure of his age in philosophical studies. Among these, he overlooked part of his thoughts for the discovery of the longitude at sea, a review of some of his former tracts in astronomy and mathematics and other meditations and researches (Elmes, op. cit., p. S 13).

 

Having examined the question of Wren's alleged membership of the Society, apart from the entry in the Natural History of I‑Viltsbire, the alternative supposition of his admission in 1691 will now be considered and the statement of John Aubrey, which has been given in full at an earlier page, analysed.

 

The Aubrey Memorandum was not printed until 1844. Up to that period the statements in the Constitutions of 1738, that Sir Christopher was a Freemason, at least as early as 1663, had remained unchallenged. The new evidence appeared not to dislodge the fact itself, but merely to indicate that its date had been set too far backwards. The old tradition was, therefore, modified, but not overthrown ; and, though the change of front involved in reality what might be termed a new departure in Masonic history, writers of the Craft saw only a confirmation of the old story, whilst the idea, that under the influence of a pre‑existing belief in Wren's connexion with Freemasonry, they were adopting a rival theory, utterly destructive of the grounds on which that belief was based, does not seem to have occurred to them.

 

The position of affairs may be illustrated in this way. Let us imagine a trial, where, after protracted and convincing evidence had been given in favour of the plaintiff, it had all to be struck out of the judge's notes, yet the trial went on before the same jury ? The Aubrey theory requires to be discussed on its own merits, since it derives no confirmation from and is in direct opposition to the belief it displaced. Suppose, therefore, by the publication of Aubrey's Memorandum in 1844, the first intimation had been conveyed that Wren was a Freemason, would it have been credited ? Yet, if the statement and inference are entitled to credence, all authorities placing the initiation at a date prior to 1691 are, to use the words of Hallam, equally mendacious. Down goes at one swoop the Andersonian myth EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 299 and, with it, all the improvements and additions which the ingenuity of later historians have supplied. The case would then stand on the unsupported testimony of John Aubrey‑a position which renders it desirable to take a nearer view of his personal character and history.

 

Aubrey was born at Caston Piers, in Wiltshire, March 12, 16z6 ; educated at Trinity College, Oxford; admitted a student of the Middle Temple, April 16, 1646 ; and elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 166z. He may be regarded as essentially an archxologist and the first person in this country who fairly deserved the name. Historians, chroniclers and topographers there had been before his time; but he was the first who devoted his studies and abilities to archxology, in its various ramifications of architecture, genealogy, palxography, numismatics, heraldry, etc. With a naturally curious and inquiring mind, he lost no opportunity of obtaining traditionary and personal information. So early as the days of Hearne, this peculiarity had procured for him the character of a " foolish gossip " ; indeed, Ray, the distinguished naturalist, in one of his letters to Aubrey, cautions him against a too easy credulity. " I think," says Ray‑" if you give me leave to be free with you‑that you are a little inclinable to credit strange relations." Hearne speaks of him, " that by his intimate acquaintance with Mr. Ashmole, in his latter years, he too much indulged his fancy and wholly addicted himself to the whimseys and conceits of astrologers, soothsayers and suchlike ignorant and superstitious writers, which have no foundation in nature, philosophy, or reason." Malone observes " However fantastical Aubrey may have been on the subjects of chemistry and ghosts, his character for veracity has never been impeached." It may be doubted whether the contemptuous language applied towards Aubrey in the Diary of Anthony a Wood expresses the real sentiments of the latter whilst the two antiquaries were on friendly terms and the article containing it seems to have been written so late as 1693 or 1694. Of Aubrey, Wood says : " He was a shiftless person, roving and magotie‑headed and, sometimes, little better than crazed; and, being exceedingly credulous, would stuff his many letters sent to A. W. with folliries and misinformations, which sometimes would guid him into the paths of errour " (Athena Oxonienses, vol. i, p. lx). Anthony a Wood also used to say of him when he was at the same time in company: "Look, yonder goes such a one, who can tell such and such stories and I'le warrant Mr. Aubrey will break his neck down stairs rather than miss him " (op. cit., vol. i, p. cxv).

 

Toland, who was well acquainted with Aubrey and certainly a better judge than Wood, gives this character of him: " Though he was extremely superstitious, or seemed to be so, yet he was a very honest man and most accurate in his account of matters of fact. But the facts he knew, not the reflections he made, were what I wanted." The Aubrey evidence consists of two items, which must be considered separately. The first, commencing " Sir William Dugdale told me many years ago," may be accepted as the statement of that antiquary, on the authority of an ear‑witness and its genuineness derives confirmation from a variety of collateral 299 300 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY facts which have been sufficiently glanced at. The second is not dealt with so easily. If in both cases, instead of in one only, Sir William Dugdale had been Aubrey's informant and the stories thus communicated were, each of them, corroborated by independent testimony, there would be no difficulty. The announcement, however, of Wren's approaching admission stands on quite another footing from that of the entry explaining the derivation of the Freemasons. Upon the estimate of Aubrey's character, as given above, he may safely be followed in matters of fact, though his guidance is to be distrusted when he wanders into the region of speculation. His anecdotes of eminent men exhibit great credulity and are characterized by much looseness of statement.

 

The Memorandum of 1691 comes to us on the sole authority of a very credulous writer and, if we believe it, entails some curious consequences. Bayle says that a hearsay report should be recorded only in one of two cases‑if it is very probable, or if it is mentioned in order to be refuted. By another authority it is laid down that " a historical narrative must be well attested. If it is merely probable, without being well attested, it cannot be received as historical." Judged by either of these standards, the belief that Wren was adopted a Freemason in 16gi, being at once improbable and ill‑attested, must fall to the ground.

 

The wording of the Memorandum is peculiar. On a certain day, Sir Christopher Wren " is to be "‑not was‑" adopted a brother." Two comments suggest themselves. The first, that even had one copy only of the manuscript been in existence, the prediction that a particular event was about to happen can hardly be regarded as equivalent to its fulfilment. The second, that, in transferring his additional notes from the original manuscript to the fair copy, which may have happened at any time between 16gi and the year of his death (1697), Aubrey, who was on good terms with Wren, would have supplemented his meagre allusion to the latter's initiation by some authentic details of the occurrence, derived from the great architect himself, had there been any to relate.

 

Candour, however, demands the acknowledgment, that the transcription by Aubrey of his original entry may be read in another light, for, although Wren's actual admission is not made any plainer, the repetition of the first statement unless the fair copy was of almost even date with the later entries in the earlier MS., which is, probably, the true explanation‑will at least warrant the conclusion, that nothing had occurred in the interval between the periods in which the entries were respectively made, to shake the writer's faith in the credibility of his original announcement.

 

It has been said that we must give up all history if we refuse to admit facts recorded by only one historian (Dr. Watson, An Apology for the Bible, 1796, p. 239), but in the problem before us, whilst there is the evidence of a single witness, he deposes to no facts. What, moreover, rests on the unsupported testimony of a solitary witness must stand or fall by it, whether good, bad or indifferent. Here we have what is, at best, a prognostication respecting an eminent man and it comes to us through the medium of a credulous writer, whose anecdotes of celebrities are, EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 301 by all authorities alike, regarded as the least trustworthy of his writings. Yet by historians of the Craft it has been held to transform tradition into fact and to remove what had formerly rested on Masonic legend to the surer basis of actual demon stration. " Who ever," says Locke, " by the most cogent arguments, will be prevailed upon to disrobe himself at once of all his old opinions and turn himself out stark naked in quest afresh of new notions ? " The Aubrey Memorandum may, indeed, record a popular rumour and its authority can be carried no higher; but, even on this supposition and passing over the weakness of its attestation, the event referred to as impending can only be rendered remotely probable, by clearing the mind of all that has been laid down by other writers on the subject of Wren's connexion with the Society.

 

A commentator observes‑" the very words which Aubrey uses, the terms he employs, the place of admission, the names of the co‑initiates, all combine to show that we have here the only account on which we can safely rely. However it may interfere with other statements, however antagonize received dates, I feel convinced that Aubrey gives us the true chronology of Sir Christopher Wren's admission to the secrets and mysteries of Freemasonry " (Freemasons' Magazine, March 7, 1863, p. ‑19o). With slight variation of language similar conclusions have been expressed by later Masonic writers. (Findel, p. i2cq ; Fort, p. 139; Steinbrenner, pp. 126,133‑) Many of the arguments already adduced in refutation of the earlier hypothesis bear with equal force against the pretensions of its successor. For example, if Wren was a Freemason at all, the curious fact that his membership of the Society was unknown to the Craft, or, at least, had passed out of recollection in 1723 (the date of the first publication of the Constitutions) and the strictly operative character of the Old Lodge of St. Paul, in 1723, 1725 and 173o are alike inexplicable under either hypothesis.

 

If Wren, Sir Henry Goodric and other persons of mark were really " adopted " at a " great Convention of the Masons " in 16gi, the circumstance seems to have pressed with little weight upon the public mind and is nowhere attested in the public journals. Such an event, it might be imagined, as the initiation of the king's architect, at a great convention, held in the metropolitan cathedral‑the Basilica of St. Paul‑could not readily be forgotten. Nevertheless, this formal reception of a distinguished official (if it ever occurred) escapes all notice at the hands of his contemporaries, relatives or biographers.

 

Sir Henry Goodricke‑associated with Wren in Aubrey's memorandum‑a knight and baronet, was born October 24, 1642, married Mary, the daughter of Colonel W. Legg and sister to George, Lord Dartmouth, but died without issue after a long illness at Brentford in Middlesex, March 5, 1705. He was Envoy Extraordinary from Charles II, King of England, to Charles II, King of Spain, Privy Councillor to William III and a Lieutenant‑General of the Ordnance. Newspapers of the time and the ordinary works of reference throw no further light upon his general career, nor‑except in the Natural History of 1‑Viltshire‑is he mentioned in connexion with the Freemasons or with Sir Christopher Wren.

 

302 ‑ EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY When Preston began to collect materials for his noted work, which embraced an account of Masonry in the century preceding his own, all memory of events dating so far backwards had perished and no authentic oral traditions could have been in existence. The events he describes are antecedent to the period of regular Masonic history and contemporaneous registration; and it may be assumed with certainty that the stories which he relates of Wren prove at most that in the second half of the eighteenth century they were then believed by the Lodge of Antiquity. " Unless," says Sir G. Lewis, " an historical account can be traced, by probable proof, to the testimony of contemporaries, the first condition of historical credibility fails " (An Inquiry into the Credibility of the Early Roman History, vol. i, p. 16).

 

The first link in the chain of tradition‑if tradition there was‑had long ago disappeared and, despite Preston's asseverations to the contrary, there was no channel by which a contemporary record of any such events could have reached him.

 

Aubrey's memorandum has been sufficiently examined, but it may be remarked that his story of Wren's forthcoming adoption appears quite as incredible as the other tales relating to the great architect, extracted from his anecdotes of eminent men.

 

The popular belief that Wren was a Freemason, though generally unchallenged and supported by a great weight of authority, appears to be unsustained by any basis of well‑attested fact. The admission of the great architect‑at any period of his life‑into the Masonic Fraternity seems to be a mere figment of the imagination, but it may at least be confidently asserted that it cannot be proved to be a reality, even though claimed to be such by Sir Alfred Robbins in his work, English‑speaking Freemasonry (1930).

 

GENERAL ASSEMBLIES According to the Constitutions of 1723, [Queen] " Elizabeth being jealous of any Assemblies of her Subjects, whose Business she was not duly appriz'd of, attempted to break up the annual Communication of Masons, as dangerous to her Government : But, as old Masons have transmitted it by Tradition, when the noble Persons her Majesty had commissioned and brought a sufficient Posse with them at York on St. John's Day, were once admitted into the Lodge, they made no use of Arms and return'd the Queen a most honourable Account of the ancient Fraternity, whereby her political Fears and Doubts were dispell'd and she let them alone as a People much respected by the Noble and the Wise of all the polite Nations " (Anderson's Constitutions, 1723, p. 38).

 

In the second edition of the same work, wherein, as already seen, Wren is first pronounced to have been a Mason and a Grand Master, Dr. Anderson relates the anecdote somewhat differently. The Queen, we are now told, " hearing the Masons had certain Secrets that could not be reveal'd to her (for that she could not be Grand Master) and being jealous of all Secret Assemblies, sent an armed Force to break up their annual Grand Lodge at York on St. John's Day, Dec. 27, 1561." The Doctor next assures us that‑" This Tradition was firmly believ'd by all the old EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 303 English Masons "‑and proceeds : " But Sir Thomas Sackville, Grand Master, took Care to make some of the Chief Men sent, Free‑masons, who, then joining in that Communication, made a very honourable Report to the Queen ; and she never more attempted to dislodge or disturb them as a peculiar sort of Men that cultivated Peace and Friendship, Arts and Sciences, without meddling in the Affairs of Church or State." Finally, we read that "when Grand Master Sackville demitted, A.D. 15 67, Francis Russell, Earl of Bedford, was chosen in the North and, in the South, Sir Thomas Gresham." Identical accounts appear in the later Constitutions for 1756, 1767 and 1784. The story again expands under the manipulation of William Preston, who narrates it as an historical fact. without any qualification whatever and it is conveniently cited in confirmation of there having been in still earlier times a Grand Lodge in York‑a theory otherwise unsupported, save by a " record of the Society, written in the reign of Edward IV, said to have been in the possession of Elias Ashmole, and unfortunately destroyed " ! Preston follows the Constitutions in making the Earl of Bedford and Sir Thomas Gresham succeed Sackville, but adds : " Notwithstanding this new appointment of a Grand Master for the South, the General Assembly continued to meet in the city of York as heretofore, where all the records were kept ; and to this Assembly appeals were made on every important occasion " (Illustrations of Masonry, 1792, pp. 174 note, 205, 207).

 

The more historical version, that preferred by Kloss, who rationalizes this Masonic incident, though he leaves its authenticity an open question, is, that if Elizabeth's design of breaking up a meeting of the Freemasons at York was frus trated by the action of " Lord " Sackville, " it does not necessarily follow that his lordship was present as an Accepted Mason," since " he may have been at the winter quarterly meeting of the St. John's Festival as an enthusiastic amateur of the art of architecture, which history pronounces him actually to have been " (Kloss, p. 299 ; Findel, pp. 8o, i io). Although the legend is mentioned by numerous writers both in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, room was found for a crowning touch in 1843, which it accordingly received at the hand of Clavel, who, in his Histoire Pittoresque de la Franc‑MaFonnerie (Paris, 1843, p. 92, pl. 7), not only gives full details of this meeting at York, but also an elegant copper‑plate engraving representing the whole affair ! ! "Surely," as a hostile critic has remarked," the `three Black Crows' were nothing to this story of Masonic traditon " (Pinkerton, Notes and queries, 4th series, vol. iv, p. 45 5)ò Among the facts which Preston conceives to have become well authenticated by his own version of the Sackville tradition are the following: That a General or Grand Lodge was established at the city of York in the tenth century, that no similar meeting was held elsewhere until after the resignation by Sir Thomas Sackville of the office of Grand Master in 1567; that a General Assembly and a Grand Lodge are one and the same thing; and that the Constitutions of the English Lodges are derived from the General Assembly (or Grand Lodge) at York.

 

304 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY These pretensions, though reasserted again and again in times less remote from our own, are devoid of any historical basis and derive no support whatever from undoubted legends of the craft.

 

The Old Charges or Constitutions, now‑and pace Preston, probably for several centuries‑the only surviving records of the early Society, indeed inform us that one meeting was held at York but the clauses in several of these documents which allude to movable yearly assemblies of themselves forbid the supposition that the annual convention took place only in that city.

 

The earliest of these old scrolls‑the Halliwell and the Cooke MSS.‑do not mention York at all. The next in order of seniority‑the Lansdowne, No. 3 on the general list‑however, recites that Edwin obtained from his father, King Athelstane, " a Charter and Commission once every yeare to have Assembley within the Realme, where they would within England, . . and he held them an Assembly at Yorke and there he made Masons and gave them Charges and taught them the manners and Comands the same to be kept ever afterwards." MS. i i, the Harleian, 1942, a remarkable text, has, in its z 2nd clause, " You shall come to the yearely Assembly, if you you know where it is, being within tenne miles of youre abode." As a similar clause is to be found in MS. 31, the injunction in either case is meaningless if the Annual Assemblies were invariably held at York. On this point the testimony of the Old Charges must be regarded as conclusive. The difficulty of extracting historical fact out of legendary materials is great, if not insuperable, yet, where statements confessedly rest upon the insecure foundation of legend or tradition, the quality of the legendary or traditionary materials with which that foundation has been erected becomes a fair subject for inquiry. We find, according to the written legends, in circulation many years before there was a Grand Lodge, that the Masons of those times cherished a tradition of Prince Edwin having obtained permission for them to hold Annual Assemblies in any part of England; also that their patron presided at one of these meetings, which took place at York. This the Harris MS. rightly styles the second Assembly of Masons in England (Freemasons' Chronicle, April 29, 1883)‑St. Alban, if we believe the Lansdowne and other MSS., having set on foot the first General Assembly of British Masons, though the Annual commemoration of this event, together with its celebration as a yearly festival, was the work of Prince Edwin.

 

As already seen, the Old Charges required all to attend at the Assembly who were within a certain radius‑fifty miles or less‑of the place where it was holden ; yet York escapes notice in these mandatory clauses, which, to say the least, is incon sistent with the fact of its being the one city where such meetings were always held. The legends of Freemasonry have been divided into three classes, viz. Mythical, Philosophical and Historical, and are thus defined I. The myth may be engaged in the transmission of a narrative of early deeds and events having a foundation in truth, which truth, however, has been greatly distorted and perverted by the omission or introduction of circumstances and personages ; then it constitutes the mythical legend.

 

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 305 II. Or it may have been invented and adopted as the medium of enunciating a particular thought, or of inculcating a certain doctrine, when it becomes a philosophical legend.

 

III. Or, lastly, the truthful elements of actual history may greatly predominate over the fictitious and invented materials of the myth; and the narrative may be, in the main, made up of facts, with a slight colouring of imagination, when it forms an historical legend. (Mackey, Encyclopadia of Freemasonry, p. 456.) This classification is faulty, because under it a legend would become either mythical or historical, according to the fancies of individual inquirers ; yet, as it may tend to explain another passage by the same author, wherein a problem hitherto insoluble is represented as being no longer so, it is given a place. Of the " Legend of the Craft," or, in other words, the history of Masonry contained in the Old Charges or Constitutions, Mackey says : " In dissecting it with critical hands, we shall be enabled to dissever its historical from its mythical portions and assign to it its true value as an exponent of the masonic sentiment of the Middle Ages " (Encyclopadia, p. 459).

 

At what time the oral traditions of the Freemasons began to be reduced into writing, it is impossible even to determine approximately. The period, also, when they were moulded into a continuous narrative, such as found in the ordinary versions of the MS. Constitutions, is likewise withheld from our knowledge. This narrative may have been formed out of insulated traditions, originally independent and unconnected‑a supposition rendered highly probable by the absurdities and anachronisms with which it abounds. The curiosity of the early Freemasons would naturally be excited about the origin of the Society. Explanatory legends would be forthcoming and, in confounding, as they did, architecture, geometry and Freemasonry, Dr. Mackey considers that " the workmen of the Middle Ages were but obeying a natural instinct which leads every man to seek to elevate the character of his profession, and to give it an authentic claim to antiquity " (Encyclopcadia, p. 459).

 

That the utmost licence prevailed in the fabrication of these legends is apparent on the face of them. As the remote past was unrecorded and unremembered, the invention of the etiologist was fettered by no restrictions ; he had the whole area of fiction open to him; and, that he was not even bound by the laws of nature, witness the story of Naymus Grecus, whose eventful career, coeval with the building of King Solomon's Temple, ranged over some eighteen centuries and was crowned by his teaching the science of Masonry to Charles Martel ! Legend‑making was also a favourite occupation in the old monasteries‑the lives of the saints, put together possibly as ecclesiastical exercises, at the religious houses in the late Middle Ages, giving rise to the saying " that the title legend was bestowed on all fictions which made pretensions to truth." The practice referred to is amusingly illustrated in the following anecdote Gilbert de Stone, a learned ecclesiastic, who flourished about the year 1380, was solicited by the monks of Holywell, in Flintshire, to write the life of their patron 3o6 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY saint. Stone, applying to these monks for materials, was answered that they had none in their monastery; upon which he declared that he could execute the work just as easily without any materials at all and that he would write them a most excellent legend, after the manner of the legend of Thomas a Becket. He has the character of an elegant Latin writer and, according to Warton, " seems to have done the same piece of service, perhaps in the same way, to other religious houses ! " (History of English Poetry, 1778, vol. ii, p. i go.) Although nothing is more dangerous than to rationalize single elements of a legendary or mythical narrative, the circumstance that an annual pledge day was celebrated at York in connexion with the Minster operations, coupled with the ordinary guild usage of making one day of the year the " general " or " head " day of meeting, raises a presumption that the " Annual Assemblies " mentioned in the Old Charges were really held.

 

Now, although the story of the Annual Assemblies is nearer the time of authentic Masonic historythan those of Nimrod, Euclid, Naymus Grecus and Charles Martel, still the interval is so wide that oral tradition cannot be considered as a safe depository for its occurrences. This portion of the general narrative presents, however, as already indicated, some features with respect to its historical attestation which places it on a different footing from the rest of the legend.

 

Conjectures which depart widely from traditional accounts are obviously not admissible ; yet, if we refrain from arbitrary hypotheses and strictly adhere to the history which we meet with in the " Legend of the Craft," it is impossible that a. clear idea of the past of Freemasonry can be formed. Most of the events have a fabulous character and there is no firm footing for the historical inquirer. Even Masonic writers, who, as a rule, have a great deal of history which no one else knows, though they are often deplorably ignorant of that with which all other men are acquainted, do not venture on an exposition, but content themselves with furnishing a description of the traditionary belief for which the Old Charges are the authority.

 

In the words of a learned writer : " Tradition casts a light in the deep night of the world ; but in remote ages, it is like the pale and uncertain moonlight, which may deceive us by flitting shadows, rather than indeed show the palpable forms of truth " (Isaac Disraeli, The Genius of Judaism, 1833, p. 107).

 

CHAPTER XIII EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY ENGLAND‑II HE point now reached is, at once, the most interesting and the most difficult of solution of all those problems with which the thorny path of true Masonic inquiry is everythere beset. It is abundantly clear that the Masonic body had its first origin in the trades‑unions of medixval operatives. At the Reformation these unions, having lost their raison d'etre, naturally dissolved, except some few scattered through the country, which vegetated in obscurity for a period of close upon two centuries, until reorganized and taking a new point de depart about the year 1717. But, by this time, the Masonic bodies appear under anew guise. While still retaining, as was natural, many forms, ceremonies and words derived from their direct ancestors, the working masons, yet Operative Masonry was and, probably, long had been in a state of decay and a new form, that of Speculative Masonry, had been substituted in its place. During these two centuries of darkness there is also abundant proof that the world, or, at least, the world of Western Europe, the world which was agitated by the Reformation, was full of all kind of strange and distorted fancies, the work of disordered imagination, to an extent probably never known before, not even in the age which witnessed the vagaries of the Gnostics and the later Alexandrian school. These strange fancies, or at least some of them, had been floating about with more or less distinctness from the earliest period to which human records extend and, as something analogous, if not akin, appears in Speculative Masonry, it has been supposed, either that there existed a union between the sects or societies who practised, often in secret, these tenets and the decaying Masonic bodies; or that some men, being learned in astrology, alchemy and Cabbalistic lore generally, were also Freemasons and took advantage of this circumstance to indoctrinate their colleagues with their own fantastic belief and so, under the cloak and by means of the organization of Freemasonry, to preserve tenets which might otherwise have fallen into complete oblivion. Especially has this been supposed to have been the case with the celebrated antiquary Elias Ashmole. Unfortunately, the materials at disposal are almost nil; the evidence, even as regards Ashmole, is of the slightest ; it really amounts to nothing. Hence it is only possible to deal with these fanciful speculations in general terms and to offer some remarks as to the origin of the forms and ceremonies, before alluded to, about which one may venture to say that much misplaced ingenuity has been expended, causing no small amount of unnecessary mystery. This seems to have arisen mainly from 307 3o8 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY the erroneous mode in which the subject has hitherto been treated. It must never be forgotten that, in working out Masonic history, we are, in reality, tracing a pedigree and, to attain success, we must, therefore, adhere as strictly as possible to those principles by means of which pedigrees are authenticated. The safest way is to trace steadily backwards or upwards, discarding as we go on everything that does not rest on the clearest and strongest available evidence and so, forging step by step the links in the chain, till the origin is lost in the mists of remote antiquity. But, if we proceed in the contrary direction, commencing from the fountain head and, coupling half a dozen families together, making use of similarity of names, connexions with the same locality and, therefore, possible intermarriages, family traditions, or rather suppositions, et hoc genus omne, we shall construct a genealogy, flattering indeed to the family vanity and meant to be so, but which would vanish like a cobweb before the searching gaze of The College of Arms.

 

With all deference, it would seem that the latter course has principally commended itself to the historians of Masonry. Commencing from the very earliest times they have pressed every possible fact or tradition into their service and, by the aid of numberless analogies and resemblances, some forced, some fortuitous, others wholly fictitious, they have succeeded in building up a marvellous legend, which, while it may serve to minister to their own vanity and astonish a few readers by the mystical marvels it unfolds, has only tended to excite the supercilious contempt of the great majority of mankind,‑a contempt which is at once too intense and too disdainful to condescend to examine the rational grounds for pride that all true Masons may justly claim. The direct male line of Masonic descent is traceable to the Lodges of Operative Masons who flourished towards the close of the medixval period and, whatever connexion the Masonic Lodges may have with the older and more mysterious fraternities and beliefs, can be compared only to a descent by marriage through the female line, if, indeed, they can claim as much. For the direct descent of one body of men who, though occasionally varying in aims and often in name, is still one society tracing direct from the founder, is a very different thing from a variety of societies with no particular connexion the one with the other, but adopting, in many instances, similar or identical symbols, language and ceremonies, formed successively to promote certain aims, the tendency to which is inherent in the human race.

 

There is no occasion to deny that many of the rites, symbols and beliefs prevalent among Masons may have been handed down from the earliest times ; either they have been imitated the one from the other, being found useful, without any further connexion; or they may have been the product of the human mind acting in a precisely similar manner under similar circumstances, in widely different periods and countries and without any possible suspicion of imitation or other more close connexion. The governmental Broad Arrow is believed, not without reason, to have had a cuneiform origin, having been the mark set by Phoenician traders upon Cornish tin and, having been discovered on certain blocks of tin, was adopted by the Duchy of Cornwall and thence pressed into the service of the Imperial EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 309 Government. On the other hand, many things occur independently to people of a similar turn of mind when placed under similar circumstances, but without the slightest communication between each other. Le Verrier and Adams both discovered the existence of the planet Neptune at the same time by different methods, wholly independent of each other. It is highly improbable that the inventor of steamboats, whoever he was, knew of the extremely rare tract in which Jonathan Hull foreshadowed the discovery in the year 1727, who, by the way, was not the earliest. Did Watt or Hull know anything of Hero of Alexandria ? It has been disputed whether Harvey or an earlier philosopher (Levasseur, circa 1540) was the actual discoverer of the circulation of the blood, though the balance is much in Harvey's favour ; but it is in the highest degree improbable that either knew of the work of Nemesius, a Christian philosopher of the fourth century, who wrote a treatise on The Nature of Man, a work of unparalleled physical knowledge for those times, in which he seems to have had some idea of the circulation of the blood. In the same way the same disputes have agitated the philosophical and speculative world from the beginning of time, the same philosophical opinions have died out only to be repeated under the same or a slightly different form; and the thinkers of the present day might be startled and, perhaps, humbled, if such a thing were possible, on finding that their much‑vaunted objections against the Scriptures have been advanced times without number by various heresiarchs of old‑and refuted as often.

 

To commence, ab initio, Alexandria was an emporium, not only of merchandise, but of philosophy ; opinions as well as goods were bartered there to the grievous corruption of sound wisdom, from the attempt which was made by men of different sects and countries‑Grecian, Egyptian and Oriental‑to frame from their different tenets one general system of opinions. The respect long paid to Grecian learning and the honours which it now received from the hands of the Ptolemies, induced others, even the Egyptian priests, to submit to this innovation. Hence arose a heterogeneous mass of opinions which, under the name of Eclectic Philosophy, caused endless confusion, error and absurdity, not only in the Alexandrian school, but also among the Jews and the Christians ; producing among the former that spurious philosophy which they call the Cabbala and, among the latter, a certain amount of corruption, for a time at least, in the Christian faith itself.

 

From this period there can be no doubt but that the Jewish doctrines were known to the Egyptians and the Greek to the Jews. Hence Grecian wisdom being corrupted by admixture with Egyptian and Oriental philosophy assumed the form of Neo‑Platonism, which, by professing a sublime doctrine, enticed men of different countries and religions, including the Jews, to study its mysteries and incorporate them with their own. The symbolical method of instruction which had been in use from the earliest times in Egypt was adopted by the Jews, who accordingly put an allegorical interpretation upon their sacred writings. Hence under the cloak of symbols, Pagan philosophy gradually crept into the Jewish schools and the Platonic doctrines, mixed first with the Pythagorean, afterwards with the Egyptian 310 and Oriental, were blended with their ancient faith in their explanations of the law and the traditions. The society of the Therapeutx was formed after the model of the Pythagorean system ; Aristobulus, Philo and others, studied the Grecian philosophy and the Cabbalists formed their mystical system upon the foundation of the tenets taught in the Alexandrian schools. This Cabbala was a mystical kind of traditionary doctrine, quite distinct from the Talmud, in which the Jews, while professing to follow the footsteps of Moses, turned aside into the paths of pagan philosophy. They pretended to derive their Cabbala from Esdras, Abraham, even from Adam, but it is very evident, from the Cabbalistic doctrine concerning Divine emanations, that it originated in Egypt, where the Jews learned, by the help of allegory, to mix Oriental, Pythagorean and Platonic dogmas with Hebrew wisdom. Two methods of instruction were in use among the Jews : the one public or exoteric, the other secret or esoteric. The exoteric was that which was openly taught from the law of Moses and the traditions of the Jewish Fathers. The esoteric, treating of the mysteries of the Divine nature and other sublime subjects, was called the Cabbala, which, after the manner of the Egyptian and Pythagorean mysteries, was revealed only to those who were bound to secrecy by the most solemn oaths. Even the former was by no means free from extraneous influences, or from the Egyptian traditions ; as far down as the time of Maimonides, 1131‑i zoo. Their notions and practices concerning the name of God were singular. Seventy‑two names were reckoned in all‑agreeing singularly with the tradition of the seventytwo translators of the Septuagint‑from which, by different arrangements in sevens, they produced seven hundred and twenty. The principal of these was the Agla, which was arranged in the following figure with Cabbalistic characters in each space.

 

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY This was called " Solomon's Seal," or the " Shield of David " and was supposed, by some strange and occult process of reasoning, to be a security against wounds, an extinguisher of fires and to possess other marvellous properties.

 

The esoteric doctrine or Cabbala, from a word signifying to receive, because it was supposed to have been received by tradition, was said to have been derived from Adam, to whom, while in Paradise, it was communicated by the angel Raziel wherein may perhaps be traced the origin of the notion, that Masonry is as old as Adam. The learning was bequeathed to Seth and, having been nearly lost in the degenerate days that followed, was miraculously restored to Abraham, who committed it to writing in the book JeZirah. This revelation was renewed to Moses, who received a traditionary and mystical, as well as a written and preceptive law X\ \ /X EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 311 from God, which, being again lost in the calamities of the Babylonish captivity, once again delivered to Esdras, was finally transmitted to posterity through the hands of Simeon ben Setach and others. It is, to say the least of it, strange that it should have been perpetually lost and revealed until about the time when it was first forged.

 

It is tolerably clear that the abstruse and mysterious doctrines of the Cabbala could not have been developed from the simple principles of the Mosaic Law ; they must have been derived from an admixture of Greek, Egyptian and ‑Oriental fancies. When the Jews first embraced these tenets, neither national vanity nor their reverence for the law of Moses would permit their being under any obligation to the heathen and they were, therefore, forced to derive them from a fictitious account of their own sacred writings, supposing that from them all other nations had derived their learning. Philo, Josephus and other learned Jews, to flatter their own and their nation's vanity, industriously propagated this opinion, while the more learned Christian Fathers adopted it without reflection, on the supposition that if they could trace back the most valuable doctrines of heathenism to a Jewish origin, they could not fail to recommend the Jewish and Christian religions to Gentile philosophers. Unfortunately many in modern times, on the strength of these authorities, have been inclined to give credence to the idle tale of the Divine origin of the Cabbala.

 

From the third century to the tenth, from various causes but few traces of the Cabbalistic mysteries are to be met with in the writings of the Jews, but their peculiar learning began to revive when the Saracens became the patrons of philosophy and their schools subsequently migrated to Spain, where they attained their highest distinction. By this time the attention paid both by Arabians and Christians to the writings of Aristotle excited the emulation of the Jews, who, notwithstanding the ancient curse pronounced on all Jews who should instruct their sons in the Grecian learning, a curse revived A.D. iz8o by Solomon Rashba, continued in their philosophical course, reading Aristotle in Hebrew translations made from the inaccurate Arabic (for Greek was at this period little understood) and became eminent for their knowledge of mathematics and physics. In order to avoid the imputation of receiving instruction from a pagan, they invented a tale of Aristotle having been a convert to Judaism and that he learned the greater part of his philosophy from the books of Solomon (Wolf, Bibl. Hebr., p. z83). The greatest of the medixval philosophers were undoubtedly two Spaniards: Aben Esra, born at Toledo in the twelfth century; and Moses ben Maimon, better known as Maimonides, born at Cordova A.D. i 131, who possessed the rare accomplishment of being a good Greek scholar. The writings of these medixval Jewish philosophers are very numerous, as may be seen by a glance at such works‑among many‑as Wolf's Bibliotbeca Hebraa, the earlier work of Bartolocci, Bibliotbeca Magna Kabbinica, the later volumes of the Histoire Litteraire de la France, etc.

 

Of the Alexandrian Neo‑Platonic, or as it may be and is sometimes called, the Eclectic school, not to mention Apollonius of Tyana, who had all the gifts of a first‑ 312‑ EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY class impostor, but who is rather to be numbered with those who attempted to revive the Pythagorean system, or Simon Magus, who was a charlatan fighting for his own hand; there is the famous school, founded originally by Plotinus and continued by Porphyry, who wrote his life; Amelius, another pupil, Iamblichus of Chalcis in Ccelo‑Syria, Porphyry's immediate successor, under whose guidance the school spread far and wide throughout the empire, but was obliged to remain more or less secret under the Christian Emperors Constantine and Constantius (Sozomen, Hist. Eccl., 1. i, c. 5) ; (Edesius, the successor of Iamblichus ; then Eunapius, the weak and credulous biographer of the sect ; Plutarch, the son of Nestorius, ob. A.D. 434 ; Syrianus ; Proclus, at once one of the most eminent and, at the same time, most extravagant of the whole, ob. 485 ; Marinus ; Isodorus of Gaza; and Damascius. These philosophers, who, though men of talent, were half dreamers, half charlatans, dissatisfied with the original Platonic doctrine, that the intuitive contemplation of the Supreme Deity was the summit of human felicity, aspired to a deifica tion of the human mind. Hence they forsook the dualistic system of Plato for the Oriental one of emanation, which supposed an indefinite series of spiritual natures derived from the Supreme source; whence, considering the human mind as a link in this chain of intelligence, they conceived that by passing through various stages of purification, it might at length ascend to the first fountain of intelligence and enjoy a mysterious union with the Divine nature. They even imagined that the soul of man, properly prepared by previous discipline, might rise to a capacity of holding immediate intercourse with good demons, even to enjoy in ecstasy an intuitive vision of God,‑a point of perfection and felicity which many of their great men, such as Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus and Proclus, were supposed actually to have attained.

 

Neo‑Platonism did not survive the reign of Justinian and, in fact, received the coup de grace at the hands of that emperor. In respect, indeed, of the action of Justinian in breaking up the academy at Athens, one can but echo the laudation bestowed on an earlier Roman‑" That he caused the school of folly to be closed." Some scattered and vague reminiscences may have come down indirectly through the philosophy of the Jews to the Middle Ages, but the direct influence must have been very slight, or more probably nil, as will be evident when we consider the almost total ignorance of Greek, in which language their works were written. At the revival of learning, however, they were eagerly caught up, especially the supposed works of Hermes Trismegistus.

 

Hermes Trismegistus, or the " Thrice Great," was, if not an utterly mythical personage, some extremely early Egyptian philosopher, who, for his own ends, passed himself off as either a favoured pupil or incarnation of the Egyptian god Thoth, identical with the Phcenician Taaut and, or assumed to be (for the Greeks and Romans fitted all foreign gods to their own), the Greek Hermes and the Latin Mercury. Trismegistus is the reputed author of zo,ooo volumes, hence there can be no wonder that Tristram Shandy extolled him as the greatest of every branch of science, " ` and the greatest engineer,' said my Uncle Toby." The sacred books EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 3113 of the Egyptians were attributed to him and were called the Hermetic Books. All secret knowledge was believed to be propagated by a series of wise men called the Hermetic Chain. Hermes and his reputed writings were highly esteemed by all kinds of enthusiasts, who called themselves from him Hermetici. Woodford, whilst admitting " that a great deal of nonsense has been written about the Hermetic origin of Freemasonry," stoutly contends " that the connexion, as between Freemasonry and Hermeticism, has yet to be explained " (Kenning's Cyclopadia, s. v. Hermes).

 

All ancient learning, Oriental, Jewish, Pythagorean, Platonic, Aristotelian, combined with that of Egypt, was strangely compounded into one, which gave birth to the Cabbala and the Arabian philosophy. Neo‑Platonism had perished, save in so far as its influence was indirectly exerted in the formation of the Arabian and the medixval Jewish schools ; and the task now is to endeavour to ascertain how far this ancient learning, descending from one family to the other, influenced the Reformation mystical philosophers and whether it had sufficient influence on certain classes in the Middle Ages to form a body of men who could transmit, whole and entire, the old‑world doctrines to a generation living in a totally altered state of society.

 

The Alexandrian school perished, it may be said, with the edict of Justinian closing the schools of Athens towards the middle of the sixth century. The Saracenic began three, the new Jewish five, centuries later, while there is little in the writings of Western Europe to suppose that an uninterrupted sequence of Alexandrian doctrines existed during the interval. But both Jew and Saracen, apart from what they may have derived from earlier sources, had, doubtless, many strange fancies of their own, which, while influencing the future, may have been influenced by the remotest past. The intercourse between the East and the West was constant and complete. In the Anglo‑Saxon times, to take but one example, pilgrimages to the Holy Land were customary,‑witness the travels of Arculfus, Willibald and Sxwulú Indeed, one cause of the Crusades was the ill‑treatment of pilgrims by the new dynasties which held sway in Palestine. The learning of both Jews and Saracens in Spain spread certainly throughout the south of France, but how much farther it is difficult to ascertain. The universal diffusion of the Jews and the influence of the Crusades themselves doubtless assisted in this new development ; and, when the romantic ardour of the Cross‑an ardour so perfectly consonant with the spirit of the times‑had ceased, the mercantile enterprise of the Genoese and Venetians doubtless kept the flame alive. Hence we may easily conclude that the Jewish and Saracenic ideas to a certain extent penetrated the intellectual feeling of Western Europe; but we may well pause, before giving our consent to the notion, however popular, that one mysterious and deathless body of men worked in silence and in darkness for the transmission of ancient fancies to generations yet unborn. Mathematicians, astrologers and alchemists, especially when the peculiarly romantic tendency of the Middle Ages is recalled, doubtless existed here and there ; the garasi knowledge which they imperfectly learned from their Oriental teachers may 314 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY have been cultivated by some few votaries, but the metaphysical speculations, the philosophy of the Middle Ages, were, save in their origin, essentially different and depended more on Augustine than upon Aristotle. Metaphysics, i.e. abstract speculations as to the soul and its relations to the Divinity, are one thing; Theurgy, a magic alchemy and astrology, the attempt to bring these theoretical speculations to some practical point, such as controlling the secret powers of nature, is anotherand one may as well attempt to connect the speculations of Reid, or Sir William Hamilton, with the vagaries of Mesmer or Cagliostro.

 

Alchemists, astrologers, et bocgenus omne, doubtless existed in the Middle Ages, but not to any great extent. One must remember the power of the Church, the tremendous engine of confession and the fact that the age, though often unduly decried, was one in which physical learning and science, properly so called, was at a very low ebb. Gerbert (afterwards Sylvester II ; was the first French Pope), Roger Bacon and Sir Michael Scott were all accounted as wizards. No actual magical lore, save what might have existed among the most superstitious and ignorant of the commonalty, had a chance of raising its head without being at once detected. It is a reductio ad absurdum to suppose that the medixval Masons who were mere mechanics and were, perhaps, more than any other class of operatives under the immediate eye of the Church, could have been chosen to transmit such secrets, or that they would have had a chance of doing so if they had been so chosen. But there comes the argument that mystic signs, such as the Pentalpha, etc., have repeatedly been found among Masonic marks on stones, to say nothing of rings and other similar trinkets. It was, however, a very common thing for men to copy one from the other without knowing the reason why and the greater part of these supposed mysterious emblems were transmitted from one to the other without any higher reason than that they were common and handy and had, so to speak, fashion on their side.

 

So matters stood at the era of the Reformation. This era, of which the Reformation was only a part, formed a prodigious leap in the human intellect, a leap for which preparations had long been made. The phase of thought, peculiar to the Middle Ages, had long been silently decaying before the fall or impending fall of Constantinople had driven the Greek learning to Italy, before the invention of printing had multiplied knowledge, long before the Reformation itself had added the climax to the whole, for the Reformation was only the final outcome of the entire movement.

 

For good or for evil, the mind of man in Western Europe‑for the revolution was limited in area, far more so than we are apt to think‑was then set free and, as few people are capable of reasoning correctly, the wildest vagaries ensued as a matter of course. It was not only in theology that a new starting‑point was acquired science, politics, art, literature‑everything, in short, that is capable of being embraced by the mind of man‑shared in the same movement and, as a matter of course, no phase of human folly remained unrepresented. The mind of man thus set free was incessantly occupied in searching after the ways of progress, but EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 3115 mankind saw but through a glass darkly; they were ignorant of fundamental principles; they drew wild inferences and jumped at still wilder conclusions, while the imagination was seldom, if ever, under control and they were in the dark as to the method of inductive science, i.e. the patient forging of the links in the chain from particulars to generals. This, one of the most precious of earthly gifts yet vouchsafed to the human intellect, had escaped the Greek philosophers and the, perhaps, still subtler scholastic doctors and awaited the era of the Columbus of modern science, Lord Bacon. It is not, therefore, to be wondered at that everything of ancient lore, more especially when it possessed a spark of mystery, should have been eagerly examined and that, as the printing press and the revival of Greek learning aided their efforts, everything that could be rescued of the Neo‑Alexandrian school, of the jargon of the Cabbalists, the alchemists and the astrologers, should have been pressed into the service and resulted in the formation, not exactly of a school, but of a particular phase of the human mind, which was even more extraordinary than that of the visionaries of Alexandria. It was not confined to the philosophers strictly so‑called,‑there was no folly in religion, politics, or arts, which was not eagerly embraced during the same period, until, finally, the storm died away in a calm which was outwardly heralded by the peace of Westphalia, the termination of the Fronde and the English Restoration.

 

First in point of date‑for we may pass over the isolated case of Raymond Lully, ob. 1315, now principally remembered as the inventor of a kind of Babbage's calculating machine applied to logic, but who was also a learned chemist and skilful dialectician‑comes John Picus de Mirandola, born of a princely family, 11463. Before he was twenty‑four years of age he had acquired so much knowledge that he went to Rome and proposed for disputation nine hundred questions in dialectics, mathematics, philosophy and theology, which he also caused to be hung up in all the open schools in Europe, challenging their professors to public disputation and offering en prince to defray the expenses of anyone travelling to Rome for that purpose. Naturally, he merely excited envy and jealousy and, after a few years, he gave himself up to solitude and devotion and formed a resolution to distribute his property to the poor and to travel barefooted throughout the world, in order to propagate the gospel. But death put an end to this extravagant project in the thirty‑second year of his age. It is tolerably clear that very few formed any connected school, but that each was eagerly searching after truth, or following will‑o'‑the‑wisps, as his own fancies prompted ; and, if several pursued the same mode of investigation, it was more from chance than design. What store of metaphysics they had was probably gathered from their predecessors,‑their physics, that is the empirical arts which they professed, from themselves, based on what they could gather from the Cabbalists and Saracens. Hence it would seem that the mystical descent of the Freemasons must be derived, if it be so derived at all, from a bastard philosophy springing from a somewhat mixed and doubtful ancestry. Men's minds being thoroughly upset, any one of ill‑regulated or ardent imagination naturally became excited and launched out into every kind of absurdity.

 

316 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY The superior and more educated classes believed in alchemy, magic, astronomy and fortune telling of a superior order; the common people believed almost universally in witchcraft. For this witchcraft was not the effect of the "gross superstition of the dark ages " or of ignorance, as is generally assumed by the glib talkers and writers of the day, but was rather the effect of the " outburst of the human intellect " and " the shaking‑off of the thraldom of ignorance." It is strange that it prevailed mainly, if not entirely, in those countries most shaken by the throes of the Reformation‑England, Scotland, France and Germany (there is little heard of it in Ireland)‑and seems most likely to have been a kind of lasting epidemic oú nervous hysteria. Its existence was believed in by the ablest judge ; it was the subject of a special treatise by James 1, who was by no means the fool it is the fashion to suppose him; and, if his opinion be not deemed of much weight, it was equally supported and that, at a comparatively late period, by one of the acutest geniuses England has yet produced‑Glanvill‑in his Sadducismus Triumphatuc. Indeed, there was nothing very extraordinary in this universal belief, for earth and air were full of demons and the black and other kindred arts objects of universal study. Not to mention Nostradamus, Wallenstein, who was probably mad, had his astrologer and, a century earlier, Catherine de Medicis, who was certainly not, had hers. Between the two flourished the famous Dr. Dee and Sir Kenelm Digby, whose natural eccentricity wanted no artificial stimulus, followed in the same path as did Dr. Lamb, who was knocked on the head by the populace early in Charles I's reign, from which arose the cant phrase, " Lamb him," teste Macaulay. Lilly, the astrologer, who seems to have been half enthusiast, half fool and whole knave, gives in his autobiography several most curious accounts of the various astrologers of his contemporaries then flourishing in London, every one of whom would now, most certainly, with great justice, be handed over to the police. He also mentions that he himself (he seems to have towered above his colleagues) was consulted as to some of the attempted escapes of Charles I, which, according to him, only failed owing to the king having wilfully neglected his advice, while, on the other hand, he was thanked at Windsor by some of the leading officers of the Republican army for the astrological predictions with which he had occasionally revived their drooping hopes. Lilly's business was so extensive that he complains, towards the end of his work, that he had not proper time to devote to his prayers and, accordingly, retired to Hersham, near Walton‑on‑Thames, a place he had long affected. Having, through the interest of his friend Ashmole, obtained the degree of M.D. from Sheldon, Archbishop of Canterbury, he practised physic with much success at Kingston‑on‑Thames and, dying in 1681 (he was born in 16oz), was buried in the chancel of Walton Church. Whatever his success, however, he did not take in everybody; for the honour of human nature, be it said that Pepys records Oct. 24, 166o.‑So to Mr. Lilly's, with Mr. Spong, where well received, there being a clubb to‑night among his friends. Among the rest, Esquire Ashmole, EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 317 who, I found, was a very ingenious gentleman. With him we two sang afterwards in Mr. Lilly's study. That done we all parted: and I home by Coach taking Mr. Lilly with me, who did tell me a great many fooleries which may be done by nativities and blaming Mr. Lilly for writing to please his friends and to keep in with the times (as he did formerly to his own dishonour) and not according to the rules of art, by which he could not well erre as he had done.

 

June 14, 1667.‑We read and laughed at Lilly's prophecies this month in his Almanack for this year.

 

Among the numerous philosophers, all of them more or less eminent, many endowed with really powerful genius who were led astray by these fancies, may be mentioned Johann Reuchlin, born at Pforzheim in Suabia A.D. 145 5, who professed and taught a mystical system compounded of the Platonic, Pythagorean and Cabbalistic doctrines principally set forth in his works (De Verbo Mirifico (1494) and De Arte Cabbalistica (1516)) and Henry Cornelius Agrippa, born near Cologne in 1486, a man of powerful genius and vast erudition, but of an eccentric and restless spirit, who finally closed a roving and chequered existence at Grenoble in 15 3 5. His occult philosophyis rather a sketch of the Alexandrian mixed with the Cabbalistic theology than a treatise on magic, explaining the harmony of nature and the connexion of the elementary, celestial and intellectual worlds on the principles of the emanative system. Two things may especially be noted of him. He started in life as a physician with the wild project of recommending himself to the great by pretending to a knowledge of the secrets of nature, especially of the art of producing gold. The other, that in the course of his wanderings he came for a short time to England, where he is said to have founded an hermetic society. " In the year 15 io Henry Cornelius Agrippa came to London and, as appears by his correspondence (Opuscula, t. ii, p. 1073), he founded a secret society for alchemical purposes similar to one which he had previously instituted at Paris, in concert with Landolfo, Brixianus, Xanthus and other students at that university. The members of these societies did agree on private signs of recognition ; and they founded, in various parts of Europe, corresponding associations for the prosecution of the occult sciences " (Monthly Review, second series, 1798, vol. xxv, p. 304). Jerome Cardan, an Italian physician, born at Pavia in 1501, who died about 1576, was a wonderful compound of wisdom and folly. An astrologer all his life, his numerous predictions and the cures which he undertook to perform by secret charms, or by the assistance of invisible spirits, made him pass for a magician, while they were in reality only proofs of a mind infatuated by superstition. His numerous works, collected and published by Spon, in io vols. (fol., Lugd., 1663), show him to have been a man of great erudition, fertile invention and capable of many new and singular discoveries both in philosophy and medicine. Innumerable singularities, both physical and metaphysical, are found in his works, accompanied by many experiments and observations on natural phenomena, but the whole is thrown together in such a confused mass as to show clearly that, though he had no lack of ideas, he was incapable of arranging them, an incapacity which will render nugatory the most 318 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY ingenious and original conceptions. His works exemplify this combined strength and weakness, for if he could only have preserved a clear head and cool judgment, he would doubtless have contributed largely to the progress of true science. Thomas Campanella, a Dominican, born in Calabria in 15 68, was also undoubtedly a man of genius and it must equally be without doubt that his imagination greatly predominated over his judgment, when we find that he not only gave credit to the art of astrology, but believed that he was cured of a disease by the words and prayers of an old woman; that demons appeared to him; that he persuaded himself that when any danger threatened him, he was, between sleeping and waking, warned by a voice which called him by name. Still, in spite of his childish credulity and eccentricity, Campanella could reason soberly and is especially worthy of praise for the freedom with which he exposed the futility of the Aristotelian philosophy and for the pains which he took to deduce natural science from observation and experience. He died in a Dominican monastery at Paris, A.D. 1639, in the seventy‑first year of his age. Henry More, the famous Platonist, one of the most brilliant of the alumni of Cambridge, the friend and colleague of Cudworth, 1614‑1687, shows in his works a deep tincture of mysticism, a belief in the Cabbala and the transmission of the Hebrew doctrines through Pythagoras to Plato. Locke, 1632‑1704, the father of modern thought and philosophy, was, early in life, for a time seduced by the fascinations of these mysteries ; and the eminent Descartes, 1596‑1650, in his long search after truth‑which he did not ultimately succeed in finding‑for a time admitted the same weakness.

 

So far the limitation has been to philosophers who yielded principally to the weaknesses of astrology, magic and a belief in demons ; we now come to those who, also, in their new‑born ardour for the pursuit of material science, explored, or rather attempted to explore, the realms of chemistry, to which they added the mystical views of their contemporaries. The idea of demons, which is probably at the root of all magic, inasmuch as it supposes an inferior kind of guardians of the treasures of the earth, air and planets, who can be communicated with by mortals and, human vanity will add, controlled by them, is, in all probability, derived from the Cabbalists, whose doctrine of emanation was peculiarly suited to it; and from the Saracens, who had plenty of jins and demons of their own, as may be gathered from the Arabian Nights. To this possibly the old Teutonic, Celtic and Scandinavian legends may have been superadded, so that the whole formed a machinery to which the earlier chemists, confused in their knowledge and hampered with the superstitions of their times, attributed the control of the various forces of nature,‑a system of which a French caricature is given by the author of the Memoirs of the Comte de Gabalis.

 

The first and, perhaps, the greatest, certainly the most celebrated of these, was Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus Paracelsus, a man of strange and paradoxical genius, born at Einsidlen, near Zurich, in 1493. His real name is said to have been Bombastus, which, in accordance with the pedantry of the times, he changed to Paracelsus, which expresses the same thing in somewhat more learned language. Brought up by his father, who was also a physician, his ardour for learning was so EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 319 great that he travelled over the greater part of Europe and possibly even portions of Asia and Africa, in search of knowledge, visiting, not only the learned men, but the workshops of mechanics and, not only the universities, but the mines, esteeming no person too mean nor any place too dangerous, provided only that he could obtain knowledge. It may easily be believed that such a man would despise book learning and, in fact, he boasted that his library would not amount to six folio volumes. It may also be imagined that such a man would strike out bold and hazardous paths, often depending more on mere conjecture or fancy than on close reasoning founded on experiment, also that such treatment might occasionally meet with striking success. So great, in fact, was his fame, a fame founded on undoubted success, that it was not long before he rose to the summit of popular fame and obtained the chair of medicine in the college of Basle. Among other nostrums he administered a medicine which he called Azoth, which he boasted was the philosopher's stone given through the Divine favour to man in these last days. Naturally his irregular practices, still more, no doubt, his irregular successes, stirred up all the fury of the regular practitioners‑than whom no body of men, not even excluding the English Bar, have ever maintained a stricter system of trade unionism‑a fury which the virulence with which he censured the ignorance and indolence of the ordinary physicians by no means tended to allay. After a while he was driven from Basle and settled in Alsace, where, after two years, he returned in 153o to Switzerland, where he does not appear to have stayed long and, after wandering for many years through Germany and Bohemia, finished his life in the hospital of St. Sebastian at Salzburg, A.D. 154I.

 

A greater visionary, without, moreover, any scientific qualities to counterbalance his craziness, was Jacob Behmen, a shoemaker of Gorlitz in Upper Silesia, born in i 5 75, of whom it may safely be said, that no one ever offered a more striking example of the adage ne .tutor ultra crepidam. It has sometimes been said that he was a disciple of Fludd, but beyond a probable acquaintance with the writings of Paracelsus, whose terms he frequently uses, he seems to have followed no other guides than his own eccentric genius and enthusiastic imagination. His conceptions, in themselves sufficiently obscure, are often rendered still more so, by being clothed in allegorical symbols derived from the chemical art and every attempt which has been made to explain and illustrate his system has only raised a fresh ignis fatuus to lead the student still further astray. A more scientific theosophist was John Baptista van Helmont, born at Brussels 1577, who became lecturer on surgery in the academy of Louvain at the age of seventeen. Dissatisfied with what he had learned, he studied with indefatigable industry mathematics, geometry, logic, algebra and astronomy ; but still remaining unsatisfied, he had recourse to the writings of Thomas a Kempis and was induced by their perusal to pray to the Almighty to give him grace to love and pursue truth, on which he was instructed by a dream to renounce all heathen philosophy, particularly stoicism, to which he had been inclined and to wait for Divine illumination. About this time he learned from a chemist the practical operations of the art and devoted himself to the pursuit with 32‑0 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY great zeal and perseverance, hoping by this means to acquire the knowledge which he had in vain sought from books. The medical skill thus acquired he employed entirely in the service of the poor, whom he attended gratis and obtained a high reputation for humanity and medical skill. His life ultimately fell a sacrifice to his zeal for science and philanthropy, for he caught cold attending a poor patient at night, which terminated his existence in the sixty‑seventh year of his age. Van Helmont improved both the chemical and the medical art, but his vanity led him into empirical pretensions. He boasted that he was possessed of a fluid which he called Alcahest or pure salt, which was the first material principle in nature, capable of penetrating into bodies and producing an entire separation and transmutation of their component parts. But this wonderful fluid was never shown even to his son, who also practised chemistry and was rather more crazy than his father, inasmuch as to his progenitor's fancies he added the dreams of the Cabbala. His Paradoxical Dissertations are a mass of philosophical, medical and theological paradoxes, scarcely to be paralleled in the history of letters.

 

The last of these writers which there is occasion to mention and that more particularly, is Robert Fludd, or De Fluctibus, born in 1574 at Milgate in Kent, who became a student at Oxford in 1591. Having finished his studies he travelled for six years in France, Spain, Italy and Germany; on his return he was admitted a physician and obtained great admiration, not only for the depth of his chemical, philosophical and theological knowledge, but for his singular piety.

 

So peculiar was his turn of mind, that there was nothing ancient or modern, under the guise of occult wisdom, which he did not eagerly gather into his magazine of science. All the mysterious and incomprehensible dreams of the Cabbalists and Paracelsians were compounded by him into a new mass of absurdity. In hopes of improving the medical and chemical arts he devised a new system of physics, loaded with wonderful hypotheses and mystical fictions. He supposed two universal principles‑the northern or condensing and the southern or rarefying power. Over these he placed innumerable intelligences and geniuses, herein only magnifying what had been done by his predecessors, calling together whole troops of spirits from the four winds, to whom he committed the charge of diseases. Disease being blown about by wind is a theory perfectly consonant with the germ theory. He used his thermometer in an endeavour to discover the harmony between the macrocosm and the microcosm, or the world of nature and of man ; he introduced many marvellous fictions into natural philosophy and medicine and attempted to explain the Mosaic cosmogony in a work entitled Philosophia Moysaica, wherein he speaks of three principles‑darkness as the first matter, water as the second, the Divine light as the most central essence‑creating, informing, vivifying all things ; of secondary principles‑two active, cold and heat; two passive, moisture and dryness ; and describes the whole mystery of production and corruption, of regeneration and resurrection, with such vague conceptions and obscure language as leaves the subject involved in impenetrable darkness. Some of his ideas, such as they were, seem to have been borrowed from the Cabbalists and Neo‑Platonists.

 

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 32‑1 He ascribes the magnetic virtue to the irradiation of angels. The titles of his numerous works are (with a few exceptions) given in full by Anthony a Wood in Athena Oxonienses.

 

The writings of Fludd were all composed in Latin; and, whilst it is remarkable that the works of an English author, residing in England, should be printed at Frankfort, Oppenheim and Gouda, this singularity is accounted for by the author himself. Fludd, in one respect, resembled Dee ; he could find no English printers who would venture on their publication.

 

His extravagances were especially reprobated by Pere Mersenne‑who expressed his astonishment that James I suffered such a man to live and write‑and Kepler. The former, being either unable or unwilling to continue the contest, turned it over to Gassendi, who wrote a reply which is supposed to have had the effect of crushing, not only Fludd, but also the whole body of Rosicrucians, whose great supporter he was.

 

Soane in his New Curiosities of Literature (vol. ii, 1848, p. 63) asserts that they were forced to shelter themselves under the cloak of Freemasonry, a view which was first broached in Germany and, with slight variation, has been adopted by many English writers, notably by King, who finds " the commencement of the real existence of Freemasonry " in " the adaptation to a special purpose of another society then in its fullest bloom‑the Rosicrucians " (The Gnostics and their Remains, 1865, p. 177). The purport of Gassendi's strictures is sufficiently disclosed in Athena Oxonienses (vol. ii, col. 6zi). According to the Oxford antiquary," Gassendus, upon Marsennus his desiring him to give his judgment of Fludd's two books wrote against him, drew up an answer divided into three parts. The first of which sifts the principles of the whole system of his whimsical philosophy, as they lie scattered throughout his works. The second is against Sophia cum Morid Certamen and the third answers the Summum Bonum as his." Although the silence of Bayle, of Chauffepie, of Prosper Marchand, of Niceron and of other literary historians, with regard to Fludd, is not a little remarkable, it is none the less certain that his writings were extensively read throughout Europe, where at that time they were infinitely more inquisitive in their occult speculations than we in England. Passing, however, for the present from any further consideration of the philosophy of this remarkable Englishman‑who died in 1637‑one of our profoundest scholars, the illustrious Selden, highly appreciated the volumes and their author.

 

It has been before observed that the earth and air were at this time supposed to be full of demons and that this was probably owing to the Cabbalistic and Saracenic doctrines of countless angels and spirits, the whole springing ultimately from the Oriental doctrine of emanation. Some of the older authors wrote regular natural histories of demons, something after the manner of Buffon or Cuvier. Reverting to Robert Fludd, or De Fluctibus, the mention of this celebrated man brings us not unnaturally to the Rosicrucians or Brothers of the Rosy Cross, an impalpable fraternity of which he is known to have been a follower and defender 322 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY and, by some, has been supposed to have been the second, if not the actual founder. The celebrity of and the mystery attached to this sect, together with the circumstances of its having by some been especially connected with Freemasonry, will warrant entering with some degree of minutia into the subject.

 

The fullest account we have, although we may differ from its conclusions, is contained in the essay of Professor J. G. Buhle, of which a German version appeared in 1804, being an enlargement of a dissertation originally composed in Latin, read by him before the Philosophical Society of Gottingen A.D. 1803. This work was attacked by Nicolai in 18o6 and, in 1824, De Quincey published an abridgment of it in the London Magazine, under the title of " Historico‑critical Inquiry into the Origin of the Rosicrucians and the Freemasons " (reprinted in his collected works, 1863‑71, VOl. Xvi).

 

Professor Buhle's work, which extended over more than 400 pages, has been cut down by De Quincey to about go, but in such a manner as to render it often very difficult to detect what is due to Buhle and what to De Quincey; and it is to this abridgment that recourse mainly will be had for the following sketch of the rise and progress of Rosicrucianism. Denying the derivation of the order from the Egyptian, Greek, Persian or Chaldean mysteries, or even from the Jews and Arabs, the writer asserts (and herein both Buhle and De Quincey are certainly in agreement) that though individual Cabbalists, Alchemists, etc., doubtless existed long previously, yet no organized body made its appearance before the rise of the Rosicrucian sect, strictly so called, towards the beginning of the sixteenth century, when it was founded really accidentally by Andrea ; that Fludd, becoming enamoured of its doctrines, took it up in earnest, that hence the sect, which never assumed any definite form abroad, became organized in England under the new name of Freemasonry; he then goes on to show the points of resemblance between the two, which in his idea proves relationship. The essay concludes with a long dissertation disproving the assertion of Nicolai, that Masonry was established to promote the Restoration of Charles II and another theory sometimes advanced, which derives its origin from the Templars, neither of which requires serious, if any, refutation.

 

His conclusions are i. The original Freemasons were a society that arose out of the Rosicrucian mania between 1633 and 1646, their object being magic in the Cabbalistic sense, i.e. the occult wisdom transmitted from the beginning of the world and matured by Christ [when it could no longer be occult, but this by the way], to communicate this when they had it and to search for it when they had it not, and both under an oath of secrecy.

 

2. This object of Freemasonry was represented under the form of Solomon's Temple, as a type of the true Church, whose corner‑stone is Christ. The Temple is to be built of men, or living stones ; and it is for magic to teach the true method of this kind of building. Hence all Masonic symbols either refer to Solomon's Temple or are figurative modes of expressing magic in the Rosicrucian sense.

 

3. The Freemasons having once adopted symbols, etc., from the art of Masonry, EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 323 to which they were led by the language of Scripture, went on to connect themselves in a certain degree with the order itself of handicraft masons and adopted their distribution of members into apprentices, journeymen and masters.‑Christ is the Grand Master and was put to death whilst laying the foundation of the Temple of human nature.

 

This is the theory of Buhle and De Quincey, which is plausible but untenable, especially when confronted with the stern logic of facts. But to return to the history, such as it is, of the Rosicrucians.

 

Towards the close of the sixteenth century, Cabbalism, Theosophy and Alchemy had overspread the whole of Western Europe and, more especially, as might have been expected, Germany. No writer had contributed more to this mania than Paracelsus and, amongst other things which excited deep interest, was a prophecy of his to the effect that soon after the death of the Emperor Rudolph II‑who was himself deeply infected‑there would be found three treasures that had never been revealed before that time. Accordingly, shortly after his death, in or about 16io, occasion was taken to publish three books. The first was the Universal Reformation of the whole snide 1‑Vorld, a tale not altogether devoid of humour. The seven wise men of Greece, together with M. Cato, Seneca and a secretary, Mazzonius, are summoned to Delphi by Apollo, at the desire of Justinian, to deliberate on the best mode of redressing human misery. Thales advises to cut a hole in every man's breast; Solon suggests communism; Chilo (being a Spartan) the abolition of gold and silver; Cleobulus, on the contrary, that of iron ; Pittacus insists on more rigorous laws ; but Periander replies that there never had been any scarcity of these, but much want of men to obey them. Bias would have all bridges broken down, mountains made insurmountable and navigation totally forbidden, so that all intercourse between the nations of the earth should cease. Cato, who probably preferred drinking, Narratur et prisci Catonis Sxpe virtus caluisse mero, wished to pray for a new deluge, which should sweep away all the women and, at the same time, introduce some new arrangement by means of which the species should be continued without their aid. This exasperates the entire assembly and they proceed to fall on their knees and pray that " the lovely race of woman might be preserved and the world saved from a second deluge." Which seems to have been about the only sensible thing they did. Finally, the advice of Seneca prevailed, namely, to form a new society out of all ranks, having for its object the general welfare of mankind, which was to be pursued in secret. This was not carried without great debate and many doubts as to its success, but the matter was at length decided by the appearance of " the Age," who appeared before them in person, described the wretched state of his health and his generally desperate condition. Whatever success this jeu d'esprit may have had in its day, it has long been forgotten and is F. II‑5 32.4 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY now interesting only as having been a kind of precursor of the far more celebrated Fama.

 

John Valentine Andrea, a celebrated theologian of Wurtemberg, known also as a satirist and poet, is generally supposed to have been its author, although Burk has excluded it from the catalogue of his works. He was born 1586 at Herrenberg and his zeal and talents enabled him early to accumulate an extraordinary amount of learning. Very early, also, in life he seems to have conceived a deep sense of the evils and abuses of the times, not so much in politics as in philosophy, morals and religion, which he sought to redress by means of secret societies. As early as his sixteenth year he wrote his Chemical Nuptials of Christian Rosy Cross, Julius, ,rive de Politia, Condemnation of Astrology, together with several other works of similar tendency. Between 1607 and 16iz he travelled extensively through Germany, France, Italy and Switzerland, a practice he long continued and, even during the horrors of the Thirty Years War, exerted himself in founding schools and churches throughout Bohemia, Corinthia and Moravia. He died in 1654. " From a close review of his life and opinions," says Professor Buhle‑and in his account of Andrea one may follow him with confidence‑" I am not only satisfied that he wrote the three works (including the Confession, which is a supplement to the Fama), but I see why he wrote them." The evils of Germany were enormous and, to a young man such as Andrea was, when he commenced what must be admitted to be his Quixotic enterprise, their cure might seem easy, especially with the example of Luther before him and it was with this idea that he endeavoured to organize the Rosicrucian societies, to which, in an age of Theosophy, Cabbalism and Alchemy, he added what he knew would prove a bait. " Many would seek to connect themselves with this society for aims which were indeed illusions and from these he might gradually select the more promising as members of the real society. On this view of Andrea's real intentions can at once be understood the ground of the contradictory language which he held about astrology and the transmutation of metals ; his satirical works show that he looked through the follies of his age with a penetrating eye." Buhle goes on to ask, why did he not at once avow his books and answers that, to have done so at once, would have defeated his scheme and that, afterwards, he found it prudent to remain in obscurity. As a suspected person he even joined in public the party of those who ridiculed the whole as a chimera. But nowhere in his posthumous memoirs does he disavow the works ; and, indeed, the fact of his being the avowed author oÇ the Chemical Nuptials of Christian Rosy Cross, a worthy never before heard of, ought of itself to be sufficient. Some, indeed, have denied his claim; for instance, Heidegger, who, in his Historia Vita J. L. Fabricii, gives the work to Jung, a mathematician of Hamburg, on the authority of Albert Fabricius, who reported the story casually as derived from a secretary of the Court of Heidelberg. Others have claimed it for Giles Gutmann, for no other reason than that he was a celebrated mystic. Morhof has a remark, which, if true, might leave indeed Andrea in possession of the authorship without ascribing to him any influence in the formation of the order. " Not only," he says, " were there similar EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 32‑5 colleges of occult wisdom in former times, but in the last, i.e. the sixteenth century, the fame of the Rosicrucian fraternity became celebrated." But this is no sort of proof of this assertion and the concurrent testimony of all who have written on the subject certainly is that the fraternity of Rosicrucians, if it ever existed at all, is never mentioned before the publication of the Fama, in spite of isolated societies, such as that of Cornelius Agrippa in England, or of individual enthusiasts who pursued their dreams perhaps with more or less communication with one another. Moreover, the armorial bearings of Andrea's family were a St. Andrew's Cross and four roses. By the order of the Rosy Cross he therefore means an order founded by himself‑Christianus Rosx Crucis, the Christian, which he certainly was, of the Rosy Cross.

 

But so simple an explanation will not suit a numerous class of writers, for the love of mystery being implanted in human nature never wholly dies out, though it often changes its venue and some, such as Nicolai, have considered the rose as the emblem of secrecy (hence under the rose, sub rosa) and the cross to signify the solemnity of the oath by which the vow of secrecy was ratified, hence we should have a fraternity bound by the oath of silence, which is reasonable and grammatical if it were only true. But Mosheim (Ecclesiastical History, vol. iii, pp. 216, , 217) says that " the title of Rosy Cross was given to chymists who united the study of religion and chymistry, that the term is alchemical, being not rosa, a rose, but ros, dew. Of all natural bodies, dew is the most powerful dissolvent of gold and a cross in the language of the fire philosophers is the same as lux, light, because the figure of the cross X exhibits all the three letters of the word lux at one view. They called lux the seed or menstruum of the Red Dragon," or that gross and corporeal light, which, being properly digested and modified, produces gold. A Rosicrucian philosopher, therefore, is one who, by means of dew, seeks for light, i.e. for the Philosopher's Stone‑which, by the way, the Rosicrucians always denied to be their great aim; in fact, although they boasted of many secrets, they always maintained that this was the least. The other versions are false and deceptive, having been given by chemists who were fond of concealment. The true import of the title was perceived (or imagined to be so) by Gassendi in his Examen Pbilosopbia Fluddian& and, better still, by the celebrated French physician Renaudot in his Confirences Publiques, iv, 87.

 

Many of these derivations are plausible enough, but unfortunately the genitive of ros, dew, is roris, so that the fraternity would in this case have been roricrucians. Soane, while admitting the family arms of Andrea, says, " The rose was, however, an ancient religious symbol and was carried by the Pope in his hand when walking in procession on Mid Lent Sunday, it was worn at one time by the English clergy in their button holes" (New Curiosities of Literature, 1848, vol. ii, p. 37). Fuller, in his Pisgab sight of Palestine, calls Christ " that prime rose and lily." Est rosa floc Veneris (the rose is the flower of Venus) because it represents the generative power " typified by Venus "‑though how or why, except because exercised sub rosa, it is hard to conjecture. Ysnextie, the Holy Virgin of the Mexicans, is said 326 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY to have sinned by eating roses, which roses are elsewhere termed fructo del arbol. Vallancey, in his Collectanea de Rebus Hibernicis, giving the proper names of men derived from trees, states: Susan lilium vel rosa uxor Joacim ; and, after relating what Mosheim had said as above, he goes on to say that Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria, asserts that Ros was by the Gnostics deemed symbolical of Christ. " By dew is confessed the Godhead of the Lord Jesus." The Sethites and the Ophites, as the emblematical serpent worshippers were called, held that the dew which fell from the excess of light was Wisdom, the hermaphrodite deity.

 

These two passages are quoted at length, as melancholy instances of learning, talent and ingenuity run mad and to show to what extent a vivid imagination, a want of sound judgment and cool, clear, common sense, coupled with the vanity of displaying learning generally irrelevant, often unreal and ingenuity as perverted as it is misplaced, will lead men of the greatest talents and even genius. The more one reads, the more one will be apt to parody, with De Quincey, the famous words of Oxenstiern, and say, " Go forth and learn with what disregard of logic most books are written." Maier, an upholder of the fraternity, in his Tbemis Aured (translated into English and published with a dedication to Elias Ashmole in 1656), denies that R. C. meant either ros, rosa, or crux and contends that they were merely chosen as a mark of distinction, i.e. arbitrarily. But a man must have some reason, however slight, for choosing anything and the fact of the rose and cross forming his family arms must surely have been enough for Andrea. Arnold also says that in the posthumous writings of M. C. Hirshen, pastor at Eisleben, it has been found that John Arne informed him in confidence, as a near friend and former colleague, how he had been told by John Valentine Andrea, also in confidence, that he, namely Andrea, with thirty others in Wurtemberg, had first set forth the Fama, in order that under that screen they might learn the judgment of Europe thereon, as also what lovers of true wisdom lay concealed here and there who might then come forward. There is a further circumstance connected with the Fama, which, though it certainly does not prove it to have been a fiction of Andrea, establishes with tolerable clearness that it was a fiction of someone and that is, that in the contemporary life of the famous Dominican John Tauler, who flourished in the fourteenth century, mention is made of one Master Nicolas, or rather one supposed to be Master Nicolas, for he is always referred to as the " Master," who instructed Tauler in mystic religion‑meaning thereby not mysticism in the ordinary sense, but the giving one's self up to " being wrapped up in " and endeavouring to be absorbed in God. This mysterious individual, who is supposed to have been a merchant at Basle, really existed and he did actually found a small fraternity, the members of which travelled from country to country, observing, nevertheless, the greatest secrecy, even to concealing from each other their place of sepulture, but who had also a common house where the "Master" dwelt towards the end of his life, who subsisted in the same silence, paucity of numbers and secrecy, long after his death, protesting, as he did, against the errors and abuses of Rome, until the remnant was finally swallowed up in the vortex of EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 32‑7 the Reformation. The date of the " Master " anticipates by not much more than half a century the birth of the supposed C. R. and the two stories altogether bear so many points of close resemblance, that there is justification for concluding, without for a moment tracing any real connexion, that Andrea, who was not only a man of very great learning, but a countryman also of the " Master " and his disciples, knew of and adapted the story for his Fama in the same way as he did that of Boccalini for his Reformatio. The name was suggested by his coat of arms and it so happens that it forms a by no means uncommon German patronymic‑Rosecranz, Rosencranz, Rosecreutz, which would of course be Latinized into Rosm Crucis. Assuming then, as may safely be done, that the Fama and Confessio, at least, if not the Reformatio as well, were the works of Andrea and, leaving aside all speculations of their having had an earlier origin and of the mystical nature of the name as being either the work of imagination run mad or the vanity of learning and ingenuity exhibiting themselves for learning and ingenuity's sake, let us now follow the fortunes of the works and the results which sprang from them.

 

Though the precise date of its first appearance is not exactly known, yet it was certainly not later than 161o and the repeated editions which appeared between 1614 and 1617, still more the excitement that followed, show how powerful was the effect produced. " In the library at Gottingen there exists a body of letters addressed between these years to the imaginary order by persons offering themselves as members. As qualifications most assert their skill in alchemy and Cabbalism and, though some of the letters are signed with initials only, or with names evidently fictitious, yet real places of address are assigned'‑‑the reason for their being at Gottingen is that, as many indeed assert, unable to direct their communications rightly, they had no choice but to address their letters to some public body " to be called for," as it were and, having once come to the University, there they remained. Others threw out pamphlets containing their opinions of the order and of its place of residence, which, as Vaughan says in his Hours with the Mystics, was in reality under Dr. Andrea's hat. " Each successive writer claimed to be better informed than his predecessors. Quarrels arose; partisans started up on all sides ; the uproar and confusion became indescribable; cries of heresy and atheism resounded from every corner; some were for calling in the secular power; and the more coyly the invisible society retreated from the public advances, so much the more eager were its admirers, so much the more blood‑thirsty its antagonists." Some, however, seem to have suspected the truth from the first, hence a suspicion arose that some bad designs lurked under the seeming purpose, a suspicion which was not unnaturally strengthened, for many impostors, as might have been expected, gave themselves out as Rosicrucians and cheated numbers out of their money by alchemy and out of their health and money together by quack medicines. Three, in particular, made a great noise at Wetzlar, Nuremberg and Augsburg, of whom one lost his ears in running the gauntlet and another was hanged. At this crisis Andreas Libau or Libavius attacked the pretended fraternity with great power by two works in Latin and one in German, published 111 1615 and the follow‑ 318 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY ing year, at Frankfort and at Erfurt respectively ; these, together with others of a like tendency, might have stopped the mischief had it not been for two causesfirst, the coming forward of the old Paracelsists, who avowed themselves to be the true Rosicrucians in numerous books and pamphlets which still further distracted the public mind ; secondly, the conduct of Andrea himself and his friends, who kept up the delusion by means of two pamphlets‑(i) Epistola ad Reverendam Fraternitatem R. Crucis., Fran. 1613 ; (2) Assertio Fraternitatis R. C. d quodam Fratern. jus Socio carmine ex pre.r.ra‑Defence of the R. C. Brethren by a certain anonymous Brother, written in the form of a poem. This last was translated into German in 1616, again in 1618, under the title of Ara Fa'deris Therapici, or the Altar of the Healing Fraternity‑the most general abstraction of the pretensions made for the Rosicrucians being that they healed both the body and the mind.

 

The supposed Fraternity was, however, defended in Germany by some men not altogether devoid of talent, such as Julianus a Campis, Julius Sperber of Anhalt Dessau, whose Echo of the divinely illuminated order of the R. C., if it be indeed his, was printed in 1615, again at Dantzig in 1616; who asserted that, as esoteric mysteries had been taught from the time of Adam down to Simeon, so Christ had established a new " college of magic " and that the greater mysteries were revealed to St. John and St. Paul. Radtich Brotoffer was not so much a Cabbalist as an Alchemist and understood the three Rosicrucian books as being a description of the art of making gold and finding the philosopher's stone. He even published a recipe for the same, so that both materia et praparatio lapidis aurei, the ingredients and the mode of mixing the golden stone, were laid bare to the profane. It might have been thought that so audacious a stroke would have been sufficient to have ruined him, but, as often happens, the very audacity of the attempt carried him through, for his works sold well and were several times reprinted. A far more important person was Michael Maier, who had been in England and was the friend of Fludd. He was born at Rendsberg in Holstein in 1568 and was physician to the Emperor Rudolph II, who, as has before been observed, was possessed with the mystical mania. He died at Magdebourg in 1622. His first work on this subject is the focus Severus, Franc. 1617, addressed omnibus verse chymice amantibus per Germaniam, especially to those illi ordini adhuc delitescenti, ut Famd Fraternitatis et Confessione sud admirandd et probabili manifestato‑" To that sect, which is still secret, but which, nevertheless, is made known by the Fama and its admirable and reasonable Confession." This work, it appears, was written in England and the dedication composed on his journey from England to Bohemia. Returning, he endeavoured to belong to the sect, so firmly did he believe in it, but, finding this of course impossible, he endeavoured to found such an Order by his own efforts and, in his subsequent writings, spoke of it as already existing, going so far even as to publish its laws‑which, indeed, had already been done by the author of the Echo. From his principal work, the Silentium post Clamores, we may gather his view of Rosicrucianism.

 

Nature is yet but half unveiled. What we want is chiefly experiment and EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 32.9 tentative inquiry. Great, therefore, are our obligations to the R.C. for labouring to supply this want. Their weightiest mystery is a Universal Medicine. Such a Catholicon lies hid in nature. It is, however, no simple, but a very compound, medicine. For, out of the meanest pebbles and weeds, medicine and even gold are to be extracted.

 

Again‑" He that doubts the existence of the R. C. should recollect that the Greeks, Egyptians, Arabians, etc., had such secret societies ; where, then, is the absurdity in their existing at this day ? Their maxims of self‑discipline are these To honour and fear God above all things ; to do all the good in their power to their fellow‑men, etc." " What is contained in the Fama and Confessio is true. It is a very childish objection that the brotherhood have promised so much and performed so little. With them, as elsewhere, many are called, but few chosen. The masters of the Order hold out the rose as a remote prize, but they impose the cross on those who are entering." " Like the Pythagoreans and Egyptians, the Rosicrucians exact vows of silence and secrecy. Ignorant men have treated the whole as a fiction ; but this has arisen from the five years' probation to which they subject even well‑qualified novices before they are admitted to the higher mysteries ; within this period they are to learn how to govern their tongues." Andrea now began to think that the joke had been carried somewhat too far, or rather perhaps that the scheme he had thought to have started for the reformation of manners and philosophy had taken a very different turn from that which he had intended and, therefore, turning it to ridicule, he published his Chemical Nuptials of Christian Rosy Cross, which had hitherto remained in MS., though written as far back as i 6o2. This is a comic romance of extraordinary talent, designed as a satire on the whole tribe of Theosophists, Alchemists, Cabbalists, etc., with which at that time Germany swarmed. Unfortunately the public took the whole au grand serieux. Upon this, in the following year, he published a collection of satirical dialogues under the title of Menippus ; sive dialogorum satyricorum centuria, inanitatum nostratium Speculum‑" A century of satyric dialogues designed as a mirror for our follies." In this he reveals more openly his true designrevolution of method in the arts and sciences and a general religious reformation. He seems, in fact, to have been a dreamy and excessively inferior kind of German Bacon. His efforts were seconded by his friends, especially Irenacus Agnostus and Joh. Val. Alberti. Both wrote with great energy against the Rosicrucians, but the former, from having ironically styled himself an unworthy clerk of the Fraternity of the R. C., has been classed by some as a true Rosicrucian. But they were placed in a still more ludicrous light by the celebrated Campanella, who, though a mystic himself, found the Rosicrucian pretensions rather more than he could tolerate. In his work on the Spanish Monarchy, written whilst a prisoner at Naples, a copy of which, finding its way by some means into Germany, was there published and greatly read (162o), we find him thus expressing himself of the R. C. " That the whole of Christendom teems with such heads " (Reformation jobbers)an excellent expression, but this by the way‑" we have one proof more than was 330 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY wanted in the Fraternity of the R. C. For, scarcely was that absurdity hatched, when‑notwithstanding it was many times declared to be nothing more than a lusus ingenii nimium lascivientis, a ` mere hoax of some man of wit troubled with a superfluity of youthful spirits'; yet because it dealt in reformations and pretences to mystical arts‑straightway from every country in Christendom pious and learned men, passively surrendering themselves dupes to this delusion, made offers of their good wishes and services‑some by name, others anonymously, but constantly maintaining that the brothers of the R. C. could easily discover their names by Solomon's Mirror or other Cabbalistic means. Nay, to such a pass of absurdity did they advance, that they represented the first of the three Rosicrucian books, the Universal Reformation, as a high mystery ; and expounded it in a chemical sense as if it had contained a cryptical account of the art of gold making, whereas it is nothing more than a literal translation, word for word, of the Parnasso of Boccalini." After a period of no very great duration, as it would appear, they began rapidly to sink, first into contempt, then into obscurity and oblivion and, finally, died out, or all but did so, for, as Vaughan justly observes (Hours with the Mystics, 1856, vol. i, p. 6o) Mysticism has no genealogy. It is a state of thinking and feeling to which minds of a certain temperament are liable at any time and place, in occident and orient, whether Romanist or Protestant, Jew, Turk, or Infidel. The same round of notions, occurring to minds of similar make under similar circumstances, is common to mystics in ancient India and in modern Christendom.

 

It is quite possible that there may be Rosicrucians still, though they hide their faith like people do their belief in ghosts. Not only had science, learning and right reason made more progress, but the last waves of the storm of the Reforma tion had died away and men's minds had sobered down in a great measure to practical realities. As usual, rogues and impostors took advantage of whatever credulity there was, which hastened the decay of the sect, for, though there was no actual society or organization, yet the name of Rosicrucian became a generic term embracing every species of occult pretension, arcana, elixir, the philosopher's stone, theurgic ritual, symbols, initiations et hoc genus omne. Some few doubtless lingered. Liebnitz was, in early life, actually connected with a soi‑disant society of the R. C. at Nuremberg, but he became convinced that they were not connected with any real society of that name. 11 me paroit, he says, in a letter published by Feller in the Otium Hannoveranum, p. zz2, que tout ce, que l'on a dit des Frires de la Croix de la Rose, est une pure invention de quelque personne inginieuse. Again, so late as 1696, he says elsewhere‑Fratres Rosea Crucis fictitios else suspicor ; quod et Helmontius mihi confirmavit. One of the latest notices is to be found in Spence's Anecdotes of Books and Men (ed. A20, p. 403), where we have the Rev. J. Spence writing to his mother from Turin under the date of August z5, 1740‑" Of a sett of philosophers called adepts, of whom there are never more than twelve in the EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 331 whole world at one time. . ‑. . ‑. Free from poverty, distempers and death "‑it was unkind and selfish in the last degree to conceal such benefits from mankind at large 1‑" There was one of them living at Turin, a Frenchman, Audrey by name, not quite zoo years old "‑who must in this case have been past 7o when he joined the original fraternity ? In the same work it is also stated that a story of Gustavus Adolphus having been provided with gold by one of the same class was related by Marechal Rhebenden to the English minister at Turin, who told it to Spence. A similar anecdote is related by John Evelyn, who, whilst at Paris in 165 z, was told by " one Mark Antonio of a Genoese jeweller who had the greate Arcanum and had made projection before him severall times." But the great majority were doubtless mere knaves and whole clubs even of swindlers existed calling themselves Rosicrucians. Thus Lud. Conr. Orvius, in his Occulta Pbilosopbia, sive calum Sapientum et Vexatio Stultorum, tells us of such a society, pretending to trace from Father Rosycross, who were settled at the Hague in 16zz, who, after swindling him out of his own and his wife's fortune, amounting to about eleven thousand dollars, expelled him from the Order with the assurance that they would murder him if he revealed their secrets, " which secrets," says he, " I have faithfully kept, and for the same reason that women keep secrets, viz. because I have none to reveal ; for their knavery is no secret." After all it is not to be wondered at, for the auri sacra (or vesana) fames does but change its form‑not its substance ; and those who, some time since, bought shares in Rubery's Californian anthill, made up of rubies, emeralds and diamonds, would doubtless have fallen an easy prey to the first Rosicrucian alchemist and, really, with more excuse. Considering that there never was any real body of Rosicrucians properly so called, there could not well be any fixed principles of belief, e.g. especial creed as it were ; still, as the number of those who, for one reason or another, chose to call themselves Rosicrucians was doubtless very great, it may readily be imagined that certain principles may be gathered as being common to all or, at least, most of all who might happen to be of that way of thinking.

 

Besides the above works, we have the attack on the sect by Gabriel Naude, who gives the Rosicrucian tenets, or what he supposes were such‑but this is perhaps hardly reliable‑entitled Instruction d la France, sur la verite de l'bistoire des Freres de la Rose‑Croix, Paris, 16z3 ; and the Conferences Publiques of the celebrated French physician Renaudot, tom. iv, which destroyed whatever slight chance of acceptance the Rosicrucian doctrines had in that country. Morhof, however, in his Polybistor, lib. i, c. 13, speaks of a diminutive society or offshoot of the parent folly, founded, or attempted to be founded, in Dauphine by a visionary named Rosay, hence called the Collegium Rosianum, A.D. 1630. It consisted of three persons only. A certain Mornius gave himself a great deal of trouble to be the fourth, but was rejected. All that he could obtain was to be a serving brother. The chief secrets were perpetual motion, the art of changing metals and the universal medicine. C. G. von Murr (1803) assigns to the Freemasons and the Rosicrucians a common origin and only fixes the date of their separation into distinct sects at the 332 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY year 1633. Solomon Semler, in Impartial Collections for the History of the Rosy Cross, Leipzig, 1786‑88, gives them a very remote antiquity.

 

Lastly we have the famous jeu d'esprit entitled The Comte de Gabalis, a diverting history of the Rosicrucian doctrine of spirits, viz. Sylphs, Salamanders, Gnomes and Demons, translated from the Paris edition and printed for B. Lintott and E. Curll, in 1714. It is subjoined to Pope's Rape of the Lock, which gave rise to a demand for this translation. The piece is said to have been written by the French Abbe de Villars, in ridicule of the German Hermetic associations, 167o and Bayle's account of them is prefixed to the translation. The work, which is very short, is simply that of a witty and licentious French Abbe, for the diversion of the courtiers of the Grand Monarque and the literary world by which they were surrounded. Some say that it was founded on two Italian chemical letters written by Borri ; others affirm that Borri (a famous quack, chemist and heretic) took the chief parts of the letters from it, but after discussing it, Bayle, as usual, leaves the case undecided. Gabalis is supposed to have been a German nobleman, with estates bordering on Poland, who made the acquaintance of the writer and so far honoured him with his confidence as to explain the most occult mysteries of his art. Bayle's account in the preface ends as follows Afterwards, that Society, which in Reality, is but a Sect of Mountebanks, began to multiply, but durst not appear publickly and for that Reason was sir‑nam'd the Invisible. The Inlightned, or Illuminati, of Spain proceeded from them ; both the one and the other have been condemn'd for Fanatics and Deceivers. We must add, that John Bringeret printed, in 1615, a Book in Germany, which comprehends two Treatises, Entituled the " Manifesto [Fama] and Confession of Faith of the Fraternity of the Rosicrucians in Germany." These persons boasted themselves to be the Library of Ptolemy Philadelphus, the Academy of Plato, the Lyceum, etc. and bragg'd of extraordinary Qualifications, whereof the least was that they could speak all Languages ; and after, in 1622, they gave this Advertisement to the Curious : " We, deputed by our College, the Principal of the Brethren of the RoSICRUCIANS, to make our visible and invisible Abode in this City, thro' the grace of the Most High, towards whom are turned the Hearts of the just. We teach without Books or Notes, and speak the Language of the Countries wherever we are; to draw Men, like ourselves, from the Error of Death." This Bill [which was probably a mere hoax] was Matter of Merriment. In the meantime, the Rosicrucians have dissapear'd, tho' it be not the sentiment of that German chemist, the author of a book, De Volucri Arbored and of another, who hath composed a treatise stiled De Philosophid Purd.

 

But nothing can give so clear an idea of what true Rosicrucianism really was, whether an account of a sect then actually existing, or the sketch of a sect which the projector hoped to form, or to which of the two categories it belongs, than of course the Fama itself and, as it is either the parent or the exponent of a very celebrated denomination, one which, in some men's minds at least, has had considerable influence on Freemasonry, an abstract is presented as copious as space will allow.

 

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 333 The translation used is " printed by J. M. for Giles Calvert, at the Black Spread Eagle at the west end of Paul's, 1652 " and is translated by Eugenius Philalethes, " with a preface annexed thereto, and a short Declaration of their (R. C.) Physicall Nvork." This Eugenius Philalethes was one Thomas Vaughan, B.A. of Jesus College, Oxford, born in 162‑1, of whom Wood says : " He was a great chymist, a noted son of the fire, an experimental philosopher and a zealous brother of the Rosie‑Crucian fraternity" (Athena Oxonienses, vol. iii, col. 719). He pursued his chemical. studies in the first instance at Oxford, afterwards at London under the protection and patronage of Sir Robert Moray or Murray, Knight, Secretary of State for the Kingdom of Scotland. This distinguished soldier and philosopher was received into Freemasonry at Newcastle in 1641 and, in the inquiry we are upon, the circumstance of his being in later years both a Freemason and a Rosicrucian will at least merit passing attention. Moray's initiation, which preceded by five years that of Elias Ashmole, was the first that occurred on English soil of which any record has descended to us. In this connexion, it is not a little remarkable, that whereas it has been the fashion to carry back the pedigree of Speculative Masonry in England to the admission of Elias Ashmole, the Rosicrucian philosopher, the association of ideas to which this formulation of belief has given rise will sustain no shock, but rather the reverse, by the priority of Moray's initiation. Sir Robert Moray, a founder and the first president of the Royal Society, " was universally beloved and esteemed by men of all sides and sorts " (Burnet, vol. i, p. go), but it is with his character as a lover of the occult sciences we are chiefly concerned. Anthony a Wood says, " He was a single man, an abhorrer of women, a most renowned chymist, a great patron of the Rosie‑Crucians and an excellent mathematician " (Athena Oxonienses, vol. iii, col. 726). Whether Ashmole and Moray, who must constantly have been brought together at meetings of the Royal Society, ever conversed about the other Society of which they were both members cannot, of course, be determined. The elder of the two Brothers or Fellows died in 1673, nine years before the celebrated meeting at Masons' Hall, London. Had this assembly of London Masons taken place many years before it did, the presence or the absence of Sir Robert Moray from such a gathering of the Fraternity might be alike suggestive of some curious speculation. Masonry, in its general and widest sense‑herein comprising everything partaking of an Operative as well as of a Speculative character‑must have been at a very low ebb about the period of Moray's death and for some few years afterwards.

 

It is highly improbable that Lodges were held in the metropolis with any frequency, until the process of rebuilding the capital began, after the Great Fire. Sir Christopher Wren, indeed, went so far as to declare, in 1716, in the presence of Hearne, that " there were no Masons in London when he was a young man " (Philip Bliss, Aeliquiue Hearniania, vol. i, p. 336). From this it may plausibly be contended that, if our British Freemasonry received any tinge or colouring at the hands of Steinmetzen, Compagnons or Rosicrucians, the last quarter of the seventeenth century is the most likely (or, at least the earliest) period in which we can 334 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY suppose it to have taken place. Against it, however, there is the silence of all contemporary writers, excepting Plot and Aubrey, notably of Evelyn and Pepys, with regard to the existence of Lodges, or even of Freemasonry itself. Both these latter worthies were prominent members of the Royal Society, Pepys being president in 1684, a distinction, it may be said, declined times without number by Evelyn. Wren, Locke, Ashmole, Boyle, Moray and others, who were more or less addicted to Rosicrucian studies, enjoyed the distinction of F.R.S. Two of the personages named we know to have been Freemasons and for Wren and Locke the title has also been claimed, though without any foundation whatever in fact. Pepys and, to a greater extent, Evelyn, were on intimate terms with all these men. Indeed, the latter, in a letter to the Lord Chancellor, dated March 18, 1667, evinces his admiration of the fraternity of the Rosie Cross, by including the names of William Lilly, William Oughtred and George Ripley in his list of learned Englishmen with whose portraits he wished Lord Cornbury to adorn his palace. On the whole, perhaps, we shall be safe in assuming, either that the persons addicted to chemical or astrological studies, whom in the seventeenth century it was the fashion to style Rosicrucians, kept aloof from the Freemasons altogether or, if the sects in any way commingled, their proceedings were wrought under an impenetrable veil of secrecy, against which even the light of modern research is vainly directed.

 

Sir Robert Moray was accompanied to Oxford by Vaughan at the time of the Great Plague and the latter, after taking up his quarters in the house of the Rector of Albury, died there, " as it were, suddenly, when he was operating strong mercury, some of which, by chance getting up into his nose, killed him, on the 27th of February 1666." He was buried in the same place, at the charge of his patron.

 

Vaughan was so great an admirer of Cornelius Agrippa that‑to use the words of honest Anthony a Wood‑" nothing could relish with him but his works, especially his Occult Philosophy, which he would defend in all discourse and writing." The publication of the Fama in an English form is thus mentioned by the same authority in his life of Vaughan‑Large Preface, with a short declaration of the physical work of the fraternity of the K. C., commonly of the Rosie Cross. Lond. 1652. Oct. " Which Fame and Confession was translated into English by another hand " ; but whether by this is meant that Vaughan made one translation and somebody else another, or that Vaughan's share in the work was restricted to the preface, Wood does not explain. He goes on to say, however," I have seen another book entit. Themis Aurea. The Laws of the Fraternity of the Rosie Cross. Lond. 16 S 6. Oct. Written in Lat. by Count Michael Maier and put into English for the information of those who seek after the knowledge of that honourable and mysterious society of wise and renowned philosophers. This English translation is dedicated to Elias Ashmole, Esq., by an Epistle subscribed by .I?. S ' j H. S., but who he or they are, he, the said El. Ashmole, hath utterly forgotten." Eugenius Philalethes, whoever he was, commences with two epistles to the EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 335 reader, which, with a preface, or rather introduction, of inordinate length for the size of the book, a small 18mo of i Zo pages in all, occupies rather more space than the Fama and Confession together (61 pages as against 56) and the whole concludes with an " advertisement to the reader," of five pages more. This introduction is principally occupied by an account of the visit of Apollonius of Tyana to the Brachmans [Brahmens], and his discourse with Jarchas, their chief.

 

THE FAMA The world will not be pleased to hear it, but will rather scoff, yet it is a fact that the pride of the learned is so great that it will not allow them to work together, which, if they did, they might collect a Librum Natura, or perfect method of all arts. But they still keep on their old course with Porphyry, Aristotle and Galen, who, if they were alive and had our advantages, would act very differently ; and though in theology, physic and mathematics, truth opposes itself to their proceedings as much as possible, yet the old enemy is still too much for it. For such general reformation, then, C. R., a German, the founder of our fraternity, did set himself. Poor, but nobly born, he was placed in a cloister when five years old and, in his growing years, accompanied a brother P. A. L. to the Holy Land. The latter dying at Cyprus, C. R. shipped to Damasco for Jerusalem, but was detained by illness at Damasco, where the Arabian wise men appeared as if they had been expecting him, and called him by name. He was now sixteen and, after remaining three years, went to Egypt, where he remained but a short time, then went on to Fez, as the Arabians had directed him. Constant philosophic intercourse was carried on for mutual improvement between Arabia and Africa, so that there was no want of physicians, Cabbalists, magicians and philosophers, though the magic and Cabbala at Fez were not altogether true. Here he stayed two years and then " sailed with many costly things into Spain, hoping well; he himself had so well and profitably spent his time in his travel that the learned in Europe would highly rejoice with him and begin to rule and order all their studies, according to those sound and sure foundations." [C. R. was now twenty‑one years of age.] He showed the Spanish learned " the errors of our arts, how they might be corrected, how they might gather the true Indicia of the times to come ; he also showed them the faults of the Church and of the whole Philosophia Moralis and how they were to be amended. He showed them new growths, new fruits and new beasts, which did concord with old philosophy and prescribed them new Axiomata, whereby all things might fully be restored " and was laughed at in Spain as elsewhere. He further promised that he would direct them to the " only true centrum and that it should serve to the wise and learned as a Rule " [whatever this might be] ; also that there might be a " Society in Europe which should have gold, silver and precious stones enough for the necessary purposes of all kings," " so that they might be brought up to know all that God hath suffered man to know " [the connexion is not quite clear]. But, failing in all his endeavours, he returned to Germany, where he built himself a house and remained five years, principally studying mathematics. After which there " came again into his mind the wished‑for Reformation," so he sent for from his first cloister, to which he bare a great affection, Bro. G. V., Bro. J. A., Bro. J. O.

 

by which four was begun the fraternity of the Rosie Cross. They also made the 336 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY " magical language and writing, with a large dictionary, `which we yet daily use to God's praise and glory and do find great wisdom therein ; ' they made also the first part of the book M., but in respect that that labour was too heavy and the unspeakable concourse of the sick hindred them, also whilst his new building called Sancti Spiritus was now finished," they added four more [all Germans but J. A.], making the total number eight, " all of vowed virginity ; by them was collected a book or volume of all that which man can desire wish or hope for." Being now perfectly ready, they separated into foreign lands, " because that not only their Aviomata might, in secret, be more profoundly examined by the learned, but that they themselves, if in some country or other they observed anything, or perceived any error, they might inform one another of it." But before starting they agreed on six rules i. To profess no other thing, than to cure the sick " and that gratis." 2. To wear no distinctive dress, but the common one of the country where they might happen to be.

 

3. " That every year on the day C. they should meet at the house S. Spiritus," or write the reason of absence.

 

4. Every brother to look about for a worthy person, who after his death might succeed him.

 

5. " The word C. R. should be their Seal, Mark and Character." 6. The fraternity should remain secret ioo years.

 

Only five went at once, two always staying with Father Fra ; R. C. and these were relieved yearly.

 

The first who died was J. O., in England, after that he had cured a young earl of leprosy. " They determined to keep their burial places as secret as possible, so that ` at this day it is not known unto us what is become of some of them, but every one's place was supplied by a fit successor.' What secret, soever, we have learned out of the book M. (although before our eyes we behold the image and pattern of all the world), yet are there not shown our misfortunes nor the hour of death, but hereof more in our Confession, where we do set down 37 reasons wherefore we now do make known our Fraternity and proffer such high mysteries freely, without constraint and reward: also we do promise more gold than both the Indies bring to the King of Spain; for Europe is with child and will bring forth a strong child who shall stand in need of a great godfather's gift." Not long after this the founder is supposed to have died and " we of the third row " or succession " knew nothing further than that which was extant of them (who went before) in our Philosophical Bibliotbeca, amongst which our A.viomata was held for the chiefest, Rota Mundi for the most artificial, Protbeus the most profitable." " Now, the true and fundamental relation of . the finding out of the high illuminated man of God, Fra ; C. R. C., is this." D., one of the first generation, was succeeded by A., who, dying in Dauphiny, was succeeded by N. N. A., previously to his death, " had comforted him in telling him that this Fraternity should ere long not remain so hidden, but should be to all the whole German nation helpful, EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 337 needful, and commendable." . . . The year following after he (N. N.) had performed " his school and was minded now to travel, being for that purpose sufficiently provided with Fortunatus' purse," but he determined first to improve his building. In so doing he found the memorial tablet of brass containing the names of all the brethren, together with some few things which he meant to transfer to some more fitting vault, " for where or when Fra ; R. C. died, or in what country he was buried, was by our predecessors concealed and unknown to us." In removing this plate he pulled away a large piece of plaster disclosing a door. The brotherhood then completely exposed the door and found written on it in large letters Post i Zo annos Patebo [I shall appear after 1 Zo years]. " We let it rest that night, because, first, we would overlook our Rotam ; but we refer ourselves again to the Confession, for what we here publish is done for the help of those that are worthy, but to the unworthy (God willing) it will be small profit. For, like as our door was, after so many years wonderfully discovered, so also then shall be opened a door to Europe (where the wall is removed which already doth begin to appear) and with great desire is expected of many." In the morning we opened the door and there appeared a Vault of seven sides, every side 5 feet broad and 8 high. Although the sun never shined in this vault, nevertheless it was enlightened with another sun, which had learned this from the sun and was situated in the centre of the ceiling. In the midst, instead of a tombstone, was a round altar covered with a plate of brass, and thereon this engraven A. C., R. C. Hoc universi compendium unius mihi sepulchrum feci [I have erected this tomb as an epitome of the one universe].

 

Round about the first circle was Jesus mihi omnia [Jesus is all things to me].

 

In the middle were four figures inclosed in circles, whose circumscription was i. Nequaquam vacuum. z. Legis jugum 3. Libertas Evangelic 4. Dei gloria intacta [There is no vacuum]. [The yoke of the law]. [The liberty of the Gospel]. [The immaculate glory of God].

 

This is all clear and bright, as also the seventh side and the two heptagons, so we knelt down and gave thanks to the sole wise, sole mighty and sole eternal God, who hath taught us more than all men's wit could have found out, praised be His holy name. This vault we parted in three parts‑the upper or ceiling, the wall or side, the floor. The upper part was divided according to the seven sides ; in the triangle, which was in the bright centre [here the narrator checks himself], but what therein is contained you shall, God willing, that are desirous of our society, behold with your own eyes. But every side or wall is parted into ten squares, every one with their several figures and sentences as they are truly shown 338 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY here in our book [which they are not]. The bottom, again, is parted in the triangle, but because herein is described the power and rule of the interior governors, we forbear to manifest the same, for fear of abuse by the evil and ungodly world. But those that are provided and stored with the heavenly antidote, they do without fear or hurt, tread on and bruise the head of the old and evil serpent, which this our age is well fitted for. Every side had a door for a chest, wherein lay divers things, especially all our books, which otherwise we had, besides the Vocabulary of Theo phrastus Paracelsus and these which daily unfalsifieth we do participate. Herein also we found his Itinerarium and Vitam, whence this relation for the most part is taken. In another chest were looking glasses of divers virtues, as also in other places were little bells, burning lamps and chiefly wonderful artificial Songs; generally all done to that end, that if it should happen after many hundred years, the Order or Fraternity should come to nothing, they might by this onely Vault be restored again.

 

They now removed the altar, found a plate of brass, which, on being lifted, they found " a fair and worthy body, whole and unconsumed, as the same is here lively counterfeited [was the original illustrated ?] with all the Ornaments and Attires: in his hand he held a parchment book called I., the which next unto the Bible is our greatest treasure, which ought to be delivered to the world." At the end of the book was the eulogium of Fra ; C. R. C., which, however, contains nothing remarkable, underneath were the names, or rather initials, of the different brethren in order as they had subscribed themselves [like in a family Bible].

 

The graves of the brethren, I. O. and D., were not found [it does not appear that some of the others were either], but it is to be hoped that they may be, especially since they were remarkably well skilled in physic.

 

" Concerning Minutum Mundum, we found it under another little altar, but we will leave him [query it?] undescribed, until we shall truly be answered upon this our true hearted Fama. [So they closed up the whole again and sealed it] and ` departed the one from the other and left the natural heirs in possession of our jewels. And so we do expect the answer and judgment of the learned or unlearned.' " [These passages seem to indicate the purpose of the book.] " We know after a time that there will be a general reformation, both of divine and human things, according to our desire and the expectation of others, for 'tis fitting that before the rising of the Sun there should appear an Aurora ; so, in the meantime, some few, which shall give their names, may joyn together to increase the number and respect of our Fraternity and make a happy and wished‑for beginning of our Philosophical Canons, prescribed by our brother R. C. and be partaken of our treasures (which can never fail or be wasted), in all humility and love to be eased of this world's labour and not walk so blindly in the knowledge of the wonderful works of God." Then follows their creed, which they declare to be that of the Lutheran Church, with two sacraments. In their polity they acknowledge the [Holy] Roman Empire for their Christian head. " Albeit, we know what alterations be at hand and EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 339 would fain impart the same with all our hearts to other godly learned men. Our Philosophy also is no new invention, but as Adam after ` his fall hath received it and as Moses and Solomon used it: also she ought not much to be doubted of, or contradicted by other opinions ; but seeing that truth is peaceable, brief and always like herself in all things and especially accorded by with Jesus in omni parte and all members. And as he is the true image of the Father, so is she his Image. It shall not be said, this is true according to Philosophy, but true according to Theology. And wherein Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras and others did hit the mark and wherein Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Solomon, did excel [here we have traces of the Cabbala], but especially wherewith that wonderful book the Bible agreeth. All that same concurreth together and make a Sphere or Globe, whose total parts are equidistant from the Center, as hereof more at large and more plain shall be spoken of in Christianly Conference' " [Christian conversation].

 

Gold making is the cause of many cheats and even " men of discretion do hold the transmutation of metals to be the highest point of philosophy " ; but the " true philosophers are far of another minde, esteeming little the making of gold, which is but a parergon ; for besides that, they have a thousand better things " ; for " he [the true philosopher] is glad that he seeth the heavens open, the angels of God ascending and descending and his name written in the Book of Life." Also, under the name of chemistry, many books are sent forth to God's dishonour, as we will name them in due season and give the pure‑hearted a catalogue of them; and we pray all learned men to take heed of that kind of books, for the enemy never resteth. . . . So, according to the will and meaning of Fra ; C. R. C., we, his brethren, request again all the learned in Europe who shall read (sent forth in five languages) this our Fama and Confessio, that it would please them with good deliberation to ponder this our offer and to examine most nearly and sharply their Arts ; behold the present time with all diligence and to declare their minde, either communicato concilio, or sin gulatina, by print.

 

And although at this time we make no mention either of our names or meetings, yet nevertheless every one's opinion shall assuredly come into our hands, in what language soever it be; nor shall any body fail, who so gives but his name, to speak with some of us, either by word of mouth or else by writing. W hosever shall earnestly and from his heart, bear affection unto us, it shall be beneficial to him in goods, body and soul ; but he that is false‑hearted, or only greedy of riches, the same shall not be able to hurt us, but bring himself to utter ruin and destruction. Also our building (although ioo,ooo people had very near seen and beheld the same) shall for ever remain untouched, undestroyed and hidden to the wicked world, sub umbra alarum tuarum Jebova.

 

THE CONFESSIO After a short exordium, there being a preface besides, it goes on to say that They cannot be suspected of heresy, seeing that they condemn the east and the F. II‑6 340 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY west‑i.e. the Pope and Mahomet‑and offer to the head of the Romish Empire their prayers, secrets and great treasures of gold.

 

Still they have thought good to add some explanations to the Fama, " hoping thereby that the learned will be more addicted to us." " We have sufficiently shown that philosophy is weak and faulty," . . . " she fetches her last breath and is departing." But as when a new disease breaks out, so a remedy is generally discovered against the same ; " so there doth appear for so manifold infirmities of philosophy," the right means of recovery, which is now offered to our country.

 

" No other philosophy, we have, than that which is the head and sum, the foundation and contents, of all faculties, sciences and arts, the which containeth much of theology and medicine, but little of the wisdom of lawyers and doth diligently search both heaven and earth, or, to speak briefly thereof, which doth manifest and declare sufficiently, Man; whereof, then, all Learned who will make themselves known unto us and come into our brotherhood, shall attain more wonderful secrets than they did heretofore attain unto, or know, believe, or utter." Wherefore we ought to show why such mysteries and secrets should yet be revealed unto the many. It is because we hope that our offer will raise many thoughts in men who never yet knew the Miranda sexta atatis [the wonders of the sixth age], as well as in those who live for the present only.

 

" We hold that the meditations, knowledge and inventions of our loving Christian father (of all that which, from the beginning of the world, man's wisdom, either through God's revelation, or through the service of angels and spirits, or through the sharpness and deepness of understanding, or through long observation, hath found out and till now hath been propagated), are so excellent, worthy and great, that if all books should perish and all learning be lost, yet that posterity would be able from that alone to lay a new foundation and bring truth to light again." To whom would not this be acceptable ? " Wherefore should we not with all our hearts rest and remain in the only truth, if it had only pleased God to lighten unto us the sixth Candelabrum ? Were it not good that we needed not to care, not to fear hunger, poverty, sickness and age ? " Were it not a precious thing, that you could always live so, as if you had lived from the beginning of the world and if you should still live to the end ? " That you should dwell in one place and neither the dwellers in India or Peru be able to keep anything from you ? " That you should so read in one onely book " and by so doing understand and remember all that is, has been, or will be written.

 

" How pleasant were it, that you could so sing, that instead of stony rocks [like Orpheus] you could draw pearls and precious stones ; instead of wild beasts, spirits ; and instead of hellish Pluto, move the mighty Princes of the world ? " God's counsel now is, to increase and enlarge the number of our Fraternity. If it be objected that we have made our treasures too common, we answer that the grosser sort will not be able to receive them and we shall judge of the worthiness EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 3411 of those who are to be received into our Fraternity, not by human intelligence, but by the rule of our Revelation and Manifestation.

 

A government shall be instituted in Europe, after the fashion of that of Damear [or Damear] in Arabia, where only wise men govern, who " by the permission of the king make particular laws (whereof we have a description set down by our Christianly father), when first is done and come to pass that which is to precede." Then what is now shown, as it were " secretly and by pictures, as a thing to come, shall be free and publicly proclaimed and the whole world filled withal." As was done with the " Pope's tyranny, . . . whose final fall is delayed and kept for our times, when he also shall be scratched in pieces with nails and an end be made of his ass's cry " [a favourite phrase of Luther].

 

Our Christian father was born 1378 and lived io6 years [his remains being to be concealed i 2o, brings us to 1604, when Andrea was 18].

 

It is enough for them who do not despise our Declaration to prepare the way for their acquaintance and friendship with us. " None need fear deceit, for we promise and openly say, that no man's uprightness and hopes shall deceive him, whosoever shall make himself known unto us under the Seal of Secrecy, and desire our Fraternity." But we cannot make them known to hypocrites, for " they shall certainly be partakers of all the punishment spoken of in our Fama [utter destruction, vide supra] and our treasures shall remain untouched and unstirred until the lion doth come, who will ask them for his use and employ them for the confirmation and establishment of his kingdom." God will most assuredly send unto the world before her end, which shall happen shortly afterwards, " such Truth, Light, Life and Glory as Adam had " ; and all " lies, servitude, falsehood and darkness, which by little and little, with the great world's revolution, has crept into all arts, works and governments of man and have darkened the most part of them, shall cease. For from thence are proceeded an innumerable sort of all manner of false opinions and heresies ; all the which, when it shall once be abolished and, instead thereof, a right and true Rule instituted, then there will remain thanks unto them which have taken pains therein ; but the work itself shall be attributed to the blessedness of our age." As many great men will assist in this Reformation by their writings, " so we desire not to have this honour ascribed to us." . . . " The Lord God hath already sent before certain messengers, which should testify His Will, to wit, some new stars, which do appear in the firmament in Serpentarius and Cygnus, which signify to every one that they are powerful Si gnacula of great weighty matters." Now remains a short time, when all has been seen and heard, when the earth will awake and proclaim it aloud.

 

" These Characters and Letters [he does not say what], as God hath here and there incorporated them in the Holy Scriptures, so hath He imprinted them most apparently in the wonderful creation of heaven and earth‑yea, in all beasts." 342 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY As astronomers can calculate eclipses, " so we foresee the darkness of obscurations of the Church and how long they shall last.

 

" But we must also let you understand ; that there are some Eagles' Feathers in our way, which hinder our purpose." Wherefore we admonish every one carefully to read the Bible, as being the best way to our Fraternity. " For as this is the whole sum and content of our Rule, that every Letter or Character which is in the world ought to be learned and regarded well; so those are like and very near allyed unto us, who make the Bible a Rule of their life. Yea, let it be a compendium of the whole world and, not only to have it in the mouth, but to know how to direct the true understanding of it to all times and ages of the World." [Diatribe against expounders and commentators, as compared with the praises of the Bible :] " But whatever hath been said in the Fama concerning the deceivers against the transmutation of metals and the highest medicine in the world, the same is thus to be understood, that this so great a gift of God we do in no manner set at naught, or despise. But because she bringeth not with her always the knowledge of Nature, but this bringeth forth not only medicine, but also maketh manifest and open unto us innumerable secrets and wonders ; therefore it is requisite, that we be earnest to attain to the understanding and knowledge of philosophy; and, moreover, excellent wits ought not to be drawn to the tincture of metals, before they be exercised well in the knowledge of Nature." As God exalteth the lowly and pulleth down the proud, so He hath and will do the Romish Church.

 

Put away the works of all false alchemists and turn to us, who are the true philosophers. We speak unto you in parables, but seek to bring you to the understanding of all secrets.

 

" We desire not to be received of you, but to invite you to our more than kingly houses; and that, verily, not by our own proper motion, but as forced unto it, by the instigation of the Spirit of God, by His Admonition and by the occasion of this present time." An exhortation to join the Fraternity, seeing that they profess Christ, condemn the Pope, addict themselves to the true philosophy, lead a Christian life and daily exhort men to enter into the order. Then follows a renewed warning to those who do so for worldly motives, for though " there be a medicine which might fully cure all diseases, nevertheless those whom God hath destinated to plague with diseases and to keep them under the rod of correction, shall never obtain any such medicine." " Even in such manner, although we might enrich the whole World, endue them with Learning and might release it from Innumerable Miseries, yet shall we never be manifested and made known unto any man, without the especial pleasure of God; yea, it shall be so far from him whosoever thinks to get the benefit and be partaker of our Riches and Knowledge, without and against the Will of God, that he shall sooner lose his life in seeking and searching for us, then to find us, and attain to come to the wished Happiness of the Fraternity of the Rosie Cross." EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 343 These abstracts are given at considerable length, in order to afford readers a complete idea of the substance of the two publications. As will easily be seen, the Confessio professing to give an account of the doctrines of the society, the Fama rather resembling a history‑is totally unintelligible, in spite of the care taken to give an accurate and copious abridgment. It is impossible to believe that Andrei, or whoever else may have been the writer, was describing a sect that actually existed and difficult indeed to believe that he had any serious object. Indeed the Confessio sounds more like a nonsensical parody on the ordinary philosophical jargon of the day and there are many passages in it, as well as some of the Fama, which will especially bear this interpretation, like the celebrated nautical description of a storm in Gulliver. Andrea was a man of talent and one sincerely desirous of benefiting mankind, especially German‑kind, but, in the ardour of youth, he must have been more tempted to satire than in his maturer years and may have sought to clear the ground by crushing the existing false philosophers with ridicule, as Cervantes subsequently did the romancists. He may also, as Buhle says‑and there are repeated traces of this in both works‑have sought to draw out those who were sincerely desirous of effecting a real and lasting reformation. The answers doubtless came before him in some form or another through his friends and associates, of whom one account says that there were thirty and the answers, if they were all like those preserved at Gottingen, which, in spite of the solemn warnings in both the Fama and Confessio, chiefly relating to gold finding, must have been sufficiently discouraging to induce him to relinquish, for the time at least, any such scheme as that which has been ascribed to him. His efforts, however, only ceased with his life, though his plans, which, at first, embraced all science and morality, seem ultimately to have been reduced to the practical good of founding schools and churches. As for the Fama itself, it seems to have been based on the " Master Nicholas " of John Tauler, with a little taken from the early life of Lully‑not forgetting his own personal career‑and coupled with certain ideas drawn from the Cabbala, the Alchemists, the seekers after Universal Medicine and the Astrologers.

 

At the end of this edition comes a short advertisement, possibly by Eugenius Philalethes himself to the reader, inviting him, says the writer, " not to my Lodging, for I would give thee no such Directions, my Nature being more Melancboly than Sociable. I would only tell thee how Charitable I am, for having purposely omitted some Necessaries in my former Discourse. I have upon second Thoughts resolved against that silence." After this he goes on to say that " Pbilosopbie hath her Confidents, but in a sense different from the Madams," among whom it appears that he flatters himself to be one ; and he is so much in her confidence that he even knows the right way of preparing the philosopher's salt, which would seem to be the long‑sought‑for universal medicine, a medicine the true mode of preparing which was known to few, if any, not even to Tubal Cain himself‑though Eugenius must have been very much in the confidence of Philosopbie to have known anything about the secret practices of the great antediluvian mechanic.

 

This whole passage is so curious and is so illustrative, in a small space, of the 344 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY ideas and practices of these so‑called philosophers, that it is here introduced, preserving, as far as possible, both the textual and typographical peculiarities of the original.

 

The Second Philosophical/ work is commonly called the gross work, but 'tis one of the greatest Subtilties in all the Art. Cornelius Agrippa knew the first Preparation and hath clearly discovered it ; but the Dffculty of the second made him almost an enemy to his own Profession. By the second work, I understand, not Coagulation, but the Solution of the Philosophical Salt, a secret which Agrippa did not rightly know, as it appears by his practise at Malines ; nor would Natalius teach him, for all his frequent and serious intreaties. This was it, that made his necessities so vigourous, and his purse so weak, that I can seldome finde him in a full fortune. But in this he is not alone: Raymond Lully, the best Christian Artist that ever was, received, not this Mysterie from Arnoldus, for in his first Practises he followed the tedious common process, which after all is scarce profitable. Here he met with a Drudgerie almost invincible, and if we add the Task to the Time, it is enough to make a Man old. Norton was so strange an Ignoramus in this Point, that if the Solution and Purgation were performed in threeyears, he thought it a happy work. George Riply labour'd for new Inventions to putrifie this red salt, which he enviously cals his gold : and his knack is, to expose it to alternat fits of cold and heat, but in this he is singular, and Faber is so wise he will not understand him. And now that I have mention'd Faber, I must needs say that Tubal‑Cain himself is short of the right Solution, for the Process he describes hath not anything of Nature in it. Let us return then to Raymond Lullie, for he was so great a Master, that he perform'd the Solution, intra novem dies [in nine days], and this Secret he had from God himself. .‑. . . .‑. It seems, then, that the greatest Difficulty is not in the Coagulation or production of the Philosophical/ Salt, but in the Putrefaction of it when it is produced. Indeed this agrees best with the sence of the Philosophers, for one of those Pracisians tels us : ",Qui scit SALEM, [et] jus SOLUTIONEM, scit SECRETUM OCCULTUM antiquorum Philosophorum " [" he who knows the salt, and its solution, knows the hidden secret of the ancient philosophers "]. Alas, then ! what shall we do ? Whence comes our next Intelligence 1 I am afraid here is a sad Truth for somebody. Shall we run now to Lucas Rodargirus, or have we any dusty Manuscripts, that can instruct us ? Well, Reader, thou seest how free I am grown; and now I could discover something else, but here is enough at once. I could indeed tell thee of the first and second sublimation, of a double Nativity, Visible and Invisible, without which the matter is not alterable, as to our purpose. I could tell thee also of Sulphurs simple, and compounded, of three Argents Vive, and as many Salts ; and all this would be new news (as the Book men phrase it), even to the best Learned in England. But I have done, and I hope this Discourse hath not demolished any man's Castles, for why should they despair, when I contribute to their Building ? I am a hearty Dispensero, and if they have got anything by me, much good may it do them. It is my onely fear, they will mistake when they read; for were I to live long, which I am confident I shall not [of what use, then, was the salt ?], I would make no other wish, but that my years might be as many as their Errors. I speak not this out of any contempt, for I undervalue no man ; it is my Experience in this kind of learning, which I ever made my Business, that gives me the boldness to suspect a possibility of the same faylings in others, which I have found in my self. To conclude, I would have my Reader know, that the Philosophers, EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 345 finding this life subjected to Necessitie, and that Necessity was inconsistant with the nature of the Soul, they did therefore look upon Man, as a Creature originally ordained for some better State than the present, for this was not agreeable with his spirit. This thought made them seek the Ground of his Creation, that, if possible, they might take hold of Libertie, and transcend the Dispensations of that Circle, which they IVlysteriously cal'd Fate. Now what this really signifies not one in ten thousand knowsand yet we are all Philosophers.

 

But to come to my purpose, I say, the true Philosophers did find in every Compound a double Complexion, Circumferential, and Central. The Circumferential was corrupt in all things, but in some things altogether venomous. The Central not so, for in the Center of every thing there was a perfect Unity, a miraculous indissoluble Concord of Fire and Water. These two Complexions are the Manifestum and the Occultum of the Arabians, and they resist one another, for they are Contraries. In the Center itself they found no Discords at all, for the Difference of Spirits consisted, not in Qualities, but in Degrees of Essence and Transcendency. As for the Water, it was of kin with the Fire, for it was not common but ethereal. In all Centers this Fire was not the same, for in some it was only a Solar Spirit, and such a Center was called, Aqua solis, Aqua Calestis, Aqua Auri, Aqua Argenti : In some again the Spirit was more than Solar, for it was super‑Crzlestial and A1etaphysical : This Spirit purged the very rational Soul, and awakened her Foot that was asleep, and therefore such a Center was called, Aqua Igne tincta, Aqua Serenans, Candelas Accendens, et Domum illuminans. Of both these Waters have I discoursed in these small Tractates I have published; and though I have had some Dirt cast at me for my pains, yet this is so ordinary I mind it not, for whiles we live here we ride in a High‑way. I cannot think him wise who resents his Injuries, for he sets a rate upon things that are worthless, and makes use of his Spleen where his Scorn becomes him. This is the Entertainment I provide for my Adversaries, and if they think it too coarse, let them judg where they understand, and they may fare better.

 

Andrea's labours with respect to the Rosicrucians are said to have been crowned by the foundation of a genuine society for the propagation of truth, named by him the " Christian Fraternity " (De Quincey's Works, x863‑7I, vol. xvi, p. 405), the history of which, however, would needlessly widen the scope of the present inquiry. Buhle's theory is‑to rush at once in medias resthat Freemasonry is neither more nor less than Rosicrucianism as modified by those who translated it into England. Soane (New Curiosities of Literature) goes a step further and says that the Rosicrucians were so utterly crushed by Gassendi's reply to Fludd, not to mention the general ridicule of their pretensions, that they gladly shrouded themselves under the name of Freemasons ; both seem to agree that Freemasonry, at least, in the modern acceptance of the term, did not exist before Fludd. The works of Mersenne, Gassendi, Naude and others, were little likely to have been read in England and no similar compositions were issued from the press in our own country, on the one hand; while, on the other, the Masonic body, as at present existing, undoubtedly took its origin in Great Britainso that the Rosicrucians concealed themselves where there was no need of concealment and did not conceal themselves where there was‑also Masonry undoubtedly 346 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY existed before the time of Fludd and the Rosicrucians never had an organized existence. So that men pursuing somewhat similar paths without any real organization, but linked together only by somewhat similar crazes, spontaneously assumed the character of a pre‑existing organization, which organization they could only have invaded and made their own by the express or tacit permission of the invaded.

 

To the objection that the hypothesis of the Gottingen professor is utterly untenable‑it may be said that equally so are all the visionary speculations, however supported by the authority of great names, which in any form link the society of Freemasons with the impalpable fraternity of the Rosie Cross. Yet as a connexion between the two bodies has been largely believed in by writers both within (Sandys, A Short History of Freemasonry, 1829, p. 52) and without (Buhle, De Quincey, Soane, King, etc.) the pale of the Craft and, in a certain sense‑for Hermeticism and Rosicrucianism are convertible terms‑still remains an article of faith with two such learned Masons as Woodford and Albert Pike, it is essential to examine carefully a theory of Masonic origin or development, so influentially, albeit erroneously, supported. In order to do this properly, Professor Buhle, as the general exponent of the views of what may be termed the Rosicrucian (or Hermetic) school, may be quoted. Buhle's Historico‑Critical Inquiry into the Origin of the Rosicrucians and the Freemasons, though " confused in its arrangement," is certainly not " illogical in its arguments," as contended by Dr. Mackey. Its weak point is the insufficiency of the Masonic data with which the Professor was provided. On the whole, however, although some inaccuracies appear with regard to Ashmole's initiation and the period to which English Freemasonry can be carried back, the essay‑merely regarded as a contribution to Masonic history‑will contrast favourably with all speculations upon the origin of Freemasonry of earlier publication. Whether Buhle was a Freemason it is not easy to decide; but from the wording of his own (not De Quincey's) preface, he seems to have been. Mackey says : " Higgins, Soane, Vaughan and several other writers have asserted that Freemasonry sprang out of Rosicrucianism. But this is a great error. Between the two there is no similarity of origin, of design, or of organization. The symbolism of Rosicrucianism is derived from an Hermetic philosophy: that of Freemasonry from an operative art." This writer, however, after the publication of his Encyclop&,dia, veered round to an opposite conclusion, owing to the influence produced upon his mind by a book called Long Livers, originally printed in 1722 " At the beginning of the seventeenth century," says the Professor, " many learned heads in England were occupied with Theosophy, Cabbalism and Alchemy among the proofs of this may be cited the works of John Pordage, of Norbert, of Thomas and Samuel Norton, but above all (in reference to our present inquiry) of Robert Fludd." With the exception of Norbert, all the writers named by Buhle are cited in Athena Oxonienses. Soane says that the Masonic Lodges " sprang out of Rosicrucianism and the yearly meeting of astrologers," the first known members of which [the Lodges]‑Fludd, Ashmole, Pordage and others, who were EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 347 Paracelsists‑being " all ardent Rosicrucians in principle, though the name was no longer owned by them." The particular occasion of Fludd's first acquaintance with Rosicrucianism is not recorded; and, whether he gained his knowledge directly from the three Rosicrucian books or indirectly through his friend Maier, who was on intimate terms with Fludd during his stay in England, is immaterial. At any rate‑and it should be remembered that it is the Professor who is arguing‑he must have been initiated into Rosicrucianism at an early period, having published his Apology for it in the year 1617. Fludd did not begin to publish until 1616, but afterwards became a voluminous writer, being the author of about twenty works, mostly written in Latin and as dark and mysterious in their language as their matter. Besides his own name, he wrote under the pseudonyms of Robertus de Fluctibus, Rudolphus Otreb, Alitophilus and Joachim Frizius. His writings on the subject of Rosicrucianism are as follows :‑I. A Brief Apology cleansing and clearing the Brotherhood of the Rosy Cross from the stigma of infamy and suspicion ; II. An Apologetic Tract defending the Honesty of the Society of the Rosy Cross from the attacks of Libavius and others ; III. The Contest of filisdom with Folly ; IV. The Summum Bonum, an extravagant work, written " in praise of Magic, the Cabbala, Alchemy, the Brethren of the Rosy Cross ; and for the disgrace of the notorious calumniator Fr. Marin. Mersenne " ; and V. The Key of Philosophy and Alchemy.

 

Some little confusion has arisen, out of the habit of this author of veiling his identity by a constant change of pseudonym. But it may fairly be concluded that all the works below enumerated are from his pen, since the references from one to another are sufficiently plain and distinct to stamp them all as the coinage of a single brain.

 

Anthony a Wood omits the Apology (II) from his list of Fludd's works; but though denied to be his, it bears his name on the title page and plainly was written by the author of the Summum Bonum (IV), being expressly claimed by him at p. 39 of that work. Now, the Sophia cum Morid Certamen (III) and the Summum Bonum (IV), two witty but coarse books, were certainly Fludd's, i.e. if the opinions of his contemporaries carry any weight and the summing up of the Oxford antiquary, on this disputed point, is generally regarded as conclusive (Athena Oxonienses, vol. ii, col. 620).

 

Our author, indeed, sullied these two treatises by mixing a good deal of ill language in them, but Gassendi freely admitted that Mersenne had given Fludd too broad an example of the kind, for some of the epithets which he thought fit to bestow on him were no better than Caco‑magus, Haretico‑magus, fcztidre et horrida Magia, Doctor et Propagator. Among other exasperating expressions, he threatened him with no less than damnation itself, which would in a short time seize him (Athena Oxonienses, vol. ii, col. 621).

 

Herein Mersenne showed himself a worthy rival of Henry VIII and Sir Thomas More in their attack on Luther, who was a great deal more than their match in vituperation, though scarcely their superior in theology. It is certainly true that, 348 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY as Hallam says, the theology of the Great Reformer consists chiefly in " bellowing in bad Latin," but it was effective, for he not only convinced others, but also himself, or appeared to do so, that every opposite opinion in theological argument was right, eternal punishment being always denounced as the penalty of differing from the whim of the moment. Buhle's theory, as he goes on to expand it, is that Fludd, finding himself hard pressed by Gassendi to assign any local habitation or name to the Rosicrucians, evaded the question by, in his answer to Gassendi, 1633, formally withdrawing the name, for he now speaks of them as Fratres R. C. olim sic dicti, quos nos hodie Sapientes, vel Sophos vocamus ; omisso ille nomine, tanquam odioso miseris mortalibus vela ignorantia obductis, et in oblivione hominum jam fere sepulto." " The brethren of the R. C. who were formerly, at least, called by this name, but whom we now term the wise ; the former name being omitted and almost buried by mankind in oblivion, since unhappy mortals are covered by such a thick veil of ignorance." Though from one cause or another, the name of Rosicrucians may have fallen into disrepute, there is no reason why they should have hidden themselves under the name of Freemasons, first, because there was no distinct organization which could go over, as it were, in a body‑for the Rosicrucians never formed a separate fraternity in England any more than elsewhere ; secondly, because there is no evidence oú the English Freemasons ever having been called Sapientes or Wise Men.

 

Buhle, however, goes on to say that the immediate name of Masons was derived from the legend, contained in the Fama Fraternitatis, or the " Home of the Holy Ghost." Some have been simple enough to understand by the above expression a literal house and it was inquired after throughout the empire. But Andrea has rendered it impossible to understand it in any but an allegorical sense. Theophilus Schweighart spoke of it as " a building without doors or windows, a princely, nay, an imperial palace, everywhere visible, yet not seen by the eyes of man." This building, in fact, represented the purpose or object of the Rosicrucians. That was the secret wisdom, or, in their words, Magic‑viz. (i) Philosophy of nature, or occult knowledge of the works of God; (z) Theology, or the occult knowledge of God Himself ; (3) Religion, or God's occult intercourse with the spirit of man ;‑which they fancied was transmitted from Adam through the Cabbalists to themselves. But they distinguished between a carnal and a spiritual knowledge of this magic, the spiritual being Christianity, symbolized by Christ Himself as a rock and as a building, of which He is the head and foundation. What rock, says Fludd, and what foundation ? A spiritual rock and a building of human nature, in which men are the stones and Christ the corner‑stone. But how shall stones move and arrange themselves into a building ? Ye must be transformed, says Fludd, from dead into living stones of philosophy. But what is a living stone ? A living stone is a mason who builds himself up into the wall as part of the temple of human nature. " The manner of this transformation is taught us by the Apostle, where he says, ` Let the same mind be in you which is in Jesus.' In these passages we see the rise of the allegoric name of Masons " and the Professor goes on to EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 349 explain his meaning by quotations from other passages, which, as he has not given them quite fully and, perhaps, not quite fairly, will be quoted at length. He says that, in effect, Fludd teaches that the Apostle instructs us under the image of a husbandman or an architect and that, had the former type been adopted, we should have had Free‑husbandman instead of Free‑masons, though he does not explain why the prefix " free " should have been added in either case. The society was, therefore, to be a Masonic society, to represent typically that temple of the Holy Ghost which it was their business to erect in the heart of man. This temple was the abstract of the doctrine of Christ, who was the Grand Master ; " hence the light from the East, of which so much is said in Rosicrucian and Masonic books. St. John was the beloved disciple of Christ, hence the solemn celebration of his festival." Having, moreover, once adopted the attributes of Masonry as the figurative expression of their objects, they were led to attend more minutely to the legends and history of that art; in these again they found an occult analogy with their own relations to Christian wisdom. The first great event in the art of masonry was the building of the Tower of Babel ; this expressed figuratively the attempt of some unknown mason to build up the Temple of the Holy Ghost in anticipation of Christianity, which attempt, however, had been confounded by the vanity of the builders.

 

The building of Solomon's Temple, the second great incident in the art, had an obvious meaning as a prefiguration of Christianity. Hiram, simply the architect of this temple to the real professors of the art of building, was, to the English Rosicrucians, a type of Christ ; and the legend of Masons, which represented this Hiram as having been murdered by his fellow‑workmen, made the type still more striking. The two pillars also, Jachin and Boaz, strength and power, which are among the most memorable singularities in Solomon's Temple, have an occult meaning to the Freemasons. This symbolic interest to the English Rosicrucians in the attributes, legends and incidents of the art exercised by the literal masons of real life naturally brought the two orders into some connexion with each other. They were thus enabled to realize to their eyes the symbols of their own allegories ; the same building which accommodated the guild of builders in their professional meetings, offered a desirable means of secret assemblies to the early Freemasons. An apparatus of implements and utensils, such as were presented in the fabulous sepulchre of Father Rosycross, was here actually brought together. Accordingly, it is upon record that the first formal and solemn Lodge of Freemasons, on occasion of which the very name of Freemasons was first made known publicly, was held in Mason's Hall, Mason's Alley, Basinghall Street, London, in 1646. Into this Lodge it was that Ashmole the antiquary was admitted. Private meetings there may doubtless have been before ; and one at Warrington is mentioned in the Life of Ashmole [it will be observed that here Buhle and De Quincey become totally lost] ; but the name of a Freemason's Lodge with all the insignia, attributes and circumstances of a Lodge, first came forward in the page of history on the occasion men tioned. It is, perhaps, in requital of the services at that time rendered in the loan of their hall, etc., that the guild of Masons, as a body and where they are not individually objectionable, enjoy a precedency of all orders of men in the right of admission 350 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY and pay only half fees. Ashmole, who was one of the earliest Freemasons, appears from his writings to have been a zealous Rosicrucian.

 

The Professor here pauses to explain that " when Ashmole speaks of the antiquity of Freemasonry, he is to be understood either as confounding the order of the philosophic masons with that of the handicraft masons, or simply as speaking the language of the Rosicrucians, who carry up their traditional pretensions to Adam as the first professor of the secret wisdom." " Other members of the Lodge were Thomas Wharton, a physician ; George Wharton ; Oughtred, the mathematician; Dr. Hewitt ; Dr. Pearson, the divine; and William Lilly, the principal astrologer of the day. All the members, it must be observed, had assembled annually to hold a festival of astrologers before they were connected into a Lodge bearing the title of Free‑masons. This previous connexion had no doubt paved the way for the latter." So far, Buhle, De Quincey, also Soane. A very pretty and ingenious theory, but unfortunately not quite in harmony with the facts of history. The whole of the latter part of the story is, as can plainly be demonstrated, a pure and gratuitous fabrication. The initiation of Elias Ashmole is stated to have taken place at the Masons' Hall, London, in 1646 and "private meetings "‑for example, one at Warrington‑are mentioned as having been held at an even earlier date. The truth being, as the merest tyro among Masonic students well knows, that it was at the Warrington meeting, which took place in 1646, Ashmole was admitted. The Lodge at the Masons' Hall was not held until 1682, or thirty‑five years later.

 

The following observations of a learned Masonic writer, though much quoted and relied upon by a large number of authorities, tend to prove that he had then (1845) advanced little beyond the theory of Professor Buhle (1804) and that he was unable to prop up that theory by any increase of facts. The following extracts are from the Encyclopedia Metropolitana (vol. xxii, 1845, pp. 11‑23), the article of which they form a part being, without doubt, the very best on the subject that has ever appeared in any publication of the kind. The writer is William Sandys, P.M. Grand Master's Lodge, No. i, also the author of A Short History of Freemasonry.

 

It appears that Speculative Masonry, to which alone the term Free‑Masonry is now applied, was scarcely known before the time of Sir Christopher Wren ; that it was engrafted upon Operative Masonry which, at that time, was frequently called Free‑Masonry, adopting the signs and symbols of the Operative Masons, together, probably, with some additional customs, taken partly from the Rosicrucians of the seventeenth century and partly imitated from the early religious rites of the Pagans, with the nature of which Ashmole and his friends (some of the first framers of Speculative Masonry) were well acquainted.

 

Elias Ashmole was made a Mason at Warrington in the year 1646. At the same time, a society of Rosicrucians had been formed in London, founded partly on the principles of those established in Germany about 1604 and partly, perhaps, on the plan of the Literary Society, allegorically described in Bacon's New Atlantis, as the House of Solomon. Among other emblems, they made use of the sun, EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 351 moon, compasses, square, triangle, etc. Ashmole and some of his literary friends belonged to this society, which met in the Mason's Hall, as well as to the Masons [company] and they revised and added to the peculiar emblems and ceremonies of the latter, which were simple and had been handed down to them through many ages. They substituted a method of initiation, founded, in part, on their knowledge of the Pagan rites, connected partly with the system of the Rosicrucians, retaining, probably in a somewhat varied form, the whole or greater part of the old Masonic secrets ; hence arose the first Degree, or Apprentice of Free and Accepted or Speculative Masonry, which was, shortly after, followed by a new version of the Fellow Craft Degree.

 

These innovations by Ashmole were not perhaps immediately adopted by the fraternity in general, but Speculative Masonry gradually increased and mingled with Operative Masonry, until the beginning of the eighteenth century, when it was agreed, in order to support the fraternity, which had been on the decline, that the privileges of Masonry should no longer be restricted to Operative Masons, but extended to men of various professions, provided they were regularly approved and initiated into the Order.

 

From what has gone before, it will be very apparent that if Sandys can be taken as the exponent of views at that time generally entertained by the Masonic fraternity, the hypothesis of the Gottingen Professor, or at least his conclusions for the two writers arrive at virtually the same goal, though by slightly different roads‑were in a fair way of becoming traditions of the Society.

 

For the purposes of this sketch, it becomes necessary to lay stress upon the prevalence of the belief, that in some shape or form the Rosicrucians‑including in this term the fraternity, or would‑be fraternity, strictly so‑called, together with all members of the Hermetic brotherhood‑have aided in the development of Freemasonry. Amongst the works not previously cited which will repay perusal in connexion with the subject may be mentioned Figuier's L'Alchimie et les Alchimistes, 1855 ; A Suggestive Inquiry into the Hermetic Mystery (anonymous), 18 5 0 ; and the Histoire de la Philosophie Hermetique of Lenglet Du Fresnoy, 1742. The curious reader, if such there be, who desires still further enlightenment, will find it in The Lives of the Alchemystical Philosophers, where at pp. 95‑112 a list is given of seven hundred and fifty‑one Alchemical Books ; and in Walsh's Bibl. Theol. Select., 1757‑65, vol. ii, p. 96 et seq., which enumerates nearly a hundred more, more than half being devoted to the Rosicrucian controversy. Of course, but a small proportion of both these lists relates to English works, but the mere number will serve to show the extent of the mania.

 

The devotees of the Hermetic philosophy must not be confused with the Brethren of the Rosy Cross ; the following passage from the Life of Anthony d IIIood will more clearly illustrate the meaning 1663. Ap. 23. He began a Course of Chimistry under the noted Chimist and Rosicrucian, Peter Sthael of Strasburgh in Royal Prussia and concluded in the latter end of May following. The club consisted of i o at least, whereof Franc.

 

352 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY Turner of New Coll. was one (since Bishop of Ely), Benjam. Woodroff of Ch. Ch. another (since Canon of Ch. Ch.) and Joh. Lock of the same house, afterwards a noted writer. This Jo. Lock was a man of a turbulent spirit, clamorous and never contented. The Club wrot and took notes from the mouth of thier master, who sate at the upper end of a table, but the said J. Lock scorn'd to do it; so that while every man besides, of the Club, were writing, he would be prating and troblesome. This P. Sthael, who was a Lutheran and a great hater of women, was a very useful man, had his lodging in University Coll. in a Chamber at the west end of the old chappel. He was brought to Oxon. by the honorable Mr. Rob. Boyle, an. 1659 and began to take to him scholars in the house of Joh. Cross next, on the W. side, to University Coll., where he began but with three scholars ; of which number Joseph Williamson of Queen's Coll. was one, afterwards a Knight and one of the Secretaries of State under K. Ch. z. After he had taken in another class of six there, he translated himself to the house of Arth. Tylliard an apothecary, the next dote to that of Joh. Cross saving one, which is a taverne : where he continued teaching till the latter end of 166z. The chiefest of his scholars there were Dr. Joh. Wallis, Mr. Christopher Wren, afterwards a Knight and an eminent Virtuoso, Mr. Thom. Millington of Alls. Coll., afterwards an eminent Physitian and a Knight, Nath. Crew of Linc. Coll., afterwards Bishop of Durham, Tho. Branker of Exeter Coll., a noted mathematician, Dr. Ralph Bathurst of Trin. Coll., a physitian, afterwards president of his college and deane of Wells, Dr. Hen. Yerbury and Dr. Tho. Janes, both of Magd. Coll., Rich. Lower, a physitian, Ch. Ch., Rich. Griffith, M.A., fellow of University Coll., afterwards Dr. of phys. and fellow of the Coll. of Physitians and severall others.

 

About the beginning of the yeare 1663 Mr. Sthael removed his school or elaboratory to a draper's house, called Joh. Bowell, afterwards mayor of the citie of Oxon., situat and being in the parish of Allsaints, commonly called Allhallowes.

 

He built his elaboratory in an old hall or refectory in the back‑side (for the House itself had been an antient hostle), wherein A. W. [Anthony a Wood] and his fellowes were instructed. In the yeare following Mr. Sthael was called away to London and became operator to the Royal Society and, continuing there till 1670, he return'd to Oxon in Nov. and had several classes successively, but the names of them I know not ; and afterwards going to London againe, died there about 1675 and was buried in the Church of S. Clement's Dane, within the libertie of Westminster, May 3o. The Chimical Club concluded and A. W. paid Mr. Sthael 3o shill., having in the beginning of the class given 30 shillings beforehand. A. W. got some know ledge and experience, but his mind still hung after antiquities and musick. (Athena Oxonien.res, vol. i, p. Iii.) From the preceding extract, we learn that both John Locke, the distinguished philosopher and Sir Christopher Wren pursued a course of study under the guidance of a " noted Rosicrucian " ; by some this circumstance may seem to lend colour to the Masonic theories which have been linked with their respective names. Passing on, let us examine the passages in Fludd's writings, upon which Professor Buhle has so much relied. The following extracts are from the Summum Bonum i. " Let us be changed," says Darnxus, " from dead blocks to living stones of philosophy ; and the manner of this change is taught us by the Apostle when he EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 353 says : `Let the same mind be in you which is in Jesus,' " and this mind he proceeds to explain in the following words : " For when He was in the form of God, He thought it not robbery to be equal with God." But in order that we maybe able to apply this to the Chymical degrees, it is necessary that we should open out a little more clearly the meaning of the Chymical philosophers, by which means you will see that these philosophers wrote one thing and meant another [the hidden or esoteric wisdom].

 

2. We must conclude, then, that Jesus is the corner‑stone of the human temple, by whose exaltation alone this temple will be exalted; as in the time of Solomon, when his prayers were ended, it is said that he was filled with the glory of God; and so from the death of Capha or Aben, pious men became living stones, and that by a transmutation from the state of fallen Adam to the state of his pristine innocence and perfection,‑that is, from the condition of vile and diseased (lit. leprous] lead to that of the finest gold and that, by the medium of this living gold, the mystic philosopher's stone [whatever Fludd may have dreamt, the generality took it in a much more practical sense], I mean wisdom and by the divine emanation which is the gift of God and not otherwise.

 

3. But in order that we may treat this brotherhood in the same way as we have the three special columns of wisdom,‑namely: Magic, the Cabbala and Chymistry,‑we may define the Rosicrucian fraternity as being either Or Bastard and adulterine, by which others give a false explanation of this society, or else because they are led away by a spirit True or essential, and which Magic or wisdom.

 

deals rightly with the truth, f i.e. with The Cabbala. lChymistry.

 

Of want or avarice, by which the common people are deceived. Of pride, so that they should appear of` to be what they are not.

 

Of malice, so that, by living a vicious life, they may give the worst possible character to the society.

 

4. Finally, the sacred pages show us how we ought to work in investigating the [nature of] this incomparable gem, namely, by proceeding either by general or particular form [or " method "]. The Apostle teaches us the general, where he says, " We beseech you, brethren, that ye take heed that ye be at peace and conduct your own business, labouring with your hands as we have taught you, so that you seek nothing of any one." In his particular instruction he teaches you to attain to the mystical perfection, using the analogy of either an busbandman or an architect. Under the type of an husbandman, he speaks as follows: " I have planted, Apollos watered, but the Lord will give the increase." For we are the helpers of and fellow workers with God, hence he says, " Ye are God's husbandry " [or " tillage." See i Cor., ch. iii, v. io].

 

5. Finally, a brother labours to the perfecting of this task under the symbol of an architect. Hence the Apostle says in the text, "As a wise architect have I laid the foundation according to the grace which God has given me, but another builds upon it, for none other can lay the foundation save that which is laid, who is 354 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY Christ alone." It is in reference to this architectural simile that St. Paul says, " We are the fellow‑labourers with God, as a wise architect have I laid the foundation and another builds upon it " ; and David also seems to agree with this when he says, "Except the Lord build the house the workmen labour but in vain." All of which is the same as what St. Paul brings forward under the type of an husbandman, " For neither is he that planteth anything nor he that watereth but God who gives the increase, for we are the fellow‑labourers with God." Thus, although the incorruptible Spirit of God be in a grain of wheat, nevertheless it can come to nothing without the labour and arrangements of the husbandman, whose duty it is to cultivate the earth, and to consign to it the seed that it may putrefy, otherwise it would do no good to that living grain that dwells in the midst [of the seed]. And in like manner, under the type of an architect, the prophet warns us, " Let us go up into the mountain of reason and build there the temple of wisdom." The expression " living stones "‑upon which so much has been foundedor " living rock " (vivam rupem), occurs very frequently in the old chronicles. The title Magister de Lapidibus Vivis, according to Batissier (Elements d'Archaologie, 1843, The Freemason, July 8, 1882, Note ig), was given in the Middle Ages to the chief or principal artist of a confraternity‑" master of living stones," or pierres vivantes. On the same authority we learn that the official just described was also termed Ma gister Lapidum and some statutes of a corporation of sculptors in the twelfth century, quoted by a certain " Father Della Valle," are referred to on both these points.

 

It is tolerably clear that no Rosicrucian Society was ever formed on the Continent. In other words, whatever number there may have been of individual mystics calling themselves Rosicrucians, no collective body of Rosicrucians acting in conjunction was ever matured and actually established in either Germany or France. Yet it is assumed, for the purposes of a preconceived argument, that such a society existed in England, although the position maintained is not only devoid of proof, but conflicts with a large body of indirect evidence, which leads irresistibly to an opposite conclusion.

 

The literature of the seventeenth century abounds with allusions to the vagaries of Alchemists and Astrologers. There was an Astrologers' feast, if indeed an Astrologers' College or Society was not a public and established institution; and sermons, even if not always preached, were at least written on their side. A school certainly existed for a time at Oxford, as already shown, presided over by a noted Rosicrucian. In fact, there seems to have been no kind of concealment as regards the manner in which all descriptions of what may, without impropriety, be termed the black art were prosecuted. There is, however, no trace whatever of any Rosicrucian Society and it is consonant to sound reason to suppose that nothing of the kind could either have been long established, or widely spread, without, at least, leaving behind some vestiges of its existence in the writings of the period.

 

It is worthy of note, however, that perhaps the most ardent supporter of that visionary scheme, a Philosophical College, with which so many minds were imbued EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 355 by Bacon's New Atlantis‑Samuel Hartlib (a friend of Evelyn and Dr. Worthington) ‑of whom a full memoir is still a desideratum in English biography, speaks of the Rosicrucians in such terms as to make it quite clear that, in the year 166o, they occupied a very low position in the estimation of the learned. In letters addressed by him to Dr. Worthington, on June 4 and December io respectively, he thus expresses himself,‑" I am most willing to serve him [Dr. Henry More], by procuring if I can a transcript of a letter or two of the supposed Brothers Ros.[ex] Crucis " ; and, writing under a later date, he says, " the cheats of the Fraternity of the Holy [Rosy] Cross (w`' they call mysteries) have had infinite disguises and subterfuges." Macaria‑from p,arcatpta, " happiness " or " bliss " ‑was the name of the society, the establishment of which Hartlib appears to have been confidently expecting throughout a long series of years. It was to unite the great, the wealthy, the religious, the philosophical and to form a common centre for assisting and promoting all undertakings in the support of which mankind were interested. Somewhat similar schemes were propounded by John Evelyn and Abraham Cowley ; whilst John Joachim Becher or Beccher, styled by Crossley " the German Marquess of Worcester," in his treatise De Psycbosopbia, put forward the idea of what he calls a Psychosophic College, for affording the means of a convenient and tranquil life, which is much of the same description as those planned by Hartlib and the others.

 

A similar society seems also to have been projected by one Peter Cornelius of Zurichsea.

 

It is not likely that the Freemasons had any higher opinion of the Rosicruciansi.e. the fraternity‑than was expressed by Hartlib. Freemasons and Freemasonry more or less Speculative, existed certainly in Scotland and, inferentially, in England, long before the supposed introduction by Fludd ; and, if we cannot distinctly trace back to a higher origin than the sixteenth century, it is only to be inferred that proof of a more remote antiquity may be yet forthcoming. " Old records " of the Craft, as already observed, are oftener quoted than produced; but a few are still extant and from those few we learn that Masonic Societies were in actual existence at the time of their being written (or copied), and were not merely in embryo.

 

It will not be difficult to carry back the history of the Freemasons beyond the point of contact with the Rosicrucians, which is the leading feature of Buhle's hypothesis. He says : i. " I affirm as a fact established upon historical research that, before the beginning of the seventeenth century, no traces are to be met with of the Rosicrucian or Masonic orders " ; and z. " That Free‑Masonry is neither more nor less than Rosicrucianism as modified by those who transplanted it into England." As regards the first point, " traces of the Masonic order," as Buhle expresses it, are certainly " to be met with " before the period which he has arbitrarily assigned for its inception. It is abundantly clear that Speculative Masonry‑meaning by this phrase the membership of Lodges by non‑operative or geomatic masonsexisted in the sixteenth century. The fate of the second proposition is involved F. Ii‑7 356 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY in that of its predecessor. It is not, indeed, even as an hypothesis, endurable for an instant that Freemasonry made its first appearance in South Britain as a Rosicrucian (i.e. German) transfusion, circa 1633‑46‑herein slightly anticipating the other but equally chimerical theory of a Teutonic derivation through the Steinmetzen‑unless we adopt Horace's maxim Mibi res, non me rebus subjungere conor, in a sense not uncommon in philosophy and strive to make facts bend to theory, rather than theory to fact.

 

Hence, the dispassionate reader will hardly agree with Soane‑whose faith in Buhle no doubt made it easier for him to suppose that what was probable must have happened, than to show that what did happen was probable‑" that Freemasonry sprang out of decayed Rosicrucianism just as the beetle is engendered from a muck heap " (New Curiosities of Literature, vol. ii, p. 35)‑a phrase which, however lively and forcible, errs equally against truth and refinement.

 

Extending the field of inquiry, there can be but little doubt that Hermeticism only influenced Freemasonry, if at all, in a very remote degree ; for there does not seem even the same analogy fanciful as it is‑as can be traced between the tenets of Fludd and those espoused by the Freemasons.

 

It has been laid down by the Rev. A. F. A. Woodford, that " the importance of Hermeticism in respect of a true History of Freemasonry is very great " ; also the opinion is expressed, " that an Hermetic system or grade flourished synchronously with the revival of 1717 " and "that Elias Ashmole may have kept up a Rose Croix Fraternity " is stated to be " within the bounds of possibility " (Masonic Montbly, 1882, vol. i, pp. 139,292 ; Kenning's Cyclopczdia, pp. 302, 303).

 

Three points are here raised: i. What is Hermeticism ? 2. Was Freemasonry influenced by Elias Ashmole ? and 3. Upon what evidence rests the supposition that Hermetic grades and Masonic degrees existed side by side in 1717 ? Some evidence, which has been much relied on, by Mackey, Pike, Woodford and other well‑known Masonic students, as proving the existence of Hermetic sodalities certainly in 1722 and, inferentially, before 1717, occurs in the preface to a little work called Long Livers, published in 1722.

 

As already stated, what we now call the Hermetic art, learning, or philosophy would in the seventeenth century have passed under the generic title of Rosicrucianism. Whether the converse of this proposition would quite hold good, it is not possible to say‑much might be urged both for and against it. The Alchemists engaged in three pursuits 1. The discovery of the Philosopher's Stone, by which all the inferior metals could be transmuted into gold.

 

11. The discovery of an Alcabest, or universal solvent of all things.

 

111. The discovery of a panacea, or universal remedy, under the name of elixir vite, by which all diseases were to be cured and life indefinitely prolonged.

 

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 357 The theory of the small but increasing school who believe in Hermeticism as a factor in the actual development of Freemasonry may shortly be stated thus i. That an Hermetic Society existed in the world, whose palpable manifestation was that of the Rosicrucian fraternity.

 

z. That mystic associations, of which noted writers like Cornelius Agrippa formed part, are to be traced at the end of the fifteenth century, if not earlier, with their annual assemblies, their secrets and mysteries, their signs of recognition and the like.

 

3. The forms of Hermeticism‑of occult invocations‑are also Masonic, such as the sacred Delta, the Pentalpha, the Hexagram (Solomon's Seal), the point within a circle.

 

4. The so‑called magical alphabet, as may be seen in Barrett's Magus, is identical with the square characters which have been used as Masons' marks at certain epochs and on part of so‑called Masonic cyphers.

 

S . [General Conclusions.]‑Hermeticism is probably a channel in which the remains of Archaic mysteries and mystical knowledge lingered through the consecutive ages.

 

Freemasonry, in all probability, has received a portion of its newer symbolical formulx and emblematical types from the societies of Hermeticism.

 

At various points of contact, Freemasonry and Hermeticism and vice versa, have aided, sheltered, protected each other ; that many of the more learned members of the monastic profession were also Hermetics, is a matter beyond doubt, nay, of absolute authority.

 

If ever there was a connexion between the building fraternities and the monasteries, this duplex channel of symbolism and mysticism would prevail; and it is not at all unlikely, as it is by no means unnatural in itself, that the true secret of the preservation of a system of Masonic initiation and ceremonial and teaching and mysterious life through so many centuries, is to be attributed to this twofold influence of the legends of the ancient guilds and the influence of a contemporary Hermeticism.

 

Long Livers (London, 17zz) is " a curious history of such persons of both sexes who have liv'd several ages and grown young again " ; it professes to contain " the rare secret of Rejuvenescency." It is dedicated‑and with this dedication or preface we are alone concerned‑" to the Grand Master, Masters, Wardens and Brethren of the Most Antient and Most Honourable Fraternity of the Freemasons of Great Britain and Ireland." The introductory portion then proceeds Men, Brethren, I address myself to you after this Manner, because it is the true Language of the Brotherhood, which the primitive Christian Brethren, as well as those who were from the Beginning, made use of, as we learn from the holy Scriptures and an uninterrupted Tradition.

 

I present you with the following Sheets, as belonging more properly to you 358 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY than any [one] else. By what I here say, those of you who are not far illuminated, who stand in the outward Place and are not worthy to look behind the Veil, may find no disagreeable or unprofitable Entertainment : and those who are so happy as to have greater Light, will discover under those Shadows somewhat truly great, noble, and worthy the serious Attention of a Genius the most elevated and sublime: The Spiritual Celestial Cube, the only true, solid and immoveable Basis and Foundation of all Knowledge, Peace and Happiness. .'. . . .

 

Remember that you are the Salt of the Earth, the Light of the World, and the Fire of the Universe. Ye are living Stones, built up [in] a spiritual House, who believe and rely on the chief Lapis Angularis, .‑. You are called from Darkness to light. .‑. .‑.

 

[A considerable portion of the preface is here omitted. The writer moralises at very great length and, throughout several pages, the only observation bearing, however remotely, upon the subject‑matter of the current chapter is his suggestion that legal pettifoggers, or " Vermin of the Law," should be " for ever excluded the Congregation of the Faithful," and " their names rased for ever out of the Book M.," from which‑disregarding all speculation with reference to his hatred of the lawyers‑some readers may infer that the idea of a Book M. had been copied from the Fraternity of the Rosie Cross, by the society he was addressing.] And now, my Brethren, you of the higher Class, permit me a few Words, since you are but few ; and these few Words I shall speak to you in Riddles, because to you it is given to know those Mysteries which are hidden from the Unworthy.

 

Have you not seen then, my dearest Brethren, that stupendous Bath, filled with most limpid Water? .‑. .‑. Its Form is a Quadrate sublimely placed on six others, blazing all with celestial jewels, each angularly supported with four Lions.

 

Here repose our mighty King and Queen (I speak foolishly, I am not worthy to be of you), the King shining in his glorious Apparel of transparent incorruptible Gold, beset with living Sapphires ; he is fair and ruddy, and feeds amongst the Lillies ; his Eyes two Carbuncles ; .'. his large flowing Hair, blacker than the deepest Black ; .‑. .'. his Royal Consort, vested in Tissue of immortal Silver, watered with Emeralds, Pearl, and Coral. O mystical Union ! O admirable Commerce ! Cast now your Eyes to the Basis of this celestial Structure, and you will discover just before it a large Bason of Porphyrian Marble, receiving from the Mouth of a large Lion's Head .'. .'. a greenish Fountain of liquid jasper. Ponder this well, and consider. Haunt no more the Woods and Forests ; (I speak as a Fool) hunt no more the fleet Hart; let the flying Eagle fly unobserved; busy yourselves no longer with the dancing Ideot, swollen Toads, and his own Taildevouring Dragon ; leave these as Elements to your Tyrones.

 

The Object of your Wishes and Desires (some of you perhaps have obtained it, I speak as a Fool) is that admirable thing which hath a Substance neither too fiery, nor altogether earthy, nor simply watery. .‑. .‑. In short, that One only Thing besides which there is no other, the blessed and most sacred Subject of the Square of wise Men, that is ‑1 had almost blabbed it out, and been sacrilegiously perjured. I shall therefore speak of it with a Circumlocution yet more dark and obscure, that none but the Sons of Science, and those who are illuminated with the sublimest Mysteries and profoundest Secrets of MASONRY may understand. It is then, what brings you, my dearest Brethren, to that pellucid, diaphanous Palace of the true disinterested Lovers of Wisdom, that transparent EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 359 Pyramid of purple Salt, more sparkling and radiant than the finest Orient Ruby, in the centre of which reposes inaccessible Light epitomiz'd, that incorruptible celestial Fire, blazing like burning Crystal, and brighter than the Sun in his full Meridian Glories, which is that immortal, eternal, never‑dying PYROPUS, the King of Gemms, whence proceeds everything that is great, and wise and happy.

 

Many are called, Few chosen. . . . . . . Amen.

 

March Ist, 1721.

 

EUGENIUS PHILALETHES, Jun., F.R.S.

 

The author of Long Livers was Robert Samber, a prolific writer, but who seems to have made his greatest mark as a translator. Two of his translationspublished in his own name‑are dedicated to members of the Montague family, one to the Duke, the other to his daughter, Lady Mary. The title of Long Livers states it to be by " Eugenius Philalethes, Jun.," author of a Treatise of the Plague. The latter work, published in 1721, is also dedicated to the Duke of Montague and the preface abounds with the same mystical and Hermetic jargon. A brief illustration of this will suffice.

 

A true Believer will not reveal to anyone his Good Works, but to such only to whom it may belong. .‑. .‑. This elevates us to the highest Degrees of true Glory, and makes us equal with Kings. It is the most pretious and most valuable jewel in the World: a Jewel of Great Price, redder and more sparkling than the finest Rubies, more transparent than the purest Chrystal of the Rock, brighter than the Sun, Shining in Darkness, and is the Light of the World, and the Salt and Fire of the Universe.

 

Eugenius Philalethes‑i.e. Robert Samber‑also exhorts his Grace " to do good to his poor Brethren." It is certain that Samber received many kindnesses at the hands of the Duke‑indeed, this is placed beyond doubt by the expressions of gratitude which occur in the preface of one of his translations, dedicated to the same patron. He says : Divine Providence has given me this happy opportunity publickly to acknowledge the great obligations I lye under to your Grace, for these signal favours which you, my Lord, in that manner of conferring benefits so peculiar to yourself, so much resembling Heaven, and with such a liberal hand, without any pompous ostentation or sound of trumpet, had the goodness, in private, to bestow on me.

 

It concludes by styling the Duke " the best of Masters, the best of Friends and the best of Benefactors." This preface, which is dated January 1, 1723 and signed Robert Samber, brings us back very nearly to the period when Long Livers, or at least its dedication, was written, viz. March I, 1721‑i.e. 1722‑or, according to the New Style, 1722, in which year, it should be recollected, the Duke of Montague ,vas at the head of the English Craft. Now nothing seems more natural than that 36o EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY Samber‑himself an earnest Freemason, as his exhortations to the Fraternity abundantly testify‑should seize the opportunity of coupling his gratitude towards his patron, with his affection for the Society to which they commonly belonged, by a complimentary address to the " Grand Master and Brethren of the Most Honourable Fraternity of the Freemasons of Great Britain and Ireland." In this connexion, indeed, it must not be forgotten that the Duke was a very popular ruler. From 1717 to I 72I the Freemasons were longing to have a " Noble Brother at their Head," until which period only did they, from the very first establish ment of the Grand Lodge, contemplate choosing a Grand Master " from among themselves," as Anderson somewhat quaintly expresses it.

 

At the Grand Lodge held on Lady‑day, 1721, Grand Master Payne proposed for his successor John, Duke of Montagu, Master of a Lodge : who, being present, was forthwith saluted Grand Master Elect and his Health drank in due Form; when they all express'd great joy at the Happy prospect of being again patronized by noble Grand Masters, as in the prosperous times of Free Masonry (Constitutions, 1738, p. III).

 

Long Livers, or its author, is nowhere referred to in the early Minutes of the Grand Lodge, or the newspaper references to Freemasonry of contemporaneous date, which were of frequent occurrence. The only reference to it occurs in a brochure of 1723, which an advertisement in the Evening Post, No. 2168, from Tuesday, June 18, to Thursday, June 28, of that year, thus recommends, curiously enough, to the notice of the Craft : Just published, in a neat Pocket Volume (for the use of the Lodges of all Freemasons), Ebrietatis Encomium, or The Praise of Drunkenness, confirmed by the examples of [inter alios] Popes, Bishops, Philosophers, Free Masons and other men of learning in all ages. Printed for E. Curll. .‑. Price 2s. 6d.

 

Chapter XV is thus headed‑" Of Free Masons and other learned men, that used to get drunk." It commences as follows If what Brother Eugenius Philalethes, author of Long Livers, a book dedicated to the Free Masons, says in his Preface to that treatise, be true, those mystical gentlemen very well deserve a place amongst the learned. But, without entering into their peculiar jargon, or whether a man can be sacrilegiously perjured for revealing secrets when he has none, I do assure my readers, they are very great friends to the vintners. An eye‑witness of this was I myself, at their late general meeting at Stationers' Hall, who having learned some of their catechism, passed my examination, paid my five shillings and took my place accordingly. We had a good dinner and, to their eternal honour, the brotherhood laid about them very valiantly. But whether, after a very disedifying manner, their demolishing huge walls of venison pasty be building up a spiritual house, I leave to brother Eugenius Philalethes to determine. However, to do them justice, I must own, there was no mention made of politics or religion, so well do they seem to follow the advice of EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 361 that author. And when the music began to play, " Let the king enjoy his own again," they were immediately reprimanded by a person of great gravity and science.

 

It has been said that, after Paracelsus, the Alchemists divided into two classes one comprising those who pursued useful studies ; the other, those that took up the visionary side of Alchemy, writing books of mystical trash, which they fathered on Hermes, Aristotle, Albertus Magnus and others. Their language is now unintelligible. One brief specimen may suffice. The power of transmutation, called the Green Lion, was to be obtained in the following manner In the Green Lion's bed the sun and moon are born, they are married and beget a King; the King feeds on the lion's blood, which is the King's father and mother, who are at the same time his brother and sister; I fear I betray the secret, which I promised my master to conceal in dark speech from every one who does not know how to rule the philosopher's fire.

 

" Our ancestors," says Heckethorn, " must have had a great talent for finding out enigmas if they were able to elicit a meaning from these mysterious directions ; still the language was understood by the adepts, and was only intended for them." " If," says Dr. Mackey‑and the reader should carefully bear in mind that this is the opinion of one of the most accurate and diligent of Masonic students‑" as Eugenius Philalethes plainly indicates, there were, in 1721, Higher Degrees, or at least a Higher Degree in which knowledge of a Masonic character was hidden from a great body of the Craft .‑. .‑. why is it that neither Anderson nor Desaguliers make any allusion to this more illuminated system " ? Mackey here relies on two passages in Samber's preface‑one, the allusion to those " who stand in the outward place " and " are not far illuminated " ; the other, the exhortation to " Brethren of the higher class." The result of his inquiry being, " that this book of Philalethes introduces a new element in the historical problem of Masonry," in which opinion the Rev. A. F. A. Woodford evidently concurs.

 

Among the further commentaries upon the introduction to Long Livers, T. B. Whytehead alludes to the Spiritual Celestial Cube and infers from the language of the writer that he may have belonged to certain Christian Degrees. John Yarker finds in its phraseology a resume of the symbolism and history given in the three Degrees of Templar, Templar Priest and Royal Arch, which Degrees he considers date from the year 1686 and observes (on the authority of Ashmole) that they synchronize with the revival of Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism in London.

 

Whilst admitting that Freemasonry may have received no slight tinge from the pursuits and fancies of some of its adherents, who were possibly more numerous than is generally supposed‑and the larger their number, the greater the probability that some of the more influential among them may have indoctrinated their Brethren with their peculiar wisdom‑still such a proceeding cannot, with safety, be ascribed to a particular set of men, much less to any one individual.

 

362. EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY To sum up. It may be assumed, (i) That while there was an abundance of astrologers, alchemists, charlatans and visionaries of all kinds, who seem to have pursued their hobbies without let or hindrance, yet there was no organized society of any sort, unless the Astrologers' Feast, so often mentioned by Ashmole, be accounted one ; (2) That there is no trace of any sect of Rosicrucians or Fluddian philosophers ; (3) That Hartlib's attempt at a Macaria ended as might have been supposed and was never either anticipated or revived by himself or anybody else ; and (4) That there is no trace, as far as any remaining evidence is concerned, that the Freemasons were in any way connected with any one of the above, but on the contrary, that, although they had probably in a great measure ceased to be entirely operatives, they had not amalgamated with any one of the supposed Rosicrucian or Hermetic fraternities‑of the actual existence of which there is no proof‑still less that they were their actual descendants, or themselves under another name. To assume this, indeed, would be to falsify the whole of authentic Masonic history, together with the admittedly genuine documents upon which it rests.

 

In 1714, a work called Miscellanies on Several Curious Subjects, was published by E. Curll and, at p. 43, appeared a copy of a letter from Robert Plot, LL.D., " design'd to be sent to the Royal Society in London." He has, however, no claim to the authorship. The original letter is now among Dr. Rawlinson's collections in the Bodleian (Miscell. 39o) and the fabrication of Plot's name must be ascribed to the Doctor, who was editor, or rather the collector, of Curll's Miscellanies. The latter part of the letter Dr. Rawlinson has omitted and, altering the word " son " to " servant " has completely erased the name and substituted the initials " R. P." " Why he should have been guilty of so unnecessary a forgery," says Dr. Bliss, " is not easy to determine ; unless he fancied Plot's name of greater celebrity than the real author and adopted it accordingly to give credit to his, book " (Athena Oxonienses, vol. iv, col. 775).

 

After the preceding example of the manner in which the functions of an editor were discharged by Rawlinson in 1714, the unfavourable verdict passed upon his subsequent compilation of 1719 will excite no surprise.

 

The following is recorded in the Diary of Thomas Hearne Ap. 18. [1719]. a present hath been made me of a book called the Antiquities of Barksbire, by Elias Ashmole, Esq., London, printed for E. Curll, in Fleet Street, 1719, 8vo, in three volumes. It was given me by my good friend Thomas Rawlin son, Esq. As soon as I opened it, and looked into it, I was amazed at the abominable impudence, ignorance and carelessness of the publisher and I can hardly ascribe all this to any one else, than to that villain, Curll. Mr. Ashmole is made to have written abundance of things since his death. .‑. .‑. I call it a rhapsody, because there is no method not judgment observed in it, not one dram of true learning (Keliquia Hea‑nlania, vol. ii, p. 422. See also Athena Oxonienses, vol. iv, col. 775).

 

Curll, however, was not the villain, but Richard Rawlinson, whom Hearne had described as his " very good and notoriously honest friend." EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 363 Rawlinson was a zealous Freemason, a Grand Steward in 1734 and a member, about the same time, of no fewer than four Lodges, but probably did not join the Society much before 173o, as none of the memoranda or newspaper cuttings of any importance preserved in his Masonic collection at the Bodleian Library bear any earlier date. This collection was described by the Rev. J. S. Sidebottom of New College, Oxford, in the Freemasons' Monthly Magazine, 185 5, p. 81, as " a kind of Masonic album or common‑place book, in which Rawlinson inserted anything that struck him either as useful or particularly amusing. It is partly in manuscript, partly in print and comprises some ancient Masonic charges, Constitutions, forms of summons, a list of all the Lodges of his time under the Grand Lodge of England, together with some extracts from the Grub Street Journal, the General Evening Post and other journals of the day. The date ranges from 1724 to 1740." The list of the Lodges is in manuscript in Rawlinson's handwriting and he was the first to attempt a compilation of a Masonic Directory. His active interest in Freemasonry, if the collection made by him is any criterion, appears to have ceased about 1738. It is hardly possible that he could have been a Freemason before 1726, as in that year Hearne mentions his return from abroad, after " travelling for several years," also that " he was four years together at Rome " (Reliquirz Hearnianiee, vol. ii, p. 594). Rawlinson was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society, July 29, 1714, Martin Folkes and Dr. Desaguliers being chosen Members on the same day. He became a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, May io, 1727, His death occurred at Islington, April 5, 175 5. By his will, dated June 2, 1752, he desired that at his burial in the chapel, commonly called Dr. Bayly's Chapel, in St. John's College, Oxford, his pall might be supported by six of the senior fellows of the said college, " to each of whom I give," so the words run, " one guinea, which will be of more use to them than the usual dismal accoutrements at present in use." Rawlinson's library of printed books and books of prints was sold by auction in 1756; the sale lasted fifty days and produced ~i,164. There was a second sale of upwards of zo,ooo pamphlets which lasted ten days; this was followed by a sale of the single prints, books of prints and drawings, which lasted eight days.

 

Ashmole's connexion with the Society is not alluded to in the Constitutions of 1723 but, in the subsequent edition of 1738, Dr. Anderson, drawing his own inferences from the actual entries in the Diary, transmutes them into facts, by amending the expressions of the diarist, and making them read‑prefaced by the words, " Thus Elias Ashmole in his Diary, page 15, says "‑" I was made a Free Mason at Warrington, Lancashire, with Colonel Henry Manwating, by Mr. Richard Penket the Warden and the Fellow Crafts (there mention'd) on 16 Oct. 1646." The later entry of 1682 was both garbled and certified in a similar manner, though, except in the statement that Sir Thomas Wise and the seven other Fellows, present, besides Ashmole at the reception of the New‑Accepted Masons were " old Free Masons," there is nothing that absolutely conflicts with the actual words in the Diary.

 

364 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY Campbell, in his memoir of Ashmole, in the Biographia Britannica, says, in a note He [Ashmole] made very large collections on almost all points relating to English history, of which some large volumes are remaining at Oxford, but much more was consumed in the fire at the Temple, which will hereafter be mentioned. What is hinted above, is taken from a book of letters, communicated to the author of this life by Dr. Knipe, of Christ‑church [whose identity has never been established], in one of which is the following passage relating to this subject. " As to the Ancient society of Free‑Masons, concerning whom you are desirous of knowing what may be known with certainty, I shall only tell you, that if our worthy brother, E. Ashmole, Esq., had executed his intended design, our fraternity had been as much obliged to him as the brethren of the most noble Order of the Garter. I would not have you surprized at this expression, or think it at all too assuming. The Soveraigns of that order have not disdained our fellowship, and there have been times when Emperors were also Free‑Masons. What from Mr. E. Ashmole's collection I could gather, was, that the report of our society's taking rise from a Bull granted by the Pope, in the reign of Henry III, to some Italian Architects, to travel over all Europe, to erect chapels, was ill‑founded. Such a Bull there was and those Architects were Masons ; but this Bull in the opinion of the learned Mr. Ashmole, was confirmative only and did not, by any means, create our fraternity, or even establish them in this kingdom. But as to the time and manner of that establishment, something I shall relate from the same collections. St. Alban, the Proto‑Martyr of England, established Masonry here and from his time it flourished more or less, according as the world went, down to the days of King Athelstane, who, for the sake of his brother Edwin, granted the Masons a charter, tho' afterwards growing jealous of his brother, it is said he caused him together with his Page, to be put into a boat and committed to the sea, where they perished. It is likely that Masons were affected by his fall and suffered for some time, but afterwards their credit revived and we fund under our Norman Princes, that they frequently received extraordinary marks of royal favour. There is no doubt to be made, that the skill of Masons, which was always transcendent, even in the most barbarous times, their wonderful kindness and attachment to each other, how different soever in condition and their inviolable fidelity in keeping religiously their secret, must expose them in ignorant, troublesome and suspicious times, to a vast variety of adventures, according to the different fate of parties and other alterations in government. By the way, I shall note, that the Masons were always loyal, which exposed them to great severities when power wore the trappings of justice and those who committed treason, punished true men as traitors. Thus in the third year of the reign of Henry VI, an Act of Parliament passed to abolish the society of Masons and to hinder, under grievous penalties, the holding chapters, lodges, or other regular assemblies. Yet this act was afterwards repealed and, even before that, King Henry VI, and several of the principal Lords of his court became fellows of the craft. Under the succeeding troublesome times, the Free‑Masons thro' this kingdom became generally Yorkists, which, as it procured them eminent favour from Edward IV, so the wise Henry VII. thought it better by shewing himself a great lover of Masons to obtrude numbers of his friends on that worthy fraternity, so as never to want spies enough in their EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 365 Lodges, than to create himself enemies, as some of his predecessors had done by an ill‑timed persecution. As this society has been so very ancient, as to rise almost beyond the reach of records, there is no wonder that a mixture of fable is found in its history and methinks it had been better, if a late insidious writer [Dr. Plot] had spent his time in clearing up the story of St. Alban, or the death of Prince Edwin, either of which would have found him sufficient employment, than as he has done in degrading a society with whose foundation and transactions, he is visibly so very little acquainted, and with whose history and conduct Mr. Ashmole, who understood them so much better, was perfectly satisfied, &c.

 

When extracts professedly made from the actual Diary are given to the world in a garbled or inaccurate form, through the medium of such works of authority as the Book of Constitutions and the Biograpl~ia Britannica, a few words of caution may not be out of place against the reception as evidence of colourable excerpta from the Ashmolean MSS., whether published by Dr. Anderson‑under the sanction of the Grand Lodge‑in 1738, or by Findel and Fort, in i86z and 1876 respectively. It has been well observed, that " if such licence be indulged to critics, that they may expunge or alter the words of an historian, because he is the sole relater of a particular event, we shall leave few materials for authentic history " (Gibbon's Miscellaneous Works, 1814, vol. i, p. 479). The contemporary writers referred to have severally reproduced and still further popularized, the misleading transcripts of Doctors Anderson and Campbell. The former by copying from the Constitutions of 1738‑though the authority he quotes is that of Ashmole himself ‑and the latter by relying apparently on the second edition of the Diary, published in 1774, which adopts the interpolation of Dr. Campbell, changes " were " into " was " and makes Ashmole, after reciting his summons to the Lodge at Masons' Hall on March 1o, 1682, go on to state [March] ii. Accordingly I went and about noon was admitted into the fellowship of Free‑Masons, by Sir William Wilson, Knight, Captain Richard Borthwick, Mr. William Wodman, Mr. William Grey, Mr. Samuel Taylour and Mr. William Wise.

 

The preceding extract presents such a distorted view of the real facts‑as related by Ashmole‑that it is given without curtailment. Compared with the actual entry and overlooking minor discrepancies, it will be seen, that the oldest Freemason present at the meeting is made to declare, that he was " admitted into the fellowship " by the candidates for reception. Yet this monstrous inversion of the ordinary method of procedure at the admission of guild‑brethren‑which, as a travesty of Masonic usage and ceremonial, is without a parallel‑has been quietly passed over and, in fact, endorsed, by commentators of learning and ability, by whose successive transcriptions of a statement originally incorrect, the original error has been increased, as a stone set rolling downhill accelerates in velocity.

 

Dr. Knipe makes a reference to a History of Masonry and to a letter or communication from " Dr. W. to Sir D. N., June 9, 1687." Taking these in their 366 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY order‑what is this History of Masonry, to which allusion was made in 1747 ? It is something quite distinct from the histories given in the Constitutions of 1723 Or 1738 and in the Pocket Companions. The pagination, moreover, indicated in the notes‑viz. 3, icy, and 29‑not only shows that, in the work cited, more space was devoted to the account of English Masonry in the Middle Ages, than is found in any publication of even date, with which it is possible to collate these references, but by resting the allusion to the Papal Bulls on the authority of p. 3, materially increases the difficulties of identification. Dr. Anderson fills sixty pages of his Book of Constitutions (ed. 1738) before he names the first Grand Master or Patron of the Freemasons of England and not until p. 69 of that work do we reach Henry III, in connexion, moreover, with which king there appears (in the Constitutions referred to) no mention of the Bulls. There is no mention of Henry III or the Papal Bulls in the Constitutions of 1723. The Pocket Companions were successively based on the Constitutions of 1723 and 1738 and no separate and independent History of Masonry was published before the appearance of Multa Paucis in 1763‑4. It is true that in the inventory of books belonging to the Lodge of Relief, Bury, Lancashire‑present No. 42‑in 1756, we find, History of Masonry (price 3s.) ; but, as suggested by Hughan‑and mentioned by the compiler in a note‑this was probably Scott's Pocket Companion and History of Masonry, 1754.

 

One of the further references by Dr. Knipe to the work under consideration is given as his authority for the statement, that Henry VII used the Freemasons as spies‑an item of Masonic history not to be found in any publication of the Craft.

 

The letter or communication, which is made the authority for Ashmole having expressed disapproval of the statements in Plot's Natural History of Staffordshire, is equally enigmatical and it has not been possible to identify either the Dr. W. or the Sir D. N., cited as the writer and recipient respectively of that document. Doctors Wilkins, Wharton and Wren were all on friendly terms with Ashmole ; but Wilkins died in 1672, Wharton in 1677 and Dr. became Sir Christopher Wren in 1674. The only trace of Sir D. N. occurs, as stated, in a note to Lilly's Autobiography, which, as all the notes were professedly written by Ashmole, though not printed until after his death (1715), may point to the identity of what in these days would be termed his literary executor, with the individual to whom was addressed the letter of June 9, 1687.

 

With the exceptions of the allusion to " the wise Henry VII," the statement that Ashmole contemplated writing a History of the Craft and the so‑called " opinion " of the antiquary respecting the Papal Bull granted in the reign of Henry III, there is nothing in the memoir which cannot be traced in publications of earlier date. A great part of it evidently is based on Rawlinson's preface to the Antiquities of Barkshire, of which the words, " Kings themselves have not disdain'd to enter themselves into this Society " are closely paraphrased by Dr. Knipe, though the term " Emperors "‑unless a free rendering of " Kings "‑seems to be the coinage of his own brain. The view expressed with regard to the introduction of Freemasonry into England, is apparently copied from the Constitutions EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 367 Of 1738 ; whilst the allusions to Henry VI and Edward IV are evidently based on the earlier or original edition of the same work.

 

To what extent, it may now be asked, does this memoir of Ashmole by Dr. Campbell add to the stock of knowledge respecting the former's connexion with the Society and the conditions under which Freemasonry either flourished, or was kept alive during the first half of the seventeenth century? Very little. It happens generally that different portions of a mythico‑historical period are very unequally illuminated. The earlier parts of it will approximate to the darkness of the mythical age, while the later years will be distinguished from a period of contemporary history by the meagreness, rather than by the uncertainty of the events. This is precisely what is exemplified by the annals of the Craft, of which those most remote in date, are based to a great extent upon legendary materials, whilst later ones‑extending over an epoch commencing with early Scottish Masonry in the sixteenth century and ending with the formation of an English Grand Lodge in 1717 really deal with events which come within the light of history, although many of the surrounding circumstances are still enveloped in the most extreme darkness.

 

Although the only contemporary writer (in addition to those already named), by whom either the Freemasons or their art, are mentioned in the last quarter of the seventeenth century, is Randle Holme‑yet the existence of several metropolitan Lodges at this period was subsequently affirmed by Dr. Anderson, who, in his summary of Masonic history, temp. William and Mary, states Particular Lodges were not so frequent and mostly occasional in the South, except in or near the Places where great Works are carried on. Thus Sir Robert Clayton got an occasional Lodge of his Brother Masters to meet at St. Tbo,,vas's Hospital, Soutbmark,, A.D. 1693 and to advise the Governors about the best Design of rebuilding that Hospital as it now stands most beautiful; near which a stated Lodge continued long afterwards.

 

Besides that and the old Lodge of St. Paul's, there was another in Piccadilly over against St. James's Church, one near Westminster Abby, another near CoventGarden, one in Holborn, one on Tower‑Hill and some more that assembled statedly.

 

The value, however, of the preceding passages from the Boob of Constitutions (1738, pp. io6, 107) is seriously impaired by the paragraph which next follows them, wherein Anderson says The King was privately made a Free Mason, approved of their Choice of G. Master WREN, and encourag'd him in rearing St. Paul's Cdtbedral, and the great New Part of _;flampton‑6ourt in the Augustan Stile, by far the finest Royal House in England, after an old Design of Inigo Jones, where a bright Lodge was held during the Building.

 

A distinction is here drawn between occasional and stated Lodges, but the last 368 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY quotation, beyond indicating a possible derivation of the now almost obsolete expression, " bright Mason," is only of importance because the inaccuracies with which it teems render it difficult, not to say impossible, to yield full credence to any other statements, unsupported by no better source of authority.

 

Evelyn, it may incidentally be observed, also Ashmole himself, were governors of St. Thomas's Hospital, but in neither of their diaries is there any allusion from which it might be inferred that the practice of holding Lodges there was known to either of those persons. Ashmole's death, however, in‑the year preceding that in which Sir Robert Clayton is said to have assembled his Lodge, deprives the incident of an importance that might otherwise have attached to it.

 

We now come to the evidence, direct and indirect, which is associated with the name of Randle Holme, author of the celebrated Academie of Armory. The third Randle Holme, like his father and grandfather before him, was a herald and deputy to the Garter King of Arms, for Cheshire, Lancashire, Shropshire and North Wales. He was born December 24, 1627 and died March 12, 1699‑1700. In the Academie of Armory are several allusions to the Freemasons. These, even standing alone, would be of great importance, as embodying certain remarks of a non‑operative Freemason, A.D. 1688, in regard to the Society. For a simple reference, therefore, to this source of information, which had so far eluded previous research, as to be unnoticed by Masonic writers, Rylands would deserve the best thanks of his brother archxologists. But he has done far more than this and in two interesting papers, communicated to the Masoidc Magazine for January and February 1882, which conclude a series of articles, entitled, "Freemasonry in the Seventeenth Century," we are presented with a more vivid picture of Masonic life, at a period distant some three centuries from our own, than has hitherto been limned by any artist of the Craft. This has been accomplished: by research in the library of the British Museum, by piecing together all the items of information relating to the general subject lying ready to his hand, by instituting a careful search among the wills in the Chester Court of Probate, lastly, by adding a facsimile of the material portions of an important manuscript, showing their original state in a manner which could never have been effected by printing types.

 

Randle Holme is the central figure around which a great deal is made to revolve;, it will become a part of the task to examine his testimony, of which, some more than the rest, may be said to be commemorative undesignedly of former usages in the threefold capacity of text‑writer, Freemason of the Lodge and transcriber of the Old Charges. In the two latter he supplies evidence which carries us into the penultimate stage of the present inquiry, viz. the examination of our manuscript Constitutions and of the waifs and strays in the form of Lodge records, from which alone it is at all possible further to illuminate the especially dark portion of our annals, immediately preceding the dawn of accredited history, wherein we may be said to pass gradually from a faint glimmer into nearly perfect light.

 

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 369 The following is from the Academie of Armory: A Fraternity, or Society, or Brotherhood, or Company; are such in a corporation, that are of one and the same trade, or occupation, who being joyned together by oath and covenant, do follow such orders and rules, as are made, or to be made for the good order, rule and support of such and every of their occupations. These several Fraternities are generally governed by one or two Masters and two Wardens, but most Companies with us by two Aldermen, and two Stewards, the later, being to receive and pay what concerns them.

 

On p. I I I, in his review of the various trades, occurs : " Terms of Art used by Free Masons‑Stone Cutters " ; and then follows : " There are several other terms used by the Free‑Masons which belong to buildings, Pillars and Columbs." Next are described the " Terms of Art used by Free‑Masons " ; and, at p. 393, under the heading of "Masons' Tools," Randle Holme thus expresses himself " I cannot but Honor the Fellowship of the Masons because of its Antiquity; and the more, as being a Member of that Society, called Free‑Masons. In being conversant amongst them I have observed the use of these several Tools following some whereof I have seen born in Coats Armour." Later he speaks of "Free Masons" and "Free Masonry" tools; and, in his description of the " Use of Pillars," observes : " For it is ever a term amongst Work‑men of the Free Masons Science, to put a difference between that which is called a Column and that which they term a Pillar, for a Column is ever round, and the Capital and Pedestal answerable thereunto." He continues: " Now for the better understanding of all the parts of a Pillar, or Columb, .*. I shall in two examples, set forth all their words of Art, used about them; by which any Gentleman may be able to discourse a Free‑Mason or other workman in his own terms." In Harleian MS. 5955 are a number of engraved plates, intended for the second volume of the Academie of Armory, which was not completed. On one of these is the annexed curious representation of the arms of the Masons, or ffree Masons. "The arms of this body," says Rylands, " have been often changed and seem to be enveloped in considerable mystery in some of its forms." In the opinion of the same authority, the form given by Randle Holme is the first and only instance of the two columns being attached to the arms as supporters. " It is also worthy of remark," adds Rylands, " that he figures the chevron plain, not engrailed as in the original grant to the Masons' Company of London. The towers are single, as in his description, not the old square four‑towered castles. The colours are the same as those in the original grant to the Company of Masons." Randle Holme describes the columns as being of the "Corinthian Order"' EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY and of Or, that is, gold. Two descriptions, differing in some slight particulars, are given, in the second or manuscript volume of the Academie, of the plate, Fig. 18, from which the facsimile, the same size as the original, has been taken. One runs as follows, the other is subjoined in a note: " He beareth, Sable, on a cheueron betweene three towers Argent : a paire of compasses extended of the first w`b is the Armes of the Right Honored & Right Worshipfull company of ffree = Masons : whose escochion is cotized (or rather upheld, sustained, or supported) by two columbes or pillars of the Tuscan, or Dorick, or Corinthian orders " (Harleian MS. 2035, p. 56).

 

We now approach the consideration of Harleian MS. 2054, described in the catalogue, Bibliotbeca Harleiana, as " a book in folio consisting of many tracts and loose papers .‑. .‑. by the second Randle Holme and others .‑. .‑. and the third Randle Holme's Account of the Principal Matters contained in this Book." Among the " loose papers " is a version of the Old Charges (iz), which copy of the Constitutions was transcribed by the third Randle Holme, as may be deduced from the general character of the handwriting, which is evidently identical with that of the person who wrote the table of contents prefixed to the volume. In the index of the younger Holme (Harleian MS. 2054, fol. 2, line 7) are the words " Free Masons' Orders & Constitutions," which are repeated, almost as it were in facsimile, at the top of folio z9, the only difference being that, in the latter instance, the word " the " begins the sentence, whilst the " & " is replaced by " and." The heading or title, therefore, of the MS. numbered iz in the calendar or catalogue of the Old Charges, is " The Free Masons' Orders and Constitutions." The letter f and the long s, which in each case are twice used, are indistinguishable and the final s in "Masons," "Orders" and "Constitutions," at both folios z and 29 is thus shown: Order3.

 

As there were two Randle Holmes before the author of the Academie, as well as two after him, it has seemed desirable on all grounds to disentangle the subject from the confusion which naturally adheres to it, through the somewhat promiscuous use by commentators, of the same Christian and surname, without any distinctive adverb to mark which of the five generations is alluded to.

 

The third Randle Holme cannot, indeed, in the present sketch, be confused with his later namesakes, but it is of some importance in this inquiry to establish the fact‑if fact it be‑that the author of the Academie of Armory, the Freemason of the Chester Lodge and the copyist to whose labours we are indebted for the form of the Charges contained in the Harleian MS. 2054, was one and the same person.

 

In the first place, it carries us up the stream of Masonic history by easier stages, than if, let us say, the second Randle Holme either transcribed MS. iz, or was the Freemason whose name appears in connexion with it.

 

To make this clearer, it must be explained that the first Randle Holme, Deputy to the College of Arms for Cheshire, Shropshire and North Wales, was Sheriff of Chester in 1615, Alderman in i 6zg, Mayor in 1633‑4. He was buried at St. Mary's‑ EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 371 on‑the‑Hill at Chester, January 30, 1654‑5. His second son and heir was the second Randle Holme, baptised July 15, 1601, became a justice of the Peace, Sheriff of Chester during his father's Mayoralty, was himself Mayor in 1643, when the city was besieged by the Parliamentarians. With his father, he was Deputy to Norroy King of Arms for Cheshire, Lancashire and North Wales. He died, aged sixtythree, September 4, 1659, was also buried at St. Mary's‑on‑the‑Hill. His eldest son and heir, by his first wife, Catherine, eldest daughter of Matthew Ellis of Overlegh, co. Chester, gent., was the third Randle Holme. It is, therefore, evident that, if the Masonic papers in Harleian MS. 2054 point to the father instead of to the son, their evidence must date from a period certainly not later than 1659 ; whereas, on a contrary view, the entry referring to the membership of a Randle Holme, and the transcription of the " Legend of the Craft," will be brought down to the second half of the seventeenth century.

 

Although by Woodford (Old Charges, 1872, Preface, p. xi) the date of the Harleian MS. .2054‑i.e. the Masonic entries‑has been fixed approximately at the year 1625 and by Hughan, following Edward Bond (Freemasons' Magazine, July io, 1869, p. 29) at 1650, it must fairly be stated that the evidence on which they relied, has crumbled away since their opinions were severally expressed. It is possible, of course, that the author of the Academie may have made the transcript under examination so early as 1650, when he was in his twenty‑third year; but, apart altogether from the improbability of this having occurred, either by reason of his age or from the unsettled condition of the times, a mass of evidence is forthcoming, from which it may safely be inferred that the list of Freemasons, members of the Chester Lodge, was drawn up and the Constitutions copied, at a date about midway between the years of transcription of manuscripts numbered 13 and 2.3 respectively in Chapter II. That is to say, the gap between the Sloane MS. 3 848 (13), certified by Edward Sankey in 1646 and the Antiquity (z3), attested by Robert Padgett in 1686, is lessened, if not entirely bridged over, by another accredited version of the Old Charges, dating circa 1665. The evidence, upon the authority of which this period of origin may be assigned to Harleian MS. 2054 (13), will next be presented.

 

In the same volume of manuscripts as the transcript of the Constitutions by Randle Holme, and immediately succeeding it, is the following form of oath, in the same handwriting‑" There is seurall words & signes of a free Mason to be revailed to y░ wch as yu will answ : before God at the Great & terrible day of Iudgmt y░ keep Secret & not to revaile the same to any in the heares of any pson w but to the Mrs & fellows of the said Society of free Masons so helpe me God, xc." This is written on a small scrap of paper, about which Rylands observes, " as it has evidently been torn off the corner of a sheet before it was used by Randle Holme, probably it is a rough memorandum." The next leaf in the same volume contains some further notes by Randle Holme. These evidently relate to the economy of an existing Lodge, but some of the details admit of a varied interpretation. Facsimiles of this page and of the 372 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY fragment of paper on which the " Oath " is written, are given by Rylands. The following are the entries relating, it is supposed, to the Chester Lodge William Wade wt, giue for to be a free Mason.

 

_i I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I I _ _ zos. Robert Morris I I I I I I I io Willm Street Aldm 1111111 _. 15 John Hughes.

 

I I I I 5 Sam Pike taylor I 8 Willm Wade I Willm Harvey zo Mich Holden zo Pet downham zo Tho ffoulkes io Will Hughes 8 Jo fetcher io Seth Hilton ‑ 15 Ran Holme i o Ric Taylor to Ric Ratcliffe‑ zo Will Woods 5 Jo Parry io Tho Morris io Tho May io Will Robinson zo James Mort zo Jo Lloyd zo Geo Harvey‑ zo Will Jackson io Robt Harvey zo John Madock‑ ro for i li 9 for ios.

 

for i 5 s. i for 5 s. i for 8s. i Commenting upon these items, Rylands observes The reason for the difference in the amount of the entrance fees paid, as given in the analysis at the end of the list, is not easy to explain. Why, it may be asked, EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 373 are the first five names separated from the others and given in different form? Are they superior officers of the Fellowship and are we to understand the marks occurring before their names as recording the number of their attendances at the Lodge, the number of votes recorded at some election, or the payment of certain odd amounts ? It is not, however, so clear as to be reduced to actual demonstration, that the various sums enumerated in the analysis at the foot of the list represent the entrance‑money paid by the initiates or " newly made " Brethren. The irregular amounts (if not old scores) might just as well stand for the ordinary subscriptions of the members, since there would be nothing more singular in the custom of a graduated scale of dues, than in that of exacting a varying sum at the admission of new members of Brethren.

 

The first five names could hardly be those of superior officers of the Fellowship, except on the supposition that William Wade received promotion at a very early stage of his Masonic life. The marks, indeed, are placed before the names of the five but, between the two, is a row of figures, denoting sums of money varying in amount from twenty to five shillings. The strokes or dashes can hardly be regarded as a tally of attendances, except‑to bring in another suppositionwe imagine that the twenty‑one members whose names appear in a separate column, stood somehow on a different footing in the Lodge, from the five, which rendered a record of their attendances unnecessary ? Lastly, as to the payment of odd amounts, this is a feature characterizing the entire body of entries, therefore nothing can be founded upon it, which is not equally applicable to both classes or divisions of members.

 

Yet, if we reject this explanation, what shall we offer in its place ? Can it be, that the amounts below the words " William Wade wt giue for to be a free Mason," were received at the meeting of which the folio in question is in part a register and that the five names only are the record of those who attended? On this hypothesis, the clerk may have drawn the long horizontal lines opposite specific sums and the crosses or vertical lines may represent the number of times each of these several amounts passed into his pocket. The column headed by the name of William Harvey, may be an inventory of the dues owing by absentees and, in this view, there were present 5, absent zi, the total membership being z6. Those familiar with the records of the old Scottish Lodges will be aware, that frequently the Brethren who attended were but few in number compared with those who absented themselves, the dues and fines owing by the latter being often largely in excess of the actual payments of the former.

 

There is one, however, of Rylands's suggestions, to which it is necessary to return. He asks‑may not the marks before the five names be understood as record ing the number of votes at some election ? That this is the solution of these crossed lines harmonizes with Masonic usage and is supported by some trustworthy evidence respecting the ancient practice at elections outside Masonic Lodges.

 

The records of the Merchant Tailors, under the year 1573, inform us that at 374 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY ~i the election of Master and Wardens, the clerk read the names and every one " made ‑ _ case of an equal number of ticks the master pricks again " (see Herbert, Companies of London, j' vOl. i, P. 194). Having followed in the main the beaten track of previous commentators in an examination . . preserved volume 1~ 2054 of the , ,, b_ comes at this stage, essential to point out and, as it were, ;i accentuate the fact, that, standing alone and divested of the reference to William .‑ folio . . would . . . . person . ordinary aI ~i intelligence related . ‑ proceedings, . . . Lodge or company of Masons or Freemasons. The names and figures would lend themselves equally well to the establishment of any other hypothesis having a similar of the sentence which is given in Harleian MS. 2054, at the commencement of basis in the usages of the craft guilds. But although the words " William Wade wt giue for to be a free Mason," are brief‑not to say enigmatical‑the very brevity . fOliO 34, if it does not prove the sheet to have been only a memorandum, suggests that it may be the continuation of a paragraph or entry from a previous folio, now missing.

 

It unfortunately happens, that dates, which might have aided in determining this point, are wholly wanting ; but the baldness of the entries induced Rylands to make the Holme MS. the subject of minute research, from which we get ground for supposing that, as at Warrington in 1646, so in Chester in 1665‑75 and in whose names are shown on folio 34 of the I‑Jolme MS. are considered.

 

the system of Freemasonry practised at both these towns, the Speculative element largely preponderated. Also, that all the notes of Randle Holme, glanced at in these paZes, were connected with the Lodge at Chester and its members,_iLt!_laced beyond reasonable doubt; and that more of the latter than William Wade, were entitled to the epithet free Mason, by which he alone is described, will appear more clearly when the several occupations in life of the greater number of those persons It may be remarked, however, that even prior to the exhumation of the Chester Wills by Rylands, the fact that the names of ' . . ‑ included son of the Mayor of Chester; William Street, alderman; and Samuel Pike, tailor, . ‑ .ò‑ , Company, or Society was not composed exclusively of Operative Masons.

 

Rylands has succeeded in tracing twenty out of the twenty‑six names given in the list, but whether in every, or indeed, in any case, the persons proved by accredited documents to have actually existed at a period synchronizing with the are identical with their last thirty‑six years of Randle Holme's life (1665‑1700), namesakes of the Chester association or fellowship, each reader must judge for _ _ 0 ham; Seth Hilton; Randle Holme; John Parry; Thomas Morris; Thomas May ; and George Harvey, do not appear in the index of wills at Chester; but William Street and George Harvey are mentioned in the wills of Richard Ratcliffe EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 375 and Robert Harvey respectively, which, for the purposes of their identification as persons actually living between the years 1665 and 1700, is quite sufficient.

 

It will be seen that namesakes of Holden, Downharn, Hilton, Parry, Thorvas Morris, and May have not been traced; and if to this list are added the names of John and William Hughes‑of whom Rylands observes, " I am only doubtful if in either of the documents here printed under the name of Hughes we have the wills of the Freemasons "‑there will then be only seven persons out of the original twenty‑six who still await identification.

 

The following table, drawn up from the appendix to Rylands's essay, places the material facts in the smallest compass that is consistent with their being adequately comprehended. It is due, however, to an antiquary who finds time, in the midst of graver studies, to exercise his faculty of microscopic research in the elucidation of knotty problems, which baffle and discourage the weary plodder on the beaten road of Masonic history‑to state, that whilst laboriously disinterring much of the forgotten learning that lies entombed in our great manuscript collections and bringing to the light of day, from the obscure recesses of parochial registers, many valuable entries relating to the Freemasons‑his efforts do not cease with the attainment of the immediate purpose which stimulated them into action. Thus, in the papers, upon which reliance is placed for the present sketch of Randle Holme and the Freemasons of Chester, we are given, not only the details sustaining the argument of the writer, but also those, which by any latitude of construction can be held to invalidate the conclusions whereat he has himself arrived. Indeed, he goes so far as to anticipate some objections that may be raised, notably, that in the wills he prints, the title " Mason " and not " Freemason " (as in the will of Richard Ellom, 1667), is used ; also that since in four only, the testator is even described as " Mason," it may be urged that the remainder " are not, or may not, be the wills of the persons mentioned in the MS. of Randle Holme." The names shown in italics are those of persons, with whose identification as Freemasons, Rylands entertains some misgivings.

 

LIST OF NAMES FROM THE CHESTER REGISTER OF WILLS.

 

NAME. RESIDENCE. OCCUPATION WILL DATED.

 

Robert Morris . Chester Glazier 1708 William Street . Chester Alderman John Hughes . Chester Slater 1683 John Hughes . Chester Husbandman 1708 Samuel Pyke . Chester Tailor 1698 William Wade . Chester Mason 1716 William Harvey . . Chester Alderman 1684 Thomas Foulkes . . Chester Carpenter 1712 William Hughes . Holt, Co. Denbigh Gentleman 1693 John Fletcher . Chester Clothworker 1665 Randle Holme . Chester Herald Richard Taylor, jun. . Chester Merchant 1693 Richard Tayler . Chester Button Maker 1710 Richard Ratcliffe . . Chester Gentleman 1683 William Woods . . Handbridge, Co. Chester Mason 1699 376 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY LIST OF NAMES FROM THE CHESTER REGISTER OF WILLS‑continued.

 

NAME. RESIDENCE.

 

William Robinson. . Chester James Mort. . Chester John Lloyd . Chester George Harvey . . Chester William Jackson . . Chester Robert Harvey Chester John Maddock . Chester OCCUPATION. WILL DATED. Labourer x68o Mason 1684 Mason x675 Bricklayer Tanner 1677 Alderman 1669 Alderman x68o The above list comprises all the names which Rylands has succeeded in tracing. Those of the three Hughes‑corresponding with the two persons of that name in Holme's MS.‑and of Richard Tayler, button‑maker, may, however, be left out of consideration. This reduces the original twenty‑six to twenty‑four, from which, if we further deduct the names of Holden, Downham, Hilton, Parry, Thomas Morris and May there will remain eighteen, some of which, no doubt, it may be all, were identical with those of the Freemasons, members of the Chester fellowship. In his classification or arrangement of the wills, Rylands has printed them in the same order as the testators' names are given by Holme. This, of course, was the most convenient method of procedure ; but in dealing with an analysis of their dates, which is essential if a correct estimate of their value is desired, it becomes necessary to make a chronological abstract of the period of years over which these documents range.

 

For the purposes of this inquiry, no distinction will be made between the fifteen persons whose wills have been printed and the three whose identification has been otherwise determined. To the former will be assigned the dates when their respective wills were executed, to William Street and George Harvey those of the wills in which they are mentioned, to Randle Holme in the year 1700. This method of computation is doubtless a rough one; but there seems no other which so well fulfils the immediate purpose, viz. to arrive at an approximate calculation with regard to the dates of decease of the eighteen. Thus we find that five die (execute, or are named in wills) between 1665 and 1677; six in 1680‑4; three in 1693‑9 ; and four in 1700‑16.

 

Now, Randle Holme was in his thirty‑eighth year in 1665, the farthest point to which we can go back, if we accept the will of John Fletcher, clothworker, as that of the Freemason. If we do‑and on grounds presently to be shown, we safely may‑the span of Holme's life will afford some criterion whereby we may judge of the inherent probability of his associates in the Lodge, circa 1665, having succumbed to destiny in the same ratio as the testators whose wills have been examined. Holme died before he had quite completed his seventy‑third year. Some of the Freemasons of A.D. 1665 must have been older, some younger, than himself. Among the latter we may probably include William Wade, who, as he outlived the herald a period of about sixteen years, it is possible that this nearly represented the difference between their ages‑a supposition to which colour is lent by the character of the entry respecting him in the Holme MS. It would EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 377 thus appear that he had not advanced beyond his twenty‑second year when proposed for or admitted into the fellowship of Freemasons ; indeed, from this circumstance it would seem that either the Holme MS. must be brought quite down to 1665, the date of John Fletcher's death, or the disparity of years between Holme and Wade is not adequately denoted by the period of time separating the deaths of these men. A material point for examination is the trade or calling which is to be assigned to each oú the eighteen. Aldermen and Masons predominate, being four and four. There are two gentlemen (including Holme), a merchant, clothworker, glazier, tailor, carpenter, tanner, bricklayer and labourer.

 

It will be seen that only four were of the Mason's trade, thus leaving fourteen (not to speak of the missing six), whose occupations in life, unless perhaps we except the bricklayer and, possibly the carpenter and glazier, had nothing in common ,with the operations of the stone‑masons.

 

It is certain that a large number, probably all the persons traced by Rylands as actually residing in the city or county of Chester between 1665 and 1716must be accepted as the Freemasons with whose names their own correspond. In the first place, it may fairly be assumed that some, at least, of Holme's Brethren in the fellowship were of a class with whom he could in the social meaning of the term, associate. This is placed beyond doubt by the MS. itself. William Street alderman, falls plainly within this description. William and Robert Harvey and John Maddock, also aldermen, though their identification with the Freemasons depends upon separate evidence, must be accepted without demur as the persons Holme had in his mind when penning his list. Next, if regard is had to the fact that the index of the Chester Wills (see Masonic Magazine, February 1882., pp. 309ig), in two cases only, records duplicate entries of any of the twenty‑six names in Holme's list (John Hughes and Richard Taylor or Tayler), it is, in the highest degree, improbable that in either of the remaining instances, where namesakes of the Freemasons are mentioned in the documents at the Probate Court, the coincidence can be put down as wholly fortuitous. If, moreover, the wills printed by Rylands are actually examined, the fact that many of the testators (and Freemasons) were connected so intimately with one another, as these documents makes them out to have been, whilst strengthening the conviction that the men were members of the Lodge, will supply, in the details of their intimacy and relationship, very adequate reasons for many of them being banded together in a fraternity.

 

In 1682 the Masons and the Freemasons were distinct and separate sodalities and some of the former were received into the fellowship of the latter at the Lodge held at Masons' Hall, in that year; also, the clerk of the Company was Stampe, Robert Padgett being clerk to the Society.

 

Thus in London the Society must have been something very different from the Company, though in other parts of Britain, there was virtually no distinction between the two titles. Randle Holme, it is true, appears to draw a distinction between the " Felloship " of the Masons and the " Society called Free‑Masons," though, as he " Honor's " the former " because of its Antiquity and the more being 378 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY a Member " of the latter, it is probable that the expressions he uses‑which derive their chief importance from the evidence they afford of the operative ancestry of a Society or Lodge of Freemasons, A.D. 1688‑merely denote that there were Lodges and Lodges or, in other words, that there were then subsisting unions oú practical Masons in which there was no admixture of the Speculative element.

 

The significance of this allusion is indeed somewhat qualified by the author of the Academie of Armory grouping together at an earlier page, as words of indifferent application, " Fraternity, Society, Brotherhood, or Company "‑all of which, with the exception of " Brotherhood," we meet with in the fifth of the New Articles (Harleian MS. 1942 (11), Section 30), where they are also given as synonymous terms.

 

In the Minutes of the Lodge of Edinburgh, at the beginning of the eighteenth century, the word " Society " is occasionally substituted for Lodge and, fifty years earlier, the Musselburgh Lodge called itself the " Company of Atcheson's Haven Lodge " (Lyon, History of the Lodge of Edinburgh, p. 147). In neither case, however, according to Lyon, was the new appellation intended to convey any idea of a change of constitution. Then there is the Company, Fellowship and Lodge of the Alnwick Freemasons. But whatever may have been the usage in the provinces, it must be taken that in the metropolis, " Society " was used to denote the Brethren of the Lodge and " Company," the Brethren of the Guild.

 

It is quite possible that between the era of the Chester Lodge (1665), of which Randle Holme was a member and that of the formation of the Grand Lodge of England, many evolutionary changes may have occurred.

 

In England none of the Speculative or non‑operative members of the Craft, of whose admission in the seventeenth century there is any evidence, were received as apprentices. All appear, at least so far as an opinion can be formed, to have been simply made Masons or Freemasons. The question, therefore, of grades or degrees in rank does not crop up ; though it may incidentally be mentioned that, in the Halliwell MS. (i), it is required of the apprentice that The prevystye [privities] of the chamber telle he no mon, Ny yn the logge whatever they done Whatsever thou heryst [hearest] or syste [seest] hem do, Telle hyt no mon, whersever thou go.

 

In the same poem it is distinctly laid down that at the Assembly And alle rchul swere the same ogth [oath] Of the masonus, ben they luf [willing], ben they loght [loath], To alle these poyntes hyr byfore That hath ben ordeynt by ful good lore.

 

In Scotland the practice, though not of a uniform character, was slightly different. Ashmole, it may be confidently assumed, was made a Mason in the form prescribed by the Old Charges, a roll or scroll, containing the Legend of the Craft, or the copy EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 379 made by Edward Sankey (13) must have been read over to him and his assent to the Charges of a Freemason were doubtless signified in the customary manner.

 

The period intervening between the date of Randle Holme's observations in the Academie of Armory and the establishment of a governing body for the English Craft, affords rather materials for dissertation than consecutive facts. It is believed that changes of an essential nature were in operation during the years immediately preceding what may be termed the consolidation of the Grand Lodge of England, or, in other words, the publication of the first Book of Constitutions (1723). The circumstances which conduced to these changes are at once complicated and obscure.

 

That the Masonry which flourished under the sanction of the Grand Lodge of England in 1723, differed in some respects from that known at Warrington in 1646, may readily be admitted, but the more serious point, as to whether the changes made were of form only and not of substance, is not so easily disposed of. In the first place, the time at which any change occurred, is not only uncertain, but by its nature will never admit of complete precision. By some the Speculative character of the Warrington Lodge, so far back as 1646, may be held to point to an antecedent system, or body of knowledge, of which the extent of time is, without further evidence, simply incalculable, whilst others, without inquiry of any kind, will shelter themselves under the authority of great names and adopt a conclusion, in which later historians are practically unanimous, that Freemasonry, as it emerged from the crucible in 1723, was the product of many evolutionary changes, consummated for the most part in the six years during which the Craft had been ruled by a central authority.

 

It may freely be confessed, that in our present state of knowledge, much of the early history of the Society must remain under a veil of obscurity and, whilst there is no portion of our annals which possesses greater interest for the student than that intervening between the latter end of the seventeenth century and the year 1723‑the date of the earliest entries in the existing Minutes of Grand Lodge and of the first Book of Constitutions‑it must as frankly be admitted, that the evidence forthcoming, upon which alone any determinate conclusion can be based, is of too vague and uncertain a character to afford a sure foot‑hold to the historical inquirer.

 

Dr. Anderson speaks of a London Lodge having met, at the instance of Sir Robert Clayton, in 1693 and, on the authority of " some brothers, living in 173o," he names the localities in which six other Metropolitan Lodges held their assemblies (Constitutions, 1738, p. io6 ; 1756 and 1767, p. 176 ; 1784, p. 193), a statement furnishing, at least so far as traceable, the only historical data in support of the assertion in Multa Paucis, that the formation of the Grand Lodge of England was due to the combined efforts of six private Lodges (see The Four Old Lodges, p. 23 ; Woodford, Masonic Magazine, vol. i, p. 25 5). Meetings of Provincial Lodges, in 1693 and 1705 respectively, are commemorated by memoranda on two of the Old Charges, Nos. 25 and 28, but the significance of these entries will more fitly claim attention in connexion with the subject of Masonry in York.

 

380 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY The records of the Alnwick Lodge (see Masonic Magazine, February 1874) are of especial value in this examination, as they constitute the only evidence of the actual proceedings of an English Lodge essentially, if not, indeed, exclusively Operative, during the entire portion of the early history which precedes the era of Grand Lodges. That is to say, without these records, whatever might be inferred, it would be impossible to prove, from other extant documents, or contemporary evidence of any sort or kind, that in a single Lodge the Operative predominated over the Speculative element. The rules of the Lodge are dated September 29, 1701 and the earliest Minute October 3, 1703.

 

It should be stated, that the question of Degrees receives no additional light from these Minutes, indeed, if the Alnwick documents stood alone, as the sole representative of the class of evidence hitherto considered, there would be nothing whatever from which it might even plausibly be inferred that anything beyond trade secrets were possessed by the members. To some extent, however, a sidelight is thrown upon these records by some later documents of a kindred character and the Minutes of the Lodge of Industry, Gateshead, which date from 1725, ten years prior to its acceptance of a Warrant from the Grand Lodge of England, supply much valuable information relative to the customs of early Operative Lodges, which, even if it does not give a clearer picture of the Masonry of 1701, is considered by some excellent authorities, to hold up a mirror in which is reflected the usages of a period antedating, by at least several years, the occasion of .their being committed to writing.

 

Although the circumstance of no fewer than three Cheshire Lodges having been " constituted "‑i.e. warranted‑by the Grand Lodge in 1724, the first year in which Charters, or as they were then termed, " Deputations," were granted to other than London Lodges, may be held to prove that the old system, so to speak, overlapped the new and, to justify the conclusion that the Masonry of Randle Holme's time survived the epoch of transition‑this evidence is unfortunately too meagre, to do more than satisfy the mind of the strong probability, to put it no higher, that such was really the case. All three Lodges died out before 1756 and their records perished with them. But here the Minutes of Grand Lodge come to our assistance and a petitioner for relief in 1732 claimed to have been made a Mason by the Duke of Richmond at Chichester in 1696.

 

The Lodge of Industry affords an example of an Operative Lodge‑with extant Minutes‑which, although originally independent of the Grand Lodge, ultimately became merged in the establishment (Masonic Magazine, vol. iii, 1875‑6 ; The Freemason, October 26 and December i 1, 18 8o).

 

The original home of this Lodge was at the village of Swalwell, in the county of Durham, about four miles from Gateshead ; and a tradition exists, for it is nothing more, that it was founded by Operative Masons brought from the south by Sir Ambrose Crowley, when he established his celebrated foundry at Winlaton about A.D. 1690. Its records date from 1725 and, on June 24, 1735, the Lodge accepted EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 381 a Deputation from the Grand Lodge. The meetings continued to be held at Swalwell until 1844 and, from 1845 till the present time, have taken place at Gateshead. In the records there appear " Orders of Antiquity, Apprentice Orders, General Orders and Penal Orders," all written in the old Minute Book by the same clear hand, circa 1730.

 

The records of the Alnwick Lodge comprise a good copy of the Masons' Constitutions or Old Charges, certain rules of the Lodge, enacted in 1701 and the ordinary Minutes, which terminate June 24, ‑1757, though the Lodge was still in existence and preserved its operative character until at least the year 1763. The rules or regulations are headed ORDERS TO BE OBSERVED BY THE COMPANY AND FELLOWSHIP OF FREEMASON'S ATT A LODGE HELD AT ALNWICK, SEPTR. 29, 1701, BEING THE GENLL HEAD MEETING DAY.

 

s. d.

 

1st.‑First it is ordered by the said Fellowship thatt there shall be yearly Two Wardens chosen upon the said Twenty‑ninth of Septr., being the Feast of St. Michaell the Archangell, which Wardens shall be elected and appoynted by the most consent of the Fellowship.

 

2nd.‑Item, Thatt the said Wardens receive, commence, and sue all such penaltyes and fforfeitures and fines as shall in any wise be amongst the said Fellowship, and shall render and yield up a just account att the year's end of all such fines and forfeitures as shall come to their hands, or oftener if need require, or if the Master or Fellows list to call for them, for every such offence to pay , o 6 8 3rd.‑Item, That noe mason shall take any worke by task or by Day, other then the King's work, butt thatt att the least he shall make Three or Four of his Fellows acquainted therewith, for to take his part, paying for every such offence . 3 6 8 [Hockley and Hughan say úi 6s. 8d.] 4th.‑Item, Thatt noe mason shall take any work thatt any of his Fellows is in hand with all‑to pay for every such offence the sume off z 6 8 [Hockley again says Ci 6s. 8d.] 5th.‑Item, Thatt noe mason shall take any Apprentice [but he must] enter him and give him his charge within one whole year after.

 

Nott soe doing, the master shall pay for every such offence . 0 3 4 6th.‑Item, Thatt every master for entering his apprentices shall pay . . o o 6 7th.‑Item, Thatt every mason when he is warned by the Wardens or other of the Company, and shall nott come to the place appoynted, except he have a reasonable cause to shew the Master and Wardens to the contrary ; nott soe doing shall pay . o 6 8 8th.‑Item, Thatt noe Mason shall shon [shun] his Fellow or give him the lye, or any ways contend with him or give him any other name in the place of meeting then Brother or Fellow, or hold any disobedient argument, against any of the Company reproachfully, for every such offence shall pay . . o o 6 382 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY s. d.

 

9th.‑Item, There shall noe apprentice after he have served seaven years be admitted or accepted but upon the Feast of St. Michael the Archangell, paying to the Master and Wardens . o 6 8 loth.‑Item, If any Mason, either in the place of meeting or att work among his Fellows, swear or take God's name in vain, thatt he or they soe offending shall pay for every time i i th.‑Item, Thatt if any Fellow or Fellows shall att any time or times discover his master's secretts, or his owne, be it nott onely spoken in the Lodge or without, or the secreets or councell of his Fellows, thatt may extend to the Damage of any of his Fellows, or to any of their good names, whereby the Science may be ill spoken of, ffor every such offence shall pay . 1 6 8 i zth.‑Item, Thatt noe Fellow or Fellows within this Lodge shall att any time or times call or hold Assemblys to make any mason or masons free : Nott acquainting the Master or Wardens therewith, For every time so offending shall pay . . 3 6 8 13th.‑Item, Thatt noe rough Layers or any others thatt has nott served their time, or [been] admitted masons, shall work within the Lodge any work of masonry whatsoever (except under a Master), for every such offence shall pay . 3 13 4 14th.‑Item, That all Fellows being younger shall give his Elder fellows the honor due to their degree and standing. Alsoe thatt the Master, Wardens, and all the Fellows of this Lodge doe promise severally and respectively to performe all and every the orders above named, and to stand bye each other (but more particularly to the Wardens and their successors) in sueing for all and every the forfeitures of our said Brethren, contrary to any of the said orders, demand thereof being first made.

 

The regulations of the Alnwick Lodge, though duly enacting the manner in which the annual election of Wardens shall be conducted, make no provision for that of Master; nor among the signatures attached to the code, although those of two members have the descriptive title of Warden fixed, is there one which might be deemed more likely than another to be the autograph of the actual head of the Fraternity. This is the more remarkable, from the fact that in several places the Master is referred to ; and, although we learn from the Minute Book that James Mills (or Milles) was " chosen and elected Master " in 1704‑there being but a single entry of earlier date (October 3, 1703), from this period till the records come to an end‑both Master and Wardens were annually elected. Some alteration in the procedure, however slight, must have occurred as, instead of the election taking place on the " Feast of St. Michaell," from 1704 onwards, the principal officers were invariably chosen on December 27, the Feast of St. John the Evangelist. The latter evidently became the " general head‑meeting day " from, at least, 1704 and the words " made Free Decr. 27th," which are of frequent occurrence, show that the apprentices who had served their time in accordance ,with the ninth regulation, were no longer " admitted or accepted " on the date therein described.

 

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 383 The fifth and sixth regulations, which relate to the entering of apprentices, are worthy of careful attention, since they not only cast some rays of light upon the customs of those early English Lodges which were in existence before the second decade of the eighteenth century, but also tend to illuminate some obscure passages in the Masonic records of the sister kingdom, upon which many erroneous statements have been founded, e.g. that apprentices were not members of the Lodge and that they possessed but a fragmentary knowledge of Masonic secrets.

 

We have seen that a Mason who took an apprentice was required to enter him and give him his charge within a year and, in estimating the meaning of these words it will be essential to recollect that a copy of the Old Charges formed part of the records of the Lodge. This was doubtless read to the apprentice at his entry and may be easily referred to (Hughan, The Old Charges, p. 69 ; Masonic Magazine, vol. i, 1873‑4, pp. 253, 295); but the actual procedure in cases of admission into the Lodge, is vividly presented by the following passage in the Swalwell records: Forasmuch as you are contracted and Bound to one of our Brethren: We are here assembled together with one Accord, to declare unto you the Laudable Dutys appertaining unto those yt are Apprentices, to those who are of the Lodge of Masonry, which if you take good heed unto and keep, will find the same worthy your regard for a Worthy Science: ffor at the building of the Tower of Babylon and Citys of the East, King Nimrod the Son of Cush, the Son of Ham, the Son of Noah, &c., gave Charges and. Orders to Masons, as also did Abraham in Egypt. King David and his Son King SOLOMAN at the building of the Temple of Jerusalem, and many more Kings and Princes of worthy memory from time to time, and did not only promote the ffame of the 7 Liberal Sciences but fformed Lodges, and give and granted their Commissions and Charters to those of or belonging to the Sciences of Masonry, to keep and hold their Assemblys, for correcting of ffaults, or making Masons within their Dominions, when and where they pleased (see Masonic Magazine, vol. iii, 1875‑6, pp. 8z‑3) The manuscript last quoted is of value in more ways than one, as whilst indicating with greater precision than any other document of its class, that apprentices under indentures were received into the Lodge ; and that a ceremony em bodying at least the recital of the legendary history took place, the extract given tends to enhance the authority of the Swalwell records, as elucidatory of usages dating much farther back, by showing that the Lodge was still essentially an Operative one and, so far as this evidence extends, that its simple routine was as yet uninfluenced by the Speculative system into which it was subsequently absorbed.

 

Whether, indeed, the customs of the Swalwell Lodge received, at any period prior to its acceptance of a Warrant, some tinge or colouring from the essentially Speculative usages which are supposed to have sprung up during what has been termed the epoch of transition‑1717‑23‑cannot be determined; but even leaving this point undecided, the eighth Penal Order of the Swalwell fraternity possesses a significance that we can hardly overrate.

 

384 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY Reading the latter by the light of the former, it might well be conjectured that, though to the Alnwick Brethren, Degrees, as they are now practised, were unknown, still, with the essentials out of which these Degrees were compounded, they may have been familiar. Throughout the entire series of the Alnwick records there is no entry, except the regulation under examination, from which, by the greatest latitude of construction it might be inferred that secrets of any kind were communicated to the Brethren of this Lodge.

 

The silence of the Alnwick records with respect to Degrees, which is continuous and unbroken from 1701 to 1757, suggests, however, a line of argument, which, by confirming the idea that the Swalwell Lodge preserved its Operative customs intact until 1730 or later, may have the effect of convincing some minds, that for an explanation of Alnwick regulation No. ii, we shall rightly consult Penal Order No. 8 of the junior sodality.

 

If, then, the silence of the Alnwick Minutes with regard to Degrees is held to prove that the independent character of the Lodge was wholly unaffected by the marvellous success of the Speculative system ; or, in other words, that the Alnwick Lodge and the Lodges under the Grand Lodge of England, existed side by side from 1717 to 1757‑a period of forty years‑without the Operative giving way, even in part, to the Speculative usages‑it follows, a fortiori, that we must admit the strong probability of the Swalwell customs having preserved their vitality unimpaired from the date we first hear of them (1725) until, at any rate, the year 1730, which is about the period when the Penal and other Orders were committed to writing.

 

The notes appended to the Alnwick regulations constitute a running commentary on the text and indicate the leading points on which attention should be fixed while scrutinizing these laws.

 

According to Hughan, sixty‑nine signatures are attached to the code, but Hockley's MS. only gives fifty‑eight, forty‑two of which were subscribed before December 27, 1709, four on that date, the remainder between 1710 and 17z2. In several instances, marks, though almost entirely of a monogrammatic character, are affixed. Many names occur in the list, which are certainly of Scottish derivation, e.g. there is a Boswell and a Pringell, whilst of the extensive family of the Andersons there are no fewer than four representatives, two bearing the name of John and the younger of whom‑made free July 17, 1713‑is probably the same John Anderson who was Master of the Lodge in 1749 and a member so late as 175 3. The protracted membership of certain of the subscribers is a noteworthy circumstance, from which may be drawn the same inference as in the parallel case of the Brethren who founded the Grand Lodge of England, some of whom are known to have been active members of that organization many years subsequently, viz. that no evolutionary changes of a violent character can be supposed to have taken place, since it is improbable‑not to say impossiblethat either the Alnwick Masons of 1701 or the London Brethren of 1717, would have looked calmly on, had the forms and ceremonies to which they were EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 385 accustomed been as suddenly metamorphosed, as it has become, in some degree, the fashion to believe.

 

Four members of the Alnwick Lodge, Thomas Davidson, William Balmbrough, Robert Hudson, and Patrick Milles‑the last named having been made free December 27, 1706, the others earlier‑are named in its later records. Hudson was a Warden in 1749 and the remaining three, or Brethren of the same names, were present at the Lodge on St. John's Day, 175 3.

 

The Minutes of the Alnwick and of the Swalwell Lodges exhibit a general uniformity. The entries in both, record for the most part the Inrollments of Apprentices, together with the imposition of fines and the resolutions passed from time to time for the assistance of indigent Brethren.

 

The head or chief meeting day, in the case of the Alnwick Brethren, the festival of St. John the Evangelist and, in that of the Swalwell fraternity, the corresponding feast of St. John the Baptist, was commemorated with much solemnity. Thus, under date of January zo, 1708, we find At a true and perfect Lodge kept at Alnwick, at the house of Mr. Thomas Davidson, one of the Wardens of the same Lodge, it was ordered that for the future noe member of the said lodge, Master, Wardens, or Fellows, should appear at any lodge to be kept on St. John's day in (church), without his apron and common Square fixed in the belt thereof ; upon pain of forfeiting two shillings and 6 pence, each person offending, and that care be taken by the Master and Wardens for the time being, that a sermon be provided and preached that day at the parish Church of Alnwick by some clergyman at their appointment ; when the Lodge shall all appear with their aprons on and common Squares as aforesaid and that the Master and Wardens neglecting their duty in providing a clergyman to preach as aforesaid, shall forfeit the sum of ten shillings.

 

A Minute of the Swalwell Lodge, dated the year before it ceased to be an independent Masonic body, reads Decr. 27, 1734.‑It is agreed by the Master and Wardens, and the rest of the Society, that if any Brother shall appear in the Assembly without gloves and aprons at any time when summoned by [the] Master and Wardens, [he] shall for each offence pay one shilling on demand.

 

Between the years 1710 and 1748 the Alnwick records, if not wholly wanting, contain very trivial entries. A few notes, however, may be usefully extracted from the later Minutes, which, though relating to a period of time somewhat in advance of the particular epoch we are considering, will fit in here better than at any later stage and it must not escape recollection, that the Alnwick Lodge never surrendered its independence and, moreover, from first to last, was an Operative rather than a Speculative fraternity. Indeed, that it was Speculative at all, in the sense either of possessing members who were not Operative Masons, or of discarding its ancient formulary for the ceremonial of Grand Lodge, is very proble‑ 386 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY matical. If it became so, the influx of Speculative Freemasons on the one hand, or its assimilation of modern customs on the other hand, must alike have occurred at a comparatively late period.

 

The Minutes of the Lodge, towards the close of its existence, admit of a varied interpretation, as may be seen from the following extracts December 27, 1748.‑Three persons subscribe their names as having been made free Brothers of the Lodge and their signatures are carefully distinguished from those of the Master, Wardens and the twelve other members present, by the memorandum.‑" Bros. to the assistance of the said Lodge." By a resolution of the same date‑December z7, 1748‑though entered on a separate page It was ordered, that a Meeting of the Society shall be held at the house of Mr Thos. Woodhouse, on Saty. evening next, at 6 o'clock [for the purpose of making] proper Orders and Rules for the better regulating the free masonry.

 

Among a variety of resolutions, passed December 31, 1748, are the following It is ordered that all apprentices that shall offer to be admitted into the sd Lodge after serving due apprenticeship, shall pay for such admittance‑1os.

 

Also that all other persons and strangers not serving a due apprenticeship, shall pay for such admittance the sum of 17s. 6d.

 

Ordered that none shall be admitted into the said lodge under the age of z1 or above 40.

 

Also, that in case any of the sd. members of the sd. Society shall fail in the world, it is ordered that there shall be paid weekly out of the sd. Lodge, 4s.

 

The striking resemblance of these old regulations of the Alnwick and Swalwell fraternities, to those of the Gateshead Incorporation, will be apparent to the most casual reader.

 

Apprentices, in every case, were only admitted to full membership at the expiration of seven years from the dates of their indentures. Whether, indeed, any process analogous to that of entering prevailed in the Incorporation, cannot positively be affirmed, but it is almost certain that it did, though the term Entered Apprentice does not occur in any English book or manuscript, Masonic or otherwise, of earlier date than 17z3. From the fifth of the Alnwick Orders can be gathered with sufficient clearness what an Entered Apprentice must have been, but the par ticular expression first appears in 17z5, in the actual Minutes of any English Lodge. The earliest entry in the Minute Book of Swalwell Lodge runs as follows September z9, 17z5.‑Then Matthew Armstrong and Arther Douglas, Masons, appeared in ye lodge of Freemasons and agreed to have their names registered as Enterprentices, to be accepted next quarterly meeting, paying one shilling for entrance, and 7s. 6d. when they take their freedom (1llasonic Magazine, vol. iii, p. 1z5).

 

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 387 As the question will arise, whether the terms Master Mason, Fellow Craft and Entered Apprentice‑all well known in Scotland, in the seventeenth century were introduced into England and popularized by the author of the first Boob, of Constitutions (1723) ; the earliest allusion to any grade of the Masonic hierarchy, which is met with in the records of an English Lodge‑one, moreover, working by inherent right, independently of the Grand Lodge‑may well claim patient examination.

 

It may be urged that the entry of 1725 comes two years later than Dr. Anderson's Constitutions, where all the titles are repeatedly mentioned and the lowest of all, Entered Prentice, acquires a prestige from the song at the end of the book " to be sung when all grave business is over," which may have greatly aided in bringing the term within the popular comprehension. Apprentices are not alluded to in the York Minutes of 1712‑25.

 

Yet to this may be replied, that the Swalwell Minutes, not only during the ten years of independency‑1725‑35‑but for a generation or two after the Lodge had accepted a Charter from the Grand Lodge, teem with resolutions of an exclusively Operative character, for example 25th March 1754.‑That Bro. Wm. Burton having taken John Cloy'd as an apprentice for 7 years, made his apperance and had the apprentice charge read over, and pd. for registering, 6d. (Masonic Magazine, vol. iii, p. 74).

 

Here, at a period nearly forty years after the formation of a Grand Lodge, we find one of the Lodges under its sway, entering an Apprentice in the timehonoured fashion handed down by the oldest of the manuscript Constitutions.

 

The Swalwell records present other noteworthy features. Though they have but a slight connexion with the immediate subject of inquiry, it would be unfair to pass them over without notice, as the entries relating to the Orders of the Highrodiams and the Damaskins, which begin in 1746 and are peculiar to this Lodge, may be held by some to attest the presence of Speculative novelties, that detract from the weight which its later documentary evidence would otherwise possess as coming from the archives of an Operative sodality (see Masonic Magazine, vol. iii, pp. 73, 75, 76 ; The Freemason, October 3o, December 4 and December ii, i 88o).

 

There is a singular law which throws some light upon the doubtful point of how far females were permitted, in those early days, to take part in the proceedings of Lodges No woman, if [she] comes to speak to her husband, or any other person, shall be admitted into the room, but speak at the door, nor any woman be admitted to serve [those within] wth drink, etc.

 

The next evidence in point of time, as we pass from the Operative records, which have their commencement in 1701, is contained in the following reply from 388 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY Governor Jonathan Belcher to a congratulatory address, delivered September 25, 1741, by a deputation from the First Lodge in Boston.

 

WORTHY BROTHERS: I take very kindly this mark of your respect. It is now thirty‑seven years since I was admitted into the Ancient and Honourable Society of Free and Accepted Masons, to whom I have been a faithful Brother & a well‑wisher to the Art of Freemasonry. I shall ever maintain a strict friendship for the whole Fraternity, & always be glad when it may fall in my power to do them any Services (Proceedings of Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, 1871, p. 376 ; 1882, p. 184 ; New England Freemason, Boston, U.S.A., vol. i, 1874, p. 67).

 

Governor Belcher was born in Boston in 1681, graduated at Harvard in 1699, immediately afterwards went abroad and was absent six years. It was at this time that he was presented to the Princess Sophia and her son, afterwards George II and made a Mason, as his language would imply, about the year 1704. His next visit to England occurred in 1729 and, in the following year, he returned to America, on receiving the appointment of Governor of Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

 

Although Governor Belcher does not name the place of his initiation, it is probable that it took place in London and the words he uses to describe his admission into the Society, will justify the inference, that on being made a Freemason, whatever Masonic Secrets then existed, were communicated to him in their entirety, precisely as we may imagine was the case when Ashmole became a member of the Warrington Lodge.

 

The cumulative value of the existence of so many copies of the Old Charges which have found a home in the archives of the Grand Lodge of York is great. The names also, which appear on Yor,, MS. 4 (25), carry us back to the existence of a Lodge in 1693. But where it was held is a point upon which one can only speculate vainly without the possibility of arriving at any definite conclusion. Happily, there is undoubted evidence, coming from two distinct sources which, in each case, points to the vigorous vitality of York Masonry in 1705 and, inferentially, to its continuance from a more remote period. At that date, as we learn from a Minute Book of the Old Lodge at York, which unfortunately only commences in that year (see Hughan's Masonic Sketches and Reprints), Sir George Tempest, " Barronet," was the President, a position he again filled in 17o6 and 1713. Among the subsequent Presidents were the Lord Mayor of York, afterwards Lord Bingley (1707), the following Baronets, Sir William Robinson (17o8‑io), Sir Walter Hawksworth (1711‑12, 1720‑3) and other persons of distinction.

 

The Scarborough MS. (28) furnishes the remaining evidence, which attests the active condition of Yorkshire Freemasonry in 1705. The endorsement in this roll may, without any effort of the imagination, be regarded as bearing indirect testimony to the influence of the Lodge or Society at York. This must have radiated to some extent at least and an example is afforded by the proceedings at Bradford in 1713. We learn from the roll referred to (28), that at a private lodge held at Scarborough in the County of York, on the loth of July 1705, "before"' EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 389 William Thompson, President and other Free Masons, six persons, whose names are subscribed, were " admitted into the fraternity." It is difficult to understand what is meant by the term " private lodge," an expression which is frequently met with, as will shortly be perceived, in the Minutes of the York body itself. Possibly the explanation may be, that it signified a special as distinguished from a regular meeting, or the words may imply that an occasional and not a stated Lodge was then held.

 

Indeed, the speculation might even be advanced, that the meeting was in effect a " movable Lodge," convened by the York Brethren. Such assemblies were frequently held in the county and, on the occasion of the York Lodge, meeting at Bradford in 1713, no fewer than eighteen gentlemen of the first families in that neighbourhood were made Masons. A further supposition presents itself, that we have here an example of the custom of granting written licences to enter Masons at a distance from the Lodge, such traces are found in the Kilwinning, the Dunblane and the Haughfoot Minutes (see Lyon's History of the Lodge of Edinburgh, p. loo). If so, we may suppose that the precedent set by the Lodge of Kilwinning in 1677, when the Masons from the Canongate of Edinburgh applied to it for a roving commission or " travelling warrant," was duly followed and that the Scarborough Brethren were empowered to admit qualified persons " in name and behalf " of the Lodge of York.

 

The earliest of the York Minutes‑now extant‑ire contained in a roll of parchment, endorsed " 1712 to 173o." The following extracts are contributed by William James Hughan March the i 9th, 1712.‑At a private Lodge, held at the house of James Boreham, situate in Stonegate, in the City of York, Mr. Thomas Shipton, Mr. Caleb Greenbury, Mr. Jno. Norrison, Mr. Jno. Russell, Jno. Whitehead and Francis Norrison were all of them severally sworne and admitted into the honourable Society and fraternity of Free‑Masons.

 

Geo. Bowes, Esq., Dep.‑President.

 

Jno. Wilcock also Thos. Shipton. Caleb Greenbury.

 

admitted at the Jno. Norrison. John Russell.

 

same Lodge. Fran. Norrison. John Whitehead. John Wilcock.

 

June the 24th, 1713.‑At a General Lodge on St. John's Day, at the house of James Boreham, situate in Stonegate, in the City of York, Mr. John Langwith was admitted and sworne into the honourable Society and fraternity of Freemasons.

 

Sir Walter Hawksworth, Knt. and Bart., President. Jno. Langwith.

 

August the 7th, 1713.‑At a private Lodge held there at the house of James Boreham, situate in Stonegate, in the City of York, Robert Fairfax, Esq. and Tobias Jenkings, Esq., were admitted and sworne into the honb'░ Society and fraternity of Freemasons, as also the Reverend Mr. Robert Barker was then admitted and sworne as before. Geo. Bowes, Esq., Dep.‑President.

 

Robert Fairfax. T. Jenknns. Robt. Barber.

 

390 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY December the i 8th, 1713.‑At a private Lodge held there at the house of Mr. James Boreham, in Stonegate, in the City of York, Mr. Thos. Hardwick, Mr. Godfrey Giles, and Mr. Tho. Challoner was admitted and sworne into the honob'e Society and Company of Freemasons before the Worshipfull Sr Walter Hawksworth, Knt. and Barr'., President. Tho. Hardwicke. Godfrey Giles.

 

his Thomas "r Challoner.

 

mark 1714.‑At a General Lodge held there on the 24th June at Mr. James Boreham, situate in Stonegate, in York, John Taylor, of Langton in the Woulds, was admitted and sworne into the honob'e Society and Company of Freemasons in the City of York, before the Worshipfull Charles Fairfax, Esq. John Taylor.

 

At St. John's Lodge in Christmas, 1716.‑At the house of Mr. James Boreham, situate [in] Stonegate, in York, being a General Lodge, held there by the honoble Society and Company of Free Masons, in the City of York, John Turner, Esq., was sworne and admitted into the said Honob'e Society and Fraternity of Free Masons. Charles Fairfax, Esq., Dep.‑President. John Turner.

 

At St. John's Lodge in Christmas, 1721.‑At Mr. Robert Chippendal's, in the Shambles, York, Rob' Fairfax, Esq., then Dep.‑President, the said Rob' Chippendal was admitted and sworne into the honb'e Society of Free Masons.

 

Rob. Fairfax, Esq., D.P. Robt. Chippendal.

 

January the loth, 1722‑3.‑At a private Lodge, held at the house of Mrs. Hall, in Thursday Market, in the City of York, the following persons were admitted and sworne into yo honourable Society of Free Masons Henry Legh. Richd. Marsh. Edward Paper.

 

At the same time the following persons were acknowledged as Brethren of this ancient Society Edmd. Winwood. G. Rhodes. Josh Hebson. John Vauner. Francis Hildyard, jun% February the 4th, 1722‑3.‑At a private Lodge, held at Mr. Boreham's in Stonegate, York, the following persons were admitted and sworne into the Ancient and Hon ble Society of Free Masons John Lockwood. Matt`░. Hall.

 

At the same time and place, the two persons whose names are underwritten were, upon their examinations, received as Masons and as such were accordingly introduced and admitted into this Lodge.

 

Geo. Reynoldson. Barnaby Bawtry.

 

November 4th, 1723.‑At a private Lodge, held at Mr. Wm. Stephenson's, in Petergate, York, the following persons were admitted and sworne into the Antient Society of Free Masons John Taylor. Jno. Colling.

 

Feb. 5th, 1723‑4.‑At a private Lodge at Mr. James Boreham's, in Stonegate, York, the underwritten persons were admitted and sworn into the Antient Society of Free Masons Wm. Tireman. Charles Pick. Will‑. Musgrave. John Jenkinson. John Sudell.

 

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 391 June 15, 1724.‑At a private Lodge, held in Davy Hall, in the City of York, the underwritten persons were admitted and sworn into the Antient Society of Free Masons Daniel Harvey. Ralph Grayme.

 

June 22, 1724.‑At a private Lodge, held at Mr. Geo. Gibson's, in the City of York, were admitted and sworn into the Society of Free Masons the persons underwritten, viz.

 

Robert Armorer. William Jackson. Geo. Gibson.

 

Dec. 28, 1724.‑At a private Lodge, held at Mr. Jno. Colling's, in Petergate, the following persons were admitted and sworn into ye Society of Free Masons. Wm. Wright. Ric. Denton. Jno. Marsden. Ste. Bulkley. July 21, 1725.‑At a private Lodge at Mr. Jno. Colling's, in Petergate, York, the following persons were admitted and sworn into the Society of Free and Accepted Masons.

 

Luke Lowther. Chas. Hutton.

 

At an adjournment of a Lodge of Free Masons from Mr. Jno. Colling, in Petergate, to Mr. Luke Lowther's, in Stonegate, the following Persons were admitted and sworn into the Society of free [and] Accepted Masons‑Ed. Bell, Esq., Master.

 

Chas. Bathurst. John Johnson. John Elsworth. Lewis Wood.

 

This is the first time the expression " Master " is used in the York records. Hitherto the term " President " or " Deputy‑President " had been employed.

 

Augt. 10, 1725.‑At a private Lodge, held this day at the Star Inn in Stonegate, the underwritten Persons were admitted and sworne into the Antient Society of Free Masons, viz.

 

Jo. Bilton.

 

The Wors'. Mr. Wm. Scourfield, Mr. Mr. Marsden, Wardens.

 

Mr. Reynoldson, J Here we have the first use of the term " Wardens " in the York records.

 

Augt. 12, 1725.‑At a private Lodge, held at the Starr, in Stonegate, the underwritten Person was sworn and admitted a member of the Antient Society of Free Masons, viz.

 

John Wilmer.

 

The Worsp'. Philip Huddy, Mr. Mr. Marsden, Wardens. Mr. Reynoldson, Sept. 6, 1725.‑At a private Lodge, held at the Start Inn, in Stonegate, the underwritten Persons were sworn and admitted into [the] Antient Society of Free Masons.

 

William Pawson.

 

The Worsp'. Wm. Scourfield, Mr. Edmond Aylward.

 

Jonathan Perritt, I Wardens. Jon. Pawson.

 

Mr. Marsden, Francis Drake. Malby Beckwith.

 

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 392 Ciy and Cathedral Church of York, 1736.

 

Francis Drake was the author of Eboracum, or History and Antiquities of the A new Lodge being call'd at the same time and Place, the following Person was admitted and sworn into this Antient and Hon b'e Society, The Worsp' Mr. Scourfield, Mr. Henry Pawson. Mr. Jonathan Perritt, Wardens.

 

Mr. Marsden, f Oct. 6, 1725.‑At a private Lodge, held at Mr. James Boreham's, the underwritten Person[s] was [were] admitted and sworn into the Antient Society of Free Masons. Antho. Hall.

 

Philemon Marsh.

 

Nov. 3, 1725.‑At a private Lodge, held at Mr. Hutton's, at the Bl. Swan in Coney Street, in York, the following Person was admitted and sworn into the Antient Society of Free Masons. John Smith.

 

Dec. 1st, 1725.‑At a private Lodge, held at Mr. Geo. Gibson's, in the City of York, the following persons were admitted and sworn into the Antient Society of Free Masons before The Worsh' E. Bell, Esq., Mr.

 

Mr. Etty, Wardens. Will. Sotheran. John Iveson. Jos. Lodge. Mr. Perritt, Dec. 8, 1725.‑At a private Lodge at Mr. Lowther's, being the Starr, in Stonegate, the following Persons were admitted and sworn into the Antient Society of Free Masons.

 

Christof. Coulton. Thos. Metcalfe. Francis Lowther. George Coates. William Day. Dec. 24, 1725.‑At a private Lodge, held at Mr. Lowther's, at ye Starr in Stonegate, the following Persons were admitted and sworn into the Antient Society of Free‑Masons.

 

Matt. St. Quintin. Tim. Thompson. Frans. Thompson. William Hendrick. Tho. Bean. Dec. 27, 1725. At a Lodge, held at Mr. Philemon Marsh's, in Petergate, the following gentlemen were sworn and admitted into the Antient Society of Freemasons. Leoa Smith was also sworn and admitted at the same time.

 

Chas. Howard. Richd. Thompson.

 

The same day the undermentioned Person was received, admitted, and acknowledged as a member of this Antient and Hon b`e Society. John Hann.

 

Isaac i Scott.

 

The extracts from these Minutes are brought down to 1725, because that year was as memorable in the York annals as 1717 and 1736 were in those of the Grand Lodges of England and Scotland respectively. The most important entries, of course, are those prior to 1717 " Sworne and admitted " or " admitted and sworne " are correlative terms, which, in the documents of the Company or the Guild, appear quite to belong to one another. Thus, the 14th ordinance of the Associated Corvisors (Cordwainers) of Hereford, A.D. 1569, runs (see J. D. Delvin, Helps to Hereford History, 1848, P. 23) EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 393 The manner of the otbe geven to any that shall be admytted to the felowshippe or companye‑you .‑. shall keepe secrete all the lawful councill of the saide felowshippe, and shall observe all manner of rules and ordinances by the same felowshippe, made or hereafter to be made .‑. .‑. soe helpe me God.

 

Also, we learn from the ordinances of the Guild of St. Katherine, at Stamford, which date from 1494, though, in the opinion of Toulmin Smith (English Gilds, p. 191), they are " the early translation of a lost original," that on St. Katherine's Day, " when the first euensong is doone, the Alderman and his Bredern shall assemble in their Halle, and dryncke. And then shal be called forth all thoo [those] that shal be admytted Bredern or Sustern off the Gilde." A colloquy then ensued between the Alderman and the newcomers, the latter being asked if they were willing to. become " Bredern " and whether they would desire and ask it, in the worship of Almighty God, our blessed Lady Saint Mary and of the holy virgin and martyr, St. Katherine, the founder of the Guild " and in the way of Charyte." To this " by their owne Wille," they were to answer yea or nay, after which the clerk, by the direction of the Alderman, administered to them an oath of fealty to God, Saints Mary and Katherine and the Guild. They then kissed the book, were lovingly received by the brethren, drank a bout, and went home (Smith, English Gilds, pp. 188, i89).

 

The York Minutes inform us that three Private Lodges were held in 1712 and the following year, two General Lodges in 1713‑14, and a St. John's Lodge at Christmas, 1716. Confining attention to the entries which precede the year 1717, we find the proceedings of three meetings described as those of " the Honourable Society and Fraternity of Freemasons," whilst on two later occasions, Fraternity gives place to Company and, in the Minutes of 1716, these terms are evidently used as words of indifferent application.

 

Whether a Deputy President was appointed by the President or elected by the members as chairman of the meeting, in the absence of the latter official, there are no means of determining. In every instance, however, the Deputy President appears to have been a person of gentle birth and an Esquire. It is worthy of note, that Charles Fairfax, who occupied the chair, June 24, 1714, is styled " Worshipful " in the Minutes.

 

Under the dates, July 21, August io and iz, September 6 and December i, 1725, certain Brethren are named as Masters, but which of the three was really the Master, is a point that must be left undecided. The Speculative character of the Lodge is sufficiently apparent from the Minutes of its proceedings. This, indeed, constitutes one of the two leading characteristics of the Freemasonry practised at York, a system frequently, though erroneously, termed the York Rite‑the other, being, if conclusions are formed from the documentary evidence, the extreme simplicity of the Lodge ceremonial.

 

Two allusions to the Freemasons, between the date at which the York records begin (1705) and the year 1717, remain to be noticed. These occur in the Tatler 394 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY and, in each case were penned by Richard, afterwards Sir Richard, Steele, who has been aptly described by J. L. Lewis, in an article on the earlier of the'two passages, as " one of the wits of Queen Anne's time‑a man about town, and a close observer of everything transpiring in London in his day " (Masonic Eclectic, vol. i, New York, 1865, pp. 144‑6). The following are extracts from Steele's Essays June 9, 1709.‑But my Reason for troubling `you at this present is, to put a stop, if it may be, to an insinuating set of People, who sticking to the LETTER of your Treatise and not to the spirit of it, do assume the Name of PRETTY Fellows ; nay, and even get new Names, as you very well hint. .‑. .‑. They have their Signs and Tokens like Free‑Masons; they rail at Womankind," etc. (Tatler, No. 26, June 7 to June 9, 1700.

 

May 2, 171b.‑[After some remarks on " the tasteless manner of life which a set of idle fellows lead in this town," the essay proceeds] " You may see them at first sight grow acquainted by sympathy, insomuch that one who did not know the true cause of their sudden Familiarities, would think, that they had some secret Intimation of each other like the Free‑Masons " (ibid., No. 166, April 29 to May 2, 1710).

 

Some of Lewis's observations on the passage in the Tatler, No. 26‑it does not appear that he had seen the equally significant allusion in the Tatler, No. 166 ‑are very finely expressed. He says, " The Writer (Steele) is addressing a miscellaneous public and is giving, in his usual lively style of description, mixed with good‑humoured satire, an account of a band of London dandies and loungers, whom he terms in the quaint language of the day, Pretty Fellows. He describes their effeminacy and gossip and, to give his readers the best idea that they were a closely allied community, represents them as having ` signs and tokens like the Free‑Masons.' Of course he would employ in this, as in every other of his essays, such language as would convey the clearest and simplest idea to the mind of his readers. It is conceivable, therefore, if Freemasonry was a novelty, that he would content himself with this simple reference ? " The same commentator proceeds, " Signs and tokens are spoken of in the same technical language which is employed at the present time and as being something peculiarly and distinctively Masonic. What other society ever had its signs except Masons and their modern imitators ? In what other, even of modern societies, except the Masonic, is the Grip termed ` a token' ? Whether," he continues, Sir Richard Steele was a Mason, I do not know, but I do know that, in the extract I have given, he speaks of signs and tokens as matters well known and well understood by the public in his day as belonging to a particular class of men. It is left for the intelligent inquirer to ascertain how long and how widely such a custom must have existed and extended, to render such a brief and pointed reference to them intelligible to the public at large, or even to a mere London public. Again, they are spoken of as Free‑Masons, not merely Masons, or artificers in stone, brick and mortar; and this, too, like the signs and tokens, is unaccompanied by a single word of explanation. If it meant operative masons only, freemen of EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 395 the Guild or Corporation, why should the compound word be used, connected, as in the 6;iginal, by a hyphen ? Why not say Free‑Carpenters or Free‑Smiths as well? There is no further evidence to connect Sir Richard Steele with‑the Society of Freemasons, beyond the existence of a curious plate in Bernard Picart's Ceremonies and Religious Customs of the various Nations of the Known World, English Edition, vol. vi, 1737, p. 193, where a portrait of Steele surmounts a copy of Pine's Ez? raved List of Lodges, arranged after a very singular fashion. See further, Freemasons' Ma gaZine, February 26, 1870, p. 165 ; and Hughan, Masonic Sketches and Reprints, pt. i, pp. 67, 68.

 

Lewis then adds‑and if we agree with him, a portion of the difficulty which overhangs our subject is removed The conclusion forces itself irresistibly upon the mind of every candid and intelligent person that there existed in London in 1709 and for a long time before, a Society known as the Free‑masons, having certain distinct modes of recognition ; and the proof of it is found, not in the assertions of Masonic writers and historians, but in a standard work. It is not found in an elaborate panegyric written by a Masonic pen, but in the bare statement of a fact, unaccompanied by explanation, because it needed none then, as it needs none now and is one of these sure and infallible guide‑marks whence the materials for truthful history are taken, and by which its veracity is tested.

 

Steele's allusions to the Freemasons merit closest attention ; and if, indeed, the information contained in them should not appear as complete as might be wished, it must not be forgotten that a faint light is better than total darkness.

 

The passages quoted from the Tatler may well be held to point to something more than was implied by the phrase, " the benefit of the MASON WORD," which, if the evidence is followed, was all that Scottish Brethren, in the seventeenth century, were entitled to. Lyon's definition of what is to be understood by the expression MASON WORD, will assist in arriving at a conclusion with regard to the special value (if any) of the extracts from the Tatler.

 

The Word [says this excellent authority] is the only secret that is ever alluded to in the Minutes of Mary's Chapel or in those of Kilwinning, Atcheson's Haven, or Dunblane, or any other that we have examined of a date prior to the erection of the Grand Lodge. But that this talisman consisted of something more than a word is evident from the secrets of the Mason Word, being referred to in the Minute‑book of the Lodge of Dunblane and from the further information drawn from that of Haughfoot, viz. that in 1707 [1702] the Word was accompanied by a grip.

 

Lyon adds If the communication by Masonic Lodges of secret words or signs constituted a Degree‑‑a term of modern application to the esoteric observances of 396 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY the Masonic body‑then there was, under the purely Operative regime, only one known to Scottish Lodges, viz. that in which, under an oath, apprentices obtained a knowledge of the Mason Word and all that was implied in the expression (History of the Lodge of Edinburgh, pp. 22, 23).

 

It will be observed that Lyon rests his belief .in the term "Mason Word" comprising far more than its ordinary meaning would convey, upon Lodge Minutes of the eighteenth century‑the Haughfoot entry dating from 1702 and that of the Lodge of Dunblane so late as 17zg. These, however, are not sufficiently to be depended upon, in the entire absence of corroboration, as indicating, with any precision, the actual customs prevalent among Scottish Masons in the seventeenth century. The Haughfoot Minute‑book, like some other old manuscripts, notably the Harleian, No. 1942, and the Sloane, No. 3329 (given in Appendix C of Findel's History of Freemasonry), opens more questions than it closes.

 

Neither is the evidence furnished by the Dunblane records of an entirely satisfactory character. The fact that in 1729, two Entered Apprentices from Mother Kilwinning, on proof of their possessing " a competent knowledge of the secrets of the MASON WORD," were entered and passed in the Lodge of Dunblane (Lyon, op cit., p. 417) is interesting, no doubt, but the proceedings of this meeting would be more entitled to confidence, as presenting a picture of Scottish Masonic life before the era of Grand Lodges, if they dated from an earlier period. It is true that in Scotland the year 1736 corresponds in some respects with 1717 in England. Lodges in either country prior to these dates respectively were independent communities. But it does not follow, because nineteen years elapsed before the example set in England (1717) was followed in Scotland (1736), that during this interval the Speculative Freemasonry of the former kingdom never crossed the Border. Indeed, the visit of Dr. Desaguliers to the Lodge of Edinburgh in 172‑1 will, of itself, dispel this illusion and we may leave out of sight reasons that might be freely cited, which would afford the most convincing proof of the influence of English ideas and English customs on the Scottish character, between the Treaty of Union (1707) and "the Forty‑Five "‑a period of time that overlaps at both ends the interval which divides the two Grand Lodges. That the larger number of the members of the Lodge of Dunblane were non‑operatives, is also a circumstance that must not be forgotten and it is unlikely that the noblemen and gentlemen, of whom the Lodge was mainly composed, were wholly without curiosity in respect of the proceedings of the Grand Lodge of England, which, in 1729, had been just twelve years established. The probability, indeed, is quite the other way, since we learn from the Minutes that, on September 6, 1723, William Caddell of Fossothy, a member of the Lodge, presented it with a " Book intituled the Constitutions of the Free Masons .‑. .‑. by James Andersone, Minister of the Gospell and printed at London .‑. Anno Domini 172‑3 " (Lyon, op. cit., p. 416).

 

But putting all the objections hitherto raised on one side and assuming, let EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY 397 us say, that the allusion to " the Secrets of the MASON WORD " can be carried back to the seventeenth century, what does it amount to ? The term " secrets " may comprise the " signs and tokens " in use in the South. But the question is, will such a deduction be justified by the entire body of documentary evidence relating to the early proceedings of Scottish Lodges ? Are the mention of a grip in the Haughfoot Minutes and the allusion to secrets in those of Dunblane, to be considered as outweighing the uniform silence of the records of all the other Scottish Lodges, with regard to aught but the MASON WORD itself, or to the benefit accruing therefrom? 397

END

Gould's History of Freemasonry Throughout the World

 Volume I - Volume II - Volume III - Volume IV - Volume V - Volume VI